Reviewed by Colin Jacobson (January 1, 2024)
Edgar Rice Burroughs first brought his Tarzan character to print in 1912. This property quickly hit the silver screen, with silent adaptations that began in 1918.
However, the role’s most enduring series arrived in 1932 with Tarzan, The Ape Man. This became the first effort with Johnny Weissmuller in the lead and led to 11 more Weissmuller-starring films through 1948.
James Parker (C. Aubrey Smith) runs a trading post in Africa, and his daughter Jane (Maureen O’Sullivan) comes from England to visit. Along with explorer partner Harry Holt (Neil Hamilton), the Parkers go on an expedition to find a fabled Elephant’s Graveyard, a supposed repository of valuable ivory.
Along the way, they encounter a mix of dangers, and a mysterious white man named Tarzan (Weissmuller) who lives with the apes. Tarzan abducts Jane, an action that launches an improbable relationship.
As during the Weissmuller years, Tarzan remains an evergreen property. Granted, the franchise’s depiction of Africans creates potential issues in the 21st century, but the character continues to get adaptations like 2016’s Legend of Tarzan.
The 1932 film opens with a disclaimer that warns viewers of its various “ethic, racial, gender and other stereotypes and biases”. This seems to relate to at least part of the reason Tarzan no longer occupies the same place in culture he did decades ago.
Oh, the character definitely can work within modern concepts, of course. The 2016 Legend and 1999’s Disney version managed to avoid the various cultural and social pitfalls that can seem borderline inherent to the property.
But still, given Tarzan’s “white man in deepest darkest Africa” concept, it practically begs to become offensive to modern eyes. To put it mildly, audiences of 90-plus years ago viewed these domains differently than we do now.
That said, Ape Man falls short of the racist horror show it could’ve become. The movie treats Africans more as quaint novelties or second-class servants than actual humans, though it does lean into “brutal savages” late in the film.
In any case, it doesn’t seem to go to the extremes that we find in some other work of the era. This means it lacks the over the top offensiveness I feared I’d find.
Unfortunately, the movie also fails to deliver much real excitement. Admittedly, some of this stems to the film’s age, as what passed for thrilling in 1932 struggles to hold up in 2023.
However, other work from the era remains gripping. For instance, 1933’s King Kong still delivers a wild ride.
Ape Man just seems stuck in mud too much of the time. It feels like the filmmakers expect the exotic settings and general themes to carry the day, so they don’t bother with much real action.
I won’t fault the movie’s effects. They don’t hold up well, but they sometimes seem ambitious for their era, so I give them credit.
Unfortunately, the ample use of rear projection makes it abundantly obvious that the film’s cast never set foot in Africa. Director WS Van Dyck previously directed 1931’s Trader Horn, which did shoot on that continent.
Ape Man recycles plenty of footage from that production in an attempt to convince viewers the film takes place in Africa. It doesn’t work, as the Trader Horn material sticks out like a sore thumb.
Perhaps these issues wouldn’t impact my viewing if I found more actual excitement or drama here. Again, I can’t deny that my “2023 eyes” likely make it more difficult to get into a movie from so long ago.
Though also as previously noted, I can find other 1930s movies that hold up swimmingly. Ape Man just feels slow and dated.