Lugosi: Truth Meets Fiction? in Horror Film Stars Forum

0 Points

Forum Jump

Lugosi: Truth Meets Fiction?

Author	Comment
Wich2		#41	[-]
Apr 7 12 11:05 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	That's what I thought too, Jay - it was supply and demand: he had a greater relative box office value in Britain.
todmichel		#42	[-]
Apr 7 12 3:53 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	PhantomXCI wrote: I don't have a problem believing that Lugosi was paid a bundle for his British films. After all, he was a Hollywood star whose name had a lot of box office appeal (within a certain genre). The British studios just didn't have a lot of world-famous names working for them in the '30s. If Hammer and Argyle wanted him badly enough (and it appears they did) I can see why they would have shelled out a lot of money just to get him to come to the UK for one film. If you are right, it doesn't explain Lugosi's decision to return in America. If he was paid an astronomical salary in Great-Britain - in comparizon of what Universal and MGM paid him - it was the biggest mistake he ever made. Moreover, he could have had a far more interesting career in the Forties - any British movie was preferable to the Monogram and PRC he was given in USA...
Wich2		#43	[-]
Apr 7 12 5:35 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	But he was not just an actor, he was a human being - and he'd made his home in the U.S. for years. It may have been that simple.
todmichel		#44	[-]
Apr 8 12 12:36 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Do we know how Karloff was paid for THE GHOUL, and later THE MAN WHO CHANGED HIS MIND and JUGGERNAUT ? he was at least as famous as Lugosi, and Great-Britain was his native country. If UK really needed "a horror star" (in spite of the presence of Tod Slaughter, who WAS their star in these years) Boris WAS the logical choice. No problem with the language and of course the authentic British accent. So, if HE was paid much more in UK and returned to the States (with all the problems he had with US studios), it's even more unexplainable. All his life he remained a British citizen and in fact spent most of his later years in London and British country. I'm just still convinced that the 1930's pounds were wrongly translated in US dollars. One money can fluctuates muck quicker than another. Take the example of French franc... At some period, not too far ago, one US $ = 10 new francs or even a little more, and some years later its value was only 5 new francs and even less! What we need to know is the value of the British pound in US dollars in the concerned years (1933, 1935, 1937 and 1939), not in 2007! Last Edited By: todmichel Apr 8 12 12:31 PM. Edited 3 times.
Rick		#45	[-]
Apr 9 12 1:00 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Okay, I checked Stephen Jacobs' Rondo-winning (YAY!) book, Boris Karloff: More than a Monster, and found out a little bit about his salaries for the British films. THE GHOUL had a total budget of 30,000 pounds (I'd use the pound symbol, but I'd have to take an afternoon or so to figure out where it is). Karloff was "on loan" from Universal to make the film. Though Jacobs doesn't spell it out in specifics, he mentions that Universal was (as always) in financial trouble, that Karloff's salary had been exempt from U's 50% salary cut, and that it was a blessing to U to be able to loan him out for THE GHOUL. So, evidently, Boris earned his regular Universal salary. His contract at the time was for $750 per week, rising to $1000 after a year and $1250 six months later. I'm not clear on the dates, but it's likely that Karloff was still in the $750 part of the contract when he shot THE GHOUL. Incidentally, Jacobs tells a wonderful story about the last-minute rush to get to England for the shooting. It was so quick and out-of-the-blue that the only cash Universal could advance Boris for the trip was change pilfered from the studio's pay phones. Apparently, Boris and Dorothy made the crossing with virtually no money in their pockets. For THE MAN WHO CHANGED HIS MIND, Karloff was paid $30,000. Yes, dollars. Jacobs gives no salary figures for JUGGERNAUT.
Mora		#46	[-]
Apr 9 12 2:41 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Going on memory, but was not Bela offered a 2-picture contract in Britain following his appearance in "The Mystery of the Marie Celeste" that he apparently turned down because his beloved dogs would have to be quarantined? Can't recall all the specifics but something along the line that, despite the $25,000 salary offered for the pair of movies, Bela still felt flush enough with his American success that he could reject the offer out of consideration for his animals. If this is true, I bet he would have loved to peek just a year into his future.
todmichel		#47	[-]
Apr 10 12 1:58 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	This love for his dogs is a motive that I can fully understand, as least. I wouldn't swap one of my cat's life against any fortune... Last Edited By: todmichel Apr 10 12 12:01 PM. Edited 2 times.
Wich2		#48	[-]
Apr 10 12 7:58 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	>For THE MAN WHO CHANGED HIS MIND, Karloff was paid $30,000.< That is very big money during The Great Depression.
Ted Newsom		#49	[-]
Apr 21 12 7:31 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I don't doubt the figures either (Well, no. I put 'em up.) Put in context: in 1935, on MARK OF THE VAMPIRE-- 1) out of the entire schedule, how many days was the Lugosi character scheduled to work? And 2) was MGM hip to how much Lugosi was making at other studios? (Probably so-- so they would know how little they could offer and not insult him.) And within a year, a small English company tries to make a genuine Hollywood-star-headlined, non-quota-quickie feature... much of it shot on location and even at sea... 1) Was it worth it to the international cache they wanted to project to hire Lugosi at a premium rate? and 2) how much of the movie is he in? (Like, a LOT, in this case.) The answers, I think, explain whatever discrepencies there seem to be. Likewise the apparent discrepency between SON OF FRANKENSTEIN, shot in 1938 and released early in '39, and DARK EYES OF LONDON, shot in either 1939 or early 1940. Notably, Universal got BL dirt cheap as Ygor, $500 a week in late 1938, a low salary he'd not received in nearly a decade, but a godsend after much of a year without work. SON OF FRANKENSTEIN is a big hit, Lugosi follows it with top-lined lower-case stuff like DEVIL BAT-- (semi-shoddy, but I'll bet he made a couple grand a week for two weeks)-- a couple days on NINOTCHKA (hey, for the prestige of doing a scene with Greta Garbo in a big-budget Lubitsch comedy, he woulda paid MGM for the privelege.) then having reestablished himself, he's able to charge full price for DARK EYES OF LONDON a year later. Last Edited By: Ted Newsom Apr 21 12 7:35 PM. Edited 1 times.
Ted Newsom	Aha! Mystery solved!	#50	[-]
Apr 21 12 7:42 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Rick wrote: Incidentally, Jacobs tells a wonderful story about the last-minute rush to get to England for the shooting. It was so quick and out-of-the-blue that the only cash Universal could advance Boris for the trip was change pilfered from the studio's pay phones. Apparently, Boris and Dorothy made the crossing with virtually no money in their pockets. Cynthia Whatzername's DEAR BORIS, written 25 years ago, told an odd little anecdote for which she had no explanation. Apparently some years later (late 1930s? 1940s? 50s?), Karloff took a job at Universal and insisted that his salary be paid all in dimes. (I think perhaps biographical jokes work better when you hear the set-up before you hear the punchline, instead of three decades later.) "The whole place is a toilet."
The Batman of Gotham		#51	[-]
Apr 23 12 5:59 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Wich2 wrote: But he was not just an actor, he was a human being - and he'd made his home in the U.S. for years. It may have been that simple. In addition to that, we know of Lugosi's disdain of Karloff's and Whale's tea time breaks. It's likely that he could tolerate that for a picture or two at the rate of pay he was receiving but, wasn't willing to subject himself on a more permanent basis. - GJS
Mora		#52	[-]
Apr 23 12 9:54 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Difficult as all tomorrow for us to believe it now, in these glorious days of suffocating taxes and accelerating prices, but in Doug Warren's "Cagney" he mentions that during Jimmy's first salary dispute with Warners his weekly income (which admittedly today seems pretty low, but cannot remember the exact amount, around $1000 weekly) was four times more than a factory worker's annual wage - for those lucky enough to have had a job during the Depression. So Bela could not have been faring too badly. His problem stemmed from his "live for today and tomorrow will take care of itself" philosophy. On a more positive note, he certainly did enjoy it while he had it.
thehorrorboy		#53	[-]
Apr 30 12 4:22 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Ted Newsom wrote: Lugosi follows it with top-lined lower-case stuff like DEVIL BAT-- (semi-shoddy, but I'll bet he made a couple grand a week for two weeks)-- According to the second edition of Greg Mank's Boris and Bela book, DEVIL BAT was shot in only three days. Does this seem likely?
Rick		#54	[-]
Apr 30 12 4:46 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Likely? No, I don't think so. But, thinking back on the minimal number of sets -- and all studio stuff, I think, or virtually -- I wouldn't say it was impossible. I trust Greg Mank's scholarship, but 3 days...? I dunno.
Wich2		#55	[-]
Apr 30 12 5:23 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	If Ulmer could shoot a good pic like DETOUR in four, I'd bet they could do a groaner where the "lawn" in the park bunches up like a rug in three...
TomWeaver999		#56	[-]
May 1 12 12:40 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	If DEVIL BAT could be made in three days, then so could hundreds (thousands?) of other movies on that low level. So why would the speed of production of Roger Corman's LITTLE SHOP OF HORRORS -- made in two or three days -- have become so noteworthy in Hollywood history, if that's the way it had always been done? I take a backseat to no one in my admiration for Mank's research, but I too wonder about this one a bit. And, yes, Bela earned a tremendous amount of money, compared to the Average Joe in the 1930s. When he was working, he could make in a week what it'd take the butcher, the baker and the candlestick maker the better part of a year to earn. If he then proceeded to throw it away ev-er-y time, well, you can't fix stupid. I never felt sorry for him money-trouble-wise.
PhantomXCI		#57	[-]
May 1 12 12:43 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I think a shooting schedule of three weeks would have been more likely (although six was the standard). To complete the film in 3 days would mean having to get 20+ minutes of usable footage per day. That means no retakes, very limited camera set-ups, no closeups, no time-consuming on-set special effects... In other words, it probably couldn't have been done on DEVIL BAT.
Wich2		#58	[-]
May 1 12 1:53 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Likely, maybe not; but possible? Sure. Again, Ulmer did DETOUR in four. Also, cheapjacks like DEVIL look like there were few retakes - you see boom shadows in shots, hear bobbled lines, etc., etc. And weren't almost-as-long series eps. in the 60's - STAR TREK, etc., - shot on similar schedules? It may not have been just three days - but it sure as hell doesn't look like they spent three weeks on it. Unless they had a three hour siesta every single day, and three day weekends! Last Edited By: Wich2 May 1 12 2:58 PM. Edited 2 times.
greg mank		#59	[-]
May 1 12 4:31 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I know the three-days' shoot on THE DEVIL BAT sounds incredible...However, the figure came from production papers' info provided by a very reliable source, who also gave the film's final cost as $21,371.45. Based on research into budgets and costs, it appears a studio in that era generally spent about $6,000 to $8,000 per day producing a "B" movie. As such, this final cost figure would compute into about three days. I remember the great interview Tom Weaver did with Suzanne Kaaren, who reminisced about waltzing with Bela between scenes of THE DEVIL BAT. They must have waltzed really fast!
skelton knaggs		#60	[-]
May 1 12 8:54 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Wonder if Bela received any residuals for this.... <<Bela Lugosi on the cover of an Australian paperback.>> "You can't smell any reefer, can you"?

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Add Reply

Yuku free message boards

Lugosi: Truth Meets Fiction?