The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1939) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
115 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
7/10
"I'm about as shapeless as the man in the moon"
ackstasis21 February 2008
Warning: Spoilers
The general public responds to the grotesque with a curious mixture of shock, fascination and repulsion. In the 15th century, where society was too ignorant to understand the consequences of deformity, men like Quasimodo were shunned from the community, and considered evil influences – as we approach modern times, it seems that people have changed little, as depicted in David Lynch's heartbreaking 'The Elephant Man (1980).' Despite the proud, if misguided, belief that humans judge each other based on their intelligence and personality, our basic primal instinct often proves dominant. Just as many recoil in horror at the misshapen features of the unfortunate Quasimodo, an entire audience is left entranced by the beautiful dancing body of Esmeralda (Maureen O'Hara), momentarily forgetting that she is of the reviled gypsy faith. Victor Hugo's 1831 novel, "The Hunchback of Notre Dame," has long been a popular source for cinematic adaptations, and William Dieterle's 1939 version is often considered one of the best, featuring an incredibly heartfelt performance from Charles Laughton as the titular hunchback of Notre Dame cathedral.

When he initially published his novel, Hugo titled the story "Notre-Dame de Paris." He was subsequently dissatisfied with the English translation of the title, since it implied that the Quasimodo was the story's main character, when, in fact, he had originally intended it to be a celebration of the cathedral itself, an attempt to "preserve" the famed monument. This objective is certainly an admirable one, but, as far as Dieterle's film is concerned, it results in a somewhat uneven narrative. Gringoire (Edmond O'Brien) and Esmerelda certainly serve the story adequately enough, but our thoughts and sympathies are forever with the tragic Quasimodo, and any scene that doesn't feature him seems insignificant – perhaps further proof of our natural fascination towards the grotesque. Also playing major roles in the story are Frollo (Sir Cedric Hardwicke), Quasimodo's sinister mentor who falls in love and is tormented by rejection, and King Louis XI (Harry Davenport), the open-minded but rather naive French royal {a far cry from what history tells us of the real Louis XI}.

Though screenwriters Sonya Levien and Bruno Frank fashioned Victor Hugo's conclusion into what has been called a "happy ending," it nonetheless remains the most heartbreakingly tragic finale I've seen in a long while. Esmerelda may have been saved from hanging, but the true "hero" of the story is neglected and abandoned in the highest reaches of the cathedral. His final sentiment, expressing the desire to be made of stone, is delivered with incredible poignancy by Laughton, and speaks of a lifetime of unimaginable isolation and desolation. This final line stresses the terrible irony of Quasimodo's predicament: as a stone chimera, however gruesome, his artistry would be celebrated by thousands of admirers {as he briefly experienced early in the film, when a frenetic crowd informally crowned him "king"}. However, more importantly, being made of stone would simply bring an end to his unspeakable pain, to the incessant aching of a heart that desires a woman he could never, and will never, have for himself.
14 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Heartbreaking Novel
claudio_carvalho21 October 2011
In the end of Fifteenth Century, in the Feast of Fools in Paris, the deformed bell ringer Quasimodo (Charles Laughton) is elected the King of Fools. The gorgeous gypsy Esmeralda (Maureen O'Hara) does not have the necessary permit to stay in Paris and seeks sanctuary in the Notre Dame with the Archbishop of Paris. His brother, the Chief of Justice Frollo (Sir Cedric Hardwicke), has a repressed lust for the gypsy dancer and tries to force Esmeralda to go with him to the tower of the Cathedral. However she flees and Frollo orders Quasimodo to abduct the beautiful youngster.

Quasimodo catches her but she is rescued by Captain Phoebus (Alan Marshal) and feels a crush on him. Quasimodo is arrested and sentenced to be whipped in the square of Notre Dame. When he begs for water, Esmeralda is the only person that gives water to him. Meanwhile Esmeralda helps the poet Gringoire (Edmond O'Brien) that was going to be hanged by the King of the Beggars, accepting to marry Gringoire to save him from the gallows.

Esmeralda flirts with Captain Phoebus in a party and he is stabbed on his back by the jealous Frollo. Esmeralda takes the blame and is sentenced to the gallows. But Quasimodo rescues Esmeralda and brings her to the sanctuary of Notre Dame and expresses his love for the gypsy. Meanwhile a fight of classes between the nobles led by Frollo that want to hang Esmeralda, and the people, led by the beggars, gypsies and poets that want to protect the woman takes place.

"The Hunchback of Notre Dame" is one of the cruelest romances of the literature and cinema history in a dark age in France. The author of "Les Misérables", Victor Hugo, writes another heartbreaking novel, describing the fight of classes in the French society in the end of the Middle Ages. In this version of this sad tale of injustice, Charles Laughton is awesome with a memorable performance and Maureen O'Hara is very beautiful in the role of the seductive gypsy. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): "O Corcunda de Notre Dame" ("The Hunchback of Notre Dame")
26 out of 28 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
stellar performances from a great book
didi-515 March 2005
One of the great Hollywood films of 1939, this adaptation of Victor Hugo's novel is sumptuously put together, boasting a fine script, tight direction by German export William Dieterle, and a cast who fit their parts perfectly: Charles Laughton superb as the maligned Quasimodo; Maureen O'Hara in an early role as gypsy Esmeralda; Cedric Hardwicke as the pious Frollo; and Harry Davenport as the king, Louis XI.

The story is a version of Beauty and the Beast set within the confines of Notre Dame Cathedral and the dirt-strewn and prejudiced streets of Paris. Quasimodo, physically repulsive and deafened by the bells of the cathedral, nevertheless finds it in his childish heart to love the beautiful Esmeralda and to sacrifice his sanctuary for her. She however only has eyes for the dashing Gringoire (Edmond O'Brien) who she saves from the justice of the beggar thieves.

It is Laughton's performance that holds this film together - truly one of the greatest screen actors, capable of portraying pathos like no other. Contrast this film role with his Henry VIII or Captain Bligh and you begin to get an idea of his impressive range.
10 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The peak of art in Hollywood cinema
jeffbertucen@hotmail.com12 December 2002
A sweeping claim? Perhaps. But despite the presence in Hollywood over sixty subsequent years of Ford, Wyler, Kubrick, Coppola, Scorsese et al, The Hunchback of Notre Dame remains as fresh, as emotionally resonant and yes as powerfully artistic as the day it was made. What constitutes 'art' is of course a personal matter, just as the Breughel-like compositions of Hunchback might be as mystifying to someone whose favourite film is A Clockwork Orange (Lichtenstein?). But what makes Hunchback so satisfying as art is precisely that its makers didn't set out with art in mind. Dieterle and his co-creators embarked on the project with the aim of telling a great yarn, making it look authentic, and above all ENTERTAINING the audience. It is to this end that the Grand Guignol excesses of the novel were trimmed or altered, and the Hollywood bittersweet ending imposed. Audiences filed out with their Kleenex in hand having witnessed a three-ring circus of a movie, then went home to read the war-soaked newspapers.

Virtually every frame of this movie could be taken in isolation, made into a poster and hung on a wall. Examples include Gringoire cradling the dying Clopin as a rivulet of lead trickles past in the background, the voyeuristic eye of Quasimodo peering through fence palings at the dancing Esmeralda - I could go on and on. And pervading it all is the magnificent score of Alfred Newman, surely his finest ever.

Rather than sing its obvious praises, the film can simply speak for itself. As narrative, as character, as cinema craft, it is totally successful throughout. The Hunchback of Notre Dame is my favourite film of all time, bar none. Ten out of ten
95 out of 106 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Notre Dame's Celebrated Bell Ringer
bkoganbing30 August 2006
Though the French have done many versions of Victor Hugo's celebrated classic, this version starring Charles Laughton has certainly stood the test of time and is the best known and loved in the English speaking world.

Lon Chaney, Sr. did an acclaimed silent version of The Hunchback of Notre Dame and Laughton was following a great tradition. And he did it in the manner of Chaney, almost without dialog. Not that Hugo wrote too much dialog for Quasimodo in his story, but except for his time with Esmerelda in the tower after he rescues her, Laughton is almost speechless in the film. Of course his character in addition to being deformed is also deaf from the ringing of those cathedral bells.

Quasimodo born deformed as he was, was left as an orphan on the steps of the Notre Dame cathedral in medieval Paris. Raised in the sheltered atmosphere of the church, he derives some joy in his duties as the bell ringer in the tower. His mentor is the brother of the archbishop played by Cedric Hardwicke and the archbishop is Walter Hampden. Quasimodo's life is useful, but without love.

But Laughton is crushing out on Esmerelda the gypsy girl played by Maureen O'Hara in her American screen debut. Problem is that Hardwicke is also getting hot and bothered by her.

Hardwicke's role is the second best acted in the film next to Laughton's. He's a man with shall we say some issues. He's purportedly committed to the church and it's celibacy requirements. But Dr. Freud wasn't around back in the day of Louis XI to tell us about sex drives. Hardwicke's desires mean only one thing, Esmerelda has to have bewitched him. When he kills Alan Marshal who is also interested in Maureen and looks like he's about to round third so to speak, the blame goes on Maureen.

What I like about the story is how the lives of two very ordinary people, Quasimodo and Esmerelda, become the focal point for a whole lot of religious and political issues of the day. The church, the peasants, the just developing middle class, and the nobility all have an agenda as far as the Esmerelda murder case is going. The only agenda poor Quasimodo has is he's in love with her.

Maureen O'Hara who was a discovery of Charles Laughton back in the United Kingdom was pushed by Laughton for the role of Esmerelda and traveled with him to America to play the part. She was grateful to him ever afterwards for any career she had and can't praise him enough for getting RKO to sign her.

Harry Davenport probably plays the most benign Louis XI ever put on film. It sure is a far cry from Basil Rathbone in If I Were King or Robert Morley in Quentin Durward. He plays him like the kindly grandfather he usually plays on screen.

Thomas Mitchell as Clopin the king of beggars and Edmond O'Brien as Gringoire the poet are two other significant roles. O'Brien gets his first substantial role on screen in The Hunchback of Notre Dame and this was a banner year for Thomas Mitchell. In 1939 he was also in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, Gone With the Wind and Stagecoach for which he won Best Supporting Actor. He could have though for any one of these films.

When all is said and done though the film belongs to Charles Laughton who was the screen's best portrayer of tortured humanity. Even beneath all of Bud Westmore's grotesque make-up we can feel his anguish. He's not a stupid man Quasimodo, he knows how repulsive he is to most of the human race. He's childlike though, something like Peter Sellers in Being There, another character raised in a secluded atmosphere.

To see Charles Laughton at the top of his game in my humble opinion one has to see The Hunchback of Notre Dame.
58 out of 65 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
A remarkable achievement
brendangcarroll27 October 2013
Considering that RKO was not renowned for epic film making, the production mounted for this version of Victor Hugo's classic story is surprisingly elaborate and effective.

The Paris set is a beautiful creation and possibly the greatest work by Van Nest Polglase, who with the producer Pan Berman is chiefly remembered today for the elegant art-deco designs for the Astaire-Rogers musicals.

The centrepiece of this remarkable set is the replica of Notre Dame cathedral which was only built to 50% height of the original; the towers above were added as an optical effect by use of a hanging miniature in some shots and by incorporating a glass painting in long shots. It's very convincing.

Dieterle was the perfect choice to direct this story. A student (and later collaborator) of Max Reinhardt, he marshals the huge crowd scenes (no CGi here - those thousands of peasants are all real people) with aplomb and his mastery of expressionistic imagery informs every frame.

Alfred Newman brought an intelligence to the musical score rare in Hollywood. His on screen credit "Musical adaptation and original composition by" reflects his skillful combining of original renaissance choral music by Tomas Luis de Victoria with his own work. He also uses a stirring Hallelujah chorus by uncredited Austrian Jewish émigré Ernst Toch (in Hollywood to escape the Nazis) for the memorable scene where Quasimodo rescues Esmeralda, reprised at the film's closing sequence as the camera pulls back from Notre Dame.

It's a great pity that a better restoration cannot be achieved for this beautiful film than is currently available on DVD. While the source print is serviceable, it is often poorly defined and suffers from many scratches. Perhaps it is the only print now extant? I would also love to see the original trailer rather than the re-release version.

While some may wish Basil Rathbone could have been released from contract at Universal to play Frollo, I think Cedric Hardwicke was ideal casting. As for Laughton, this may well be his signature role and a masterly example of great acting with hardly any dialogue at all.

As Mr Sinatra once said - "You can wait around and hope - but you won't see the likes of this again"
17 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
The best of the myriad different film versions of a most excellent novel
llltdesq9 January 2001
The best of the many versions of The Hunchback of Notre Dame, for my money, is this one, although Lon Chaney's is a close second. Despite a Hollywood tendancy to change the novel's ending so as not to depress the cash customers (although, pray tell, if you're going to change the ending, why does no one ever see Quasimodo sailing off to Tahiti with the girl? Rule # 1: strong, handsome poets beat out disfigured cripples every time, even if they're heroes. This is more true in real life than in the movies. Take my word for this, I know from painful experience *sigh*)

Charles Laughton is exceptional and Maureen O'Hara would make any man swoon and is perfect for the part of Esmerelda. The support includes the usual suspects-Thomas Mitchell, Harry Davenport and many other familiar character actors. Strike up the band and start the parade. Thunderous applause. Most highly recommended.
31 out of 35 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
A small masterpiece, projecting love of the fantastic, the mystical, and the grotesque...
Nazi_Fighter_David20 August 2000
Warning: Spoilers
The Cathedral of Notre Dame in Paris is shrouded in romance, myth, mystery and intrigue... Throughout the ages, poets and writers have drawn inspiration from her splendor... Generations have found both wonder and terror in the gargoyles that appear menacingly from her thin structures...

Hailed by critics as the most important of French Romantic writers, Victor Hugo invented his own version of the historical novel, combining the local color and historical detail of Honoré de Balzac and the spiritual lecture of George Sand..

The film, set in 15th century medieval period, tells a moving story of a Gypsy girl Esmeralda who comes to Paris to intercede with the King Louis XI (Harry Davenport) for her people... While there, she earns her living as a dancer arising passion in the Chief Justice of Paris, Jean Frollo, a sinister priest, who discovers that she favors Captain Phoebus (Alan Marshal).

Frollo sends the deformed bell-ringer of Notre Dame Cathedral, Quasimodo, to kidnap her... Esmeralda is rescued by the captain of the guard who is later stabbed by Frollo with the blame being thrust on her...

Under torture, she confesses to the crime and is sentenced to be hung... But she is saved by the hunchback who attempts to shelter her in the cathedral...

Much of the rich atmosphere is concretely seen in this version: The persecution of Gypsies; the happy Festival of the Fools; the conclave of thieves and beggars in the Court of Miracles; the punishment of Quasimodo; the Cathedral and its role as the center of medieval Paris... The highest dramatic moment of the film comes when Clopin (Thomas Mitchell) calls upon his half-starved mob to attack the fortified cathedral and rescue Esmeralda...

Charles Laughton is cast as Quasimodo, Hugo's extremely disfigured man... Quasimodo is a monstrous 'King of Fools' with inner beauty, strength and nobility... He is deaf for the sound of the bells he loves... In this distorted body with ugly face, there is lot of humanity, kindness and gratitude...

Sir Cedric Hardwicke plays the privileged arch villain Jean Frollo, who controls medieval France... He is an ambitious priest who resists the force of political change against the church... He is a man with emotion and passion, blinded by a false light, obsessed, confused and tormented by a lustful desire...

Maureen O'Hara plays the enchanting Esmeralda, a young naive Gypsy dancer, innocent and pure...

Edmond O'Brien (in his film debut) plays an impertinent dreamer who arouses laughter and amusement with his adventures in the Court of Miracles...

Harry Davenport plays a fascinated King, happy to live in an age of great beginnings, determined to take his bath twice a year...

William Dieterle's film is a small masterpiece, projecting deep feeling for the human soul, love of the fantastic, the mystical and the grotesque...
42 out of 50 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Strong retelling of a much-loved classic
Leofwine_draca10 December 2015
For many viewers, this 1939 version of the classic Victor Hugo novel is the definitive retelling of the story. It's the one that stars an excellent Charles Laughton in the titular role, playing the deformed hunchback antihero who ends up proving his mettle against the corrupt local justice. It's not just Laughton's make-up job which is legendary: his performance is excellent too, really investing the audience in his sympathetic character.

THE HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME tells a fast-paced and engaging tale of life in 15th century Paris. A huge tableau of characters are assembled, some of them lovable, some of them hissably evil. Most notable of all is the recently-deceased Maureen O'Hara who shines as the innocent gypsy girl Esmerelda, drawn into becoming a pawn shared between the forces of good and evil through no fault of her own.

This RKO picture boasts exemplary production values and some excellent sets and scenery. Sir Cedric Hardwicke memorably chews the scenery as the black-hearted villain of the piece, but he gives just one of many strong performances here. It's a roller-coaster ride of love, hate, adventure, murder, and madness, all with a tragic heart, a sort of Middle Ages version of THE ELEPHANT MAN if you will.
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
One of the best Hollywood movies ever
galensaysyes7 February 2003
This was my favorite movie as a kid, from the first time I saw it on TV in the third grade. The look and the atmosphere of it have lodged ineradicably in a corner of my mind ever since, and the rescue of Esmeralda from the gibbet was and probably still is my favorite scene in a Hollywood movie. I never got to see the movie theatrically until a few years ago, when Disney hosted a showing as an excuse to preview clips of its animated version (which is based on this movie more than on the novel). The movie probably played as strongly then as it had fifty years earlier, and I have no doubt it will play the same in another fifty years. Seeing it with an audience made me realize for the first time that it is Sir Cedric Hardwicke's movie, rather than Laughton's. He dominates the story, and commands the screen whenever he appears. Since the Hays Office prohibited showing a lubricious priest, the writers did something clever: they changed the character into Javert from Hugo's "Les Miserables," here promoted to chief prosecutor, and a hypocritically high-minded celibate: as Esmeralda puts it, he seems like a priest without being one. Hardwicke's performance is superbly subtle, and his character must be one of the most intimately despicable movie villains of all time. Laughton is terrific. too; his cadences on lines like "She gave me a drink of water" are classic. (When Mandy Patinkin played the part, he himself admitted that he was simply replaying Laughton's score and hoping he'd be able to hit all the notes.) As for Maureen O'Hara, if I came across a gypsy dancer like her I'd be moved to swing into the square and rescue her myself. And how can anyone not like Thomas Mitchell's beggar king? The only substantial fault in the playing, I think, is Harry Davenport's characterization of Louis XI, which is funny but more broadly written and played than what surrounds it.

Strangely, although this is more a horror film than the other versions of the novel and contains many frightening scenes, I never thought of it as belonging to that genre and I still don't. It's much more than that. I knew someone who called it Hollywood's finest hour; he can't have been far wrong.
23 out of 27 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Saved by the Bell... ringer...
ElMaruecan8220 December 2021
I confess I haven't read Victor Hugo's "Notre Dame de Paris", which shouldn't qualify me as the best judge on the film because at least the makers did read it, but I guess my reaction is of a spectator who got the general idea about the themes and wanted to see them expressed through the magic of the camera. If the film could render the majesty of the cathedral's architecture (almost a century on the making), the destiny of a woman who inspired humanity within the 'beast' or inhumanity within the priest, and the whole subtext about the rising modern age, it could have been a triumph. Well, a failure, it's certainly not. Still...

It is very fitting that "The Hunchback of Notre-Dame" was released in the very year that changed the face of Europe for a much dramatic worse. The original story took place at the cusp of two historical ages, right after the medieval time where France was slowly recovering from centuries during which the people, mostly peasants, were kept at the mercy of plagues, wars and feudal rulers, and the time of the printing press and a few years before Columbus' discoveries. Renaissance was still in its infancy and the triumphant bells of Notre Dame resonated in the hearts of the population, more than any pamphlet produced by Guttenberg's little marvel...

And so while I was watching William Dieterle's film, I could get those 'end of an era' vibes as Old Europe was slowly surrendering to the ominous clicking boots of fascism, and during the climactic sequence where Quasimodo saves Esmeralda from execution and ask the people to wake up and cries "Sanctuary", it was one of these moments where a film makes one with its own context and become not much a product but a reflection of its time. For that moment only, I could get the same thrills running down my body like Chaplin delivering his speech in "The Great Dictator".

That said, it is also problematic that the film was released in what is arguably the best year of cinema, and in such a glorious company as movies like "The Wizard of Oz" or "Gone With the Wind" even a film that offer so beautiful and convincing set designs can suffer by comparison. The problem with "The Hunchback of Notre Dame" is that for all its effort to recreate the mood and the cathedral, its treatment of the story feels more uncertain and the characterization less rounded. And I guess the Hays Code had a lot to do with it because it weakened the character who makes or breaks a film.

The film's first pitfall is in the portrayal of Frollo, the archetypal devil in religious clothing entangled in a forbidden love. It is not that Cedric Hardwicke doesn't deliver a solid performance but he's too limited by a Code that couldn't allow a priest to be downright evil no matter how 'understandable' his reasons were. Therefore the film relies on a duality trick that brings a nice character on the story, the Archdeacon Claude Frollo (Walter Hampden) and his brother Jehann (Hardwicke), a villain by circumstances. Harry Davenport is Louis XI, the benevolent and open-minded king.

Now, "Notre Dame" has always been to me the tragedy of a man who was considered a monster by birth and had the misfortune to fall in love with a beautiful woman. While I would never dismiss the power of Charles Laughton's performance as Quasimodo, there are a few words to say. Reading trivia on how the deformity of Laughton was treated as a marketing trick (face hidden in the trailer) that was used even in the "Mask" film of 1985, I was less disappointed by Laughton's performance but on how so much efforts were put in uglying him (and it's quite an excellent job)- than the latitude given to him to raise above his ugliness.

The face of Quasimodo is so unique that it has an unexpected capability to distract you from the story, you don't see the character suffering, but you see how exhausting it must have been for Laughton to undergo such a transformation. The makeup is so good it steals out the depth of the character who's not given enough screentime to raise beyond his status as the local 'curiosity'. Don't get me wrong, he's got some great emotional moments but quite diluted in the narrative chaos.

Now Maureen O'Hara is one of my favorite Golden Age actresses, and that she doesn't look gypsy matters less than she doesn't have the street-smarts of a Bohemian vagrant who wouldn't be that terrorized by a face such as Quasimodo, nor fall in love with a second-rate Don Juan like Alan Marshal as Phoebius, nor being a damsel-in-distress in the arms of Cedric Hardwicke, not the fiery gal that stood tall against the Duke himself. She looks great on the screen though, so great there's a certain violence in making Quasimodo witness her going with Gringoire, of all the men. That might have hurt more than the whipping.

I'm a fan of Edmund O'Brien but his Gringoire seems rather misplaced, occupying the very screen-time that might have deepened Quasimodo or at the very least Phoebius. Thomas Mitchell does a fair job as Clopin, the King of the Miracles Court.

There's so many things worthy of the best production and blocksbusters that one wouldn't not consider the film as great entertainment but it tries so much to be an epic and a love story à la 'Beauty and the Beast' that it lacked one essential thing: a focus. I agree about a reviewer who commented that the crowds don't seem to act with consistency... the irony of the film is that while it denounces the regal stranglehold on the people, their fluctuating reactions toward 'Quasimodo' would make you wonder if it the cure wasn't worse than the evil...
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Why Was I Not Made of Stone, like thee?
thinker16919 June 2007
From the upper shelf wherein reside all classic novels, comes this tortured tale of the famed disfigured man from Notre Dame. Although this story has been a staple of many generations, it returns to the silver screen ever so often to test the talents of up and coming Hollywood stars. Despite the fact that many notable actors have attempted the role, few do so adequately. Among the actors who have made the part memorable, the original challenge was Lon Chaney's. Another was Anthony Quinn, followed by Anthony Hopkins, and even Mandy Patinkin tried the twisted body. But in my opinion, the greatest performance of The Hunchback of Notre Dame, was this one, personified by Charles Laughton. From the moment the audience and our hero meet, it's a test of endurance. Can we bare to look upon the ugly, misshapen-ed man, who's only crime was being born half made, hence the term "Quasi", or will we draw back in fear as people did in his century? The story bears repeating as the tale of a horribly disfigured child, born so repulsive, that Parisians left him to die on the steps of Notre Dame. Saved, adopted and trained as a bell-ringer, by the deeply troubled, but powerful Father Frollo (Sir Cedric Hardwicke), he becomes a on-going joke around Paris, to all concerned except Frollo. The bells made him deaf, but that does not stop him from falling in love with a beautiful Gypsy girl named Esmerald. (Maureen O'Hara) She unfortunately is in love with Phobeus, a handsome soldier of the king. However it is Gringoire (Edmond O'Brien) a poet and playwright who leads the group of admirers which includes Father Frollo, to see which one will end up possessing the girl, in a time when superstition possessed most of Europe. Unlikely as it sounds it's the bell-ringer who draws close first. An excellent adaptation of his story, Victor Hugo would have enjoyed this version best. *****
7 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Offers A Good Reflection On The Conditions Of 16th Century Paris
sddavis6311 July 2015
Some years ago I saw the silent version of this story, starring Lon Chaney, Sr. in the title role of Quasimodo, and was completely taken with it, although I have to confess to not being particularly familiar with Victor Hugo's novel. This, of course, has a very different feel than a silent movie would have, and for sheer entertainment value I have to say that I preferred the 1923 version more. Having said that, I wouldn't at all want to suggest that this is anything other than a very good movie. Probably because of voice, it offers greater reflection on a variety of issues that were present in the 1923 movie (and, presumably, in the novel) but were less fleshed out just because of the medium.

From the very beginning we're introduced to racism (or, at least, nationalism) as it's revealed that gypsies have been forbidden to enter Paris without formal permission. Some do make it in, of course, including Esmeralda (played by Maureen O'Brien), who becomes the main engine who moves the story forward, as she's either pursued or admired by a variety of men, including the Hunchback. There's the issue of sanctuary introduced, as both Esmeralda and the Hunchback enjoy the protection of the church. How many limits can be placed on the concept of "sanctuary" - and, if any limits at all are placed on it, is there really a concept of sanctuary? There's the obvious reflection on class struggles in 16th century Paris, as the nobility, the townspeople and the beggars find themselves clashing - ironically in the case of the latter two, who were really fighting for the same thing: the enforcement of sanctuary, which also gives us an introduction to the problem of a mob mentality, as people begin to be fighting for the sake of fighting. What's the role of the King (Louis XI, played by Harry Davenport) - a thought that came to me as the nobility prepared a document to "force" the King to have Esmeralda executed? Do they consider themselves above the King? 16th century France was not a constitutional monarchy like, say, 21st century Britain. If the King could be so easily controlled by the nobility then what was the purpose of having a King? And, of course, in the depiction of the relationships between Esmeralda and her various interested suitors, there are a variety of takes on love and what it means. As I said, most of this was present in the 1923 version, but could be fleshed out more fully in a "talkie."

I enjoyed Charles Laughton's performance as Quasimodo. For me, Laughton's signature performance will continue to be Captain Bligh from 1935's "Mutiny on the Bounty" but he handled this role well, and made Quasimodo a sympathetic character - as he must be if the story is going to work. It was a limited role in terms of dialogue, but he captured it well - perhaps not quite the equal of Chaney's '23 performance, but quite good. His makeup was effective, and I understand that Laughton took the role so seriously that he actually went to great lengths to experience some of Quasimodo's pain as scenes were being shot. O'Hara (who I know primarily from 1947's "Miracle On 34th Street") also handled the role of Esmeralda quite well. Davenport's take on Louis XI was interesting - not how I would have expected the King to be portrayed. Much gentler, kinder and more concerned with the lower classes than I think would have been realistic. The movie also featured Thomas Mitchell as Clopin (not as effective as Ernest Torrence in 1923) and Cedric Hardwicke as Frollo, who offered a dark and almost creepy take on Frollo.

Deeper and more reflective than the silent version, I still felt that it fell short of that version in entertainment value, but it's very good nonetheless. (7/10)
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
For Ham the Bell Tolls
DrMMGilchrist5 November 2009
Warning: Spoilers
As an adaptation of Victor Hugo's 'Notre Dame de Paris', William Dieterle's 1939 film is itself malformed, a picturesque travesty twisted out of shape by the demands of the Hays Office. It is the chief source of the 1996 Disney animation of the same title, inheriting elements from Wallace Worsley's 1923 silent adaptation. *Some spoilers follow, as I wish to compare the book and the film, and refer to other film versions.*

'Notre Dame de Paris' is a mediæval tragedy, dominated by Claude Frollo, the young Archdeacon unhinged by the conflict between his sexuality and his vows of celibacy. The Hays Code, which superseded the NAMPI 'Thirteen Points', forbade negative, controversial or disrespectful depictions of clergymen. As a result, this adaptation follows Worsley's 1923 film in rearranging the Frollo brothers to placate the Hays Office and the Catholic Legion of Decency. Claude Frollo (Walter Hampden) remains Archdeacon, but is a kindly old fellow, not the tormented young genius of the book. Instead, book-Claude's passion for Esméralda is transferred to his secular brother, Jehan (Cedric Hardwicke) – a spoilt teenage student and party-animal in the novel, but here as a sexually repressed, politically repressive middle-aged judge and adviser to Louis XI. (To anyone who knows the book, the linkage of Jehan with repression of *any* kind is hilarious…!) These portrayals directly influenced the 1996 Disney animation: indeed, Disney's 'Minister Claude Frollo' caricatures Hardwicke's chiselled features and chaperon. Hardwicke conveys film-Jehan's not-all-that-suppressed desires – in one scene in Notre Dame, he is clearly ogling Esméralda's cleavage while she is speaking to him (a rare trace of book-Jehan!) – but, as he is not under vows, there is no powerful plot-reason for him to deny them in the first place. (Amusingly, Hampden and Hardwicke later returned to 15C Paris as Louis XI and Tristan L'Hermite in 'The Vagabond King' (1956).)

Without the psychological conflict between religious vows and human passions, the core plot loses its raison d'être. This adaptation therefore shoehorns in a 'political' conflict, making film-Jehan a persecutor of gypsies and a bitter opponent of intellectual freedom, as symbolised by the printing press, which he destroys. This seems to me a wilful misreading of book-Claude's pronouncement, "Ceci tuera celà". Hugo extrapolates how the printed word will kill the 'stone books' of the cathedrals; literature will supersede architecture as an art; freedom of thought will triumph over ecclesiastical domination. In the novel, Claude seems to accept the inevitability of this, ambivalently but calmly. He is a man on the cusp of the Renaissance: a scientist and polymath, as well as a priest, who can see equally the dangers and the opportunities ahead. To make his screen incarnation (under whatever name) a violent opponent of the new learning, while presenting Louis XI as its champion, is a gross distortion. (This was taken to an even more ridiculous extreme in the 1997 US TV version, with Richard Harris's elderly Dom Claude a reactionary fanatic leading the smashing of printing presses, and Mandy Patinkin's Quasimodo a secret intellectual and author!) Only Delannoy's 1956 film, starring Alain Cuny as Claude, has made much of his alchemy. Pierre Gringoire (Edmond O'Brien) is transformed anachronistically from the amiable playwright and goat-fancier of the novel into a romantic young rebel, a radical satirist and political pamphleteer, who incurs film-Jehan's displeasure. He would fit more comfortably among the revolutionary students in 'Les Misérables'.

As in 1923, the use of the inaccurate popular English title again promotes the supporting character of Quasimodo to greater prominence. Charles Laughton's Quasimodo is thick-sliced Yorkshire ham. He is lugubrious and self-pitying, more like an elderly man than the young one the script acknowledges him to be during his trial. His spinal curve is overdone: a boy as severely deformed as this would have been unlikely to survive in 15C, and despite his deformity, Hugo's Quasimodo is notably agile. Anthony Quinn's 1956 portrayal was far more credible and vital. Laughton was, I think, simply unlucky with his casting in Hugo adaptations: in the Hays Code-pleasing bowdlerisation of 'Les Misérables', he had played Javert, when he would have been better as Jean Valjean (his physical bulk and presence are reminiscent of Harry Baur, the definitive film-Valjean), a role given instead to matinée idol Frederic March.

Maureen O'Hara makes a spirited and beautiful Esméralda, appropriately still in her teens, but nevertheless seems too intelligent and streetwise to have fallen for the duplicitous and caddish Phœbus (Alan Marshal). (Book-Esméralda is alarmingly gullible, given that she has been raised among thieves and cut-throats.) In this version, he is really killed, which weakens the story. Part of the horror of Esméralda's plight in the book is that he recovers from his wound, but refuses to clear her name or lift a finger to help her in any way – while she remains infatuated, precipitating the final tragedy by calling his name at the least opportune moment possible. Again, the Hays Code interfered in depicting injustice: individual officials could be depicted as wicked or corrupt, but the rule of law and authority itself must be upheld. Hence the film depicts the king as essentially benevolent, but badly advised by the hypocritical Jehan, who persecutes Esméralda for spurning his advances.

There is excellent work from the supporting cast, notably Thomas Mitchell as a wily Clopin Trouillefou, and the production values are good. I wonder whether the set of old Paris was the same one used for the 1923 silent version? The happy ending is a final bowdlerisation, far less powerful than that of the novel: of the cinema versions, only Delannoy's 1956 film has taken us into the charnel-house at Montfaucon. Pierre gets the girl, as well as the goat, and Quasimodo gazes down wistfully as they go off together. Perhaps this time, *he* should have run off with Djali as a consolation prize?
16 out of 28 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I wish Hugo could have seen it.
dbdumonteil14 June 2002
The ending differs from Hugo's novel,but I guess it was necessary to bestow on the audiences a de rigueur happy end when the world situation was getting worse and worse.It' s also dubious that king Louis XI -who died in 1483- might have been aware of Christophe Colomb's plans ,because the latter only informed the king of Portugal-who refused to put up the money for his expedition- in ...1484!

These are minor squabbles.Because this movie is definitely the finest version of Hugo's classic ,much superior to the French one ,directed by Jean Delannoy(1956) with Anthony Quinn and Gina Lollobrigida.Dieterle's work is a feast for the eyes with numerous classic scenes ,very clever dialogue,superlative performances and complete mastery of the camera.

The opening-Louis XI visiting a printing house-sums up the turning of history:Gutenberg's invention will allow the knowledge and as the King watches the cathedrals ,he makes us feel that these books of stone are fast becoming a thing of the past.The Middle Ages are coming to an end,but a lot of people ,particularly the clergy do not want to lose the power they have on the populace.When Frollo sentences Esmeralda to death,because of his sexual desire,he puts the blame on the devil.He's a man of the past,diametrically opposite to Gringoire,who epitomizes modernity,and who understands the power of the pamphlet which the printing increases tenfold.

Charles Laughton is by far the best Quasimodo that can be seen on a screen:he's so extraordinary that he almost turns the happy end into a tragedy!He gets good support from a moving and extremely beautiful O'Hara as Esmeralda and from Harwicke as Frollo.

Peaks:the fools day,the cour des miracles -maybe showing some influence by Browning's "freaks"-,all the scenes in the cathedral.Dieterle is on par with the most demanding directors all along his movie:the movements in the crowd are stunning,breathtaking,often filmed from the church towers.Humor is not absent either:Gregoire's eventful night in the cour des Miracles is colorful and funny and scary all at once.

A monument,like the cathedral itself.
69 out of 78 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Laughton steals the show from a lot of great performers...
jmsfan5 July 2014
Warning: Spoilers
Until seeing Laughton as the Hunchback Quasimodo, I had only seen the Lon Chaney silent, which is excellent. But, I must say that this version surpasses that one, and it's mainly due to Charles Laughton. He makes this deformed bell-ringer of Notre Dame cathedral, even with his marred looks and super-strength, at once a sympathetic figure who we root for.

Besides Laughton, there is Sir Cedric Hardwicke, who plays Archdeacon Claude Frollo of Notre Dame, the man who has been Quasimodo's caretaker since the Hunchback's youth. But now, Frollo is a slimy character who falls in love with Maureen O'Hara's gypsy girl Esmerelda, and is not above committing murder to get to her. O'Hara is very young and beautiful and causes almost every man who sees her to fall in love with her. This includes an almost unrecognizable Edmund O'Brien as a young performer for the poor of Paris. And, of course the Hunchback falls for her, but knows he can never have her. But he is not bitter about it like others, and risks his life for Esmerelda.

The movie, taken on its own, is fine entertainment. But Laughton lifts it above standard fare and makes it a classic. I've seen lots of Laughton films, but this is currently my favorite of his. Highly recommended.
10 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Knockout hunch
tomsview20 December 2012
Although many actors including Lon Chaney, Anthony Quinn and Anthony Hopkins have strapped on the hunch over the years, none have come close to equalling let alone surpassing Charles Laughton's performance as Quasimodo in the 1939 version. Along with impressive sets, moody black and white photography and a powerful Alfred Newman score, this film remains a formidable artistic achievement.

Despite Laughton's makeup delivering plenty of shock value, his character retains sympathy. The audience is denied the comfort of seeing Quasimodo as a creature that could not exist in real life. He is neither a supernatural being nor a creation of a mad scientist. Laughton's Quasimodo is an afflicted but real human being - a kindred spirit of the true-life Elephant Man. Laughton is barely recognisable - those who know his work may recognise him by the mole on his left cheek.

Irish actress Maureen O'Hara in her Hollywood debut plays the other key figure in the story, Esmeralda. She fairly glows in this film, and has an effect on men not unlike the effect Cameron Diaz's character has on them in "Something About Mary". Males of all ages, hunchbacked or otherwise, are attracted to her.

Many scenes stay in the memory. When Quasimodo is caught watching Esmeralda dancing during the Festival of Fools, his head is pushed through a hole on a stage to be evaluated by the crowd. Although great advances have been made in makeup and special effects since 1939, the first sight of Laughton's Quasimodo still has the power to shock.

In the film's most disturbing sequence, Quasimodo is whipped for attempting to abduct Esmeralda on the orders of his guardian. After his tunic is ripped away to expose his hump, he receives 50 lashes in a scene that is still brutal despite 70 intervening years of cinematic excess. The brutality is only relieved when Esmeralda steps forward to give him water.

When Quasimodo attempts to hide his ugliness from Esmeralda in the bell tower of Notre Dame, it illustrates Laughton's ability to project a character through pounds of makeup. He also projected onto his character the way he felt about his own lack of physical attractiveness.

Laughton searched within painful life experiences to inform his roles. He didn't have to look far for pain in this demanding film. Apparently the hours spent applying his makeup put a strain on Laughton's relationship with his makeup artists, and at some point, they humiliated Laughton by pinning him down and squirting soda water in his face. Laughton drew on such experiences to help him plumb the depths of Quasimodo's despair.

In my opinion, through Laughton's inspired performance and superb production values, the 1939 film eclipses all the other versions. Despite many remakes, this remains the definitive film version.
6 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Great Movie
PWNYCNY22 August 2005
Warning: Spoilers
If any movie can be characterized as beautiful, then this is the movie. Not only does this movie tell a gripping story, it does so with a style that keeps the audience transfixed. This movie is a great example of expressionist art as the director uses the sets and cinematography to create a mood of suspense that permeates throughout the entire movie. Many of the scenes are spectacular and have become iconic. This movie is definitely a classic.

There's a saying: "They don't make 'em like that anymore." This saying is especially true for the 1939 classic, "The Hunchback of Notre Dame." What makes this movie so great is 1. the story, 2. the screenplay, and 3. the acting. Surprising is Edmund O'Brien's excellent portrayal of the people's poet, Gringoire. But of course the star of the movie is Charles Laughton, whose portrayal of the poor and hapless Quasimodo, who is hopelessly in love with the beautiful Esmeralda, transforms this movie from an interesting period piece into a really powerful story. For this movie is truly dramatic - in its portrayal of the power of the Church in medieval society; its portrayal of the people themselves, who are angry, restless, and desperate; and its portrayal of an unfortunate man, Quasimodo, an outcast, who transcends his place in society to defend the woman he loves, without conditions, and protect the Church and in the process becomes a hero. By the way, Maureen O'Hara's portrayal of the gypsy girl Esmeralda is so strong and evocative that one cannot help but empathize with the character who is the very personification of victimization. If you want to watch a classic movie, then this is the right movie for you.
15 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
The Best Version as far as film goes
theowinthrop31 August 2006
Warning: Spoilers
1939 was a banner year for the movies - possibly the best year. With titles like STAGECOACH, GONE WITH THE WIND, MR. SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON, THE WIZARD OF OZ, and GOODBYE MR. CHIPS it was the best year for the old sound film system of the big studios. Among the great films was this one - the second of two classic versions of the Victor Hugo novel (the 1923 silent version with Lon Chaney being the first).

Let us acknowledge that this version is the most fun and the one people turn to. It is reminiscent of the best known and liked version of LES MISERABLES (also a novel by Hugo) made by Paramount in 1935 and starring Fredric March and Charles Laughton. That Laughton should appear in both shows his remarkable versatility as Hollywood's greatest character actor of his period. Inspector Javert is as unsympathetic a figure as Quasimodo is a sympathetic one. It is true that the makeup on the unfortunate hunchback makes him initially a figure to pity, but his heroism rises in the movie (as it does in the novel) so that the reader never deserts him. The reader never feels that way about Inspector Javert.

This and JAMAICA INN were both made in 1939, and both paired Laughton and Maureen O'Hara. Here O'Hara's Esmaralda is both lovely and powerless, a gypsy hated for her background in superstitious and medieval France. Yet she is lusted after by so many. Forgetting the hunchback there are Phoebus, Gringoire, and (not least) Claude Frollo. Alan Marshall plays Captain Phoebus as the straw-man hero he is - he is strong and manly on the surface, but he is easily dismissed (particularly by the conniving villain). Edmond O'Brien is partly a comic figure - Hugo's way of poking fun at himself, perhaps, as he was a poet like Gringoire. But I doubt if Hugo ever yelled in disappointment for failing to be crowned "King of the Fools" for a festival.

Then there is Cedric Hardwicke's Frollo. Leslie Halliwell, in HALLIWELL'S HUNDRED, reviews the film and says it is Hardwicke's best performance. Perhaps (I'd opt for his father in the 1949 THE WINSLOW BOY first). He is a Machiavellian before the Italian political philosopher came upon the scene, busy pulling invisible wires from the church to control the country, the church, and the monarchy. But he is unaware of his Achilles' heel. A member of a celibate profession, he finds himself falling for a woman - and one from a despised and suspect group. Fighting his inclinations, but at the same time giving into them, he is the motivator of all the evil in the plot - not only against Esmeralda, but Quasimodo, and the citizens of Paris. His fate is as unlamented by the viewers as that of Javert was in LES MISERABLES.

Harry Davenport and Walter Hampden play King Louis XI of France and the archbishop of Paris (Frollo's brother). It was an early film role for the elderly Hampden, and he gives a good account for himself, but there really enough for himself until the conclusion, when coming to his senses he berates his brother (had Frollo not met his fate, he would have lost his power). Davenport is interesting. Usually playing kindly, lovable grandpas (MEET ME IN ST. LOUIS is a fine example), he does not leave that image here. But as has been mentioned in another review of this film, Louis XI was an excellent King of France - clever and careful. But he was "the Spider King". Basil Rathbone's performance in IF I WERE KING two years earlier was closer to the mark. To be a "Spider King" one has to be devilishly ruthless, trapping enemies in webs. Davenport's kindly old codger King is not that way at all. I would also add that the performance of Thomas Mitchell as the King of Paris' beggars is equally good - a wise opportunist, who is unable to achieve what he wishes (the looting of the rich by his mob, signaled by their assault on the cathedral).

By now one can see that I like this film - it is a rousing entertainment, and emotionally quite fulfilling. But was it the novel? I will leave that for another review.
14 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
More watchable than the earlier Lon Chaney version but it still deviates awfully far from the original tale.
planktonrules3 September 2012
Warning: Spoilers
earth is flat "The Hunchback of Notre Dame" was obviously a quality production. After all, it has some dandy actors (such as Cederic Hardwicke, Henry Davenport, Edmond O'Brien, Thomas Mitchell, Laughton and Maureen O'Hara), nice costumes and lovely sets that must have cost a fortune. And, it's also a lot more watchable than the old silent version with Lon Chaney, Sr.--so I do recommend you watch it. However, I do have one reservation--it plays very fast and loose with the original story by Victor Hugo. In Hugo's version, the story is not a nice tale with a happy ending. No, pretty much everyone dies and it's a downer! But, only Hollywood would think to 'happify' it!! It's a shame, as the film had a lot going for it--including Charles Laughton's lovely performance as poor 'ol Quasimodo.

Oh, and the history teacher in me feels compelled to object to a statement early in the film that everyone thought the Earth was flat back in the 15th century. This is a myth--and people DID know that the planet was round. I could go on and on explaining it, but if you really care, do an internet search using the terms 'flat earth myth' and you'll see what I mean. They knew the Earth was round even in ancient times--and the folks in the Middle Ages and Renaissance weren't nearly as stupid as we'd like to imagine.
6 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
An astoundingly good movie
richard-178712 February 2017
This movie has everything.

A great script - which adapts Victor Hugo's classic novel about intolerance for difference as a tale of the German persecution of the Jews under Hitler. Victor Hugo's novel, like the rest of his best work, played off powerful contrasts, beauty and ugliness, goodness and evil. This movie knows how to make use of those strong oppositions very effectively.

Some great acting, principally that by Charles Laughton, certainly, but also Thomas Mitchell - who had a great year in 1939 - and several of the other supporting players.

The camera work and the lighting is often astoundingly effective and creative. Even as a silent movie this would be very powerful.

I don't know how many times I have seen this movie. But each time I see it, I marvel at the quality of the craftsmanship.
5 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
The Best?
gavin69424 May 2016
In 15th century France, a gypsy girl (Maureen O'Hara) is framed for murder by the infatuated Chief Justice, and only the deformed bell-ringer (Charles Laughton) of Notre Dame Cathedral can save her.

Frank S. Nugent of The New York Times wrote a mostly negative review of the film, finding it "little more" than "a freak show". Though he acknowledged it was "handsome enough of production and its cast is expert," he called it "almost unrelievedly brutal and without the saving grace of unreality which makes Frankenstein's horrors a little comic." Nugent has his opinion, but time has sided against him. This incarnation of "Hunchback" is now widely considered the best. And although it pains me to say that anyone could beat Lon Chaney, Laughton does a fine enough job... maybe not surpassing Chaney, but at least being a suitable replacement for this version... with sound, everything is a little more epic.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
A favorite film, despite some gross implausibilities in the last part.
weezeralfalfa14 February 2015
Warning: Spoilers
Quite a memorable adaptation of Victor Hugo's novel, written more than century before. I've seen it quite a few times over the years. Hugo's main purpose in writing this novel, which he titled simply "Notre Dame de Paris", was to promote preservation of surviving Gothic architecture, such as the Cathedral of Notre Dame, in and around which is the site of action in this film. Some changes were made in the details of the main characters and the plot: most notably the survival of the two main characters: Esmeralda: the beautiful gypsy girl about which all the drama centers, and the grossly deformed Quasimodo, whose very hunched back was but one of several physical deformities, making him generally regarded as a monster, to be shunned. In the book, Esmeralda is hanged as a presumed witch and murderer, and the grief-stricken Quasimodo commits to death at her gravesite. Presumably, this was thought too tragic an ending for a general film audience. Thus, the parting scenes have Esmeralda being carried off, in triumph, along with her poet husband Gringoire, while Quasimodo remains perched on the edge of his bell tower, uttering the line "Why wasn't I made of stone, like thee", talking to a grotesque figurine on the bell tower rim. Of course, he is lamenting his human desire for female companionship, specifically with Esmeralda.

The main characters are nearly all members of one of two groups residing within Paris: the political and clerical elite, or various virtual outcasts, including Quasimodo, the gypsy Esmeralda, residents of the 'Court of Miracles', and the reform-minded poet Gringoire, who forms a loose association with the 'Court of Miracles' and Esmeralda, as possible accomplices in engineering reform. the 'Court of Miracles' was an actual large slum area in the Paris of the 15th century: the lawless abode of beggars, thieves, prostitutes and some students. It was so named because of the many residents who went to other parts of Paris, faking disabilities, returning home daily to discard their 'disability'. Thomas Mitchell plays their unofficial leader: rather like a pirate captain. These two general groups do not always act antagonistically in unison. For example, at one point, a group from the 'Court of Miracles' is preparing to hang Gringoire, saved only by Esmeralda's reluctant agreement to marry him, although she didn't then love him. By the end of the film, she claimed to love him as her husband. In the meanwhile, two members of the power elite have found themselves lusting after her: Captain Phoebus, who saved her from the clutches of the abducting Quasimodo, and Jehan Frollo, the sinister Archdeacon of Notre Dame. She fancies she's in love with the dashing Phoebus, who is already betrothed to the beautiful and wealthy Fleur-de-Lys de Gondelaurier. Presumably, his idea is that Esmeralda will be his secrete mistress. However, Jehan soon murders him from jealousy, then spitefully accuses Esmeralda of this deed, as well as being a witch in causing himself to lust for her. She is sentenced to be hung.

Now comes a series of quite implausible actions by Quasimodo, trying to save Esmeralda from being killed. First, he swings down, Tarzan-like, on a rope from a scaffolding outside the Cathedral(a bell rope, in the book!), to grab Esmeralda off her hangman's scaffolding, and swing back up to the higher scaffolding! They then climb up to the bell tower for safety. However, Jehan has the sanctuary right of the Cathedral nullified. Thus, a crowd of 'citizens of Paris', apparently composed of artisans and merchants, gather outside the cathedral to protest the sanctuary nullification. But they are soon overwhelmed by a much larger mob from the 'Court of Miracles', who say they doubt the intentions of the first group. According to an excerpt from the book, this rabble was probably more interested in stealing valuables from within the Cathedral, should they succeed in breaking in. Unfortunately, Quasimodo gets the mistaken impression that the mob has come to hang Esmeralda. Thus, he maneuvers a series of loose stone beams or other heavy stone objects to the edge of the bell tower, to be dropped on the mob(Why were these loose stone objects present?). Then he tips a huge cauldron of boiling liquid(soup?), which runs out the mouths of the grotesque gargoyles, onto the crowd, scalding some to death.(Why was this cauldron present, and how did he heat it so??). Meanwhile, the mob is using one of the dropped beams as a battering ram to punch through the cathedral door, while Jehan is chasing Esmeralda around the bell tower, with the presumed intention of raping her, then taking her to be hanged. Quasimodo now joins this chase, as the king's soldiers arrive to disperse the mob. He catches Jehan and hurls him to the plaza. Gringoire now arrives with the news that the king has pardoned Esmeralda as innocent of crimes, and has decreed the end of gypsy persecution throughout France(with contemporary relevance to the persecution of Jews and gypsies by the Nazis and other groups in Europe).

Charles Laughton is superb in eliciting a combination of repulsion and pity in the audience. Ironically, Quasimodo's lifelong guardian, Jehan, is a psychological monster, in some respects, complementing Quasimodo's physical monstrosities. The film doesn't bring out the fact that, in the book, Quasimodo was an abandoned gypsy, while Esmeralda was stolen by gypsies as an infant, thus explaining her non-gypsy appearance.
5 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
remarkable achievement by all concerned, if just a little soppy here and there.
christopher-underwood21 October 2020
Apparently whilst Quasimodo rings the massive bells for Esmerelda, the director receives news of the outbreak of war in Europe and is so stunned he neglects to call 'Cut!' Laughton finally stops with fatigue and also learns of the shattering news. Later at Cannes later that year it is the only film to screen because the festival is cancelled immediately afterwards upon news of Germany entering Poland. Against this background a romanticised film of the classic novel of Victor Hugo would seem to have little chance and yet despite some unnecessarily dramatised in fighting and the apparent need to have no less than four people declare their love for Maureen O'Hara's character, the magnificence of the sets and the stunning choreography of the crowds ensure that the viewer's attention is maintained. It helps, of course, that O'Hara looks as pretty and performs as solidly as she does in her American debut and that Charles Laughton just happens to turn in what is probably his finest ever performance. Everything about every moment Laughton is on screen seems perfect. His look is helped by the outstanding make-up but the director does not shie from close-ups because the actor is forever utilising mouth and lips and visible eye to convey his anger and concern, his pain and his joy. His physical movement too is remarkable whether he is scampering this way and that or scrambling to climb and ring his beloved bells. A remarkable achievement by all concerned, if just a little soppy here and there.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Did not age well.
YeastOfEden16 April 2016
Warning: Spoilers
I simply don't understand why everyone praises this movie to such an insane degree. One of the reviews calls it "the peak of art in Hollywood cinema" and another "one of the best Hollywood movies ever". Uh...really? Have you watched it recently? Sure, the technical achievements are great. The set of Notre Dame looks breathtaking and huge. And sure, it has a great story to work with, but they're already basing it on one of the best books I've ever read. As an adaptation of Hugo's novel, and as a standalone movie, it does a forgettable job.

Let's begin by saying something positive about the movie: Charles Laughton's performance as Quasimodo. He dominates this movie in every scene. Not only is the makeup fantastic, but you can feel the pain and misery of this classically tragic character every time he utters a line, or even just looks at the camera. If it weren't for Laughton, I'd have given this movie far lower than a 5. Every other actor is forgettable. Esmeralda is an awkward Maureen O'Hara early in her career. Never mind that she looks NOTHING like a gypsy, but her performance is standard and rather boring. O'Hara would become a good actress in the 40s and would sadly pass away in 2015, but this early work is nothing special. Cedric Hardwicke takes the complex, brooding, conflicted character of Frollo, and turns him into a generic, racist bigot. He and Quasimodo have no connection whatsoever. The complicated interactions of characters that gave the book its intensity and drama are not to be found here.

Maybe the reason I dislike this movie is because the book raised my expectations. I suspect those unfamiliar with the story, being exposed to it for the first time, would enjoy this movie quite a bit, simply for the fact that it's a great story. But as far as adaptations go, there are better ones. Even the Disney movie, in my opinion, better captures the spirit of the book. Rather than manifesting itself as a stiff, stunted poor man's version of the Hugo novel, the Disney version has its own dark tone and identity, and it works. Minus the singing Jason Alexander gargoyles.

One might say that it was very good at the time. After all, it came out nearly eighty years ago. But look at what else was released in 1939. The Wizard of Oz. Gone With the Wind. And one year before that, The Adventures of Robin Hood. Two years before, La Grande Illusion. All of those are masterpieces, with better acting, smarter scripts, and greater depth.

Like all versions of "Hunchback", this one creates a world of ignorance and bigotry, where laws are based on millennia-old traditions and petty prejudices triumph over logic. It succeeds in creating this world, though it feels particular ham-handed. In one scene, the King asks some of his courtiers about Christopher Columbus's voyage around the world, to which they exclaim that the world is so obviously flat, and Columbus is such a fool. Even though the fact that the world is round was common knowledge in Europe since the time of the ancient Greeks. And every crowd in this movie is absolutely temperamental. One minute, they worship Quasimodo as a king; the next, they call for his death; then, when he saves Esmeralda, they cheer again. The gypsies seem to love Gringoire at first (an incredibly pointless character, I might add, even in the book, where he's just Victor Hugo's self-insert) and then prepare to execute him. The movie is disorganized and clumsy, taking the romanticized, Gothic tone of the book and making it absurd.

This movie has some great moments. Laughton's performance. The grand set of Notre Dame. The intense final climax where gypsies invade the cathedral. But the rest of it is utter crap, and I say that without a moment's hesitation. Therefore, it evens out. If you hate Disney, hate reading, and want to see a pretty faithful adaptation of the story, feel free to watch it. Otherwise, I would pass on this one, check out "Hunchback" at the library, and dive into the dark, complex story that Victor Hugo created.
4 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed