Chandu the Magician (1932)

Motion pictures most of the time are inspirations from other forms of storytelling outside of original ideas. Up to this point we have seen films mostly based on written works (i.e. novels, novellas, magazine serials, the Bible) historical events (i.e. war stories, legends, American history, etc.) and even stage plays. Fox Film Corporation in 1932 would utilize a new form of inspiration, the radio serial drama, in Chandu the Magician. Radio was the television of its time and would entertain families with stories of intrigue, mystery, romance or even adventure aside from the music and news it provided. With Chandu being one of the most popular radio dramas on the air, Fox found their latest inspiration. Radio did have one trick though, it only contained sound. To fulfill the fantastical images that could only be seen in the minds of the show's listeners and project them on the screen Fox would have to produce a picture with perhaps the most special effects ever seen in movies before.The result some of the most eye-popping images put to celluloid, but filled with one of the weakest stories, characters, and some of the most uninspired camera work to surround it.

Chandu the Magician is the tale of an American magician/yogi who must use his powers to stop the mad villain from utilizing a great weapon that can destroy major cities. Edmund Lowe is Chandu, the powerful and newly appointed yogi, whose powers include telephoning, mind control, power over objects (somewhat similar to "the force"), and projected imagery. When Chandu discovers his good friend from Egypt (played by Henry B. Walthall), and inventor of the "death ray," has been kidnapped, he sets on his quest to stop the megalomaniac mad man named Roxor (Bela Lugosi) from using the invention to take over the world. Along the way Chandu reunites with his old flame, Princess Nadji (Irene Ware), who helps him on his way to confront Roxor.

First off it must be said that this film is pure camp looking back at it from a contemporary point of view. It would be commonly thought of as not a good film, beside those of a small cult following. The characters are one dimensional. The story is flat. The acting is clique. The cinematography is boring and uninspired. This is a b-movie. You will not see this on anyone's all-time lists. But with all that aside, this is a film with magnificent special effects for the early 1930s, using perhaps every trick of the trade to create images many may not have seen on screen before. This is perhaps the type of movie in its day that fascinated Saturday matinee moviegoers. It produced adventure, comedy, special effects, a hero, and a villain, all the things that entertaining the casual moviegoer. But the special effects stood above the rest. And for that Chandu the Magician is worth mentioning.

For everything that is good about this film (which is not much but is definitely there) we have to thank co-director William Cameron Menzies. A production designer by trade, a job description he created, Menzies was magician behind the great sets and effect seen in The Thief of Bagdad. another Middle Eastern adventure produced in the silent age. He was awarded the very first Academy Award for best art direction for his works in the year 1929 (The Dove, The Tempest). It is no doubt that is was the skill of his mind and hand that conceived and produced the images made in the film. He utilized the wide use of miniatures, super imposing, rear projection, double exposure and the various artistic images to produce the stunning imagery we see on the screen.

Despite the good we see in the film, the poor far outweighed it. Menzies' co-director was Parisian filmmaker Marcel Varnel. I cannot say if it was Varnel that produced the uninspired staging or not. Perhaps it was Menzies, who seemed to have a grasp on visuals while Varnel worked with acting. I just don't know. But what I do know is that anything that was not using a special effect feels flat. It is staged more or less in a point-and-shoot method of filming. This pushes you away from the story, never drawing you in until you see another special effect. Well, Varnel would not enjoy his time making the b-picture, one of the three he would work on in America. He would set sail for Europe where he would produce most of his films, mainly in England, far from the cheap world of Hollywood. Menzies would continue to work with the development of the film process, including work on the development for the use of Technicolor. He would direct the stunning visuals of the burning of Atlanta scene in Gone With the Wind, which he would be given on honorary Oscar for his stunning achievement.

The cast does not help very much with the poor character development, but they do their best to be serious with their craft. Edmond Lowe once was a leading man in the silent era, but despite still find regular work in the sound era, he never caught on as a leading man with the exceptions of small pictures such as this one. Bela Lugosi, best known as the original Dracula, was the king of the b-picture, born to be the evil villain in cheap films. It is good not to see him in the Dracula cap and make-up. The beautiful Irene Ware, was never recognized for her acting, always acting in these small movie. Her best known credit, sadly, would be along side of Lugosi again in 1935's The Raven. Henry B. Walthall was a long time screen actor, dating back to 1908, most famously playing a major role in his friend W.D. Griffith's film Birth of a Nation. He would act until his death in 1936, contributing enough to gain a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame for his work in films.


Chandu the Magician is not a movie I would share to a casual friend. The picture is rather laughable in quality by the casual eye. For hard nosed film buffs, on the other hand, it is worth looking at for the quality of the effects and preservation of the film. In proper context the film is something to talk about as it is a masterful special effects kaleidoscope, full of eye candy, but that is only when viewing in the proper frame of mind. Otherwise, you will do what most anybody else will do, laugh and turn away. Will I watch it again? Most likely never. Will I remember it. Yeah, probably. The film is not great, but was worth glancing at.