Houses of Wax: 1953 and 2005
2/15/2016, 10:00 a.m.
Tweet to: @Slickster_Mag
Comparing these movies is like comparing apples and oranges. The stories are entirely different, which is good for a remake. Because, as Gus Van Sant’s version of Psycho will demonstrate, shot for shot remakes are fucking boring. The original House of Wax (1953) relies heavily on the creepiness factor, and is propelled by plot. Simple, yet effective. After all, it was the 1950s, so perhaps it was easier to scare people than I assume. Whereas the remake from 2005 offers up a simple story and then, BAM! Horror all up in your face!
The original movie focuses on Vincent Price’s character and his interaction with the female lead. Vincent Price is Henry Jarrod. The owner of Wax Museum, Jarrod is a little too obsessed with his figures. He has an annoying investor/business partner that is trying to convince him to put a horror section in the museum to attract more business. Jarrod refuses and his partner tries to kill him in a fire, which happens in the beginning, for the insurance money.
Throughout the film, he is in disguise because he was horribly burned from the fire, which we see at the climax of the film. Price’s main goal is to “reclaim” and remake the main statues he loved so dear. Especially those of Joan of Arc, and Marie Antoinette. There is much more obsession and vengeance with Price, and he had two minions to do the heavy lifting and stealing of the bodies.
The new movie focuses more on a brother/sister story and much more streamlined. Friends go camping in the wrong place, and get lured into a small abandon town in which everyone everywhere is wax. It’s much more disturbing when you stop and think about it. Outcasts whose sole purpose is to kill innocent people and turn them into wax statues. The 2005 killer was loosely based from the original.
There are two brothers, one that captures victims and one that actually does the waxing and sculpting. One is severely deformed, not from a fire, but because he was conjoined at the back of his brother’s head and was surgically separated, which left him with half of his face missing. He wears a wax mask, just like Price did. His brother was homicidally angry and obsessed but in a much darker way than Price was. It seems like they took what was there from the original and amplified it and split Price’s character into that of the two brothers. Very crafty I must say. And the actual House of Wax is made of wax. I thought that was very intriguing.
I really enjoy the new one, and not just because we get to see Paris Hilton get impaled hilariously. I enjoyed it because it is a modern day horror tale. It’s a story that would be told sitting around a campfire with some friends. The old one is great as well because A. Vincent Price was a badass horror actor, B. The simplicity of the story, and C. movies back then had to rely much more on the performances of the actors and actresses. They did not rely on special and visual effects technology to make it more eye-popping. The actors in the new one are okay, but like many actors, I don’t feel like I am watching the actual characters they are portraying. Actors back then had a tendency to become the characters they were playing. Look at Max Shrek in the 1922 Nosferatu.
Two totally different movies that share the same name. You’ve got to appreciate the old stuff because it makes the new stuff more enjoyable to see just how far movies have come. I don’t really think that I could choose a superior film, because they are each fun in their own way. The 1953 film is a great time piece because of the fact that it takes place is in 20s/30s, when the whole carnivale attire was a big part of the country. The new one is fun because of the “campfire” horror shtick. The older generation enjoys Price’s version because that’s what they grew up. Most of my generation aren’t even aware that it was a remake, which is just sad. The stories are entirely different, Bo and Vincent are just crazy and really have no goal in doing what they do. They make mention that it’s to make their mother proud, whereas the original Price’s main goal is to “reclaim” and remake the main statues he loved so dear.
There is much more obsession and vengeance with Price. In the original film we don’t get to see him sculpting the wax. We only see the aftermath of his encased victims. Price really only explains how he does the sculpting. There is no gore factor either, being the 50s, they had to rely on people’s imaginations. I’m all for the bloodiness of the remake, but at the same time, I appreciate the simplicity of old story. A few people I have talked to about it really go for the new one because it’s so in your face. But I’ll go for a Vincent Price movie any day!
