This movie was billed on YouTube as Mystery in the Wax Museum, but when I tried to get the technical information after viewing it, the proper name is Terror in the Wax Museum.
I saw this on YouTube on a Channel named Robo-Cat Productions. In case you use this link -- which is a free viewing of the movie -- it has a short clip from another movie about a wax museum with Peter Cushing in it. I believe this short clip is from an anthology movie so if you want to get to this movie, you will need to fast forward a bit.
If this movie is taken down for copyright infringement, then you can find the movie on JustWash.com.
ANOTHER BRITISH HORROR MOVIE (MADE IN AMERICA)
This movie was produced in America in 1973 by Bing Crosby, Andrew J. Fenady and Charles A. Pratt. It came around the time the Hammer Production Gothic videos were making a splash, so this one is very similar to any of the other Hammar productions.
The story was written by Andrew J Fenady and the Screenplay was by Jameson Brewer. It was directed by Georg Fenady.
QUICK PLOT SUMMARY:
There is a wax museum owned by Claude Dupree who poured his entire life into creating the museum. All of the figures were notorious murderers, including Jack the Ripper, Marie Antoinette, Lucretia Borgia and others you will recognize. Mr. Dupress has an associate named Harry Flexner who is the sculptor of the figures. Over the years, Mr. Dupree has adopted a local freak named Karkov. I won't tell you much about Karkov other than he's a typical pathetic Dickins-type figure that helps to give the movie it's gothic ambience.
Mr. Dupree meets with a New York businessman who wants to buy his figures to set it up in New York. Suddenly Mr. Dupree is killed and there are now a few suspects. There's his partner Harry Flexner who didn't want to sell. There's also Mr. Dupree's niece who shows up with her legal guardian claiming immediate ownership of the business. And there is Amos Burns who still wants to purchase the exhibit.
WHAT AN AUTHOR CAN LEARN:
This is a great film to learn about character development and a bit about comic relief. Let's focus on character development first. In the scene below, the owner of the museum is talking about how wonderful his figures are and how much Karkov is attached to them. The businessman is hurried and has no emotional attachment to the figures and sees it only as a business proposition. There are several scenes where you can learn about how one character plays off another and how they are both coming from a different place.
This scene shows the different personalities as well as motivations. The businessman is waving his business proposals and trying to hurry Mr. Dupree along. In the previous scene, Mr. Dupree demonstrates how he has to melt down a figure due to imperfections and he's already trying Burns' last nerve. Then upstairs, Dupree goes into more of a bragathon about his business. Both personalities play off of one another and the businessman is also there to give comic relief, which he does very well.
The other character who I love is Julia, the guardian. She is played by Elsa Lanchester. I've never seen her in a movie where she wasn't hysterical. Her role is not a comedy, but her manner and cadence contributes to the continual comic relief that is masterful throughout the movie. The funny moments are peppered all through the movie but the movie itself never collapses into a spoof. It maintains a serious tone all the way to the end. I applaud the actors who played these roles as they were the ones who kept it serious at the same time as delivering a funny line or two.
MOVIE VS. BOOK SCRIPTING:
This movie is a good study in the difference between scriptwriting and novel writing. For example: The singer in the movie doesn't really move the mystery along at all. She is there for sheer entertainment which every movie needs. She plays off of the businessman and there is a tiny subplot about how Karkov the creature fancies her and protects her in one scene. But her entire appearance in the movie could be handled with two lines of background information in a novel.
The longer I watch movies from a scripting and writing perspective, the more I realize that movies need more "action" in terms of things happening on the screen. So it's important to note the difference between which characters are there for sex appeal or character development or putting on a show of some kind. In this movie it was a pub song. But other movies it may be a martial artist going into a performance. Or a fight scene that is choreographed with smashing bar stools and breaking glass.
THREE OR MORE SUSPECTS:
This movie had three suspects -- I won't spoil it and tell you who they are. There was a police investigation as well as hinting at a slow-brewing romance between the young handsome police detective and the niece. This was a good movie to also learn about keeping the script/novel tight. Each scene moved the story along and there were no long acting showcases that they now do in more modern movies. All the actors delivered their lines without any melodrama which made the movie more enjoyable.
GOTHIC ATMOSPHERE
This movie also has great gothic atmosphere. You'll see the carriage and horse in at least one scene which is crucial for all gothic movies. The bar and street scenes are also classic Foggy London.
The best shot of the movie is where Karkov interacts with the beautiful singer through the grates in the sewer. Nothing says gothic like a freak from the sewer pining over a beautiful singer.
What I love about these '60s and '70s gothic movies is the stagecraft. Many of the scenes are shot outside, but you can tell they arrived early and got the lighting right, as well as bringing along all the props needed for the background and foreground to anchor the movie in the proper historical time. The direct also framed each scene and the actors moved in the scene like Broadway actors where they are acting with their whole bodies. In modern movies, it's now a series of closeup shots one another another making sure to change the scene every 20 seconds.
SPOOKY HOUSE:
For those of you who love spook house movies, the museum has bedrooms upstairs and it becomes the proverbial scary house after hours. The niece goes tiptoeing around the house holding a candle and there's a jump scare of two for those of you who like those.
LOW BUDGET WITH HIGH END RESULTS:
You can tell by looking at the movie that it was made on a low budget. However, the costuming and stagecraft didn't lack anything. The wax tableaus were great as was the scene in the basement where one of the wax figures had to be melted down.
The actor who played Karkov was amazing. His character was a mute but he acted with grunts and used his whole body for his portrayal of the wax museum creature. He did an amazing job.
Besides a little facial makeup and a hump for his back, the rest of the character was created by acting talent. It was impressive.
A special note about the singer too. She sang with very little music behind her which is not easy to do. I don't know much about her, other than her name is Shani Wallis, but my guess is that she is a seasoned stage performer.
NO REAL MORAL TALE:
There was no real moral tale in this one other than to showcase what great men the two owners of the museum were that they both took responsibility to look after Karkov who was not able to take care of himself. But the presence of that even that little bit of virtue gave the movie a moral anchor, a positive belief in humanity.
