Tags:
Film: The Hunchback of Notre Dame
Year: 1923
Director: Wallace Worsley
Writer: Perley Poore Sheehan
Starring: Lon Chaney, Patsy Ruth Miller and Norman Kerry
Review:
This was a film that I checked out right after college. I was trying to watch the origins of the horror genre and this was on my list. I will admit, I didn’t necessarily care for it, but after this second viewing, I definitely have come up on my thoughts. I must give props to star Lon Chaney in this opening before getting in this. I’ve now given it another watch as part of my Traverse through the Threes.
Synopsis: in fifteenth century Paris, the brother of the archdeacon plots with the gypsy king to foment a peasant revolt. Meanwhile, a freakish hunchback falls in love with the gypsy queen.
We start this in the capital city of Paris. There is a festival going on outside of the Notre Dame cathedral where the peasants are enjoying themselves. Their king, Louis XI (Tully Marshall), doesn’t like it as it can breed rebellion. Watching over all of this is Quasimodo (Lon Chaney). He is bitter as people are mean to him. He is deformed, partially blind as well as deaf. He is also the bell ringer for Notre Dame cathedral. Living in the church with him is Don Claudio (Nigel De Brulier), the archdeacon. Also, there is his brother Jehan (Brandon Hurst) who isn’t as good. He’s deals in worldly pleasures.
Watching over the festival is the beggar king, Clopin (Ernest Torrence). He is the adopted father of the beautiful gypsy, Esmeralda (Patsy Ruth Miller). She comes out to earn money by dancing. This catches the eye of Quasimodo as well as the new head of the guards, Phoebus de Chateaupers (Norman Kerry) and Jehan. It should be pointed out that Phoebus is to marry a wealthy daughter, but is entranced by the beauty of Esmeralda.
Jehan comes up with the plan to use Quasimodo to kidnap Esmeralda and it is thwarted by Phoebus. This sparks a relationship between the two. Esmeralda does show mercy to Quasimodo though. Things take quite the turn though when Phoebus is attacked by someone while he’s with Esmeralda. She becomes the prime suspect and is sentenced to death. This might be exactly what Jehan needs to put his plans into motion. Quasimodo wants to save this woman who showed him kindness and the sentiments of the people might boil over as well.
That should give a gist of what we’re getting as well as introducing the characters. The older that I get the more I can respect films like this. This was actually the first iteration of this story I had seen, but now revisiting this, I’ve seen different takes on this story from different eras. I have to commend writer Victor Hugo for the story he has here. It is one that is still socially relevant today.
The first one that I want to explore is classism. Louis XI is king so whatever he says goes. The working class and the poor of this city are dangerously close to rebelling and they have Clopin to lead them. The problem becomes the guard are better armed and trained, but the people have the numbers. This is something that we don’t necessarily see today, but we are seeing the working class wanting more than what the wealthy are tossing down currently. There are shades of the French revolution here.
Something else this does different than others is that Don Claudio and Jehan are separated. I don’t know if that is how it is in the novel or not. For me, I miss that we don’t really get the corrupt religious leader. Claudio is actually good here and he helps Esmeralda when she needs sanctuary. He also treats Quasimodo with respect, but I do think that this loses something that ones later have. I’m also a fan of exploring the corruption of power which miss a bit here.
There’s then the issue of toxic masculinity. I find this interesting that this film came out in 1923 and it is still an issue today. Phoebus isn’t as much a womanizer as he is in other iterations. It makes me wonder if there could be some kind of censorship to alter that here. Jehan on the other hand feels like she should love him for things that he does. He doesn’t seem to think that she should be able to decide. With the time this is set, women really didn’t have rights so I get it. Oddly enough though, I know people who still think this way.
The last thing to cover would be Quasimodo. This version has Chaney playing him extremely bitter. I don’t blame him there, because due to his appearance he is treated horrible. It does make it interesting though what Esmeralda does at first, but then comes around, seeing the error of her ways. That little bit of kindness went a long away for someone who isn’t used to it.
I want to shift to the pacing here next. I do think this film is a bit long. What I think happened is that since this is so early in cinema, they really just took the book and made the movie. I think the re-imaginings use creative ways of combining characters. My issue is that it is too long. The film comes in at about 100 minutes. I think trimming 10 to 15 minutes would make this flow much better. I still like the characters and there are some underlying themes that work. The ending is good for what we get as well. I also have to shout out that the siege scene here is actually used in films that I saw growing up and that made me laugh.
Next to the acting, which I would have to say is good for the era. Chaney I’ve already touched on. I think he did his own make-up from what I remember reading about him. I think he does so well in these silent films where it is body language and what not. He brings Quasimodo to life. It is such a tragic and misunderstood character. Miller was good looking for the period and I like her portrayal as Esmeralda. She is another tragic character. Kerry was fine as Phoebus, as was Brulier, Hurst and Torrence in their respective roles. I think the rest of the cast rounded out the film for what was needed.
For the effects, I can’t harp on a film this old. The technology wasn’t there yet. I will say I wasn’t the biggest fan of look of Quasimodo. I think it’s the right eye that at first didn’t look good, but later it got better for me. Seeing the setting of the film looked as real as did the costumes. The camera is stationary, but there are still some impressive shots so I’ll still give credit to the cinematography.
The last thing to cover would be the soundtrack. With movies this old, I don’t know if this is the intended score or not. I do think the music we get here works though. I’m more impressed when the film used sound effects to match what is happening on screen. I thought that makes it feel like something that came out after here for sure.
In conclusion, this film is a piece of history. I like what they did in bringing this novel to life, but I do think that they stuck to it a bit more than they should have. It is crazy to think there are some underlying themes here that are relevant even today and I dig that. This runs a bit long though and could be trimmed to run a bit tighter. The acting is good. There aren’t really a lot in the way of effects, but that is more of the period if anything. The cinematography was good. The soundtrack synced up here works especially with the sound effects thrown in. Overall, I would say that this is above average for me and worth a viewing if you can handle a silent film from the 1920’s.
My Rating: 7.5 out of 10