[profh0011]

TARZAN TRIUMPHS! (1942)

For Sol Lesser's 3rd TARZAN film, he takes over the Johnny Weismuller series (MGM decided to get out due to WW2) and does his first of 6 Weismuller films by having yet another "lost city" be invaded by NAZIS!  This is considered one of the most VIOLENT Tarzan films ever made, up there with TARZAN AND HIS MATE and THE NEW ADVENTURES OF TARZAN, and it's been said, considering how many Tarzan killed personally, it might never have passed the Production Code if his victims hadn't been NAZIS.   

Great coverage of the film at the ERBZine site!
https://www.erbzine.com/mag6/0623.html

[profh0011]

TARZAN AND THE AMAZONS   (1945)
The Forbidden City of Amazons   (5 of 10)

En route to meet the returning Jane, Tarzan saves a woman from wild animals. He recognizes she's from Palmyria, a city ruled by Amazon women, which, clearly, he has been to before. Their law forbids anyone to leave, or any outsiders to enter, on penalty of death. But Tarzan is the exception, considered a friend as he has kept the location of their city a secret. (It might have been very interesting to see whatever his earlier adventure there had been.)

Trouble rears its head when Cheetah, who's developed a bad habit of stealing things, makes off with a gold bracelet belonging to Athena, the young woman Tarzan saved. Jane returns accompanied by an archeological expedition, but on seeing the bracelet (which Cheetah gave to Jane!), suddenly their plans change and they become obsessed with finding this "lost city", which Tarzan adamantly refuses to help them with. The real problem, however, is that he refuses to EXPLAIN to Jane & Boy WHY he refuses to help, and in an adolescent fit, Boy decides to lead the expedition there... not realizing it's either death, or life in slavery once they get there. And then of course there's the fact that most of the expedition wind up hungry for gold more than scientific knowledge...

Anyone who's watched the MGM/Sol Lesser/Sy Weintraub TARZAN film series knows that there's certain points where continuity is simply rebooted to a degree, as we find ourselves slipping from one version of the character to another. Usually, this takes place each time the lead actor is recast. Gordon Scott actually played 3 different versions all by himself! But here, it's clear to me continuity has altered between the 8th & 9th Johnny Weismuller films! It's not that Jane has been recast (blonde Brenda Joyce is actually more "authentic" than Maureen O'Sullivan ever was). It's that, Tarzan's treehouse (rebuilt!) is NO LONGER on "The Escarpment", that high plateau that was introduced in TARZAN THE APE MAN (1932) and was a part of each film in the "official" series right up until TARZAN'S DESERT MYSTERY (1943), when Boy looked over a map he'd drawn and mentioned it.

In this film, Tarzan, Boy & Cheetah go by river on a raft to a settlement to meet Jane-- and return home the same way, as does the expedition. The near-impassable mountain range, in this film, is the one beyond which the forbidden Amazon city lies! It surprises me that no one ever seems to bring this up. Between the notable lack of the Mutia Escarpment plateau, and the existence of the mountain range with the Amazon women city beyond, this film feels much more authentic to Edgar Rice Burroughs' version of Tarzan than any of the previous Weismuller films ever were. It's only a pity (perhaps) that we still have the "uneducated" Tarzan, and a "Boy" with no other name than "Boy"!

I've found myself a huge fan of Johnny Sheffield's character in these films ever since TARZAN FINDS A SON!, and in ...AMAZONS, you can see and hear he's really starting to grow up! Unfortunately, that came with the usual conflict between child and parents that was natural at that age, but in the jungle, one learns quickly. He was 14 here; a few more years and he'd start to qualify as a sex symbol (heh). In fact, I'm very much looking forward to getting ahold of the BOMBA THE JUNGLE BOY series on DVD as soon as I get to the end of the Weismuller TARZANs.

I have to agree with the reviewer who pointed out the irony that the Amazons use their men for slave labor, yet Tarzan considers them friends. Perhaps, like in TARZAN TRIUMPHS! 2 films before, he figures it's none of his business, as long as they allowed him to leave without killing or enslaving HIM. (Again, makes me want to know what his previous visit there was like.)

There sure were a lot of stunning matte paintings of mountain ranges in this one! It gave it more of a "fantasy" feeling than the MGMs. Then again, Sol Lesser was already leaning toward "lost cities" back when he did TARZAN THE FEARLESS (1933) and TARZAN'S REVENGE (1938)!
   (8-18-2023)

[profh0011]

TARZAN AND THE LEOPARD WOMAN   (1946)
The Murderous Leopard Cult   (5 of 10)

A fanatical cult that worships a "Leopard God" statue aren't happy at the growing encroachment of civilization in the jungle, and so begin murdering caravans while disguised as leopards. While on a shopping jaunt with Jane & Boy, Tarzan takes part in a friendly wrestling match, but then is recruited to track down the wild animals, who only HE insists are NOT animals. A native doctor who was educated by the foreign "intruders" stirs up the cult and its female leader, while her brother spies on Tarzan and his family. Eventually, all are captured and about to be sacrified by the murderous fanatics, until Cheetah cuts Tarzan free, and he does a literal "Samson" routine by bringing down the roof of the cave they use as their temple.

This is definitely NOT MGM's "Tarzan"! In fact, I was reminded a lot of the 1966 TARZAN TV series, except for it being in B&W and having a VERY different Tarzan and adopted son.  I noted while watching the previous film, TARZAN AND THE AMAZONS, that despite the continuing presence of Johnny Weismuller and Johnny Sheffield, the Sol Lesser-produced RKO films had clearly slipped into an entirely-different continuity. They no longer live on "The Mutia Escarpment", "civilization" can now be easily reached by river raft (or a long hike), and Tarzan has become a known figure rather than a jungle legend. And then there's Jane. You'd think all those years living in the jungle she would have learned how to defend herself, but here, not only does she talk and act like a "typical American housewife", when danger arises, she seems incapable of anything more than running away and screaming!

At least, by comparison, Johnny Sheffield as "Boy", now aged 15, gets into his first genuine knock-down-drag-out fight, though the sneaky, devious, viscious little rat-bastard he gets into it with has him so out-matched it's up to Cheetah to knock the guy unconscious and save his pal from anything worse than getting his back terribly scratched up.

Dennis Hoey is the "District Commissioner" (did he even have a name in this?), who, while getting a bigger screen part than he did in any of the Rathbone HOLMES films, comes across just as stupid as Lestrade was, totally dismissing Tarzan's insistance that the murders were not committed by animals, and suggesting the ape man has gotten a little soft in the head-- something Jane, infuriatingly, seems to agree with! I'm sorry, but Brenda Joyce as "Jane" is just not agreeing with me here.

Acquanetta is "Lea", the obsessed leader of the cult. Edgar Barrier is "Dr. Ameer Lazar", whose fanatical speeches to stir up the cult members does seem rather Nazi-like. Tommy Cook is "Kimba", Lea's arrogant brother, bent on proving himself a "warrior", yet disliked by his own peers and his sister's lover. While spying on the Tarzan family, both ape man and adopted son instinctively distrust him from the start, yet Jane is so insistent they allow him to stay, it's like those 2 years back in England have completely drained her of any natural instincts she ever might have had. And Kimba keeps wavering between wanting to murder Jane to "prove" himself, and lusting after her. I suppose Norman Bates started out this way!

Anthony Caruso is "Mongo", the lead cult warrior. No matter what I see him in, I'll always remember him as gangster "Bela Oxmyxs" in the 2nd-season STAR TREK comedy episode, "A Piece Of The Action".

My favorite part was when Tarzan fought to rescue the 4 young lady school-teachers from the cultists. He swam underwater and cut up the ropes holding their raft together, then lured several of them to their deaths in a deep animal-trap pit, then dropped a heavy tree-branch on several more of them. He didn't win that fight, but by God, it took at least a dozen of them to overpower him! As several reviewers have noted, I can see that Weismuller had gotten himself into better shape in this film. Perhaps he felt he needed to "compete" with Sheffield, who was growing up very nicely by this time. I'm very much looking forward to getting my hands on both the BOMBA and the JUNGLE JIM series when I'm done with these.

It is a mystery that neither Tarzan, Jane OR Boy used anything resembling a "jungle yell" in this film. When all 3 were prisoners (along with the teachers), I was so hoping for an ELEPHANT stamped to flatten the baddies into the ground... as happened way back in 1932. Oh well! Fun stuff.
   (8-25-2023)

[profh0011]

TARZAN, THE APE MAN   (1959)
Denny Of The Apes   (3 of 10)

Colonel James Parker, an African trader, is broke, but Harry Holt, on hearing of a legend of an "elephant's graveyard", is determined to find it, and make himself, Parker & Parker's daughter Jane rich. En route, they encounter rogue elephants, hostile natives, and a refugee from "Muscle Beach" who doesn't talk much, but has a bachelor pad in the trees, hangs out with Chimps, and takes a shine to Jane. After their entire safari is killed or run off by savage natives, the remaining party make a dangerous trek over a mountain range, one of them falls to his doom, and the rest are nearly killed by blood-thirsty pygmies (or the nearest equivalent on a low budget) who use ropes to drag Jane's father to a firey death, before an elephant herd breaks up the party. Finally, Harry finds the elephants' graveyard, but Jane, crazy enough, decides to stay behind in "paradise" with the un-named "ape man".

If all this sounds familiar to you, it's because MGM-- that once-great studio-- inexplicably decided to remake their 1932 classic epic TARZAN THE APE MAN, in color, but with virtually NO budget (or talent) at all. Most are familiar with the stock footage reused from TARZAN THE APE MAN, TARZAN AND HIS MATE (both filmed in B&W, by the way) and KING SOLOMON'S MINES (1950), plus a major prop recycled from THE PRODIGAL (1955). But let's dive further...

The producer was Al Zimbalist. This is the man responsible for such "classics" as ROBOT MONSTER (oh, geez!!!), CAT-WOMEN OF THE MOON, KING DINOSAUR and VALLEY OF THE DRAGONS. Need I say more? WHAT was MGM thinking? Across town, Sy Weintraub was kicking A** reinvigorating the Tarzan series with TARZAN'S GREATEST ADVENTURE, and followed it up with TARZAN THE MAGNIFICENT, and MGM gave us THIS? Why? WHY? (Yes, I know, "remakes" always seem like a good idea to soul-less, talent-less accountants.)

THIS was the film, no doubt, that inspired me to often yell at my TV while watching jungle movies, "SEE Tarzan battle the STUFFED LEOPARD!"

Denny Miller, a handsome, likable enough guy, surprisingly had quite a career doing mostly supporting roles in TV shows for decades after this. A shame this wasn't a MUCH-better film than it was.

Cesare Danove, whose "Harry Holt" isn't one fraction as likable as Neil Hamilton's was in the original, also had quite a successful career, but in my mind, will forever be remembered as "Carmine", the Mayor in ANIMAL HOUSE (1978).

Robert Douglas, almost invisible as Jane's father, actually appeared in some prestige films over the years, including THE FOUNTAINHEAD, IVANHOE, the 1952 remake of THE PRISONER OF ZENDA, KING RICHARD AND THE CRUSADERs, and much later, was the voice of "Prince Barin" in the epic Filmation cartoon FLASH GORDON: THE GREATEST ADVENTURE OF ALL (1979).

Joanna Barnes, who's almost lifeless as "Jane", also had quite a career in TV over the years, but the one thing she really stands out in my mind for is something I was never able to see until last year: 21 BEACON STREET, a short-lived summer replacement series that apparently helped inspire MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE. I doubt this film did her any favors.

One thing (among countless others) I couldn't figure. Since Denny's (they never once call him Tarzan) "tree-house" was much-more cozy & civilized than the tree-bound lean-to in the 1932 film was, WHY did Jane act so terrified of him when she woke up there? (Let's just call it "bad writing" and leave it at that.)

[The Australian Panther]

I now have a print of TARZAN THE APE MAN (1932) Very primitive film. Not bad for 1932. 
Way too much screaming from Jane tho. 

[profh0011]

Back in the 70s, Philly's Channel 48 (I think) ran Tarzan movies on weekends.  One they were conspicuously missing was TARZAN THE APE MAN (1932).

This was just like how THE HOUND OF THE BASKERVILLES (1939) was conspicuously missing from the Basil Rathbone rotation.

...and I wonder if it might have been for the same reason?

Insanely-- HOUND was yanked from circulation when the Hammer version (1959) came out.  It didn't reappear until the late 70s, when it was (reportedly) reissued theatrically, and then, a few years later, turned up on TV.  (I only found out recently WHY I never saw it during that theatrical reissue.  The only place in "my" area it played was NEW YORK CITY.  And there was no way in hell anyone here was going to make a 200-mile round-trip for any movie.)

I wonder if the 1932 APE MAN was yanked because of the 1959 APE MAN?

What I distinctly remember was, reading the news that Johnny Weissmuller had passed away... and then... just about a week later, his 1st film suddenly turned up on Channel 9 from NYC.  (We had cable by then.)

I'm glad they don't pull that kind of nonsense anymore.  There's the story of how when the Spencer Tracy DR. JEKYLL & MR. HYDE came out, the studio bought up the rights to the Frederic March version, then yanked all the prints from circulation and tried to have them all DESTROYED.  To me, that's nothing less than CRIMINAL behavior.

My 1st exposure to TARZAN, THE APE MAN, crazy enough, was seeing the 1981 film in a theatre.  I have to say this.  John Derek was a talented photographer.  But he had NO BUSINESS trying to direct a movie-- especially, an action-adventure film.  EVERY time it looked like something exciting should happen-- IT DIDN'T.  When Tarzan fought that big snake, it was all done in slow-motion, with constant cutting from one shot to another, trying to look "artsy".  Audiences don't want a scene like that to be "artsy".  They want it to be "EXCITING!"  And it wasn't.

WORSE:  When Tarzan comes to rescue Jane & her father, he rides a herd of elephants to the native village.  But then... he stops the elephants outside the village, hops off, SLOWLY walks into the village, and then, fights the chief one-on-one.  And the fight was BORING.

It was (if memory serves) just about a year later,  I saw the 1932 film for the first time.  WOW!!!!!  I kept thinking... "YEAH!  THIS is how I imagined it should have been!"  AND IT WAS.  Those elephants FLATTENED that village, AND, those miserable rat-bastard pygmies while they were at it.  And when Tarzan jumped DOWN INTO that pit, he fought that murderous gorrilla TO THE DEATH.  Man, was that brutal.

MGM's "dumbing down" of the character may not have been "right"... but at least, they knew how to make exciting movies.

I do think, though, every time I watch one of those, "Oh, IF ONLY this film had THE REAL TARZAN in it."  You know.  the intelligent, educated one who could speak in complete sentences.

I read the story that MGM cast Herman Brix, but just before filming, he broke his shoulder.  His replacement, Johnny Weissmuller, was like 1932's answer to Arnold Schwartzenneggar.  MGM decided to dumb him down... and, tragically, audiences had to suffer with dumbed-down Tarzans until Sy Weintraub took over the series.

I only JUST now learned Gordon Scott DID NOT want to come back after Sol Lesser retired, and Sy Weintraub conducted quite a search for a replacement.  But somehow... he couldn't seem to find anybody.  He then got in touch with Gordon Scott... and, apparently, the chance to play an intelligent Tarzan who actually got hurt during the story was what sold him on coming back.  Many fans apparently feel TARZAN'S GREATEST ADVENTURE lives up to its title!  I think, the camera-work alone makes it stand out as better than the previous 15 years' worth of Tarzan films.     That John Guillerman was something else.

[paw broon]

Sorry prof.  I follow your posts but I just don't get Tarzan. Never have and I'm not that keen on jungle heroes/heroines in comics or films.

[profh0011]

Sorry prof.  I follow your posts but I just don't get Tarzan. Never have and I'm not that keen on jungle heroes/heroines in comics or films.

What about THE PHANTOM ?   

[The Australian Panther]

What about THE PHANTOM ?    

Nice one Proff!
However,
1/ ERB's works have lasted and resonated because he was a good writer.
Tarzan # 1 is some kind of masterpiece, and evidence for that is the sheer number of times the basic concept has been copied, mutated and reused.
I confess to having read all of Burroughs' Tarzan books. He created not just a character but a whole consistent environment and world to place him in.
Not so the films.
Like a lot of what Hollywood and the film world does, they are consistently inconsistent. As you have said yourself, almost none of them portray the Tarzan Burroughs created.
2/

I'm not that keen on jungle heroes/heroines in comics or films.

I'm with Paw on this, generalization or not. I have lived most of my life in tropical or semi-tropical climates, so the idea of women running round in swimsuits or bikinis and men in trunks, in Jungles, has always seemed ridiculous to me. Not only sunburn but you would get eaten alive by insects. I'm red-blooded and I don't mind 'good girl art' but I like a good narrative too.
3/ The Phantom. Again, Lee Falk the creator. was a master story-teller and created an archetype that has been used as a template many times.
[As he did with Mandrake, but that's another story.]
The character doesn't swing from trees or run around in swim trunks either and only some of the stories ever occur in Jungles anyway.
Both Tarzan and the Phantom have attracted some of the top talent in comics in more than one generation, which speaks for itself.
Like Tarzan, The Phantom's portrayal in films and other media has been less than satisfactory.               

[paw broon]

Well, since you ask,   Ghost Who Walks is a masked mystery man. Plus what Panther writes.  It's not the only mmm jungle hero I like.  Espiritu de la Selva is a Spanish series which we have on site, and it's very enjoyable.
Whereas, the whole Tarzan thing just seems daft to me. I tried some films and gave up years ago. Sorry old bean, but thanks to your excellent commentaries on the character, I have much more information.  Always a good thing.

[profh0011]

I guess I came in at a strange point.  My intro to Tarzan was the 2nd season of the Ron Ely Tv series.  I'd always liked shows with animals, perhaps that was the draw.  Seeing Adam West in tights was strange enough.  At age 6, I was like, "What's with the costume?" A year-and-a-half later, it was like, "Why is this guy running around the jungle in shorts?"  And yet, his ATTITUDE was such that, I wound up thinking, "This is NOT someone you wanna mess around with!"  He was like Superman without the costume or the super-strength.

Over the decades, I came to see nearly all the different film Tarzans, and boy, were they inconsistent.  I just this past year, on finally watching the last 5 Weissmullers, realized that in one of them, he "switched continuities".  All of a sudden, between films, he was no longer living on "The Escarpment", but next to a river which was one short journey by water to the civilized town.  Funny it took Sol Lesser a few films to do that. All of a sudden, it was like watching the Ron Ely series, except, with a less-literate hero.

A similar thing happened with Gordon Scott.  He played Tarzan 6 times, but his last 2 are CLEARLY not the same version, as Sy Weintraub took over.


Meanwhile, I forget when I started reading it, but I grew up reading THE PHANTOM in the newspapers.

It's only recently I saw both the MANDRAKE and PHANTOM serials from around 1939.  MANDRAKE was baffling.  Warren Hull, who was so perfect as The Spider and The Green Hornet, was completely miscast as Mandrake.  Not skinny enough, clean-shaven, NO hypnotism.  His sidekick "Luh-THAR" (instead of "LO-thar") was HAWAIIAN, not black, and his girlfriend was a blonde.  How could they get ALL THAT wrong at once?

THE PHANTOM was way better.  The one oddball thing was, it starts with the older Phantom getting killed, and the new, "current" Phantom, returning to the jungle and taking over from his father.  That was referred to countless times in the comics, but I think that serial was the only time they actually showed it happening.

Decades later, the Billy Zane PHANTOM was pretty damned good. My best friend, on seeing it, said, "They finally did one right!"  I only had serious problem with a few important details.  Treat Williams over-acted to ridiculous levels, as if he was on the Adam West BATMAN series.  (This was the same S*** that Al Pacino did in the DICK TRACY movie that same decade.)  Despite THE PHANTOM existing in the same universe as MANDRAKE, there should NEVER-- NEVER!-- be any supernatural  elements in a PHANTOM story.  And there was.  And the kicker, he had conversations with his DEAD father-- an idea clearly swiped from the 1978 SUPERMAN.  What is wrong with some people, that they cannot stay accurate to source material?


By the way, while I have still never (shamefully) read any Burroughs work, my favorite version of the character may have been the newspaper strip, specifically the run by RUSS MANNING.  I was reading that as it came out near the end, and decades later, was able to read the entire Manning run at the ERBZine website.  And, some of my favorite stories were the ones that starred Jack rather than John.  I even made a reference to it in the story I'm writing right now.

Finally... my favorite adaptation of the first book-- first 2 books, really-- is no doubt GEORGE OF THE JUNGLE with Brenden Fraser. Apart from being funny as hell, it's also closer to Burroughs than to Jay Ward, and in some ways, far more faithful to Burroughs than MGM ever was.  (Irony?)

[paw broon]

Excellent prof.  I couldn't agree more about the serials.  Phantom very good - Mandrake awful.  And you're bang on about Warren Hull who was excellent in both Spider serials. Completely wrong for Mandrake.
In the comics, there are some teamups with The Phantom and Mandrake. I suppose Mandrake has the power of super hypnotism, after the first few stories that is, rather than "real magic".
I like the Billy Zane film but, big problem, NO STRIPEY PANTS!
The, sort of, 2nd Phantom serial, Captain Africa, is pretty awful.  I had to have it for completions sake but it's a hard watch.
A friend was a collector of Dell Tarzan and he was a big fan of Jesse Marsh's work.
Phantom comics are still going strong in Scandinavia and Australia with new stories and the Phantom Giant Size books feature new stories of old Australian heroes. 

[profh0011]

I remember seeing the late-70s MANDRAKE tv movie and, at the time, I thought they got everything wrong.  Mandrake wore an open shirt, like he stepped out of a disco.  Lothar wore a tuxedo.  His origin seemed a swipe of Dr. Strange, as if they got the characters confused.  Worst of all, it was DULL and BORING and not the slightest bit exciting.  The era of extreme censorship, when nothing was allowed to be exciting (or violent).

But many years later... in a paperback collection, I read a story that retold Mandrake's origin.  My jaw dropped.  Turns out, that was one thing that awful TV-movie got RIGHT.

A plane crash over the Himalayas (shades of LOST HORIZON) killed his parents, but, he was raised by monks in a monastery.  And here's the part that really blew my mind.  I grew up in the 60s reading the comic-strip, always under the impression that Mandrake had some kind of "super-hypnotism", that made people think he had real magic powers, when, he didn't.  THAT WAS ALL A CON-JOB.

Mandrake used REAL SUPERNATURAL MAGIC.  But, he hid it in plain sight-- by PRETENDING it was all hypnotic-induced illusions. 

If they'd been illusions, it would never have explained half the stuff he was seen to have done.  IT WAS REAL-- but, he didn't want anyone to know it.  As he was a stage magician by profession, the lie was easy to put over.


It was kinda funny, when I was re-reading all my 60s Marvels.  During the brief time when Bill Everett took over DR. STRANGE (the credits said Denny O'Neil and others were writring the stories-- that was a LIE!! --BILL EVERETT was the writer, but O'Neil's dialogue nearly ruinied his work), there was a sequence where an agent called Strange up on the phone, and they discussed whether the "stage magician bit" was still popular or not.  Strange had let his finances go while he was out saving the world.  In another scene (later?), he CONJURED up a stack of gold bars, and told his servant to use it to straighten out his finances, and don't bother him again with such petty concerns.

[profh0011]

I have recently seen an unsold MANDRAKE tv-pilot from the early 50s.  It's such a shame it didn't sell-- in that one, they got EVERYTHING right.

I also ran across the website of comics artist Kari Tapio Leppänen, who's done a lot of work on THE PHANTOM.  he's also done work on a JOHN CARTER OF MARS graphic novel that is the single BEST comics version of that character I've ever seen-- but I don't know if he's ever finished it, or published it outside of his website.

https://karileppanencomics.fi/

[The Australian Panther]

I also ran across the website of comics artist Kari Tapio Leppänen, who's done a lot of work on THE PHANTOM.  he's also done work on a JOHN CARTER OF MARS graphic novel that is the single BEST comics version of that character I've ever seen-- but I don't know if he's ever finished it, or published it outside of his website. 

You are quite right, Prof!