100 years ago today the 1923 Lon Chaney version of The Hunchback of Notre Dame premiered.
This movie launched the Universal Monster movies as well as was the first time a movie version mostly focused on Quasimodo and his actor. Prior film versions were focused on Esmeralda with notable actresses in the starring role.
This version is one of the more notable movie adaptions along side the Disney version and the 1939 Charles Laughton version.
Lon Chaney as Erik, the Phantom and Mary Philbin as Christine Daae
Despite what some people think, the 1925 version of The Phantom of the Opera is not the first film version. There was an earlier one that now lost. This version was also reissused in 1929.
Of all the movie versions of Phantom this one is the most culturally ingrained and till Webber’s musical is one of the more seminal versions of Leroux book. It was a landmark film not only for the Universal Monster genre but sets and make-up. Like in The Hunchback of Notre Dame two years earlier, Lon Chaney did his own make-up and it was a real set-up from Quasimodo. People were terrified of Chaney’s Erik. But also the look and mood of the movie is great.
As far as the movie goes as adaptation of the novel it follows short, especially of how it COULD have been. Number one, the characters are all pretty darn simplistic. Erik just comes off as crazy; albeit with dramatic crazy in love but it doesn’t go as deep as in the book. He doesn’t even get the redemption that makes him a bittersweet figure.
Raoul is also different. He is not the whining stalker he is in the novel but more dashing and the typical lead of the time. He is also played by Norman Kerry who played Phoebus in the 1923 version. Mary Philbin’s Christine is one point but again she not a wish-washy as she is the book.
For the most part, scene per scene, beat by beat the movie plays out close to the book while streamline things that is TILL the ending. In this movie Christine agrees to marry Erik and instead of him dying a alone of a broken-hearted, he grabs Christine and is chased and killed by a mob. Which is ridiculous. Chaney didn’t care for this ending but it tested better with audiences. The original ending that was shot, is more faithful, with Erik’s redemption of letting Christine go and dying at his organ. They also shot the scene where Erik plays the violin at the graveyard. So the movie could have been more like the book. Though the chase does go by Notre Dame.
All in all, the 1925 isn’t a bad movie and is a fairly good version of book. But I would say watch it more for this movie’s importance and not for the story and the characters.
Lon Chaney as The Phantom of the Opera with Mary Philbin as Christine Daae
Finally a deformed dude from movie(s) that I’m familiar with. Prior to Hunchback I was big into the Phantom of Opera so I have seen a lot of the movie/ musical version of this.
Phantom of the Opera comes from book written by Gaston Leroux from 1909 and was made into several popular movies namely the 1925 version starting former Quasimodo, Lon Chaney and 1943 version starting Claude Rains, though it was the 1986 musical by Andrew Lloyd Webber that made it a Household name.
The basic plot of Phantom is a deformed musical and all around genius, a.k.a Erik, lives under a Paris opera house where he falls in love with an aspiring opera diva, Christine Daae. Erik is obsessed Christine and kills though who get in his way. Unlike our pal Frollo, Erik is in love with Christine to fair degree. In a way Erik is a combo of Quasimodo and Frollo. He’s tragic and dreams of beauty and love but he is crazy.
Erik’s appearance and back story changes from version to version. In the book he looks like a corpse with a skull head and gray skin. The book was the basis for Chaney’s make-up. In the 1943 version, he was burnt with acid. The Webber musical used a half make so the performer could singer easier. The deformity therefore only affect one side of his face. Typically the deformity has a hug lip, exposed areas and doesn’t look very nice. The 2004 version just looked like a bad sunburn.
Well the brings us to the end and it’s time to re-read Phantom, I better get reading.
Lon Chaney as Quasimodo 1923 Hunchback of Notre Dame
Short answer, yes! As of now there have been two Hunchback movies that seemingly have never got their footing one being from Max Ryan that had a full cast list and the other was from Josh Brolin who just had the director attached. The real question is why should they make a new version?
Salma Hayek as Esmeralda & Mandy Patinkin as Quasimodo,
Hollywood technically hasn’t made a Hunchback movie since 1939. Disney of course made their version 1996, but Disney is a little separate from Hollywood. The other versions were from France, (1956, and 1999) and the other versions were TV movies (1977, 1982, and 1997.) So there has not been a designated Hollywood Hunchback in nearly 80 years.
Quasimodo Charles Laughton, 1939 Hunchback of Notre Dame
So yeah there should a new adaptation for a more modern audience. But more than that, there are more reasons than just timeframe. Pending on the type of the movie that the producers go for, Hunchback could be pure oscar bait. For instant it’s historical-based story with a high pretension factor. Second make-up, one can get crazy with the Quasimodo’s make-up and people love the trope of the ugly dude with the beautiful soul and I think people on the internet eat that shit up. There also the real-life angle they could make with the Hunchback worker. Oscars LOVE movies based on true stories.
Esmeralda (Gina Lollobrigida) dances, 1956 Hunchback of Notre Dame
Also adding to the oscar bait factor, the academy loves itself and since it made up of mostly of actors they like movies about actors. Now there isn’t actors so much in Hunchback but Gringoire is a playwright and Esmeralda is a dancer so they are technically part of the larger industry.
Sets of the 1982 Version of The Hunchback of Notre Dame
They could also go other genre routes, like re-working the story to be like a super-hero movie. Super-hero movies are super popular though they have been waning in recent years. But Quasimodo fits a super-hero type, so it could work.
Esmeralda, Phoebus and Quaismodo Disney Hunchback of Notre Dame
There is also the chance, albeit not a super strong one, of Disney doing a live-action adaptation of the Disney version. This seems to a major trend with Disney right now. I could see this happening more than an super-hero version or a pure oscar bait.
Josh Brolin Interview for Men in Black
I will say that I have no idea what Brolin version was trying to do but I would say given Brolin and the director it might have been a super-hero variety. I couldn’t even guess on Max Ryan’s version.
But yeah, Hollywood make a new version. What kind of Hunchback version would you like to see?
(Post Script – Max’s Ryan’s movie is a going ahead as well as an Esmeralda movie in the works)
Among the more famous versions of Hunchback, each version has a lot of movie posters. For this post, we’re going to look at the top seven best Hunchback movie posters. These are not in a specific order and they are all available on Amazon.
#1 All the characters, the Disney version
Disney Hunchback of Notre Dame Poster
This poster has a lot of energy. You get a sense of the personality of all the characters. I like how Clopin and is front and center and I like how Frollo looms over everyone from on high. I don’t really like how central the gargoyles are but that is a nitpick.
2# All the characters Chaney version
1923 Hunchback of Notre Dame Poster
I really like how front and center Esmeralda is in this poster. All the other character are pretty much there in the crowd and their personality come through. I also like the color palette on this one which is ironic seen this was a tinted movie.
#3 Pseudo-Monster Movie, 1939 Version
1939 Hunchback of Notre Dame Poster
I debated whether or not to included this one since it kind of plays with the audience’s expectation of a monster and Laughton is one of the least monstrous hunchbacks but that’s its strength. It has the signifier that says it’s a hunchback movie but makes it feel different and I like that it hides Quasimodo‘ looks. I also like the red tone
There is a similar 1939 poster with a Quasimodo in silhouette against Notre Dame and pillory but it just not a dynamic.
#4 Stark Simplicity, 1923 Version
1923 Hunchback of Notre Dame Poster
This one made simple but it captures the imagination of what this movie could be like. And I find the design bold and graphic.
1939 Hunchback of Notre Dame Poster
I like this one as I really like the rendering of Maureen O’Hara. It just has a good composition to it though I can’t really tell if that is Jehan or Gringoire but I would it’s Jehan.
#6 Captivatingly Overprice, 1956 Version
1956 Hunchback of Notre Dame Poster
I really like the picture vignettes in this and Gina Lollobridga looks lovely in this. Somehow this poster just makes the movie seem more like an epic.
#7 Pillory Scene, 1923 Version
1923 Hunchback of Notre Dame Poster
I debated between this one and another 1939 poster. I went with this one because I really like the way Esmeralda is depicted. It is also interesting to showcase the pillory scene in a movie poster.
Theda Bara as Esmeralda in the 1917 The Darling of Paris
Let’s consider a trend with Lost Films. All the films seem to make Esmeralda the main character. Every film but the 1911 version refereed to Esmeralda in the title and every film but the 1905 version had a prominent actress playing Esmeralda.
Given that most of the films of Hunchback favor Quasimodo as main character would it have made a difference if the four last films were available today? Might have help a little bit considering the 1923 version was originally a star vehicle for Pricilla Dean before Lon Chaney made it his picture. That’s right I think it’s pretty much Chaney’s doing that made the role of Quasimodo the point of focus for the films. You have to really wonder if the film had been Dean’s movie would Hunchback have had the same number of films and enjoyed the some film legacy.
It’s just such a interesting trajectory the focus that Hunchback films have taken, first focusing on the young and sometimes tragic Gypsy Dancer to the deformed often tragic hunchback. And when you consider the first four films were all Esmeralda based till Chaney changed it you have to really blame Chaney for it seeing as he had a lot to do with the 1923 version.
Howver there is at least ONE existing films version is known for the actress who plays Esmeralda.
Next Hunchback version the 1997 version called Hunchback and commonly known as the Salma Hayek version
Salma Hayek as Esmeralda, 1997 Hunchback of Notre Dame
I come across this poll on Imdb called Monsters in Love. Among the monsters is our pal Quasimodo. The picture they used for him is from Hotel Transylvania
Hotel Transylvania
That being said I’m not bothered enough that they used Hotel Transylvania’s Quasimodo to make a post on it, I’m bother that the picture they use has Jonathan right in the middle and Quasimodo off to the side of the image.
Not-Quasimodo Wilson, Jonathan the Human and Adam Sandler Hotel Transylvania
Above is the picture that was used for Quasimodo. Except they used a tiny thumbnail which cuts off Quasimodo a little past the ear. All the other monster got a clear shot. Why not Quasimodo?
Lon Chaney as the Hunchback of Notre Dame
Not sure why they didn’t go for the Lon Chaney version or Laughton? Chaney would have been perfect as the 1923 version started the monster movie trend.
Plus Quasimodo in Hotel Transylvania wasn’t even in love unless you count the love of food? Somehow, I doubt it
Hunchback of Notre Dame 1923 Lon Chaney
The 1923 version of The Hunchback of Notre Dame is fondly remember for launching Lon Chaney’s career and for helping to change the way films were made but the movie is viewed with rose-colored glasses. Viewers often watch this movie as the First major Hunchback movie, as a classic universal monster movie or as Lon Chaney’s star vehicle. Judging by the audio commentator of the DVD this film gets critical pass but the movie is on the boring side and none of the character are fleshed out. It’s just dull on the story front. Speaking on the DVD commentary or in this case the Audio Essay (*cough* Pretentious *cough*), while there is a lot of good information the guy (Michael F. Blake) can not pronounce Quasimodo, Esmeralda or Phoebus. He says Quasimodo like Qua-SAY-Mo-do and Esmeralda like Esme-RAUL-da and really murders Phoebus’ name.
The Hunchback of Notre dame 1923 version Ultimate Edition Stuff
If your interested the DVD comes with ;
– Optional audio essay by Michael F. Blake
– Lon Chaney on the set
– Alias and Alack (excerpt)
– Gallery of promotional shots and advertising material
– 20-page liner notes booklet with images featuring essay and reproduction of original souvenir program.
– And 3-D Glasses with no earpiece so you can’t keep it on. It’s for the Gallery of 3-D stills.They 3d enough just to make you feel slightly dizzy.
Click here to get the DVD along with all these features
Now let’s move anyway from the super remembered 1923 version to the not at all remember Jetlag version. With a studio name like that they have to put out high quality cartoons that are exciting, right?
Jetlag Cover
Oh….. well Next time the Jetlag version (which was selected by a vote)
Hint: Pay attention to grey tones
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
