(This isn't what the Wolfman in the movie looks like btw, that's at the end of this review)
I recently watched The Wolfman, based on the 1941 film by the same name. It was a good experience, even if it deviates from the original source in some regards. This is based on Wikipedia research though, so I don’t know how much is actually different. The similarities lie with the characters, even some minor ones. The plots are similar as well, though the conclusion becomes particularly changed in terms of the wolfman’s demise and even the potential left open for a sequel or a reflection on the cyclical nature of the werewolf curse.
The same events occur to a certain extent, such as the obvious one of the main character getting bitten by a werewolf. One primary difference comes in the form of the involvement of the Roma/Gypsies, of which there is some racism in the film. It really is only emphasized in the two scenes with the group mentioned, one in a pub and the other in their settlement outside the town.
The main character Lawrence Talbot is only slightly different from the original film’s Larry Talbot (although the names might be related anyway). He is, of course, bitten by the werewolf, suffers hallucinations (one that looks remarkably like Gollum), is eventually committed to an asylum where he has even odder hallucinations, and just like his original form as Lon Chaney Jr, he is killed, though I won’t say by whom, since that’s an important twist that makes this almost more poignant than the original. He’s a Shakespearean actor as well, though I’m not sure if that is different or just makes him more of a respectable gentleman that is turned in a brutish lycanthrope.
Maleva, a somewhat minor Gypsy character, has almost the same role as her twin in the original version. Apparently a fortuneteller, she serves as an introduction to some general werewolf lore as well as a sympathetic character for the theme that persists in the film of the interrelation between man and beast. In the original film the werewolf that bites the titular character is her son, but not so in this one (I won’t spoil who it is). Maleva is the first to state that, “it is not a sin to kill a beast, only to kill a man. But where does one end and the other begin?” This theme is probably the closest to controversy that the film gets to, along with the other religious idea elaborated in one scene. Maleva shows the most mercy and compassion in terms of every other character, except Gwen, since she insists that they should not kill Lawrence even though they know he was bitten by a werewolf. She also brings up the rhyme from the original film, “Even a man who is pure in heart, and says his prayers by night, may become a wolf when the wolfsbane blooms, and the autumn moon is bright,” This is one of three themes I really see, though the third is minor at best, though not subtle at all.
Gwen is the romantic interest of Lawrence. She was betrothed to his brother, who is killed early in the film (and thus is not a significant spoiler, since it’s revealed probably 10 minutes in and is a basic motivation for the rest of the film). Her romantic involvement continues, though Lawrence is initially motivated by his brother’s death to find out how he died. Later on, she becomes more involved, protecting him and of course, wanting to save him from his werewolf curse. Her original form in the 1941 film was a village girl who gives the popularly referenced cane with a silver wolf’s head on it. This time, the cane is referenced, but not used as it was in the film, which is a nice change. Someone gets beaten up with it, that’s all I’ll tell you.
Lawrence’s father, John Talbot, is probably one of the most interesting characters, aside from a fourth character I found compelling. His introduction comes with him pointing a rifle at his son, because he’s such a recluse I guess and only has his big dog Samson to keep him company. He is quite protective of both his family and his property, which comes up many times in the film. One point he even damages some property, though I won’t reveal what, since the moment itself is quite funny. Oh, I almost forgot his “servant” Singh, who is a Southern Asian man who reminds me of the actor who played Nemo in League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. He is a minor character at best, though he drops hints about the identity of the werewolf and is another example of people making those pesky silver bullets.
Inspecter Francis Aberline of Scotland Yard is introduced late in the second half of the film, but serves an important role in counter to Gwen. Aberline, in contrast to Gwen as Lawrence’s love interest, is the one seeking justice, which inevitably leads him to call for the werewolf’s death. He initially seems innocent enough, interviewing Lawrence after his incident of nearly dying from a “werewolf’ bite. Though admittedly there are two werewolves in this one, three if you count the original one, which is probably the best thing they could’ve done with the movie. I will spoil this much, there is a werewolf vs. werewolf fight, but I won’t spoil who our second werewolf is. I will say there is a big hint dropped, but at the same time, they keep you guessing.
A third theme I had to check on (alongside the poetry and the notion of men as beasts) as to its complete accuracy was a little sermon by the local preacher in the town that suggests the werewolves are a combination of a curse of Satan and God’s punishment for such dealings with Satan, I suppose. He references the story of Daniel and the king Nebuchadnezzar, who he says was turned into the form of a wolf and made to wander. This is based on apparently one interpretation of his behavior of going into the wild and behaving in a feral manner. This behavior could be more generally said to be that he was cursed by God to wander the wild as a beast, but I guess they wanted to make a more explicit connection, however suspect it was to me, who has some familiarity with Biblical stories as a religion major.
There is another interesting connection I found and that was the constant emphasis and use of the word lunatic and a connection to the actual culprit, the werewolf. Lunatic, as you could probably guess, is derived in part from the Latin, luna, which represents the moon. There is a common folkloric association between madness/insanity and the phases of the moon. In this case, it is the transformation to a raging man-beast that comes across with the changing of the moon, which only happens 3 times in the film btw.
I wouldn’t call this a horror film per se, since the scares are shock based and predictable after a while. Not to mention the use of fog makes the whole atmosphere more ambient and eerie than actually fear inducing. At best, it’s a combination of action, mystery and suspense that would be the genre I’d attempt to classify this film in.
The progress of Lawrence to a werewolf is predictable, as his senses are enhanced, his body heals faster and Samson the dog is even more suspicious of him than he initially was. The father’s involvement has much more bite to it in this film, as opposed to a more subtle involvement in the 1941 classic. Sir John Talbot was merely the excuse for the main character to return to his home in the original. This time he has much more relevance to the plot, especially as we start learning more about Lawrence’s past with his father.
The environs are appropriately British, though the story apparently takes place in Wales in the original version and probably in this version as well. There’s an odd waterfall that comes up near the end, which was probably the only complaint I could muster in terms of inaccuracy or general suspicious incidents that I couldn’t suspend my disbelief for the sake of the film.
Overall, this film was quite good. Not a lot of things really made me step out of the filmgoer mode and say, “Wait, why did that happen?” except the waterfall scene. I don’t consider myself a film buff, but after a while, you start to see very predictable themes and general ways a script progresses and unfortunately this one suffered from that. I was already guessing accurately who the second werewolf was and other incidents, though at the later 1/3rd of the film, there is a significant amount of violence that rekindles the interest in the film’s possibilities, so I will give it props for that. If I had to rate it on a scale of 1-5, it would be a 5, though not 100%. That rating I’d give to few films overall. Until next time, Namaste and aloha.
(Here's the actual Wolfman in the film, classic 1941 style)
