Tower of London
Director: Rowland V. Lee
Year: 1939
Rating: 6.0
One goes into this film expecting a horror - and in fact it is included in
a book I have called Universal Horror Films - especially as it stars Basil
Rathbone, Boris Karloff and Vincent Price but in fact it is really a historical
drama with elements of horror provided by the ghastly gruesome Karloff as
the executioner, assassin, torturer and all-around bad guy. Price is actually
right at the beginning of his career and has yet to don the robes of a horror
star though his next film, The Invisible Man Returns, edged him in that direction.
Rathbone had of course played many villains, particularly famous for being
the main one in The Adventures of Robin Hood. He had a wonderful sneer and
a grin that could peel paint. But 1939 was turning into a good year for him.
Earlier in the year he starred along with Karloff and Bela Lugosi in the
wonderful Son of Frankenstein in which he was the title character and then
he took on the many times covered character of an eccentric detective for
the first time and the series was to make him famous up to today. He had
actually been chosen to be in the classic The Hunchback of Notre Dame but
had to bow out due to other obligations. From accounts he hated being in
this film though I am not sure why. It is a reasonably big production and
he is quite effective in it though overall it feels rather slapdash. Perhaps
he was upset that he never gets to say "My kingdom for a horse".
The film takes place during the War of Roses in England which went on from
1455 to 1487. It is a vastly complicated period in British history and to
us Americans almost impossible to decipher. Think about how much history
a Brit has to learn in school - all those kings, queens, dukes, earls, lords,
marriages, illegitimate children and not just in England but also France
which is so intertwined in their history during this period and then later
the German Royal family. All we have are a handful of Presidents worth studying.
This all takes place before Columbus even set sail to the Americas which
is where our studies begin. Anyway, trying to condense this period into a
90 minute film contributes to the slapdashery of the film. Most of it focuses
on Richard of course, a historical figure given great publicity by Shakespeare
though much of it negative. Many historians argue today that he got a bad
deal from old Shakespeare and that he wasn't such a devious character and
was in fact very loyal to his older brother the King and very courageous
in battle (they discovered his body a few years back and the many blows he
received tells that story). But this stigma carries on into this film. There
is not much on record about his life though the two small brothers disappearing
into the Tower seems amply documented. He was only King for two years.
The War of the Roses was a series of civil wars between two strings of the
same family as they were both under the Plantagenet family which had originated
in France but held the throne of England since 1154. These were the House
of York (the white rose) and the House of Lancaster (the red rose) who fought
off and on over 30 years - sometimes with the Lancaster's ruling, more often
the York's sitting on the throne. The film starts with Edward the IV (Ian
Hunter) of the York's as the King with his younger brother Richard (Rathbone)
far down the line of succession. The amazing thing is that Richard in reality
is only about 20 years old when this film begins and is 33 when he dies.
People grew up faster back then. He was the last of the Plantagenet line.
After his death it became the House of Tudor even though the first King of
the Tudor's was a relation to the Lancaster's and married the daughter of
Edward the IV thus bringing peace to England for many years.
Richard is an ambitious man and a conniving one and with the help of his
loyal servant Mord (Karloff) is able to slowly whittle away at the competition.
Karloff as Mord is the highlight of the film - shaven head, a club foot and
as menacing as menacing can be - every time he sets foot on screen is a small
delight. He is among other duties the official torturer which he takes great
pleasure in. On one walk through the torture room he nonchalantly adds some
weights to a man already being crushed and at another time opens the Iron
Man with spikes to let the body fall out. A man who enjoys his job.
One of those people between him and the king is his older brother Clarence
(really George) played by Price as a bit of a sniveling little pecker. Clarence
ends up leading a rebellion against the King, his brother, and it doesn't
go well. Richard drowns him in a tub of beer. Then there are those two rascal
boys - so sweet - but sons of the King. At a very high level much of this
has some historical accuracy but there is so much to cover that the film
has to leave out. I would imagine BBC or someone has done this story much
better. It is really fascinating to see all the machinations that went on
in the families, between the families and the other nobility in England.
All the marriages between family, in family, widows, everyone betraying everyone.
Quite incredible. This film only touches slightly on it.
