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)
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)