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.
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.