Mad Love (1935) review

3. Mad Love (1935)

Directed by: Karl Freund

Produced by: John W. Considine Jr.

Screenplay by: John L. Balderston, Guy Endore

Starring: Peter Lorre, Frances Drake, Colin Clive, Ted Healy, Sara Haden

Karl Freund made his mark in the film world as a renowned cinematographer on the German Expressionist films “The Golem,” “The Last Laugh,” and “Metropolis,” one of the most ambitious and influential science fiction efforts of the 1920s. He then emigrated to the U.S., working mainly at Universal on “Dracula” and “Murders in the Rue Morgue,” which I reviewed yesterday, before being given the chance to direct “The Mummy.” Today’s film, “Mad Love,” is the last of eight movies he directed during the ‘30s before switching back to cinematography, as well as the start of his defection to MGM. Based on the Maurice Renard novel “The Hands of Orlac,” it stars Hollywood newcomer Peter Lorre as a surgeon who replaces a pianist’s severed hands with those belonging to an executed murderer, which causes dangerous complications. Boasting outstanding performances and craft, this is one of the great underappreciated gems of the decade.

The pianist in question is Stephen Orlac (Colin Clive), whose hands are destroyed in a train crash; hey, a man named Stephen losing his hands in an accident, where have I heard that before? Anyway, Dr. Gogol (Lorre) is able to transplant the hands of a knife thrower named Rollo (Edward Brophy), who’s just gone under the guillotine, onto Orlac’s body. The surgery is successful, but Orlac is unable to play the piano, which puts him and his actress wife Yvonne (Frances Drake) under financial stress; also, he finds he has a penchant for knife-throwing, which seem to come with new and terrible impulses. Things become more nerve-wracking considering that Gogol is obsessively in love with Yvonne after constantly seeing her perform in a theater, even purchasing a wax figure of her to keep in his home. His fixation drives Yvonne away, which only makes him more desperate to force himself between the couple.

I’ve briefly mentioned Lorre in past reviews, but now we get to see him shine in a starring role. He’s entirely believable as Gogol, playing him with a certain sadness that makes his mental descent no less disturbing. I think he could’ve been made even more complex regarding other relationships as well as how this effects his career, but his scenes with Yvonne are appropriately unsettling, especially in the climax when she pretends to be her own sculpture as a way of hiding from him. This was Lorre’s American film debut; he had already made his mark in Fritz Lang’s “M” and Alfred Hitchcock’s original “The Man Who Knew Too Much,” and this helped expose Western audiences to his peculiar facial and speech sensibilities. He went on to star in the “Mr. Moto” film series and numerous classics like “The Maltese Falcon” and “Casablanca,” but he’s earned a place in horror history much like Béla Lugosi, Boris Karloff and Lon Chaney Jr. have, being parodied several times in “Looney Tunes” cartoons.

Most of the cast is pretty solid, even the ones who appear briefly, such as Billy Gilbert as a man on the train excited at getting Rollo’s autograph, or May Beatty as Françoise, Gogol’s hilarious drunk bird-adorned housekeeper. Meanwhile, there’s genuine warmth between Colin Clive of “Frankenstein” fame and Frances Drake as Stephen and Yvonne. Drake was often typecast in “damsel in distress” roles—she went on to appear in “The Invisible Ray”—but I enjoy her in this role; she’s a bit overly patient with Gogol’s conduct, but you still buy her as someone both pleasant and cautious in whom she trusts. Clive is terrific; there’s a great tragedy in Orlac, who’s suffering so much mentally and physically from something out of his control. This was Clive’s last horror film; tragically, he passed away less than two years later from complications of tuberculosis related to alcoholism at the age of 37.

Something I wish the movie used more of is the macabre sense of humor in the opening at the horror theater; there are numerous enjoyable little tricks that help start the film off well, but we never come back to this place. However, there is plenty of witty and clever dialogue, while some of the humor comes through in Reagan (Ted Healy), an American reporter whose boisterousness contrasts with Gogol’s downplayed mannerisms, despite getting a little too much screen time. Visually, there’s a stylish use of shadows and warped perspective in some of the scene transitions; some of the camera zooms make the environment gradually more corrupted and insane as the film goes on. Reportedly, Freund kept trying to step in as the cinematographer too, leading to a complicated production for him, producer John W. Considine Jr., and actual cinematographer Gregg Toland; Toland went on to a stellar career of his own, filming on “Wuthering Heights,” “The Grapes of Wrath” and “Citizen Kane.” Regardless, the overall look and music of the film create a very particular mood, one that might make you laugh out of sheer nerves as we see the depth that Gogol sinks to.

One of the only serious flaws of “Mad Love” is that the pacing is a little rushed; that could be because, just like with yesterday’s film, after its initial release, MGM cut about 15 minutes, which included an entire character named Marianne, who would have been played by Isabel Jewell. So there are some scenes with sort of rushed conclusions, but it doesn’t distract too much. This is still a great movie; it made very little impact in its initial release, but has received glowing feedback upon further evaluation. The story’s been adapted multiple times; in fact, it was previously made into an Austrian silent film directed by Robert Wiene of “The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari” fame, and there was a remake in 1960 starring Christopher Lee. Also, in 1946, there was a mystery horror film called “The Beast with Five Fingers” that also starred Lorre; it’s not a true remake, but there are definitely similarities. If you ever get the chance, check this one out; the concept gets farfetched, but it has a quirky, unnerving effectiveness to it.

My rating: 9/10