Watched: 10/14/2025
Format: BluRay
Viewing: First
Director: William Dieterle
Back in the 1970's and early 1980's, we were coming out of a monster movie craze aimed at kids. I don't know how serious the craze was, but it did mean I wound up with a lot of monster movie books - but there was never a great criteria for what made a movie monster. You might see the Wolf Man listed, which made sense - he changes shape and attacks nice folks. And then you'd see The Phantom of the Opera, who is just a dude with an unfortunate condition and a penchant for sopranos, but did murder plenty of people. And then, like, Jaws. So, large animals.
Even as a kid I found the inclusion of The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1939) odd. He was just a guy with a physical condition, and he wasn't out slitting throats or anything. If his condition made him a monster, I had an elementary school guidance counselor who should have been far spookier and less of a great guy.
In short, this is a drama, not a horror movie. It would be like calling Mask a horror movie because it has make-up effects to change an actor's appearance. You live and learn.
Anyway, there is this 1939 version starring Charles Laughton and a very young Maureen O'Hara (she's like 18 here) and then there's the OG silent version starring Lon Chaney, which I've never seen, but I will take in soon. I've seen the Disney version on a 13" TV on VHS once, didn't like it much, and moved on with my life.
What struck me immediately upon this movie starting was... holy cats, this production set RKO back some serious coin. Costumes. Sets and extras like it's the high Hollywood days of Intolerance. I mean, Hunchback of Notre Dame shares a release year with Gone With the Wind, so I suppose it makes sense. 1939 was a big year in film and it seems that in the years before WWII Hollywood was feeling itself, and spectacle was to be had.
In today's terms, this looks like a movie I'd guess they spent $150 million plus.
But neat sets and FX doesn't mean it can't all go sideways, as we've seen time and time again, if the acting isn't good and your story is bunk. Fortunately, this is Charles Laughton in his post Mutiny on the Bounty high, playing Quasimodo as a half-mad but kindly soul.
 |
| this make-up is incredible |
Co-stars include Maureen O'Hara, a favorite here at The Signal Watch, in her first American role (she's Irish, natch), Thomas Mitchell (It's a Wonderful Life), and a very young Edmond O'Brien.
The plot maybe has echoes that remind you of where you are in history at any given time, and how it rhymes.
The King of France, King Louis XI, is interested in the enlightening ideas coming and the potential good of the printing press just brought to Paris, to share printed thought easily and cheaply with his subjects. His Chief Justice, Frollo, is a medievalist at heart, and sees the press as witchcraft. After all, if people have access to information, they're harder to control.
The gypsies* arrive in Paris for the Feast of Fools, only to be told they need a permit to enter the city - a new rule put in place. Esmerelda (O'Hara) slips into the city without a permit to go make some coin as a dancer. She is spotted by Phoebus, a royal - who notices she is Maureen O'Hara, as well as Clopin, a sort of proto-beatnik poet. Also, Frollo. Such is the power of Maureen O'Hara.
The plot of the film is so complex, it would be a TL;DR post based just on a plot synopsis, and at two hours, is a very dense movie with plenty to say about why some want to keep the public ignorant and powerless, about those put in charge of justice, about how we treat immigrants and who we blame for crimes we've committed, and the sin in our own hearts. There's probably a very good college paper to be written about Frollo's subversion of his lust for a "foreigner" until it bubbles over into jealous murder and his willingness to see Esmerelda killed rather than deal with his lust and own sin.
There's also an undercurrent in the film that must have echoed loudly in 1939 if you were reading headlines. Or, you know, now. But I'm not sure that penning persuasive letters to leaders is quite the win that the movie wants to sell.
I was shocked at Laughton's portrayal of Quasimodo and how he built that character. Deaf, child-like, half-mad, and still sympathetic and tragic, buffeted by the wills of others, but still wanting to be his own man... and his own love for Esmerelda which he knows can't be in sharp contrast to the other men around her. But it's a deeply nuanced performance, just watching him in his first scenes during the Feast of Fools where he accepts the kingship - as attention or acceptance of any kind is a delight, to his decision to rescue Esmerelda... amazing.
The movie is full of stunning sequences, using the massive set to advantage. Apparently O'Hara really was lifted over a stuntman's head for the "Sanctuary!" sequence, which means she really was several stories over the ground while hundreds of people swarmed the base of the tower set.
Anyway, it's a gorgeous movie, and I'm so glad I finally watched it.
*I am aware that the term gypsy is now considered verboten, and the modern term is Romani or Traveller, but I'm sticking with the outdated term for clarity
some day I am going to write about how Maureen O'Hara being foxy as hell got me to watch classic movies
No comments:
Post a Comment