Michael Curtiz directed Captain Blood, The Sea Hawk, Charge of the Light Brigade, The Private Lives of Elizabeth and Essex, The Sea Wolf, Yankee Doodle Dandy, Mildred Pierce and of course Casablanca. His style was suited to a more modern sensibility
incorporating quick cuts, fluid non-static cameras and amazing interplay with light and shadow, often letting silhouettes (the most famous as Rick goes to his safe in Casablanca) tell the story. And yet for reasons that elude me he is not revered by cinephiles or auteurists and is barely known (if at all) to the mainstream moviegoer. One of the guidelines laid down for the auteurists by Andrew Sarris in his famous essay Notes on the Autuer Theory was in fact that it was preferable for the director to be working within the studio system. Since he was given whatever assignments came his way his style would be more easily discernible as he "rebelled" against his material. Curtiz worked with the studios. And he had style. Friends and family can attest to several occasions where a Curtiz movie unknown to me would be on Turner Classic Movies and yet it would seem instantly familiar. The first was The Kennel Murder Case, a Philo Vance mystery with William Powell made in 1933. As we came in half-way through and watched I was impressed by the quick cuts and rapid pacing. I remarked how modern it felt and how it seemed like the kind of touch Michael Curtiz brought to his movies. Sure enough, once it ended Robert Osborne came on and started talking about Curtiz. I wasn't surprised. Now I'd have to say if you can watch a movie unknown to you and guess the director within minutes that director is an auteur. But try getting a table at 21 using his name. Good luck.
Another example was the first time I saw Doctor X. I came into it late and, again, had no idea it was a Curtiz film but kept remarking how amazing the pacing was for a 1932 film. That combined with the fact that it is in color led me to state that it could run well even today. Again, when it ended I discovered it was a Curtiz production. His style was noted even back in the early forties by such critical luminaries as James Agee who was not enthralled by it. Agee felt the camera movement and fast pacing was too distracting to the story. As he said in his review of Casablanca, "Mr. Curtiz still has the twenties director's correct feeling that everything, including the camera, should move, but the camera should move for purposes other than those of a nautch-dancer." (What would Agee have thought of The Bourne Ultimatum?) He finally came around to Casablanca, but begrudgingly, stating, "It is obviously an improvement on one of the world's worst plays, but not such an improvement that that is obvious." And so it seems to me we have the case of a director using a style distinctly out of touch with the times surrounding him and thus, the disapproval. Today Curtiz' films do not seem too quickly paced to be distracting with too much camera movement reminding one of a nautch-dancer, and I'm not sure why Agee considered that a put down in the first place. Today his films are perfectly paced to hold the attention of the modern viewer while providing enough story and character study to satisfy the demands of the classic movie connoisseur.
For this Unseen Images I'm focusing on Doctor X because 1) It's October and 2) It's not a Curtiz film many people know about.
The plot involves a series of murders involving cannibalism and the investigation into them by Dr. Xavier (Lionel Atwill) of the title, who may be the killer himself. All the murders take place when it is a full moon so there is also much discussion of the effects of lunar rays. Investigating as well is a reporter, Lee Taylor (Lee Tracy) who takes to Xavier's daughter Joan, well-played by Fay Wray.
The plot is twisted and contorted at times and doesn't have the simplicity or straightforwardness of story to make it a classic along with Frankenstein, Dracula or the later Wolfman which may account for it's obscurity today. But it has a fantastic climax, with the Moonlight Killer, covered in synthetic skin looking as creepy today as it must have then (make-up done by Max Factor), ready to experiment on Fay Wray with the three scientists who could help chained to chairs, forced to watch. It's ridiculous of course to the end but one does not seek out a film like Doctor X in the hopes of finding Ibsen in the details. One seeks it out for a thrill, and a thrill is what it delivers.
At a time when most films had static cameras and moved at a lethargic pace due to the still present learning curve with sound, Doctor X is a snappy, energetic film with enough camera 
movement and quick cuts to satisfy even the most jaded modern viewers. The scenes are filled with a menacing atmosphere, all the more impressive because it was not done in black and white, where atmosphere for a horror film's a lot easier to produce. And it is yet another tribute to the greatness of Michael Curtiz, who continues to languish in the realms of neglected directors along with other notable neglectees as William Wellman and Allan Dwan. Much of it probably has to do with Casablanca. Sometimes when you do a movie that big it takes over everything else in your career. It's as if someone said to Curtiz, "I've got good news and bad news. The good news is you've been assigned to direct Casablanca, which will become one of the most beloved films of all time. The bad news is you've been assigned to direct Casablanca, which will become one of the most beloved films of all time. Sorry Mike."
