Wednesday, April 24

The Hunchback of Notre Dame (NR)

Pinterest LinkedIn Tumblr +

The horror genre was born in the 1920s and 1930s with such timeless classics as “Dracula” and “Frankenstein” – both of which were based on historically infamous novels from the previous century. Based on the 1831 Victor Hugo novel, “The Hunchback of Notre Dame” was released to theater’s in 1939.Originally a silent picture from 1923 with horror great Lon Chaney, the concept of the story has taken on a multitude of forms and showings in the 184 years since the novel, and is probably best known for the 1996 Disney cartoon version.

The setting is one of uniqueness and intrigue. Its Paris, the year 1482. King Louis XI and his chief advisor Frollo discuss the arrival of the printing press, and its astounding ability to print a single volume in just a few short weeks (ah how times have changed).

The division of the conservative religious group is unveiled from the start when Frollo (Cedric Hardwicke) advises the king of his fear of books, and that their contents are evil. Frollo is opposed to the printing press, and displays an early era power and corruption behind the conservative voice.

In the distance we hear the haunting chime of the bells at Notre Dame Cathedral, and Frollo informs the king that the bell ringer is the deformed and reclusive Quasimodo.

hunchback2

Academy Award winning Director William Dieterle (Best Picture for The Life of Emile Zola in 1937) attempts to use the slow buildup concept before the reveal of the notorious Quasimodo. We see a shadow as the ambiguous bell ringer rumbles down an alley, and a woman lets out a blood curdling shriek as she crosses his path. The ultimate unveiling is somewhat of a letdown. Though the makeup and bodysuit are remarkable for 1939, the score that accompanies the scene is campy and the nature of the scene itself spoils any fear one may have.

“The Hunchback of Notre Dame” is a love story at heart, told in a way mimicked hundreds of times since. From the shadowy belfry of the Notre Dame bell tower, Quasimodo falls for the beautiful gypsy woman Esmeralda (Maureen O’Hara – who is flat out stunning) and pines for her amidst a host of other, more desirable suitors.

“I’m a widower four times, sire.” A man tells King Louis when Esmeralda makes her first appearance at a festival. “But I could begin all over again.”

hunchback3The effects are corny but that’s to be expected. Charles Laughton does a great job in the role of Quasimodo, though the rest of the cast is comprised of over the top overly dramatic sorts, typical of the era.

The rapport between Quasimodo and Esmeralda is great. One scene depicts the repugnant hunchback confiding in her inside the bell tower, and she doesn’t have to say a word – her eyes do all the talking. Quasimodo isn’t a monster. He’s a normal man trapped inside a hideous shell. He loves just like anyone else, but because of his appearance, love and normalcy are something he will never have.

One interesting facet – the standard Hollywood stereotypes clearly begin with this movie. Images of what a woman and a man should look like in order to be acceptable are introduced, and sadly are alive and well in todays world.

As horror moves go, “The Hunchback of Notre Dame” isn’t scary at all. There are some potential elements of fright but the music does a great job of nullifying any of them. The pacing is slow, and the overall movie is boring at best. It may be a classic, but you are probably better off reading the novel.

by – Matt Christopher

Share.

About Author

Matt's a writer and content creator for the site. His reviews offer insight on the art of filmmaking from the standpoint of a casual fan. Check out mattdecristo.com and follow him on Instagram and Twitter @MattDeCristo.

2 Comments

  1. “Matt’s a writer and content creator for the site. His reviews offer insight on the art of filmmaking from the standpoint of a casual fan.”
    Dear Mr. DeCristo: THE HUNTCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME IS NOT A HORROR STORY, and the movies based on this novel ARE NOT HORROR MOVIES made to frighten the viewers…CAN YOU UNDERSTAND THAT? Your uninformed “review” of this classic movie and your puerile comments about the movie not being scary or fast moving show a lofty level of incompetence in the writing of critiques. KNOW WHAT YOU ARE WRITING ABOUT before you review it. My apologies for the “capitalized shouting” at this waste of cyberspace. Thank you.

  2. Hi Roland1952 – thank you for being a fan of The Movie Buff!!!

    I want to address your concerns in a thoughtful and articulate way.

    The Horror genre contains a wide breadth of films, from the psychological terror present in “The Shining” to the in-your-face slasher elements of “Friday the 13th.” Horror is in the eye of the beholder, so to speak.

    Our annual 31 Days of Halloween requires us to search the realms and archives of film for movies to watch and review. You have stated that the “Hunchback of Notre Dame” is not a horror story, however, according to the genre categories on imdb (among many other sources), it is in fact just that. I concur that its intent is not to frighten the viewer (though some scenes were clearly meant to do exactly that), however I don’t believe that a movie such as “Us” was made to frighten the viewer either and yet it is also considered to be horror. Coincidentally, the original incarnation of the film starred Lon Chaney as Quasimodo. Chaney is well-known as an icon of early cinematic horror.

    If you take the time to read the review (and yes I am informed, I watched the movie) I think you will see that I offered great praise in several key areas, specifically the setting, the costumes (described in the review as remarkable) and the acting of the focal characters where I used words such as stunning and great, praising a particular scene and making note of the rapport between Quasimodo and Esmeralda.

    If you can’t muster the strength to read all 500 words, I can offer the abridged version. The opening paragraph lauds it as a timeless classic. I close by recommending you read the novel, also described by the New York Times as an example of 19th century horror.

    As a critic in the present day (or in this case 2015) I am reviewing the movie and offering my take as it would be to someone watching the movie now. I had issues with the score, pacing, and some of the acting. None of the criticisms were overly scathing, and all of which were perfectly accurate. Do you know what puerile means, sir?

    I welcome differing opinions and good-natured discourse for any and all of my writing. The Movie Buff is dedicated to bringing the best in movie reviews, news, content, and more – and we are glad you are a devoted fan!

    Also – *HUNCHBACK

Leave A Reply