THE MUMMY (1959)

PHENOMENALITY: *marvelous*
MYTHICITY: *fair*
FRYEAN MYTHOS: *drama*
CAMPBELLIAN FUNCTION: *sociological*

Hammer's MUMMY was the studio's third revival of a monster (or monster-maker) made famous by Universal Studios, though technically it's the fourth "Universal-influenced" outing, coming out after CURSE OF FRANKENSTEIN, HORROR OF DRACULA, and REVENGE OF FRANKENSTEIN.
Hammer made other mummy-movies after this 1959 effort, but all of them remained independent of one another, in contrast to the 1959 film's inspiration: Universal's 1940s "Mummy" series, which began with 1940's THE MUMMY'S HAND. In that film, ancient Egyptian priest Kharis, who died for the love of his contemporary Princess Ananka, is revived in mummy-form by a modern-day religious fanatic who wants to punish British scientists for defiling the tombs of the ancient Egyptian dead.

Director Terence Fisher and writer Jimmy Sangster, who had collaborated on the previous three "Uni-influenced" productions, may have been constrained to follow the Universal model more than they were on the earlier films, as it's been stated that Hammer made some sort of payment to Universal to avoid copyright infringement. But a more important influence on Hammer's MUMMY was that it was the second monster-film to re-team Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee after their success in DRACULA. Thus the central conflict revolves around the fate of viewpoint character John Banning (Cushing). The requisite fanatical Egyptian priest (George Pastell) somehow smuggles the mummy Kharis (Lee) all the way to England in order to kill Banning and the members of the expedition that invaded the tomb of Ananka, and Banning must find a way to survive the wrath of a walking dead man.

Given the strong focus upon Cushing's character-- who, like the lead male character of the 1932 MUMMY, seems to be trying hard to be a knock-off of his Egyptologist father-- it's not surprising that Sangster's script largely neglects the romantic interest common to the Universal films. True, this motif took different forms over the years. The 1932 film was focused almost entirely on the mummy's attempt to find his ancient love, now reincarnated in a modern woman's body. There followed the next two films, MUMMY'S HAND and MUMMY'S TOMB, in which nothing is said about finding any reincarnations, though two of Kharis's high-priest handlers fall for a modern American woman. and one of them steals a trope from the 1932 film by trying to make his beloved into a mummy-woman. Then the last two films in the Universal series once more turn to the reincarnation theme, with the bandaged killer encountering the spirit of the Egyptian princess in two more mortal vessels before the series wrap-- er, finished up.

As if to show how little this sort of spirit-hopping metaphysics appealed to the men of Hammer Studios, Sangster's script doesn't even address the topic of reincarnation. As was done in the 1932 movie, the same actress played both the mummy's former love and her modern lookalike. However, but this time the resemblance between ancient Ananka and modern-day Isobel (wife of John) Banning is accounted for by coincidence. not reincarnation. Sangster's script introduces Isobel in a very desultory manner, showing no interest in her character, for her only function in the story is to be a distraction to the near-invulnerable mummy. Hammer's treatment of female characters was often problematic, but Isobel, who boasts neither backstory nor agency, is surely one of the low points for Hammer women.

Cushing's best moments in the film are not with his confrere Lee, but with high priest Pastell, when John Banning visits the Egyptian scholar at his home and disses the man's religion, the better to enrage the high priest and cause him to send Kharis into a trap. Still, the heart of the film is to be found not in Cushing's stereotypical character, but in the mute performance of Chris Lee as Kharis. Because the mummy, like some of his Universal predecessors, has had his tongue cut out, Lee must project emotion through the formidable bandage-makeup, while using bodily attitude as much as is possible for a living dead man. The performance bears some similarity to Lee's handling of the Frankenstein Monster, though Kharis's tragic history adds a layer of emotional resonance not present in CURSE OF FRANKENSTEIN. Lee doesn't seem to have essayed another character incapable of speech for the remainder of his career, which is all to the good, since he probably could not have topped this.

Franz Reisenstein provides one of Hammer's most memorable horror-scores for this film. The overall verdict, though, is that while the 1959 MUMMY provides efficient enough thrills, and even a little sympathy for its monstrous star, it's not one of Hammer's timeless accomplishments.