Horrorfest 31: The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1939)

After watching the silent Lon Chaney version of HUNCHBACK earlier this month, I read a bunch of stuff about how great the Charles Laughton version was, so I decided to give it a look.

The 1939 version, directed by William Dieterle and starring Charles Laughton as the Hunchback, is actually superior to the famous silent version with Lon Chaney. The story-tellers chose to cut some of the extraneous characters and plot lines and focus on the basic story of the Hunchback's love for the gypsy girl, Esmerelda (Maureen O'Hara).

But, the movie is opened up a little beyond the walls of the Notrde Dame cathedral as the writers chose to focus on some of the unique aspects of the period the film took place in -- Paris, in this film, straddles an era that is still coming out of the middle ages but hasn't quite embraced the modern world, either. There are not only clashes between the upper and lower classes in the city, but also between the promises of new technology (like the printing press) and the security of old spirituality (the church).

The portrayel of King Louis XI by Harry Davenport is particularly interesting as he's shown to be fairly progressive, for his time, but also naive. Davenport gives him a quirky personality and avoids the royal boredom of the previous film.

The chief villain and most vocal voice towards steering away from the modern age and holding onto medievalism as long as possible belongs to the judge, Frollo (Cedric Hardwicke). His own unrequited love and lust for the gypsy Esmerelda combines with his basic intolerance for change, and this adds up to a lot of destruction that could have been avoided.

His brother, the arch bishop, is portrayed by Walter Hampden as a pious and just man, but he's ineffectual. When he tries to save Esmerelda's life, the villagers, nobles and authorities just shrug and sentence her to death anyway. He also has a weakness when it comes to trying to protect his evil brother.

Charles Laughton's Hunchback, Quasimodo, is more effective than Chaney's. Yes, Chaney's was a masterpiece of makeup at the time, but Laughton brings childlike innocence, pathos and humanity to the character. He also has his frightening moments, but we get a lot more of a glimpse into who Quasimodo is as a person than we do in the previous version. The makeup is also slightly more realistic, re-creating somewhat true-to-life facial deformities rather than the monstrous face of Chaney.

Possibly thanks to the fact that this is a sound film, including an orchestral score and recordings of chants and bells from the real Notre Dame, the big dramatic moments of this movie are much more effective than the same scenes from the silent version. My favorite is when Quasimodo rescues Esmerelda from execution by swinging across the town square, scooping her up, and the swinging back up to the towers of the cathedral. There, he screams, "Sanctuary!" to the villagers below, then holds Esmerelda above his head and screams, "Sanctuary!" again. It's heartbreaking and heroic at the same time, and the music swells at just the right moment.

Another strength of the sound design of the film is the fact that it gives Quasimodo a voice. The character is deaf, so he doesn't talk often, but when he does it is effective, and Laughton finds the right voice, within the limitations of the makeup, to effectively communicate both the reservations of a shy soul with the excitement of a young man beginning to see other sides of life for the first time. His last line is a little over the top, but still heartbreaking.

The movie makes interesting, if simplistic, points about the power of the printing press and written word to bring a unified voice to an otherwise disorganized and chaotic public. You could draw a a parallel here to the power of the Internet as the King observes that the press is giving the common people the power to have their direct opinions heard by royalty without a filter. Frollo claims, "Public opinion is dangerous." The poet, Gringoire (Edmond O'Brien) sees the power of this new medium stop injustice, but the thief Clopin (Thomas Mitchell) thinks physical force is still the way to go for quick results. Additionally, there are interesting parallels drawn between the use of torture and humiliation and logical reasoning and compassion when it comes to communication between opposing sides of an argument.

The one strength this film has most in common with its predecessor is the magnificent sets. Once again, Notre Dame, the town square, and the village streets surrounding it, are re-created from scratch. There isn't a single shot that was made on location, but you can't tell. These sets look like the real thing and are wonders to behold.

As the movie came to a close, I thought about my decision to watch 31 horror flicks in 31 days, in honor of October, the month of Halloween. When I started, I thought I'd just watch all the horror DVDs I already had, of my favorite films -- revisit each of them and share my thoughts on why they're my favorites. But, as I got going, I got hooked on watching films I've never seen before, or only seen parts of, and only ended up reviewing a handful of my favorites. I think if I would have stuck to my original plan, I probably would have gotten bored and given up. Sure, I'd like to share my thoughts on why KING KONG is great and why I love the EVIL DEAD trilogy, but I think ultimately it was more fun to watch things I'd always wanted to see but never got around to, for whatever reason.

Also, I would have never seen crazy flicks like LIFEFORCE, otherwise. And it would suck to die without having seen LIFEFORCE.