Review of: The Mummy Returns. Dir. Stephen Sommers.
Perf. Brendan Fraser, Rachel Weisz, and Arnold Vosloo. MCA/Universal, 2001.
- On her arrival at a pre-election Conservative Party rally at the
Plymouth Pavilion in May 2001, former British Prime Minister Margaret
Thatcher cracked a rare joke. "I was told beforehand my arrival was
unscheduled," she said, "but on the way here I passed a local cinema and
it turns out you were expecting me after all. The billboard read, 'The
Mummy Returns'" (MacAskill). Predictably, this got a laugh from her
audience. What, however, did she actually mean? The word "mummy" has two
senses--an affectionate diminutive of "mother" and an embalmed
corpse--and, depending perhaps on one's own political affiliation, either
might seem an appropriate description of Thatcher. The
Guardian seemed to incline to the former when it headed its report
"Tory matriarch goes on stage and off message," which posited her as a
kind of monstrous mother returning to smother and stymie the hapless
William Hague, but The Independent quoted an unidentified
former Tory minister as saying after the election, "I wish The Mummy had
stayed in her box.... Every time she pops up, she costs us votes" (Grice),
where the reference to "box" seems clearly to align her with a
corpse. It is, perhaps, suggestive that the generally left-wing,
anti-Thatcher Guardian should think of her as a mother, while a
former Tory minister, who might reasonably be supposed to be more in
sympathy with her, should think of her merely as a corpse: is the mother
actually more menacing than the embalmed body?
- At first sight, this ambiguity may seem to be entirely
absent from the film to which Thatcher was referring, Stephen Sommers's
2001 blockbuster The Mummy Returns, the sequel to his 1999
hit The Mummy, since the mummy in question is, in both films,
male: it is that of the high priest Imhotep, condemned to eternal undeath
after he murdered the Pharaoh Seti I because he desired the latter's
mistress, Ankh-Su-Namun. We see both their love and their death in a
brief vignette at the start of the film, and then switch swiftly to the
early twentieth century, where Brendan Fraser's legionnaire becomes
involved in helping Rachel Weisz's Egyptologist search for Hamunaptra, the
city where Seti is supposed to have concealed his treasure. Inevitably,
Weisz accidentally brings Imhotep back to life, and he proceeds to
regenerate by sucking dry the team of American adventurers who first
disturbed his resting place. This seems a bit rough on them, since it was
Weisz's character, Evie Carnahan, who actually reanimated him, but then
Imhotep has designs of another sort on her, since he proposes to sacrifice
her to effect the resurrection of Ankh-Su-Namun. To this extent,
Sommers's Mummy obviously pays homage to Karl Freund's 1932
film of the same name, where the heroine, Zita Johann's Helen Grosvenor,
is identified by Boris Karloff's reanimated mummy as the long-lost
princess Ankh-Su-Namun. The debt is also acknowledged when a severed hand
moves of its own accord across the floor, though Sommer's film of course
leaves its predecessor far behind in special effects, even allowing itself
a little self-congratulation when Kevin J. O'Connor's disreputable Beni
says to Imhotep, "I loved the whole sand-wall effect.... Beautiful, just
beautiful."
- It goes without saying that Evie is rescued from Imhotep
in the end by Fraser's character, the relentlessly gung-ho Rick O'Connell,
thus leaving the way clear for a sequel (the film was such an instant hit
that studio bosses requested a second one immediately). The Mummy
Returns was released almost exactly two years after its
predecessor and brought together pretty much every character from the
first film who wasn't dead, plus two who were, since Imhotep and
Ankh-Su-Namun both returned. It also added a new villain, the Scorpion
King, played by the wrestler The Rock; gave Evie and Rick an
eight-year-old son, Alex; and introduced Rick's old friend Izzy (played by
Shaun Parkes). Plot, as many reviewers commented, is not the strong point
of The Mummy Returns, but to give a quick summary, Alex is
kidnapped by Ankh-Su-Namun and Imhotep; Izzy produces a dirigible which
allows the frantic parents to trace their son; and there is a spectacular
three-way showdown between Rick, Imhotep, and the Scorpion King which
concludes with the villains defeated but with enough life in them still
to make it back for the inevitable second sequel, which will doubtless
have even bigger battles and ever more monstrous monsters.
- These, then, sound like clear-cut action films, with no
place for the kind of ambiguity that was operating when the title of
The Mummy Returns was borrowed as a designation for Margaret
Thatcher. In fact, it becomes increasingly clear that the ambiguity is
indeed active in Sommers's film, for there is an alternative candidate for
the role of the returning mummy, one whom the film arguably does, at
least on some level, find more menacing even than Imhotep. Both kinds of
mummies are scary, as I hope to show by tracing the changing nature of the
narratives of Sommers's two films in relation both to each other and to
their influences and predecessors.
- Though the ambiguity in the nature of the menace is more
pronounced in The Mummy Returns, it was to some extent
present from the very outset of Sommers's project. The souvenir film
program for The Mummy lists "Jerry Glover's Nearly Top Ten
Mummy Movies." Glover's number 6 is the 1959 The Mummy,
which, he observes, "spawned three sequels, proving that, along with
Dracula, Hammer's heart belonged to mummy" (31). Forty years
later, the 1999 The Mummy showed clear signs of an allegiance
equally split between mummies and Dracula, for those familiar
with the works of Bram Stoker could hardly fail to notice that Sommers's
first film was, in many respects, a heady mixture of Dracula
and The
Jewel of Seven Stars. The conjunction is an interesting one in many
respects. It is notable that eight out of ten of Jerry Glover's "Nearly
Top Ten Mummy Movies" center, like Dracula and
Frankenstein, on male monsters, and in recent years the trend
toward co-opting vampirism as a metaphor for AIDS has meant that it is
the sexual predatoriness of men rather than women that tends to be
emphasized, making Stoker's male monster a culturally useful avatar. When
Stoker wrote The Jewel of Seven Stars, though, Queen Victoria
had only just died, leaving the memory of a long matriarchy fresh in
people's minds, and the alarming figure of the New Woman, to which Stoker
refers directly in Dracula, loomed equally large in the
popular consciousness. Consequently, perhaps, both his mummy and four out
of the five vampires we encounter in Dracula (as well as the
pseudo-vampire in The Lady of the Shroud) are female, as also
was the first vampire to be encountered in the original version of the
novel, Countess Dolingen of Gratz. If The Mummy wanted to
explore anxieties about gender, therefore, what better way than to draw on
both Stoker's kinds of monsters, his mummy and his vampire?
- Given the fact that the film's central character was a
mummy, the debt to The Jewel of Seven Stars was unsurprising.
This had already been the inspiration, as Glover acknowledges, for
Blood From the Mummy's Tomb (1971) and The
Awakening (1980), not to mention Jeffrey Obrow's 1997 Bram
Stoker's Legend of the Mummy and, subsequently, David DeCoteau's
Ancient Evil: Scream of the Mummy (2000). Some of these show
more obvious signs of indebtedness than Sommers's film, but there are
clear parallels between The Jewel of Seven Stars and
The Mummy. In each case, the mummy of an accursed individual
who hopes for resurrection is buried in a hidden grave whose occupant is
identified only as "nameless." In The Mummy, the inscription
on the tomb of Imhotep is "he who must not be named," and Evie comments
that the intention is clearly to destroy both his body and his soul--"This
man must have been condemned not only in this life but in the next"
(though this is also a detail found in Universal's original 1932 The
Mummy). In The Jewel of Seven Stars, Corbeck is told
by the locals when he asks about Tera's tomb that "there was no name; and
that anyone who should name it would waste away in life so that at death
nothing of him would remain to be raised again in the Other World" (96).
In each, cats play a part in the story--in the case of The
Mummy, in an episodic and ultimately unsatisfactory way which, in
its failure to be logically integrated into the narrative, clearly
suggests that an original source text has not been fully assimilated.
(There was a cat in the 1932 Mummy, but it was Imhotep's ally
rather than his enemy.) In each, the natives show a fear not shared by the
explorers, which in both instances proves abundantly justified by the fact
that both tombs are booby-trapped. In both texts, too, a disembodied hand
moves by itself, and in both the identity of a daughter proves to have
been fundamentally constituted by an Egyptologist father. In Stoker's
novel, Margaret Trelawny proves to have been radically shaped by the
explorations her father was undertaking at the time of her birth, whilst
in The Mummy, Evie owes her very existence to her father's
passion for Egypt and his subsequent decision to marry her Egyptian
mother. Even Evie's employment in an Egyptological library is due to the
fact that her parents were among its most generous benefactors. Finally,
in each case the reanimation of a female mummy is partially achieved and
then abruptly aborted, and in each this leads directly to the death of at
least one of the main male characters: in the original ending of The
Jewel of Seven Stars all but Malcolm Ross died, and in The
Mummy it is because he is distracted by the fate of Ankh-Su-Namun
that Imhotep fails to stop Jonathan from reading the incantation that will
make him mortal and allow Rick to kill him. (In The Mummy
Returns, it will, of course, be even more obvious that it is to
Ankh-Su-Namun that Imhotep directly owes his death.)
- That it should be the attempt to create a female monster
which ultimately brings about the destruction of the male monster is,
however, not a characteristic of The Jewel of Seven
Stars--where those who die as a result are those whom we have by
and large identified as "good" characters. It does, however, serve as a
pretty fair description of both Dracula and its great avatar
Frankenstein: in Dracula, it is the count's
vamping of Lucy which first alerts the Crew of Light to his existence, and
his attempted vamping of Mina then creates a telepathic link that allows
them to locate and destroy him; in Frankenstein, Victor's
refusal to complete the female monster leads ultimately to the deaths of
both himself and the Creature, not to mention Elizabeth. There are also
other crossovers that weave their way between Dracula,
The Jewel of Seven Stars, and The Mummy, most
notably in the scene in which
Imhotep enters Evie's locked room in the form of sand, a clear emblem of
affiliation with the desert, before metamorphosing into a man who bends
down and kisses her as she sleeps, just as Dracula does with Mina.
- Equally, though, there are some elements of The
Mummy that appear to owe their genesis to Dracula
alone. In The Jewel of Seven Stars, the alien being is
female and, in an obvious parody of the contemporary popularity of
"mummy" striptease acts, must submit to being stripped naked by the
Edwardian gentlemen who have control of her corpse. In
The Mummy, however, as in Dracula, these roles
are reversed because the monster is male and poised to sexually prey on
modern females. The increasing skimpiness of Imhotep's costume,
culminating in a pair of briefs and a cloak for his planned reunion with
his lost love, makes this abundantly clear; the cape-like cloak
further reinforces the echoes of Dracula, as does the fact that the
fleeing soul of Ankh-Su-Namun clearly resembles a bat. Equally, Beni's
attempt to deter Imhotep by holding up a crucifix might serve to align
Imhotep with a vampire--this is certainly how it is seen in Max Allan
Collins's official novelization of the film (Mummy 156). The
way in which Imhotep sucks people dry in order to rejuvenate also directly
parallels the way in which the count's blood-drinking causes him to appear
significantly younger when Jonathan Harker sees him in London, and indeed
the curse on Imhotep's tomb explicitly affirms that he will return
initially as an "Un-dead." The shared name of Jonathan Harker and Evie's
brother Jonathan Carnahan functions as a further link between the two
texts, as does Imhotep's ability to command the elements and predatory
lower life-forms. Similarly, the idea of using a modern woman to
resurrect an ancient one may be central to The Jewel of Seven
Stars, but the specifically erotic inflection provided by the fact
that in The Mummy it is not the dead woman herself but her
long-lost lover who wishes to effect the resurrection is more reminiscent
of Coppola's Dracula than of Stoker's mummy fiction. Also
strongly echoing the basic situation of Dracula is the dearth
of women in The Mummy and the subsequent fierceness of the
competition over them.
- Most interestingly, both texts share a fascination with
Jewishness. As many critics have noticed, Dracula, with its
bloodsucking, gold-grubbing, hook-nosed monster, is a clearly anti-Semitic
text. The Mummy, meanwhile, shows strong debts not only to
Stoker but also to Steven Spielberg's Raiders of the Lost
Ark, whose plot centers on the recovery of the Hebrew Ark of the
Covenant. This is perhaps most obvious in the depiction of the hero,
which is also where The Mummy departs most sharply from
Stoker. Stoker's heroes, with the notable exception of Rupert Sent Leger
in The Lady of the Shroud, tend to be found wanting in
moments of crisis; all too often, they are still worrying about what they
should do long after they have lost the moment when they could have done
anything at all. In this respect Rick O'Connell, singlehandedly five
times more effective than the entire Crew of Light put together (not to
mention the negligible Frank Whemple in the 1932 Mummy),
clearly owes much less to Stoker than to Indiana Jones, of whom he is
obviously a direct descendant.
- There are a number of points of marked similarity between
The Mummy and the Indiana Jones trilogy: the long-lost
Egyptian city, locatable only by an antique map, which houses fabulous
treasures; the transformation in the appearance of the hero, from
adventurer-archaeologist to college professor in the case of Indiana Jones
and from legionnaire to wild man and back again in the case of Rick
O'Connell; the repeated hair's-breadth escapes from danger; and our hero's
ultimate disdain of personal profit. (Though the camels on which Rick and
Evie escape are in fact loaded with the treasure stashed in the saddlebags
by Beni, which presumably finances the splendor of their house in
The Mummy Returns, they are unaware of these riches at the
time.) There is also the fact that Evie, like Marion in Raiders of
the Lost Ark, has to make up to her captor to distract his
attention from the doings of her true love; there is the presence of
hideous supernatural peril and of parallels between The
Mummy's Ardeth Bay and his followers and the hereditary guardians
of the holy place in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade; and
at the end of both The Mummy and Raiders of the Lost
Ark the villain's soul is borne away to Hell. Even Imhotep's
nonchalant crunching of the beetle which enters his face through the hole
in his cheek could be seen as a reprise of the moment in Raiders of
the Lost Ark in which a fly crawls across the cheek of the French
archaeologist Belloc while he is speaking, apparently disappearing into
his mouth without him noticing. (This moment has been airbrushed out of
the video version of Raiders of the Lost Ark but was clearly
visible in the original film.)
- In the Jewish Spielberg's Raiders of the Lost
Ark, however, the villains are Nazis, whom Indiana Jones, though
not himself Jewish, detests. By contrast, The Mummy is not
without its share of Jewish actors--Oded Fehr's Ardeth Bay, Rachel Weisz's
Evelyn--but they play Arab characters (Evelyn is half-Egyptian, Ardeth Bay
a Tuareg), and though the mummy (unlike Dracula) has no fear of the cross
or of the image of Buddha, he spares Beni and indeed gives him gold when
he brandishes the Star of David and utters what Imhotep terms "the
language of the slaves" (Hebrew--which Beni conveniently
happens to know). Later, what finally returns Imhotep to mortality is
Evie's utterance of a word which sounds suspiciously like "Kaddish," and
one might also note the film's distinct animus against the redundancy of
the British air force, in the presence of the emblematically named
Winston, who have nothing better to do than fool around drunkenly and
futilely in the Middle East--with, perhaps, the possible implication that
this was effectively what they were doing when they later presided over
the birth of the state of Israel. In this respect, the conjunction of
Dracula with The Jewel of Seven Stars allows not
only for a convergence of vampires and mummies, but also for another
convergence which the film seems to find ideologically interesting: that
of Egypt with Israel. (It is notable that the equivalent character to
Beni in the 1932 Mummy, who is also identified as a
hereditary slave of the Egyptians, was Nubian.)
- Even more anxiety-ridden than the film's depiction of
racial and national identities, however, is its depiction of gender.
Although O'Connell is far closer to the classically heroic status of
Indiana Jones than to the beleaguered masculinity of Stoker's heroes,
there are also distinct differences from the Indiana Jones
films in general and from Raiders of the Lost Ark in
particular. In the first place, in The Mummy it is the
heroine, not the hero, who is knowledgeable about Egypt, able to decipher
hieroglyphic inscriptions and correct the obnoxious Beni's translation of
Imhotep's ancient Egyptian. When Jonathan Hyde's Egyptologist dismisses
his rivals' expedition on the grounds that its leader is a woman and
therefore incapable of knowing anything, the camera immediately cuts to
Evie expounding precisely what she knows. Conversely, although Brendan
Fraser (who plays O'Connell) remarks in the film program that his
character is "sometimes the brain and sometimes the brawn in a situation"
(11), the element of brawn is far more pronounced, not least in the fact
that whereas college professor Indiana Jones always preferred to try his
hand with a rope, falling back on a gun principally for the sake of a
gag--as in the famous scene in Raiders of the Lost Ark where,
confronted with a crack swordsman, he shoots him--O'Connell shoots
(usually with two guns) at everything, whether it is animate or not. (At
one point, Evie, being led to be sacrificed, hears a gunshot outside and
says happily, "O'Connell!" Quite.) Even when he is standing against a wall
at which bullets are being shot at regular intervals, Evie has to tug him
out of what will obviously be the trajectory of the next one. His
resolute preference for not using whatever intelligence he may possess
seems all part of a reversal of roles that is completed when, in a direct
inversion of a scene from Raiders of the Lost Ark, the
build-up to a kiss between hero and heroine is interrupted by one of them
passing out--only this time it is the heroine, not the hero, who loses
consciousness, and it is through drunkenness, not excessive fatigue.
- In one way, what seems to be at work here is simply a
cultural shift which has ensured that the feistiness of Raiders of
the Lost Ark's Marion has been replaced by quietist, post-feminist
gender roles--it is notable that Evie, unlike Marion, cannot hold her
drink and falls over when she tries to learn to throw punches. (Indeed
one might notice that the Indiana Jones films themselves discarded Marion,
and in fact never settled to a heroine, with Karen Allen's Marion giving
way without explanation or comment to Kate Capshaw's Willie Scott in the
second and no heroine at all in the third, since Alison Doody's Dr. Elsa
Schneider turns out to be a villainess.) Thus, though Evie may be clever,
she is quite incapable of looking after herself (she even has an accident
in her own library) and must rely on O'Connell periodically to rescue
her. Indeed, one
might well conclude that the film's ultimate moral is that while
half-naked hussies will only attract losers, nice demure girls will
always find themselves properly taken care of.
- Equally, however, there are clear traces of a
counternarrative at work in The Mummy. In this respect, the
most interesting figure is Evie's feckless brother, Jonathan. The first
time we see him is when Evie, alone in the Egyptological museum, hears a
noise. Clearly scared, she goes to investigate and is horribly startled
by Jonathan popping up out of a sarcophagus. Quietly but implicitly,
Jonathan is thus initially identified with a mummy, though he himself
seems immediately to seek to undo this by addressing Evie as "Old Mum."
In the next sequence, Jonathan and Evie visit an imprisoned O'Connell,
whose pocket Jonathan had previously picked. Reaching through the bars,
O'Connell punches Jonathan and kisses Evie, actions which, amongst other
purposes, seem clearly to interpellate them in their respective gender
roles. Jonathan, however, does not stay put in his, because not only does
he prove to need rescuing by O'Connell nearly as often as Evie does, he
also puts himself into her place in other ways: when O'Connell, having
seen off Imhotep, asks Evie, "Are you all right?," it is Jonathan who
answers, "Well... not sure." Not for nothing does he refer to O'Connell at
one point as "the man" (assuming as he does so that O'Connell's injunction
to stay put and keep out of danger applies to him as well as to Evie).
Most notably, when O'Connell sets off to rescue the parasol-carrying
Egyptologist from Imhotep, he tells Jonathan, Henderson, and Daniels to
come with him and Evie to stay in safety. The three men, however, are all
too scared to come, while Evie is equally adamant that she won't stay
behind. Not until O'Connell scoops her up in a fireman's lift, tosses her
on the bed, and locks the door on her are gender roles restored--but even
then it is visibly at the price of conceding that however firmly they may
thus be instantiated, the majority of the film's characters don't actually
conform to them.
- Moreover, intertextual echoes may well mean that, for some
members of the audience at least, even O'Connell's position is not fully
assured. When he appears long-haired and unkempt in a Cairo prison, Brendan
Fraser is obviously reprising his role as the eponymous hero of the 1997
Disney film George of the Jungle, while Evie's "What's a nice
place like this doing in a girl like me?" recalls the chat-up line George
proposes to use on Ursula, "What's a nice girl like you doing in a plane
like this?" In one sense George is of course the ultimate wild man, over
whom all Ursula's girlfriends swoon when they see him running with a
horse, but he does also appear in a dress and, at the outset, has indeed
no concept of gender at all, referring to the hyper-feminine Ursula as a
"fella." Since Ursula dislikes her official fiancé and runs off
instead with the socially unacceptable outsider George, the possible
intertext with The Mummy is doubly interesting here.
- In The Mummy Returns, the note of
uncertainty thus introduced in The Mummy is further
developed, and new areas of anxiety are highlighted. The Mummy
Returns opened, in Britain at least, to a barrage of distinctly
lukewarm reviews that stressed the incoherence of its plot. The
Independent reviewed it twice in two days and hated it both times,
with Anthony Quinn demanding, "Are you following all this?
I don't think the filmmakers could care less if you do or not.... There's
nothing so old-fashioned as plot development here, just a pile-up of
set-pieces." Peter Preston in The Observer asked, "What's
going on here? Silly question, one beyond any computer's figuring....
Summon the Raiders of the Lost Plot. Nothing in Stephen Sommers's
screenplay makes, or is intended to make, any sense," while
Xan Brooks in The Guardian more succinctly advised, "Forget
trying to follow the plot."
- There certainly are uncertainties about its plot. "Why?"
asks Imhotep when the Scorpion King hoists up the curator, and one can
think of few better questions. What is the curator's motivation? Why
does he need Imhotep to fight the Scorpion King? What happens to Evie's
previously mortal wound when she is resurrected? What is the nature of
the apparent feud between Ardeth Bey and Lock-Nah? Who is Patricia
Velazquez's character before the soul of Ankh-Su-Namun takes possession of
her? Is Rick really a Medjai, and if so, does it matter? Where exactly
would Anubis, a jackal, wear a bracelet? Perhaps most puzzlingly, who on
earth are the pygmies? The only possible explanation for them seems to
come from Rick's remark right at the beginning about the shortness of
Napoleon, together with production designer Allan Cameron's observation, in
The Mummy Unwrapped, that design for the film had relied
heavily on a volume of Egyptian sketches produced for Napoleon.
- A far deeper faultline, however, runs through the second
film, and that is its representation of its characters. In the preview of
The Mummy Returns included in the "ultimate edition" of
The Mummy, director Stephen Sommers observes that his
paramount aim in making the sequel was to retain as many of the same
characters as possible, but to make their relationships "more
intertwining." He has certainly reprised for all he is worth: Cairo
Museum in the first film is replaced by the British Museum in this, Alex
collapses pillars in a domino-like fashion just as Evie did the
bookshelves, and he can't read the last word of the incantation just as
Jonathan couldn't in the first film (and it's the same word). So close
are the similarities, indeed, that Anthony Quinn in The
Independent complained that "this didn't look like a sequel.
This looked like a remake... this is the worst case of déjà
vu I've ever had in a cinema." The debt to Indiana Jones,
too, is not only revisited but extended, with the lamplit digging scene
directly pastiching that in Raiders of the Lost Ark and the
presence of Alex invoking the spinoff series Young Indiana
Jones, particularly in the scene in which he runs through the ruins
of a temple, with gunfire all around him, looking like a miniature version
of his father in the legionnaire sequence of the first film. (This
element is even more pronounced in the spinoff novelization Revenge
of the Scorpion King, billed as the first of "The Mummy
Chronicles," in which Alex, now 12, bands together with Jewish refugee
Rachel to prevent Hitler doing a deal with Anubis.)
- There are changes, though. Perhaps the most noticeable
of these is that almost as strong as the influence of the Indiana Jones
trilogy is that of the Star Wars films, and most particularly The
Phantom Menace, which opened in the same summer as the original
Mummy and was thus its direct comparator and rival. Nicholas
Barber in The Independent on Sunday scathingly
listed just a few of the similarities:
The Phantom Menace introduced a mop-topped blond boy to the
cast; The Mummy Returns does the same. The Phantom
Menace used racial caricatures; The Mummy Returns has
dozens of desert-folk machine-gunned and burned alive. And just as
Star Wars had an archetypal fairy-tale clarity that was
subsequently obscured by portentous back-story and pseudo-spiritual mumbo
jumbo, The Mummy Returns is clogged up with complicated
exposition and flashbacks that serve no purpose except to lay foundations
for another sequel. It even blabs on about the sacred "Medjai" warriors -
couldn't Sommers have come up with a name that didn't share four letters
with Jedi?
Other elements of similarity between the two films could also be pointed
out. The final battle of The Mummy Returns, where the
warriors of Anubis disappear on the death of the Scorpion King, clearly
echoes the final fight of The Phantom Menace, where the
droids drop when the mother ship is disabled (and in each case the
large-scale fight is taking place in the open air while the crucial
smaller one is in a confined space). When the first vision generated by
the bracelet of Anubis fades away, there is a noise just like that of a light
sabre. There are also echoes of the earlier Star Wars films. The new
character Izzy closely parallels Lando Calrissian from The Empire
Strikes Back: both are black (something to which Izzy draws
attention by referring to Rick as "the white boy"), both are introduced by
the hero to the heroine as an old acquaintance but immediately react in an
apparently hostile way, and both supply an aircraft. Thus Rick, having
started his career in the first film as Harrison Ford in the Indiana Jones
trilogy, seems now to have been reinvented as Harrison Ford in the Star
Wars trilogy, a parallel made even clearer when Ardeth, having identified
him as a Medjai and Evelyn as the reincarnation of Nefertiri, tells him
that it is his preordained role to protect a royal woman just as Han Solo
protects Princess Leia.
- Most significantly, the incorporation of motifs and
borrowings from the Star Wars series has helped The Mummy
Returns become something which The Mummy, by and
large, was not: Gothic. This is an element clearly present in Star
Wars, where the ostensible opposition of Darth Vader and Luke
Skywalker rapidly gives place to a paired and conflicted relationship in
which the one sees the other in the mirror. In The Mummy,
however, oppositions stay, by and large, opposed. There are one or two
moments of doubling--Imhotep staring after his own soul-self as it is
borne away to hell, the twinned books, Beni facing the mummy for the first
time with matching expressions on their faces--but in general the film
occupies a terrain in which the bad are simply bad and the good are simply
good.
- In the second film, however, identities and affiliations
prove much less stable: it is after all, as Max Allan Collins's
novelization declares, an expedition for Evie "to discover not the history
of the pharaohs, but the meaning of her own dreams" (16-17). We may, for
instance, be disconcerted to find Ardeth Bay in the company of the
baddies, and although we may guess that his motive is to keep an eye on
them, Rick's first response is to smash him against the wall and demand to
know where Evie is. Most notably, although actions are directly repeated
from the first film, as with the reading of the incantation and the
demolishing of the pillars, they are not performed by the same person, as
though identities are shifting. There are also other doublings and
pairings. We learn for the first time that Evie was Nefertiri in a
previous life (a doubling strongly reminiscent of that of Margaret and
Tera in Stoker's The Jewel of Seven Stars). Similarly, Meela
is Ankh-Su-Namun reincarnated and Rick's tattoo seems to identify him as
one of the Medjai. (Though this, unless it is leading up to a further
sequel, proves to be a bit of a narrative red herring and is also
complicated by the fact that the novelization for children describes the
tattoo as proving that he is "a Masonic Templar" [Whitman 63] and the
novelization for adults calls him a "Knight Templar" [Collins, Mummy
Returns 96], even though common elements to both which do not
appear in the film clearly indicate that both were based on the shooting
script.)
- The most notable instance of these doublings and
slippages takes us back to Margaret Thatcher's joke. When Evie goes with
Imhotep in the first film, she turns back to Rick and says, "If he makes
me into a mummy, you're the first one I'm coming after." In one way, the
meaning of this remark and of the surrounding sequence is obvious: she
loves Rick and is hoping he will rescue her before Imhotep can kill her.
But it is also shadowed by other meanings. In the first place, what would
she be "coming after" Rick for--because she loves him, or because, having
been made into a monster herself, she would seek him as prey? There would
certainly be a direct Stokerian precedent here in a precisely parallel
situation: Lucy's attempted vamping of Arthur. More troublingly, from the
first time he sees her, Imhotep has identified Evie with his lost love,
Ankh-Su-Namun. Every time he has met her subsequently, he has tried to
kiss her (and on one occasion has succeeded). He has therefore clearly
been established as an alternative suitor. Of course, there might well
seem to be no contest: O'Connell is dashing, handsome, honorable, and
alive, whereas Imhotep passes through a variety of stages of decay and
proposes to kill Evie. Nevertheless, a different interpretation is offered
in Max Allan Collins's novelization of the film.
- Collins--who, suggestively, also directed and novelized
Mommy (1995) and Mommy's Day (1997), in which an
apparently perfect mother is revealed to be evil--seems several times to
incriminate Evie. He develops the idea sketched in the sequence where she
tells O'Connell and the Americans, "Let's be nice, children. If we're
going to play together we must learn to share," by having her think, "Men
were such children" (142). He also makes Jonathan ask the Americans after
the blinding of Burns, "Going back home to mummy?" (166). Again this
develops a much fainter hint in the film, when Jonathan explains to Rick
the meaning of a preparation chamber--"Mummies, my good son. This is
where they made the mummies"--where sons and mothers are forced briefly
but uneasily into conjunction. Most suggestively, Collins invents for the
sleeping Evie a dream sequence in which she is having
nearly delirious images of herself and O'Connell fleeing from the mummy
across the ruins of the City of the Dead, only at times she was fleeing
from Rick and holding on to the mummy's hand... it was all very troubling,
which was why she was moaning, even crying out in her fitful sleep. (188)
For Collins, Imhotep here is less a monster than the handsome prince
awakening Snow White (189). And after all, Rick has already had to demand
of Evie, "You dream about dead guys?"
- Can this really be true? When Evie says to O'Connell,
"if he makes me into a mummy, you're the first one I'm coming after," can
her words, at any level, really be gesturing at an alternative possibility
in which it is Imhotep who becomes her successful suitor, going so far as
to impregnate her, and O'Connell whom she would seek to destroy? On the
level of common sense, this is patently absurd. But on the darker levels
of the subconscious, perhaps the film does not find its heroine so
biddable as it might like--it is certainly not hard to read her slamming
of the suitcase on Rick's hands as a snapping vagina dentata, while the
scarabs which emerge from mouths clearly recall the Alien
films, with their clear interest in the monstrous-feminine--nor is its
mummy quite so repellent as one might expect. In The Mummy
Unwrapped, producer Sean Daniel refers to Imhotep as "an extremely
dangerous and extremely handsome man," and Pete Hammond, whose role as
"film analyst" introduces an interesting ambiguity, opines
that "people want to believe in a life after death situation," and thus
sees the figure of the mummy as representing, however bizarrely, a wish
fulfilment rather than a threat. Certainly when Ardeth and Dr. Bey
explain that Imhotep must still love Ankh-Su-Namun after three thousand
years, Evie observes, "that's very romantic," and in one sense, so it is.
It is of course unusual for a mummy fiction to include a romance element
at all. (Though it is true that both The Jewel of Seven Stars
and the 1932 Mummy do, both are nugatory.) We might thus
expect the initial concentration on the romance of Imhotep and
Ankh-Su-Namun to continue to be the focus of interest and to be viewed
more sympathetically than ultimately it is. We certainly could not
predict at that stage that the initial kiss between Imhotep and
Ankh-Su-Namun would ultimately be replaced by that between Rick and Evie
at the close, and though Ardeth Bay obviously regards Imhotep as evil, we
are not necessarily inclined to take his word for it since, in the first
place, others of the Medjai have already tried to stab Evie, and, in the
second, Ardeth Bey was actually the alias used by Imhotep himself in the
1932 Mummy. And it is also noticeable that The Mummy
Returns seems to find Imhotep so insufficiently scary
that it feels obliged to supplement the menace he offers with that
provided by the Scorpion King (who, in another instance of these films'
perverse ability to find their villains rather than their hero attractive,
in fact upstages Imhotep so much that he is now set to star in his own
spinoff, The Scorpion King, due for release in 2002).
- In one way, however, the Scorpion King proves
unnecessary, because there is already an extra threat present in the
second film, and it comes from Evie. However faint the hint of menace
playing over her in the first film, it is far more clearly marked in the
second. (The menace was also there in the 1932 Mummy, where
Helen Grosvenor, pathologized from the outset by being under the care of
the doctor, fed bromide when she puts on her make-up and tries to join
Imhotep, and explicitly associated with the adulterous temptress Helen of
Troy, is a reincarnation of Ankh-Su-Namun.) Indeed, while the treatment of
O'Connell in The Mummy Returns is much as it was in The
Mummy, the characterization of Evie has been fundamentally
reconceived. Despite her hopelessness during the boxing lesson in the
first film, where she displayed an inability to cope so profound that she
even had to ask a blind man for help, she is now a superbly accomplished
fighter and rescues Jonathan from Ankh-Su-Namun. She no longer needs her
glasses, and she wears trousers. Most strikingly, toward the end of
The Mummy Returns, there is an entirely unprepared-for
narrative twist: Ankh-Su-Namun, on her way into the temple, turns and
stabs Evie in the stomach, from which Evie shortly after dies, only to be
restored to life by Alex reading the incantation from the Book of Amun-Ra.
Since Evie's death proves to be only temporary, the event may seem to have
little narrative significance, but its thematic resonances are great. In
particular, it is the first time that her son Alex, rather than
O'Connell, rescues her. For him, at least, Evie is the mummy
who returns.
- Is she for the rest of us? Is Evie, in some
bizarre sense, the monster we most fear? Ankh-Su-Namun's choice of the
stomach as the site of attack is certainly suggestive. (Rick, by
contrast, is habitually attacked in the neck: the botched hanging at a Cairo
prison, the Medjai grabbing him round the neck on the burning ship,
Imhotep's attempt to throttle him--almost as though he were the victim of
a vampire.) In the first film, both Imhotep and Ankh-Su-Namun herself die
from precisely similar wounds to the stomach (in Ankh-Su-Namun's case
twice), so that Evie is thus linked with them, as she also is when she is
seen as Nefertiri wearing a mask just as Imhotep does before he is fully
regenerated, and when Ankh-Su-Namun pacifies a group of gun-wielding men
just as Evie herself did in the first film. Moreover, Meela adopts
pseudo-maternal behavior toward Alex, and Max Allan Collins's
novelization even suggests that Imhotep does so too:
And Imhotep, grinning, almost as if proud of the boy, wagged a finger down
at Alex.
"Naughty, naughty," he said, and held out his hand.
Swallowing, reluctant, Alex got to his feet, brushed off his short pants,
and took the mummy's hand. (169)
A mummy thus merges with a mummy (and we might note that when Meela
stabbed herself in the stomach and was then revived, she came back with a
completely different personality, which could suggest that Evie too might
do so). Ankh-Su-Namun's thrust into Evie's stomach can also, indeed, be
read as a direct blow at the womb, with Ankh-Su-Namun, childless and with
no sign of any other relatives, pitted deliberately against Evie, who is
a wife, a mother, a sister, and a daughter both to Seti and to her Carnahan
parents (with the name, according to the novelization, deliberately
invoking a
blend of Carter and Carnarvon; the first name of Evie's father is
specifically given in the book as Howard, and he is said to have
discovered the tomb of Tutankhamun). It would be easy to see this as
motivated primarily by the childless woman's envy of the mother, while it
would be equally possible to see it as also configured by the fact that,
in the story as it is now told, Ankh-Su-Namun is also the replacement for
Evie/Nefertiri's mother, who is never mentioned and is thus her
stepmother. (O'Connell too is now identified as motherless: both the
children's and the adult novelizations have him referring to having
received his tattoo in an orphanage in Hong Kong, though in the movie
itself he appears to say "Cairo," while Revenge of the Scorpion
King is equally the revenge of Rachel for the death of her mother
at the hands of the Nazis, and immediately after the revelation of this
Alex uncovers a cache of weapons and shouts, "We've hit the mother lode!"
[Wolverton 71, 72].)
- But though Ankh-Su-Namun's attack on Evie could be read
as the rage of a childless woman against a mother, it is by no means clear
that the film as a whole does regard motherhood as an enviable state.
"Run, you sons of bitches!" screams Henderson in The Mummy to
O'Connell and Jonathan, casually indicting all mothers as he flees.
"Mother!" screams the Cockney lackey in The Mummy Returns
when he first sees Imhotep. "Mummies!" says Rick in the first film
disgustedly, adding, "I hate mummies!" in the second. This is unfortunate,
since Evie's dying words, "Look after Alex.... I love you," in a sense
constitute him as a mummy. Moreover, Rick is at first prostrated by grief
at Evie's death and, though he goes to fight Imhotep and the Scorpion
King, he is soon knocked to the ground again and raised only by the
unexpected sound of her voice. The effect is of a resurrection from the
dead, something that is repeated when Evie pulls him up from the abyss:
in one sense, then, it is now he who has returned from a symbolic grave.
That his reprieve is, however, conditional is clearly indicated by the
fact that the classic hand-over-the-edge shot here has the suggestive
variation that Rick's hand has a wedding ring: the suggestion is clearly
that Evie comes and pulls him up because they are properly married,
whereas Ankh-Su-Namun leaves Imhotep to die because they aren't.
- Rick's survival, then, is contingent on his status as a
family man. But, as he himself says, "Sometimes it's hard being a dad,"
and the film does indeed make us clearly aware of the pressures of having
children (not least since Jonathan, to whom Rick says sternly, "I thought
I said no more wild parties?," in effect functions as a substitute
teenager, while Collins's novelization makes quite clear the extent to
which the pygmy mummies are also conceived of as hideously threatening
children [228]). Indeed, the very casting of Brendan Fraser as Rick
creates ripples, since two years before The Mummy he had
appeared in Ross Marks's Twilight of the Golds (another film
with a highly conflicted view of Jewishness), playing a gay man whose
sister is appalled to discover that the son she is carrying is likely to
share his sexuality: in the end, she keeps the child, but the decision
breaks up her marriage. (Not to mention Fraser's even more recent
appearance as Ian McKellen's lust object in Bill Condon's 1998 Gods
and Monsters, where he once again sports a tattoo which allows
another man to guess his past and appears too with Kevin J. O'Connor, who
was to play Beni in The Mummy.) In The Mummy
Returns, Alex's repeated "Are we there yet?" seems only partly
parodic; he and Jonathan both groan whenever Rick and Evie kiss (and it is
also during a kiss that Alex manages to get himself kidnapped), and it is
in fact only when Rick and Evie are without Alex that they are actually
able to reprise the first film. The first two dangers Rick faces in the
film come from his own family: Alex creeps up behind him, and Evie throws
a snake just as he enters. Most notably, although the second film seems
to be deliberately less frightening than the first, it still received a 12
certificate in the U.K., so that if you actually have a child like Alex,
you can't go to see it without a babysitter. Gothic is often predicated
on the loss of a parent; here, though, the ultimate, darkest fantasy may
well be the loss of a child. It is played out in safety (you can of
course retrieve your own offspring from the babysitter later), but, just
briefly, you can acknowledge that the role of mummy is the enemy, and kill
it.
School of Cultural Studies
Sheffield Hallam University
L.M.Hopkins@shu.ac.uk
COPYRIGHT (c) 2002 BY LISA HOPKINS.
READERS MAY USE PORTIONS
OF THIS WORK IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FAIR USE PROVISIONS OF U.S. COPYRIGHT
LAW. IN ADDITION, SUBSCRIBERS AND MEMBERS OF SUBSCRIBED INSTITUTIONS MAY
USE THE ENTIRE WORK FOR ANY INTERNAL NONCOMMERCIAL PURPOSE BUT, OTHER THAN
ONE COPY SENT BY EMAIL, PRINT OR FAX TO ONE PERSON AT ANOTHER LOCATION FOR
THAT INDIVIDUAL'S PERSONAL USE, DISTRIBUTION OF THIS ARTICLE OUTSIDE OF A
SUBSCRIBED INSTITUTION WITHOUT EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM EITHER THE
AUTHOR OR THE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY PRESS IS EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN.
THIS ARTICLE AND OTHER CONTENTS OF THIS ISSUE ARE
AVAILABLE FREE OF CHARGE UNTIL RELEASE OF THE NEXT ISSUE. A
TEXT-ONLY ARCHIVE OF THE JOURNAL IS ALSO AVAILABLE FREE OF CHARGE. FOR
FULL HYPERTEXT ACCESS TO BACK ISSUES, SEARCH UTILITIES, AND OTHER VALUABLE
FEATURES, YOU OR YOUR INSTITUTION MAY SUBSCRIBE TO
PROJECT MUSE, THE
ON-LINE JOURNALS PROJECT OF THE JOHNS
HOPKINS UNIVERSITY PRESS.
Works Cited
Ancient Evil: Scream of the Mummy. Dir. David DeCoteau.
Perf. Jeff Peterson, Trent Latta, Ariauna Albright. Amsell, 2000.
The Awakening. Dir. Mike Newell. Perf. Charlton Heston,
Susannah York. Orion Pictures/Warner Bros, 1980.
Barber, Nicholas. "Never Invest in Pyramid Sales." Rev. of The
Mummy Returns. The Independent 20 May
2001 <http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=73724>.
Blood from the Mummy's Tomb. Dir. Michael Carreras, Seth
Holt. Perf. Andrew Keir, Valerie Leon. Hammer Films, 1971.
Bram Stoker's Legend of the Mummy. Dir. Jeffrey Obrow.
Perf. Louis Gossett Jr., Amy Locane. Unapix Films, 1997.
Brooks, Xan. Rev. of The Mummy Returns.
The Guardian 18 May 2001 <http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4188668,00.html>.
Collins, Max Allan. The Mummy. London: Ebury Press, 1999.
---. The Mummy Returns. New York: Berkley Boulevard, 2001
The Empire Strikes Back. Dir. Irvin Kershner. Perf. Mark
Hamill, Harrison Ford, Carrie Fisher. Lucasfilm, 1980.
George of the Jungle. Dir. Sam Weisman. Perf. Brendan
Fraser, Leslie Mann, John Cleese. Disney, 1997.
Glover, Jerry. "Jerry Glover's Nearly Top Ten Mummy Movies." The
Mummy Souvenir Program. 1999. 30-31.
Grice, Andrew. "Europe: The Single Issue that Left Hague to Take a
Pounding." The Independent 9 Jun. 2001: 2 <http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=77078>.
Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. Dir. Stephen Spielberg.
Perf. Harrison Ford, Sean Connery. Paramount, 1989.
Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. Dir. Stephen
Spielberg. Perf. Harrison Ford, Kate Capshaw. Paramount, 1984.
MacAskill, Ewen. "Tory Matriarch Goes On Stage and Off Message." The
Guardian 23 May 2001: 1 <http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4191057,00.html>.
The Mummy. Dir. Karl Freund, Perf. Boris Karloff, Zita
Johann. Universal, 1932.
The Mummy. Dir. Stephen Sommers. Perf. Brendan Fraser,
Rachel Weisz, Arnold Vosloo. MCA/Universal, 1999.
The
Mummy Souvenir Program. 1999.
The Mummy Unwrapped. Dir. Christopher Sliney. Perf. Rachel
Weisz, Brendan Fraser, Stephen Sommers. Universal, 1999.
Quinn, Anthony. "You Can't Say Pharaoh Than That." Rev. of
The Mummy Returns. The Independent 18 May 2001
<http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=73090>.
The Phantom Menace. Dir. George Lucas. Perf. Liam Neeson,
Ewan McGregor, Natalie Portman. Lucasfilm, 1999.
Preston, Peter. "Mummy, What's Anthea Doing on the Floor?" Rev. of
The Mummy Returns. The Observer 20 May 2001
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4189085,00.html>.
Raiders of the Lost Ark. Dir. Stephen Spielberg. Perf.
Harrison Ford, Karen Allen. Paramount, 1981.
Stoker, Bram. Dracula. Ed. A. N. Wilson. Oxford: Oxford UP,
1983.
Stoker, Bram. The Jewel of Seven Stars. Intr. David Glover.
Oxford: Oxford UP, 1996.
Whitman, John. The Mummy Returns. London: Bantam Books, 2001.
Wolverton, Dave. Revenge of the Scorpion King. London:
Bantam, 2001.
|