Laura Sanders- Wolfman

Curt Siodmak's story of the "Wolfman" is depicted with great difference from Geogre Waggner's 1941 film to Joe Johnston's version in 2010. Waggner's film retains a much more simplistic plot and, given the year, cinematography skills. Johnston's new version is filled with added elements of the plot, and while he did manage to keep certain elements of the look of Waggner's original wolfman, the cinematography was far more advanced. It was the actual transformation of the characters into the wolfman that gave way to the greatest differences of the two films. It is only fair to note that the cinematographers of this day are blessed with far more advances than those of 1941, and for this reason the transformation greatly differed in each scene. Waggner's 1941 transformation obviously used every cinematographic capability available at the time, but lacked detail. The camera focused on more simple changes of the feet, growing hair, enlarging by the second. Only then was our eye drawn to the full transformation that had taken place. Johnston's 2010 transformation was dark, and almost fake-looking, as much of the cinematography can be these days. It maintains a much harsher, violent depiction than its predecessor.  

Here in the first part of this clip is the transformation of Lon Chaney Jr. into the wolfman in Waggner's 1941 film:






Here is the 2010 version of the transformation:

The Metamorphosis - becoming a Wolf in 1941 vs. 2010

The Wolfman of 2010 relied heavily on the use of of computer generated images to display the man-into-werewolf transistion of Benicio Del Toro. On the opposite end of the spectrum was the Lon Chaney Jr.'s 1941 transistion from man to monster. In the pre-digital version the camera focuses on the hands and face of Chaney as he becomes a monster. This sequence is done using make-up and lighting effects. The camera stops with the display of the increasingly lupine apperence of the hands and face of Chaney. The complete metamorphosis of the actor is left to the imagination of the audience. In 2010 the metamorphosis is seen by the audience completley. Bencicio Del Toro is at first a man, then he slowly, painfully becomes the beast, with nothing left to the imagination of the audience. Of course, in 2010 the filmmakers are much more capable of caputring the metamorphosis than they were when making the original in 1941. The capability of the digital age allows the filmmakers to display every detail of the transisition, using every range of camera proxemics from intimate onto public. Even so, the CGI adds a quality of silliness to the film. Silliness where in the 1941 the transistion was to be seen as more sinister. The sinister nature of the transistion in the 1941 version stems from the use of very intimate camera proxemics. These close range allow the audience to feel the intense, uneasy, entrapped state that is overcoming Lon Chaney Jr.

Cooper Wolfman

As human society and technology evolve our entertainment industry evolves with them. This can not be more apparent than in the transformation scenes of the two Wolfman movies, The Wolfman (2010) directed by Joe Johnston and The Wolfman (1941) directed by George Waggner. In the 1941 version of the movie, the filmmakers had limited technology to make the transformation as scary as they could make it. They take you almost frame by frame as Larry Talbot removes his clothing one piece at a time to reveal a hideous transformation occurring. We see his nails grow and his legs sprout a heavy fur coat, but the rest of the horrid transformation is left up to the imagination.
In the newer 2010 version of the film, the transformation is much more intense. During the scene where the doctors are trying to prove that he won't morph, the viewer is presented with a much more grisly transformation. “Kill me!” echoes throughout the audience hall as the first snap, crackle, pop of bones begins. His shoes are ripped off by his growing sharp toenails and the shifting of his bone structure. The viewer watches as his big toe breaks and turns into a paw, his teeth and jawbone structure morphs, and the whole time he gradually grows fur. As the viewer watches Larry Talbot physically morph, he mentally changes as well. His human mentality is being taken over by a bestial rage.
These two transformations show how the idea of the monster is growing and evolving as well. Its no longer a subtle horror that contains human elements, but a much more grisly and ghastly visage. The human side of the 2010 monster is almost but completely gone. The monster is bigger, badder, and way more destructive, as can be seen by the way he easily rips his victims limb from limb. The violence of this is now much more accepted in our society than it would have been in the 1940s.

Armato: The Wolfman, Technique vs. Technology

Obviously, the 2010 version of The Wolfman has more advanced computer animation capabilities and is able to provide a more visually convincing transformation of the movie's main character into a wolf creature. While neither looks incredibly realistic (ignoring, of course, the nonexistence of werewolves), the 2010 version depicts a more believable process of transformation, rather than the 1941 method, which was simply a fade from human to creature.

If we look at these two transformation scenes in the context of available technology at the time of the films' releases, however, the 1941 version is far more impressive. The 2010 version's computer animation resembles a cartoon rather than a live-action sequence. Of course, the transformation sequence essentially is a cartoon, but other studios in these times produce far more convincing digitally animated sequences. Wolfman 2010 did not show any mastery of modern CGI technology, while Wolfman 1941 shows a mastery of the available special effects technology of its time.

Mathey Transformation scene from the Wolfman (old and new) analysis

After watching both movies, I can officially state the fact that the transformation scene from the first movie was kind of lame. I understand that special effects didn't exist back then and that we are all used to great science fiction movies but I was not impressed at all. However, in the new Wolfman, I was completely blown away by the graphism induced. It reminded of the
transformation of the Hulk, when his clothes and shoes rip because they cannot retain the growing body parts.
In the Wolfman from 1941, the director just focus on the character's legs and took many shots after adding Yak hair each time. He also uses a grey filter to create a darker atmosphere.



In the new Wolfman, the director focuses mostly on the facial structures transformation to enhance the pain factor. We can clearly see how painful the mutation must be just by looking at his face. The first change, is the facial bones readjusting (his chin and ears get longer, his jaw grows bigger and his teeth turn to razorsharp killing machines.) The second change is the growing hair which is slowly expanding along his body. Also notice how the eyes are changing when the camera zooms in during the first transformation. The noises from his bones cracking and cloth ripping off are just horrifying and gruesome but reinforce that idea of realism. The director does not omit any details because he wants us to really believe this is real.
Apart from technological advances, the beast look very similar in both movies. Just a very hairy face with fangs even though Benicio Del Toro's make up and costume looks way more realistic thanks to synthetic ingredients. I must however point out that the transformation of Benicio del Toro in the new Wolfman is computerized and the wolf is not really the actor while in the old Wolfman, the beast really is the same actor, even though it does not look as cool.

Isaacson: Similarities and differences between The Wolfman(1941) and The Wolfman(2010)

One of the most striking things about The Wolfman(2010) is its visual style. The whole film appears to have been shot through a grey filter, which I believe was a way for the filmmakers to replicate some of the intense lighting effects seen in the original. The best time when this can be seen are the two films werewolf bite sequences. In both movies Lawrence and Larry chase the wolf attempting to protect an innocent victim. Both sequences have very low key lighting, attempting to replicate the lighting of the full moon alone, and both scenes are also heavily obscured by fog. However, there are also some notable differences between the original and the remake: length, technology, set design, and use of American and foreign actors. The original was a short film, 69 minutes, while the remake runs almost two hours at 119 minutes. Also, due to the vast difference in technology between 1941 and 2010 makes the direction of the film radically different, the original keeping much of the action hidden while the remake focuses on the gore of the werewolf's destruction. The set design is also radically different, with the village in the remake appearing far more rundown and foreign then the tidy, Americanized village of the original. Also, some of the remake occurs in different locations while all of the original is set in the village. Finally, we the exception of the gypsy women, nearly all of the characters from the original are very American. They speak with American accents and wear American style clothing. However, in the remake the filmmakers embrace the foreign setting. Even the origin of the protagonist is shifted, Larry coming from California and Lawrence coming from London. This is indicative of the shift in Hollywood that has occurred between the two films, with filmmaking now being more of a global enterprise and American filmmakers being less afraid that American audience won't be able to empathize with foreign characters.

Harper Wolfman

Of course, when you view Wolfman (1941) and Wolfman (2010), there would be a big difference with the technology and transformation.

In 1941, Lon Chaney Jr's transformation from man to wolf was not as impressive as Benicio Del Toro's 2010 transformation. When Chaney first transformed in the movie, it looked as if the camera stayed on his feet and the audience watched as they turned into wolf paws. There wasn't much suspense to the 1941 transformation; once the camera was at Chaney's feet, the audience knew he was going to look like a wolf when the camera came back up. What I was surprise to notice (because this was my first time viewing the movie) was the fact that the director, George Waggner, wanted to portray Chaney as an actually wolf/man. His legs seemed to stay the same, they just became more hairy, his face only seemed to get more hairy and his teeth more sharp. It did not seem like that much was transforming.


While the 2010 version, directed by Joe Johnston, portrayed Del Toro as more of a Werewolf. When Del Toro transformed,it seemed that he was transforming into a new creature, which built up the suspense in the movie. Of course, the technology was much better. The transformation, in the 2010 film, that was the most intriguing was when Del Toro was strapped down to the chair at the "Psych Ward". You could see in his facial expressions and moans, that bones were forming in new places all over his body. His fingers cracked backward, his teeth triple the amount in his mouth, his neck twists and cracks, his eyes get bigger, his tongue gets longer, he is no longer man . . . he is fully wolf.




Here is a clip of the 2010 transformation from man to wolf.

Himmelberg - The Modern Monster

The Modern Monster vs. The Old Fashioned Monster

Unlike other forms of entertainment,such as, literature, plays and music ,which have been around for centuries; film is a fairly new form of entertainment. It is also a very quickly changing form of entertainment because in the span of only a hundred or so years it has advanced tremendously from black and white and all real people to color and digital effects executed from a computer. When you compare movies from 70 years ago to recent movies they seem like completely different types of media.

In the original 1941 version of The Wolfman the character changes from a regular man into a werewolf, but the werewolf resembles a big hairy dog more than anything else and isn't really frightening. At the time audiences may have been scared of this stuffed animal type monster but compared to today it is absolutely laughable. In the 2010 version of The Wolfman the character changes into a very frightening, very real werewolf, his claws and teeth are very much the selling points for me. It is a lot more believable than the hairy costume that served as the werewolf in the 40's.

The big contrast between modern movies and old movies though is what is actually shown on screen. Older movies when showing a horrific or scary scene had two options they could either show the action as best they could using no special effects or computer images (because they didn't exist yet), which usually turned out to be quite unbelievable and cheesy. Or they could simply show the before and the after of each scene and leave the action/gory/scary part unseen. This method some say was the most effective and is still effective today even with all of the advances that we have made. When you leave out the actual gory scene it lets the audience use there imagination to fill in the rest and many times peoples imaginations are worse than anything that could have been done on the film. In modern movies there are tons of special effects, the werewolf is transformed completely by a computer making the character extremely scary. You see every step of the transformation from man to werewolf and the transformation, at least for me, was almost scarier than the actual end product. Nothing is left out in the modern world of film. Every aspect of the scary/gory scene is shown to audiences. Leaving some people terrified and others thinking that special effects are too much and ruin the experience of the movie and the plot. So it really all comes down to the audience member to decide which type of monster / horror film they like the better. The ones where the gory part is left out, but there is suspence and you are left to simply imagine what has happened. Or the ones where you are totally frightened by the computer generated and altered monsters that look absolutely real.

Over all the large , speedy progress that Digital Media has made completely turned the film industry on its heads and changed how we see Monsters forever. The Modern Monsters are much more real and show every aspect and detail of there terrible self's and the Old-Fashioned
Monsters were simply dressed (slightly unbelievable), but they played on a different aspect of fear, suspence and anticipation. Either way the "monster" has gone through many different changes throughout the years for the better or for the worse is the audiences opinion.