Brandon Hurst | The Hunchblog of Notre Dame

03Aug 2015

1928 version of The Man who Laughs

by jess

Conrad Veidt as Gwynplaine and Mary Philbin as Dea

I just finished watching the 1928 The Man Who Laughs. Maybe it’s that I have a low attention span for silent films based on books I don’t really like or maybe it was because I have been on a crazy Modern Family watching binge, either way this movie was work to finish.

I will admit I was a little interested in seeing this movie as Mary Philbin, who was in Phantom, Conrad Veidt who I just saw in another movie recently where he plays a Frolloesque character and Brandon Hurst who played Frollo in the 1923 version. Here Hurst plays the villain again, man he is type-cast as Hugoian villains. So I didn’t not want to watch it but then it started…

Like the book the plot just goes Zoom-By. I still didn’t really get a feeling for any of the characters, in fact we lost Homo’s sensitivity and Ursus’ grumpiness but we didn’t get long histories of the peerage system OR that snow storm as sea scene, so take you pick at which one was better.

Conrad Veidt as Gwynplaine and Olga V. Baklanova as Josiana

Really, the only good thing about this movie is Veidt’s facial or rather eye emotions. The look of Gwynplaine it so otherworldly that is the only thing memorable about anything along with Veidt’s acting. The other people aren’t bad but there isn’t much to go on really.

The ending was a mixed bag too. The lovers live and that is fine, I actually think the ending didn’t make much sense in the book, Hugo just wanted a tragic ending so it was trite but before they can get to the happy ending there is a big dumb chase because silent movies love big dumb chases at the end, ask Phantom of the Opera. And if that wasn’t bad or dumb enough Homo kills Barky. It doesn’t really matter, Barky was a lame villain anyway but still he could have just drown which would have been at least a call back to the book. Also Homo was a dog not a wolf, that isn’t a complaint just a fact, was more likely easier on the production.

Now here are some weird things;

-The lady who played Josiana, Olga V. Baklanova, looked like Madonna, the singer…. good thing they didn’t remake this movie in Madonna’s heyday. Josiana also got a monkey,. Apparently Baklanova’s resemblance to Madonna has been noted by modern critic…… and people on IMBD but if you have eyes you can see it too, it not subtle.
-I don’t know what the heck they did to David’s character. I thought he was suppose to be sophisticated but he acted so derpy in this movie. Was he meant to be a flop?
-This movie is ALL over the place with its costumes and set pieces timeframe. Like it said 17th century (pretty sure), at the start but the costumes range from the 1700s to late Victorian to the 1920’s. They had no idea of what period this story takes place in. But you know that didn’t REALLY bother me but you know what did a little bit, the amusement park rides. This movie has a rides at the 17th century fair. This just looked so out of place.
-as of 2015 there hasn’t been an American remake of this movie and the 1928 movie it is the ONLY American version.
-This version is the basis for the Joker’s look, not a weird thing just awesome…

Basically with the this version of the book the best thing you can say is the make-up and the acting were decent but the rest of it felt moldy. I wish the characters were better developed but then we wouldn’t have gotten that chase scene…….. can’t win…….it’s either a snow storm or a chase.

21May 2014

The Many Styles of Frollo

by jess

In the realm of Hunchback we know that Quasimodo will (or should) be ugly and deformed and Esmeralda should be pretty, these are truth in in the novel, they have set looks. Frollo, while he does have a set look in the novel and is supposed to have an austere harsh look gets a wide variety of looks in the movies. So today we’re are going to look at some Frollo’s various hair styles.

Frollo’s hair in the book is balding. he had tuff of ugly gray hair on the side which give him a natural tonsure. Movie never go for this look

Jehan 1923 Hunchback of Notre Dame Brandon Hurst

In the 1923 we have two Frollo, Pious Claude and Jerk Jehan. Jehan has black hair that goes to ears and he also seen wearing a bowler-like hat. Claude has sepia color. He has a receding hair line.

Jehan Frollo, Sir Cedric Hardwicke 1939 Hunchback of Notre Dame

In the 1939 version we again have Pious Claude and Jerk Jehan. Jehan has black hair that is a straight cut across his forehead. He has lock that curl on the side his face. Claude has white hair and he wears a bishop hat.

Frollo (Alain Cuny), 1956 The Hunchback of Notre Dame

In the 1956 version, Frollo has a full-head of brown hair. He keeps it short.

Kenneth Haigh as Frollo 1977 Hunchback of Notre Dame

In the 1977, Frollo has the brown hair with a straight bang line.

Derek Jacobi as Frollo, 1982 Hunchback of Notre Dame

In the 1982, Frollo hair at is at it’s most stupid. It’s a blond bowl cut.

Frollo singing Hellfire Disney Hunchback of Notre Dame

In the Disney version, Frollo has the same cut of 1939 Jehan but with gray hair. His bangs cut straight along the center of his forehead and then it recedes.

Richard Harris as Frollo

In the 1997, he is bald.

Daniel Lavoie as Frollo Notre Dame de Paris

In original Notre Dame de Paris version, he has very short brown hair.

Richard Berry as Frollo 1999 Quasimodo d’el Paris

In the 1999 parody version, Quasimodo d’El Paris, he has short black hair with long thin sideburns.

Frollo’s look in the movies (and musicals) are very different than the novel but they seem based Frollo’s look on the past movies than on the novel.

29Aug 2012

Is the 1923 version of Hunchback Good?

by jess

Hunchback of Notre Dame 1923 Lon Chaney

Is the highly regarded 1923 version of the Hunchback of Notre Dame a good version and a good movie? I think it’s an admirable version but I don’t think it’s a good movie.

Quasimodo (Lon Chaney), Esmeralda (Patsy Ruth Miller) and Gudule (Gladya Brockwell) Hunchback of Notre Dame 1923

It’s an admirable version because it’s one of the few versions where we see a somewhat moody Quasimodo. Quasimodo has a edge to him in the book and this version showcases that aspect. It also has an Esmeralda who is winsome and innocent. She is not really concerned for blight of the gyspy but she does has a does have a concern for social justice but not to the same extent that the Disney version or the 1939 version have. But despite her more care-free attitude she is still likable. I also appreciate that they tried to do something with Esmeralda’s mother even if it was very little. I also enjoy the Clopin in this version.

Jehan Frollo (Brandon Hurst) Hunchback of Notre Dame 1923

I don’t find it a great version because the characters lack any depth or complexity they had in the book especially with depiction of Frollo. Frollo in the book is fueled by sexual impulse but he had had an internal conflict that made him interesting. This Frollo, who is more charateristically Jehan than Claude with the Esmeralda obsession tacked on, is just a old pervert who lacks any internal struggle. Since Frollo’s obession is core of story and fuels the plot having Frollo who not interesting makes the story less interesting.

Esmeralda Rejecting Phoebus Hunchback of Notre Dame Patsy Ruth Miller 1923

So because the story lacks interest the film suffers. There is nothing to really to pull the viewer into the world and since the characters lack complexity and depth there is nothing to make us really care about the characters. But what really kills this movie is the pacing. The pacing of this movie is terrible, it’s slow and very boring. It just lacks any substance that the book has. I found watching this movie a chore.

Notre Dame de Paris Set from the 1923 version of Hunchback

This movie gets a pass for being good for a few reasons. Number one it launched Lon Chaney’s career as one of the most famous actors of the silent era. Number two the production values. The production was well done. Number three, the movie was a big deal in 1923. Back in the 20’s movies were created quickly and were made to make a quick buck. The 1923 version was created with care and it did pave the for bigger movies. But despite these reasons it’s not a very enjoyable to sit through.

Patsy Ruth Miller as Esmeralda 1923 Hunchback of Notre Dame

Next -Conclusion

Patsy Ruth Miller as Esmeralda 1923 Hunchback of Notre Dame

07Jun 2012

The Enemy of Kings; A Character Review of the 1923 Version of Clopin

by jess

Clopin (Ernest Torrence) 1923 The Hunchback of Notre Dame

Clopin is the most complex character in the 1923 version of Hunchback of Notre Dame. He’s conniving yet caring. In this version like in most every other version, Clopin is merged with the Duke of Egypt, one of the leaders of the Court of Miracles, leader of the Esmeralda’s group, and Esmeralda’s protector. In in role as the Duke, Clopin is Esmeralda’s adopted father. She is the only person that can soften his heart.

Clopin (Ernest Torrence) & Jehan (Brandon Hurst) 1923 The Hunchback of Notre Dame

Clopin in the version also has a partnership with Jehan. The nature of their friendship is never explain. Jehan tries to get Clopin mobilizes the Court of Miracle against the nobles and Jehan try to tempt Clopin with gold of Notre Dame in exchange for Esmeralda. The basis for their interaction could be taken from the La Esmeralda Opera Libretto that Hugo wrote in which Clopin works with Frollo and was the one to hide in the room when Esmeralda and Phoebus has their encounter. It could also be that Jehan does join the Court of Miracles in the book though he never interaction in Clopin. Or it could that it is mention in the book by Gringnoire that the Duke intends to sell Esmeralda to “gentlemen priest.”

Clopin (Ernest Torrence), Esmeralda (Patsy Ruth Miller) & Phoebus (Norman Kerry) 1923 The Hunchback of Notre Dame

Clopin is also the one driving the social class sub-plot a.k.a the beggars vs the Nobles. It very similar to the 1939 version but in the 1939 version there were stakes, the nobel wanted Esmeralda out of Notre Dame here one noble just wants to marry. So basically it’s Clopin complaining and then getting mad when Esmeralda and Phoebus form a romantic attachment which for him is the ultimate insult.

Clopin (Ernest Torrence) 1923 The Hunchback of Notre Dame

It’s not wholly the films fault that this sub-plot doesn’t go very far. It’s actually because the copy that survives today is sixteen minutes shorter that the original. Most of these sixteen minutes were comprised of Clopin and one scene with Quasimodo gets clothes for Esmeralda, which is the scene where a prominent picture of Quasimodo was taken, so prominent in fact that it’s on the spine of the DVD. As result of Clopin’s role is much smaller than the film intended. However you can see some pictures and read the script in the Riley’s Book which is published with Pasty Ruth Miller’s Autobiography, both of which are good reads if you a fan of the 1923 version or Miller’s or of old movies/Hollywood.

Clopin (Ernest Torrence) 1923 The Hunchback of Notre Dame

Clopin’s character suffers a lot from the cuts made to the film but even with the cuts is he the most complex characters in the film and he at least interesting and memorable.

Clopin (Ernest Torrence) Dying 1923 The Hunchback of Notre Dame

Next Time – Gringoire

Raymond Hatton as Gringoire 1923 The Hunchback of Notre Dame picture image

Gringoire (Raymond Hatton) 1923 The Hunchback of Notre Dame

24May 2012

The Creepy Stalkerish Guy; A Character Review of the 1923 Version of Jehan Frollo

by jess

Jehan (Brandon Hurst) 1923 Hunchback of Notre Dame

The Frollo character in the 1923 version of the Hunchback of Notre Dame is the worst depiction of the character in any of the prominent adaptations. What do I mean when I say the Frollo character? Well he is the character who acts on his lust for Esmeralda and gets the plot moving. What makes Frollo a compelling character is his inner struggle about desiring a girl and even if he is not a priest he needs to be battling against something that is contrary to his way of being/thinking. Either it’s his own pride of his purity or his bigoted opinion of the Gypsies. This is the hallmark to his character, without it all you have is a creepy pervert and that is exactly what this Frollo is; an evil creepy pervert.

Jehan Frollo (Brandon Hurst) Hunchback of Notre Dame 1923

This version is the first time the Frollo character was split into two characters who are brothers; Jehan, the younger is the licentious lecher (the Frollo Character) and the saintly older Claude (or in the case of the 1923 version Dom Claudio). This method was employed in the 1939 version however it worked in that movie as Jehan Frollo had depth and some complexity. In the 1923 version there is no depth to Jehan, he is nothing more than a spoiled perverted brat.

Jehan and Esmeralda 1923 Hunchback of Notre Dame Brandon Hurst and Patsy Ruth Miller picture image

Jehan (Brandon Hurst) trying to overpower Esmeralda (Patsy Ruth Miller))

In a nutshell, Jehan was a priest but he decided he preferred sins to virtues. This brief bit of backstory is presented in one inter-text card. So what could have been an integral part of the movie is reduce to a sentence. Now to be fair, movies in the early 20s didn’t really flesh out villains, they were bad, so at least we get a text card that somewhat acknowledges the book. However even giving the movie a stylistic pass, Jehan is still weak. Maybe if he delighted in his evil or in his desires that would have been more enjoyable as a character. There are a few moments of hammy 20’s over-acting that are enjoyable but other than that he just very weak and not very memorable. He is just devoid of any interest, personality or passion. All he is a creepy perverted stalker.

Jehan (Brandon Hurst) 1923 Hunchback of Notre Dame

Next Time – Phoebus

Phoebus 1923 Hunchback of Notre Dame Norman Kerry picture image

Phoebus (Norman Kerry) 1923 Hunchback of Notre Dame

02May 2012

Three Basic Problems with the Plot of the 1923 version of The Hunchback Notre Dame

by jess

There are three basic problems with the plot the 1923 version of the Hunchback of Notre Dame; its strong adherence to parts that don’t make any sense in the scope of the movie, the changes that had to be made to appease the almighty censors, and Lon Chaney.

Quasimodo (Lon Chaney) Hunchback of Notre Dame 1923

The last problem really isn’t a problem but if you watch the opening scene you can see what I mean. The opening scene starts with the Feast of Fool and then it cuts away to Lon Chaney as Quasimodo basically mocking people from atop Notre Dame. I do appreciate that this is the only version to have Quasimodo that has a basic dislike for people like he does in the book which this scene shows nicely but to just an awkward way to introduce Lon Chaney as Quasimodo to the viewers and it ruins the pacing and makes the beginning boring.

Jehan Frollo (Brandon Hurst) Hunchback of Notre Dame 1923

The second issue has to do with censorship laws of the time. The law that pertains to Hunchback is a movie couldn’t cast a priest in a negative light, meaning we can’t have a Priest lusting after a women. So much like the 1939 the role of the Frollo sinner is cast on the “Jehan” character the “Claude” character is the saintly priest. Unlike the 1939 version Jehan in this version has no reason why he can’t make a straight up move on Esmeralda. Nothing is stopping him; no conflict of her being a Gypsy or no implied religious morality getting in the way. He’s just a coward with no real personality or motivation.

Esmeralda (Pasty Ruth Miller) and Jehan Frollo (Brandon Hurst) Hunchback of Notre Dame 1923

There is no confliction for this Jehan so there is no interest. The plot of the book is hinged on Frollo’s obsession with Esmeralda so if there is no torment where does the interest to the plot lie? Well in this case the interest to the plot is Lon Chaney’s Quasimodo, so back to that issue, remember this film started the “Quasimodo is main character” mentality that the many of the films buy in to .

Gudule (Gladya Brockwell) Hunchback of Notre Dame 1923

The finally issue is a weird one to be an issue because when we compare movies to book there is a part of us that wishes that the movie would follow the book perfectly and we get up annoy by what the movie misses or adds. However it is hard to make a movie follow the book perfectly as they are two different median for story telling. One aspect of the book that I wish made into more movies is the Sister Gudule sub-plot. Sister Gudule is Esmeralda’s mother. The 1923 version is one of the few version to have this sub-plot however it goes no where. We get the back story of how Esmeralda was taken and we see Gudule curse her and then as Esmeralda is about to die Gudule realizes Esmeralda is her child and then I guess she dies. So Esmeralda doesn’t learn this, it amounts to nothing. It was just there because it was in the book but if Esmeralda doesn’t learns this and where is the emotion in the end what was the point?

Esmeralda (Pasty Ruth Miller), Phoebus (Norman Kelly) and Clopin (Ernest Torrence) Ball Scene Hunchback of Notre Dame 1923

Another sub-plot that was added was this division of the nobel and the poor. Now this was a bigger point in the 1939 version here’s it amount to one scene where Phoebus brings Esmeralda to a party and he dresses up and tries to pass her off as a Princess and the party is broken up by Clopin and Esmeralda sadly rejects Phoebus. Like Gudule, these scene that revolve around the classes don’t add to very much to the over all plot

Esmeralda (Pasty Ruth Miller) Hunchback of Notre Dame 1923

It’s not that entire plot and pacing of the 1923 version is bad it’s just following the book too closely wrecked the pacing and the removal of Frollo’s torment ruins the emotional intensity. The “Chaney being forced” to the audiences was just the opening so it wasn’t a major problem but it’s the reason why the film doesn’t have a very strong opening scene.

Next Time- Characters starting with Quasimodo

Quasimodo (Lon Chaney), Esmeralda (Patsy Ruth Miller) and Gudule (Gladys Brockwell) Hunchback of Notre Dame 1923

Tag Archives: Brandon Hurst

1928 version of The Man who Laughs

The Many Styles of Frollo

Is the 1923 version of Hunchback Good?

The Enemy of Kings; A Character Review of the 1923 Version of Clopin

The Creepy Stalkerish Guy; A Character Review of the 1923 Version of Jehan Frollo

Three Basic Problems with the Plot of the 1923 version of The Hunchback Notre Dame