So let’s talk about Lighting. Besides the functional side of lighting (i.e. lighting the sets so you can see the sets and actors) there is mood lighting and this is what I’m going to touch on because it’s more fun.
For the most part the movie is pretty tame in the lighting department despite William Dieterle being part the of German Expressionism movement but there is great example of chiaroscuro. Chiaroscuro (Italian for light and dark) utilizes the contrast between light and dark for pure dramatic effect. During the scene where Frollo confesses his confused love/lust for Esmeralda. As he pins her against a tree his face is fully illuminated while the back ground is let darker; text-book Chiaroscuro.
Example of Chiaroscuro
Example of Soft Lighting
Example of Hard Lighting
Moodiness
Example Bottom Lighting
There is a moodiness to certain scenes and sometimes characters would get lighting treatment (i.e softening, harding, bottom lighting or chiaroscuro) but I would say that at the time of the film’s release the lighting came off more dramatic. After all Dieterle was part of the German Expressionism movement which was the predecessor to Film Noire ( which by it’s very nature is moody) so there is mood but for a modern viewer the dramatic isn’t as striking except in the confession scene, that was a slap in the face with lighting.
If you didn’t know any better, you might think that the 1939 version of “The Hunchback of Notre Dame” was filmed on location, I know that’s what I thought at first but that is not the case.
This film was shot completely on set at the RKO ranch in the San Fernando Valley. The sets were designed after a 400 year old wood carving of Paris. The sets are one of the strongest visual aspects of this movie. They transport the viewer to 15th century Paris, with the narrow streets, Notre Dame in all its’ glory, with its’ accurate nave and it’s raised platform complete with stairs, Both the raised platform and the stairs are no longer a part of the actual Notre Dame due to time and erosion. Erosion and structural changes to Notre Dame are some of the reasons why films shouldn’t take too much lead from Notre dame in it’s modern state if their doing a period piece (I’m looking at you here Disney).
Notre Dame
Front of Notre Dame
Facade of Notre Dame
Nave of Notre dame
15th century Parisian Street
Another view of 15th century Parisian Street
Crowd scene
All the attention to the details of the sets are one of the strongest aspects of the film and this helps keep the film in classic movie nostalgia.
So next up is staging, where things, mainly actors, are position in scenes of a movie. As I was looking at the costumes I noticed something, a lot of the shots are medium or close up unless it was a big epic scene or an establishing shot . This makes it hard to get pictures of costumes but it also makes staging difficult to review. Another factor that makes staging reviewing difficult is that the editing cuts between shots are very frequent, though the cuts are not insane or abnormal. Also other than establishing shot you don’t get a feel for the spaces the characters occupy, not even Notre Dame.
Watching the Play
Gringoire's Play
So it’s hard to gauge the characters’ movement in the film space. For the most part I say that the characters use the spaces logically but it’s hard to gauge where the characters are in relation to each other in the space in a given scene. A good example of this is during the Feast of Fools. First you see Louis and Frollo sitting in the royal box watching the festivities. From their vantage point they can see Gringoire’s play. The beggars start to complain that they’re not get money because of the play.
Beggar in long shot
Beggar and Clopin Medium shot
(Edit Alert; in the longer shot as Clopin walk up you can’t see the stage but when the scene cuts to a medium shot of Clopin and the beggar the stage can be seen).
Clopin puts an end to Gringoire’s play and then on the same stage the King of Fools contest begins. As the contest starts we Louis and Frollo talk about it how ugliness is fascinating and how the noble seem interested.
Extras watching the King of Fool contest
Phoebus (left) watches Esmeralda
The scene cuts to nobles looking at the stage, it is in this line up of nobles that Phoebus is seen making a comments about Esmeralda who is dancing.
Esmeralda spots an eyes staring
The crowd drags Quasimodo to the stage
As she dances it’s hard to make out where the stage is but it seems to be to left. Louis and Frollo in their box are watching her and looking slightly to the right, as well as Gringoire. Louis and Frollo have to be somewhat close to her as Louis throws her some money without much effort and Quasimodo is hiding under the royal box and Esmeralda can see him staring at her. The crowd then drags Quasimodo to stage which looks like a long distance from the box.
The distance could be attributive to Quasimodo trying to escape the crowd or it’s because the Director William Dieterle was a student of German Expressionism which likes twisting scales and playing distortions. It any case this scene it has some logic but you can’t get a feel for the space. Where is the royal box? How far is it from the stage? Where is Esmeralda performance in relation to the stage and the royal box? These are questions that the film never quite answers because it’s to hard to decern the space, the movement and spacial relation
It can be hard to judge acting from a film that is decades old from the vantage point of the modern era. The 1930’s had a very different style of acting and therefore different criteria for what was consider good and bad. So with that in mind I’m going to look at the acting from the 1939 version of “The Hunchback of Notre Dame”
I would say the acting is good across the board. No one hams it’s up nor under acts. The actors have grasp of how their characters are suppose to behave in the film. They even muddle through some of the more awkward dialogue far better than actor’s of today.
Esmeralda looking at the Virgin Mary (Maureen O’Hara) 1939 Hunchback of Notre Dame
Esmeralda (Maureen O’Hara) – This was O’Hara’s American debut and was still fairly new to film but not to acting in general. Despite looking very Irish and not very Gypsyesque, she does well in the role. She plays up concern for her people but she demonstrate a coy side. I don’t think the role is particularly demanding on the acting front nor do I think it’s the best performance of her long career but it was a great debut for her for American audiences. I will give her credit, she did her own stunts (not just in this film but all her films). The stunts in this film were when Quasimodo swung down to rescue her from the gallows and where he lifted her over his head claiming “sanctuary”. The lift was the most dangerous of the two stunts. She and the stunt man where about 40 forty feet off the ground which was cobblestone and without a safety net.
Quasimodo declares SANCTUARY for Esmeralda (Charles Laughton and Maureen O’Hara) 1939 Hunchback of Notre Dame
Quasimodo is crowned King of Fools (Charles Laughton) 1939 Hunchback of Notre Dame
Quasimodo(Charles Laughton) – Laughton excels in the role. Quasimodo is the most technically and psychically demanding role in the film. Laughton shines though all the make-up. He doesn’t make Quasimodo morose or monstrous instead he plays the role more pitiable and human. I do enjoy with mannerism especially during his brief reign as King of Fools and after his abdication and ringing the bells with his feet.
Jehan Frollo 1939 Hunchback of Notre Dame Sir Cedric Hardwicke
Jehan Frollo(Sir Cedric Hardwicke) – Hardwicke’s plays Frollo with a restraint manner and never teeters into the fevered obsession that the book Frollo exhibited in the book. However other Frollos have played him in this manner so it’s not a huge deal plus Hardwicke’s Frollo makes you forget that aspect of Frollo’s personality. Despite this restraint there are scenes where you can feel craziness behind the facade of control. Like any second he could lose that control and become raving mad and it would still feel in character.
Jehan Frollo, Sir Cedric Hardwicke, 1939 Hunchback of Notre Dame Sir Cedric Hardwicke
Gringoire and Clopin (Edmond O’Brien, Thomas Mitchell) 1939 Hunchback of Notre Dame
The other actors Edmond O’Brien, Harry Davenport, Thomas Mitchell, Alan Marshal and Walter Hampden are all good in their respective role and in the case of O’Brien made a great film debut.
The acting is good and there not too much I can really say other than what I’ve already said without getting into 30’s acting conventions.
Let me first say that I love costumes, I’m a sucker for period films with pretty costumes. With that being said, with one major exception, the costumes in the 1939 version of “The Hunchback of Notre Dame” are middle of the road. They help define the setting of the story and characters. But most of the costumes are not recognizable within film nostalgia (save for one).
Plunkett’s design for Esmeralda
The costumes were designed by Walter Plunkett. Walter Plunkett was the costume designer for “Gone with the Wind“. Perhaps designing grandiose Southern Belle/Victorian bustles is a tad more fun than designing costumes for medieval Parisian and nomads. To the film’s credit it did have a ton of extras to cloth and they all look their parts.
Movie poster for 1939 Hunchback of Notre Dame
Esmeralda– Esmeralda gets about three costumes though one is a plain white linen chemise she wears before she’s almost hanged.
Her costumes are stylized and by no means accurate, like most costumes in movies, it’s time’s interpretation of whatever period the film is depicting. Esmeralda’s main dress is a long skirt with some patch work detail, a blouse (I suppose it’s moonlighting as a chemise) it looks like it has a slight sheen and also has fringe detail and a corset with some spangle detail.
As for accessories she has a necklace and bracelet and of course being a gypsy dancer a tambourine. Her second outfit is a blouse with an embroidery detail at the neck and on the sleeves. She sports a long skirt with more embroidery. She also has a belt with a rather large buckle and a head scarf. Both of these design are derived from Plunkett’s design. As for the color of these costumes my guess would be her main one is red (though one movie has it’s a as purple and another movie poster has it as red) and I would guess her performance outfit is a blue skirt and a white blouse (though who can tell through shades of grey but the two costume are different shades of grey. Her costumes do read “nomad” but they’re not overly gimmicky. Though it is hard to speculate what the group would have been wearing in the late 15th France. Paintings from the 16th century depicted Romani wearing a sari-like garment.
Close up of Quasimodo’s make-up
Quasimodo’s Hunch
The Crown for the King of Fools
Quasimodo – As I mention there was a major exception to the run-of-the-mill-i-ness of the costumes and while technically this applies to make-up it still counts.
The make-up for Laughton’s Quasimodo was masterful. A collaboration between Laughton and Make-up artist Perc Westmore and costed $10,000. Laughton & Westmore went through numerous versions and they were rejected by Laughton. He wanted his face loop-sided, so a mask had to pull the right side of face up and the left side down. A false eye was placed on his cheek and Laughton wore a colored contact in his right eye to make it look cloudy. The hump weighted 4 pounds and made of aluminum scaffold filled with a foam rubber and covered with a thin layer of elastic. Laughton wanted it to be heavy so that he could feel physical pain of walking. He also had an inch added to the sole of his left show so one leg would be shorter that other creating a natural limb. (this information is from Maureen O’Hara’s book “‘Tis Herself“). For Quasimodo the only requirement is the physical look and Notre Dame, Quasimodo can be in Tux and you would know who it is. One more thing on Quasimodo’s get-up, the King of Fool crown is a nice blend of a crown and jester’s hat.
Frollo’s costume
Frollo – The villain, he wears all black and has a severe look, straight almost square cut to the hair (he’s a squareム). It looks to me that he wears velvet which is the blackest fabric and there is very little details to break up the costume so it looks like stab of black. He has a hat that has a built in cowl and has a fur trim a round his neck. All black, all severe, all rich fabric, his character is very clear he’s rich, powerful and EVIL (or just an antagonist).
King Louis’s Costume
Louis– I’m going to mention Louis because he’s a counterpoint for Frollo because Louis also wears all black but he has many details to break it so the black reads as a power color and not evil. He looks like a medieval kings, some regalia but more casual. He also sports a hat with jewelry, more jewelry, and a fur vest. Black but approachable yet kingly.
Gringoire as a Harlequin
Clopin’s Feather Hat
Phoebus in armor (on left)
Archdeacon Claude in less than period vestments
The Rest – Gringoire and Clopin wear pretty standard tunics nothing too special except Clopin has a big old feather in his hat. Gringoire also get a harlequin outfit for his performance at the party and it’s pretty standard. Phoebus a suit of armor and it looks very silly. Phoebus also has some party garb it a cape and tunic basically none special not like his armor. Claude the Archdeacon’s costumes looks more current(even by modern standards) than what a priest of 1400’s would have wore.
The Buckle on Esmeralda’s costume
Extras with 30’s hairstyles
Fleur in Chiffon
Finally being a film from the late 30’s there are costumes and accessories peppered throughout the movie that look more 30’s than medieval. Claude’s vestment (seen above), Esmeralda’s belt buckle (belts were more for swords not fashion), the extra’s hairstyle (note the length and curls) and Fleur, a glorified extra that gets a name, her dress screams late 30 design so much so that it stands out in my mind despite the fact that you only see it for a moment. The dress is made from what I can guess is a chiffon. Chiffon is not even remotely a fabric that would have been used in the 1400s. Chiffion was invented in the 18th. (Fun fact – Chiffon is french for “rag”).
More on another aspect of Mise-en-secene next time – Acting
The first aspect of Mise-en-Scene of the 1939 “The Hunchback of Notre Dame” that I’m going to look at are the Props. Why Props? Well to put it nicely it’s the least impressive aspect of the film. This film has very little in terms of props. Fact is, some definitions of Mise-en-scene lump props and setting together and while some of the “props” in this movie are more like set pieces, the sets of this movie need their own post. So anyway on with the Props.
A Bell of Notre Dame
Quasimodo (Charles Laughton) and the Bells
The film being a period has tons of props to help create the look and feel of Paris in the late 1400’s but only a hand full of these props are actually important for the characters and the story. Two of the most important “props” (I would consider them more like set pieces, but I’ll address them here) are the printing press and the Bells. Being a Hunchback of Notre Dame film there must be Bells. The Bells in this film are very impressive they look like cathedral bells. The bells that Charles Laughton (Quasimodo) had to ring were roughly about 100 pounds (true factoid – the huge bell Emmanuel at Notre Dame is about 13 tons). There not much to say on the Bells in this film they look like huge cathedral bells the sound like Bells but that’s because the sound recording is bells from Notre Dame..
The Printing Press
Then there is the printing press, the movie symbol for progress, again this thing is so big that it more a set piece than a prop and again I can’t say to much on it it. Like the bells, it is well executed and looks on point to how Gutenberg’s press looked. The printing press does have a major importance in the film but the film hits you over the head with this fact every chances it gets. So it really does become annoying.
Aristotle the Goat
Esmeralda (Maureen O'Hara) and Aristotle share a moment
Now the props that were more than set pieces, the props with purpose. Starting with the Goat, Aristotle or the miracle goat. Aristotle can perform math much like his counterpart Djali (from the book). Aristotle is the main reason why Esmeralda is on trial for witchcraft. The poor goat gets the short end here, Aristotle is brought in because I guess the script writers forgot that there was a goat and that the goat was a main character in the book and added it at the last second. So Aristotle is brought in and you never see or hear mention of him after Esmeralda is recused. So the purpose of the Goat is to solidify Esmeralda as potential witch but here the thing, It’s never really clear to whom Aristotle belongs. Gringoire seems to have more to do with Aristotle than Esmeralda. Gringoire introduces him and Gringoire has concern for him (he brings him a cabbage while Aristotle and Esmeralda are in jail). Aristotle just seems to exist to bring trouble to Esmeralda. Aristotle takes off for Esmeralda just before the murder and lingers with her and during the trial, Aristotle nuzzles her which is further the witchcraft accusation. It also seems like that Gringoire both named Aristotle and more than likely taught him to count. But since Aristotle’s backstory is non existent the audience is left just to assume Aristotle is Esmeralda’s goat, and since Aristotle comes and goes and his one function is to implicate Esmeralda as witch for medieval types during the trial. Therefore the goat is a prop and I wish they had gotten a white goat, apart from accuracy to the book, a white goat would have looked better for a black and white film.
Daggers in the "Trial by Ordeal"
Esmeralda's Clean Dagger
Another prop used to showcase Esmeralda’s guilt are the daggers. There are two daggers, Esmeralda’s and Louis’. Esmeralda’s dagger is the “murder weapon” though when Phoebus is found dead and Esmeralda is found with dagger in hand with Aristotle her Dagger is clean. Louis’ dagger was used during the “Trial by Ordeal” that he subjected Esmeralda to in an effort to clear her of murder but she failed. Unlike the Esmeralda’s dagger, Louis is used to show that he a good king who at least tried to help, but further than that the dagger does nothing.
The Bellboy
Gringoire's pamphlet
Other props in the movie that are featured and slightly important that I’ll mention quickly are Bell Boy, the pamphlet and a whip. The Bell Boy is used in the Court of Miracles to test Gringoire thief skills, he fails to steal from the prop and as a result marries Esmeralda and they fall in love. Paper and books are seen throughout the movie, they go hand-in-hand with the printing press that is a symbol of progress. The big piece of paper is Gringoire’s pamphlet that help pardon Esmeralda (though another piece of paper damned her, the nobels’ petition but they didn’t use the press so their old fashion and therefore they suck) Lastly, the Whip, Quasimodo is whipped on the pillory and when Esmeralda gives him water and pity, he fall in love with her. The whip is symbol for oppression and since this film is about modernization and progress the whip serve as a counterpoint to have crappy the medieval time period was.
So if the plot of the 1939 version of “The Hunchback of Notre Dame” is the weakest aspect then what are stronger aspects?
The Visuals.
The Mise-en-Scene (stuff in front of the camera) more than makes up for the weak plot adaptation. The break down of Mise-en-scene is in five parts; Lighting, Sets, Costumes, Props, and Staging/perfomances.
For the most part all these areas are handled with masterful attention, then again it’s no surprise considering how much RKO Radio Pictures put into movie to one up the 1923 version ($250,000 in 1939*)
Over the next couple of posts we’ll look at the Mise-en-scene of the film.
So after looking at the plot overview let’s review it. The first thing to look at is the script. The script of 1939 version of the Hunchback of Notre Dame was written by Bruno Frank and Sonya Levien. Frank wrote an adaptation and Levien wrote a screenplay based off that adaptation. The thing to keep in mind about Frank’s adaptation is that he was a German author, poet, dramatist and humanist of Jewish descent. He fled Germany because he feared the Government and lived in Austria and England before going to America in 1937. He then starting working in Hollywood as a writer. So given the political environment of the late 30’s along with Frank’s experience it’s no wonder that the Hunchback of Notre Dame parallels Europe of the late 30s. Considering Frank’s background as an author/poet/humanist it’s understandable why Gringoire is co-hero with Quasimodo.
Speaking of Quasimodo and scenes that feature him, most of his lines are pretty much verbatim to what Victor Hugo wrote. The film also likes to insert him wherever it can: Louis commenting on the Bells and asking about the Bell ringer, the girl crying to grandmother about seeing him, scaring Esmeralda away from Notre Dame, confessing to Phoebus‘ murder, and him alone at the end. Clearly the film compensates for Quasimodo isn’t the main character in the book.
One of the major problems with the plot is that because there is this push towards modernity, which Louis and Gringoire represent, there are lot of scenes that are either completely added, like opening scene or added to much larger parts of the film so that Louis and Gringoire can be featured more. Quasimodo’s flogging and Esmeralda’s trial are good examples. The pillory scene cuts away to other characters and sometimes just random extras, but it mainly cuts to Gringoire and Clopin, who are talking about the truth about beggary and Gringoire wanting to help Quasimodo, so he prolonged in the scene further by seeing Claude. Esmeralda’s trial has interjects made by Gringoire pleading for common sense, Quasimodo confessing to the murder, and Louis giving Esmeralda a “Trial by Ordeal” the “ordeal” is more chance, basically she just has to touch the right dagger (Louis) to be freed but she fails. These add on don’t add much and if they accomplish anyway it weak character develop at best.
all these pictures are all from the “pillory scene” and now for the trial
this scene does not have as many ADD-ons as the pillory scene but when Quasimodo comes in it just falls apart and having Louis there makes it worst.
Another big problem is Frollo’s obsession/lust for Esmeralda comes off very contrived. He sees her dance, he stares but I don’t think he is enchanted by her at that moment. Their discussion in Notre Dame is just there so he can talk to her. He starts by letting his prejudices and superstition about her and her people be known and thne he stares at her breasts for more than a few seconds. And while that part is quite amusing, it seems so forced, it almost like he bored of talking to her. After that the talk takes a dive because they strike an accord over a mutual love of animals, for no explain reason Frollo keeps a dozen cats in his office, I guess this would explain why he took in Quasimodo in the first place. Anyway it seemed that Frollo and Esmeralda could be have friends if Quasimodo haven’t scared her and he tried to kidnap her. A side point about the kidnapping, at the point where Esmeralda fled from Notre Dame she apparently lived in sanctuary because she didn’t have a city permit and would be arrested for not having one, so seemed like the “kidnapping” was only to take her back to safety. It’s good thing the guard who recused her didn’t ask for her permit, actually the permit thing is never mention again, it completed its’ mission for the plot. Anyway back to the Frollo/Esmeralda dynamic, given his tepid feeling and her lacking of feeling anything towards him, this makes the confession scene odd. Esmeralda and Gringoire are performing and for some weird reason Frollo is hosting. He asks Gringoire if he is ready to perform. When Gringoire is out the way , Frollo makes his move and confesses his confused little feelings. Now prior to this scene Frollo tried exactly once to find Esmeralda, he had all the Gypsy girls in the Court of Miracle arrested and then released because Esmeralda wasn’t there. So he didn’t shown his powerful obsession/lust, so it hard to buy his torment. Prior to this we know that Esmeralda doesn’t have any strong dislike of Frollo, so I don’t buy her fear in this scene either. Then she goes off with Phoebus and Frollo kills him again I don’t believe he was pushed to murder. Since Frollo is the catalyst that causes the story to take motion, the Frollo/Esmeralda dynamic needs to strong, not there because the it was in the original.
I do like that the theme is old vs new and embraces the sprit of progress, it’s a nice change of pace for a Hunchback movie. The cliche theme for Hunchback films is “beauty is on the inside”. But the theme does tries to hard it assert itself and competes with original too much. I think the plot suffers because of this and ultimately the the plot and the screenplay are the weakest element of the film.
Next time we’ll look at the Mise-en-scene for the movie. see ya then!
are middle of the road. They help define the setting of the story and characters. But most of the costumes are not recognizable within film nostalgia (save for one).
) and I would guess her performance outfit is a blue skirt and a white blouse (though who can tell through shades of grey but the two costume are different shades of grey. Her costumes do read “nomad” but they’re not overly gimmicky. Though it is hard to speculate what the group would have been wearing in the late 15th France. Paintings from the 16th century depicted Romani wearing a sari-like garment. 
“). For Quasimodo the only requirement is the physical look and Notre Dame, Quasimodo can be in Tux and you would know who it is. One more thing on Quasimodo’s get-up, the King of Fool crown is a nice blend of a crown and jester’s hat.
