Drama/Romance
2 hours and 13 minutes
Unrated
Written by: Perley Poore Sheehan
Directed by: Wallace Worsley
Produced by: Carl Laemmle & Irving Thalberg
Cast:
Lon Chaney
Patsy Ruth Miller
Norman Kerry
Nigel de Brulier
Brandon Hurst
Victor Hugo's Immortal Classic
For nearly a century now, Universal Pictures' Monster Universe has remained iconic in the annals of cinema. With numerous reboots (sometimes not even by Universal - hello, Hammer) done throughout this stretch of time, the most successful outside the original and Hammer films being the reboots of the 1990s, it only makes sense that Universal is looking to reboot these old monster movies and cash in on the growing "universes" that various production houses are currently creating. While I will not comment on the latest attempt at rebooting these films (Mummy: Impossible or whatever it's called) it may be worth while (pay attention here, Universal executives) for audiences to go back and reexamine the original Universal Monster films in order to understand why these movies have remained so iconic for nearly a century. And what better place to begin than with the first of Universal's Monster movies: The Hunchback of Notre Dame.
Starring the iconic Lon Chaney in his first of only two appearances in the Universal Monsters oeuvre, The Hunchback of Notre Dame remains a wonderfully engaging film ninety plus years after the fact for an enormous amount of reasons. It unquestionably is a flawed and dated film, that cannot be denied, but when it comes down to it what silent film isn't by today's standards? No, Hunchback is an endearing movie largely for its story. Despite the enormity of Victor Hugo's novel, screenwriter Perley Poore Sheehan did an excellent job at keeping the film very true to Hugo's book. There are many sequences missing, and even some that are relocated in setting, timing, or both, but ultimately the heart of Hugo's novel - the vast majority of the story - remains intact completely unaltered. There's no doubt in my mind that if Hunchback were adapted today Universal would take drastic leaps and bounds at changing the story to fit a much more fast-paced retelling, geared for audiences of films like .... well, Mummy: Impossible or whatever they called it. But there's something to be said about the slow pace of the story. Hugo's novel is gargantuan, but that serves the readers quite well. This adaptation also has a longer running time and does not shy away from the enormous amount of exposition that its story demands. Viewers of today may find it a struggle to get into at first, but those who stick with it will undeniably be glad that they did, because this story is full of heart, love, suspense, drama, and sorrow.
As impressive and as meaty as the film's story remains, nothing is more impressive than the film's sets. Constructed under a period of six months, Universal went through painstaking lengths to recreate the cathedral of Notre Dame as well as the surrounding streets according the specifications of the 1400s setting. This meticulous construction pays off, especially considering most films of this era lack in the way of set design (many often used sheets with paintings upon them as backdrops). It's hard not to be drawn into this movie and no doubt viewers will question how none of it was shot on location. Even the statues and facade work of the reconstructed Notre Dame seem impossibly identical to the original.
Adding to the character of the set is of course the film's central performance of Quasimodo by Lon Chaney. Despite the film's title, Quasimodo the hunchback actually does not appear in the vast majority of this film - at least not until the end. This is largely because Quasimodo in Victor Hugo's novel also is absent from a great deal of the story. And yet he is forever the heart of the story. We leave him to engage in other characters such as the lovely Esmerelda (here portrayed rather unconvincingly in then-normal white-washed fashion by Patsy Ruth Miller), the charming Phoebus de Chateaupers (played by Norman Kerry), and the sinister Jehan (who was not the book's villain interestingly enough - here portrayed by Brandon Hurst). We are willing to travel away from the lovable hunchback due to the fact that we as an audience know the multiple stories that are occurring will all weave their way back together to Notre Dame and thus to Quasimodo - which they do. Here it is easy to see why Lon Chaney is so highly regarded in discussions of acting or film. Through the vast amount of prosthetic and make-up work (which Chaney often did himself) and without the ability to speak dialogue, Chaney brings Quasimodo to life very much in the way that he would later bring the Phantom to life in his second Universal Monster movie: The Phantom of the Opera - sheerly through his physicality. He creates a character that can be frightening and charming all at once; one that we as an audience have no trouble at all feeling sympathy toward in any capacity.
Despite these two major assets The Hunchback of Notre Dame is problematic largely for what it has changed regarding the novel's conclusion. In this adaptation, the story is tied together with an unquestionably sad note, but one that leaves us as an audience with a sense of optimism and pride in the film's unlikely hero at disposing of the film's wicked villain. Hugo's novel was very dark and bleak like the era it was set within. Sheehan and director Wallace Worsley unquestionably felt that audiences of this era couldn't handle seeing a film like this and having it end on such a sad and bleak note. So, not surprisingly they changed the conclusion. Those who have not read Hugo's novel will most likely find themselves unbothered by this change. But those familiar with the book's extremely tragic and haunting ending will be very surprised by the change (it's been years since I've seen the Disney adaptation but I highly doubt they kept the original ending either so, kudos to Universal for keeping most of Hugo's story intact).
Despite a white-washed cast and a rather too optimistic ending for what this story calls for, The Hunchback of Notre Dame is a triumph of cinema that remains - nearly a century later - something both beautiful and magical that is well worth the time of anyone who calls him or herself a movie lover.
8/10
No comments:
Post a Comment