As we look back on The Face of Fu Manchu nearly six decades later, it’s clear that this 1965 film is as notorious for its casting choices as it is for launching a series of five films. Directed by Don Sharp, the movie aimed to revive Sax Rohmer’s infamous villain for a new generation of audiences, but in doing so, it sparked controversy that continues to overshadow its legacy. While the film found enough appeal to spawn sequels, it’s difficult to ignore the problematic aspects that mar what could have been an otherwise entertaining piece of 1960s pulp cinema.

The most glaring issue with The Face of Fu Manchu is the casting of Christopher Lee in the titular role. A towering figure in horror cinema, Lee was no stranger to playing villains, but his portrayal of the Chinese supervillain Fu Manchu, complete with heavy makeup to alter his appearance, is uncomfortable to watch through a modern lens. This casting choice, emblematic of the era’s widespread use of white actors in Asian roles, reflects the deep-seated racial insensitivity of the time. While Lee brings his usual gravitas to the role, the character is a caricature, reinforcing harmful stereotypes that were already outdated even in the 1960s.

Despite the controversy, The Face of Fu Manchu had a certain appeal that resonated with audiences, enough to justify the production of four sequels. The film taps into the exoticism and adventure that characterized many of the pulp stories of the early 20th century. Fu Manchu, with his elaborate schemes for world domination, is a villain in the classic sense—ruthless, cunning, and larger-than-life. The film’s blend of espionage, action, and a dash of horror provided a formula that, for all its flaws, had a certain charm for audiences craving escapism during the Cold War era.

Don Sharp’s direction brings a sense of urgency to the proceedings, with some well-executed action sequences and a brisk pace that keeps the plot moving. The film’s production values are also solid, with atmospheric settings and competent cinematography that help create a mood of suspense and intrigue. There’s an undeniable style to the film that, while dated, still holds a certain appeal for fans of mid-century genre cinema.

The supporting cast, featuring Nigel Green as Fu Manchu’s nemesis, Nayland Smith, and Joachim Fuchsberger as the intrepid Carl Jansen, provides capable performances, though they are often overshadowed by Lee’s towering presence. Green, in particular, delivers a stiff but serviceable portrayal of the stalwart British hero, embodying the colonial attitudes that are as much a part of the film’s DNA as its controversial casting.

However, the film’s flaws extend beyond its casting choices. The plot, while serviceable, is fairly formulaic, relying on familiar tropes and set pieces that become repetitive over the course of the series. The character of Fu Manchu himself, while menacing, lacks the depth or complexity to make him a truly compelling villain, reducing him to a stock figure of evil rather than a character with genuine motivations.

The Prognosis:

The Face of Fu Manchu is a film that’s difficult to recommend without reservations. Its appeal lies in its adventure and escapism, but this is undercut by the uncomfortable racial stereotypes that it perpetuates. The film’s legacy is further complicated by the fact that it served as the foundation for a series that, while commercially successful, did little to address or rectify the problematic elements introduced in this first installment.

As we reflect on The Face of Fu Manchu today, it serves as a reminder of how far cinema has come in terms of representation and how much further it still has to go. While the film may have found an audience in its time, its outdated attitudes and controversial casting leave it as a relic of an era best remembered as a lesson rather than a triumph of the genre.

• Saul Muerte