sets | The Hunchblog of Notre Dame

06Apr 2018

The sets of The 1977 version of Hunchback

by jess

Set from 1977 Hunchback of Notre Dame

Perhaps it’s mean to really be that judgmental towards the sets in this version of Hunchback. After all this is a BBC made for TV two part miniseries from the late 70’s, and based just on the look and the fact that they used a painting for exterior shots of Notre Dame, it points to them just not have any budget for sets.

Kenneth Haigh as Frollo

As it stands this movie looks like it was shot on a single soundstage that was dressed to fit the scene, more like a play but necessity is the mother of invention so we can and will judge like the cold-hearted judgmental bitch critic we wish we were. Honestly, I started out this review wanting to go easy on this movie for its sets but then I watched it again.

David Rintoul as Jehan

The sets are a awash of dull dark browns and ashy grays. There is not much color to these sets. This could be an attempt to showcase the urbaness of medieval Paris but just comes off as boring, like the rest of the movie and what this reviews series as devalued into. How many ways can I articulate this movie is dull? Turns out I don’t need to the sets do it for me.

Set from 1977 Hunchback of Notre Dame

Let’s look at the first set of the movie, the place where Gringoire has his play performed, it a stage with a carpet on it, some chairs, some candles holder and what look like stone frames. The walls, or a dropcloth, which are really far back are painted in red tones. Now I always assumed that this was an interior BUT now that I look at the set and consider it more this is supposed to outside space given the red background and the stone frame things. But given that I just can’t really tell, how effective is this set at conveying the where this scene takes place?

Hetty Baynes as Fleur de Lys with Richard Morant as Phoebus

I don’t think the sets are badly made, they look like they were well executed and they look competently constructed but given how dark everything looks and that the lighting isn’t helping you can’t really tell. Everything just fades into mediocrity.

05Jul 2017

Other Aspects to the La Esmeralda

by jess

Sets

Sets of La Esmeralda Kremlin Ballet Company, Moscow

For the most parts you don’t really notice the sets in this Ballet, mainly because so much of the attention is focused on the dancing, as it should be. If you do happen to look at the sets you would see they are quite lovely.

The only set that is noticeable would be drop cloths that are used as transitions. They usually appear when characters are crossing the stage so there is little dancing taking part. The designs on the cloth is typically maps and they have a nice cross hatching on them that make them feel like antique book illustrations. The concept of a basic though nicely done dropcloth does seem a little on the amateurish side but it does help set a tone.

The other sets are very well detailed and are more representational opposed to symbolic of Paris and Notre Dame. Meaning it looks like Notre Dame instead of columns and a gargoyle like in Notre Dame de Paris. Neither approach is wrong just a style choice. Also Notre Dame is for most always seen in the distance. Always omnipresent. The realistic sets are also a good counter to the symbolist representation of the story through dance.

Lighting

Lighting of La Esmeralda Kremlin Ballet Company, Moscow

This is one of the strongest aspects on the show. It always convey the right mood and drama for the scene. The best use of lightening is during Frollo’s meltdown with dancers bathed in red contrasted in cold blue of Frollo. Also the Pas de deux between Quasimodo and Esmeralda at the end in a wash of blue added to the tragic ending.

Music

Conductor of La Esmeralda Kremlin Ballet Company, Moscow

Not as crazy about the music. It sounded like it was trying to be the Dance of the Hours even though Ponchielli composed Dance of the Hours in 1876 and Pugni composed La Esmeralda in 1844. I don’t know much about 19th century music but the music didn’t to move me. It wasn’t bad or incompetent by means. If you like the music that’s great but I do not. I could just have unrefined tastes in music.

29Apr 2014

I canâ€™t believe itâ€™s not Notre Dame; The Sets of the 1997 version of Hunchback

by jess

The very first time I watched 1997 version of The Hunchback I was struck by the sets mainly the Notre Dame sanctuary sets and not in a good way.

Sets 1997 Hunchback of Notre Dame picture image

Quasimodo in “Notre Dame” Interior Set

The set used for the sanctuary of Notre Dame is pretty but Notre Dame it is not. Oh, it has similar aspects of Notre Dame as it’s a gothic church but it’s not Notre Dame.

Frollo inside “Notre Dame” with King and Minister

This church has a soft earthly glow to it that Notre Dame not have. Notre Dame is dark inside so that the light from the rose windows pours inside. This light in the movie could have been the result of lighting a set for filming but post production could have corrected that. But I don’t think so. The layout and the look of it are just different. The stones seems more brown in tone and not grey like in Notre Dame. The columns totally different. Notre Dame’s columns are bigger with more complex capitals, the tops of columns. The ones in The Hunchback have like a stacking clustering details. It’s very telling that you don’t get an establishing shot of the sanctuary of the cathedral like in the 1939 version and the Disney version.

The Church of Saint Ouen in Rouen

Clearly they are passing another Church off as Notre Dame instead of a building set or shoting at Notre Dame. The Church they are passing off as Notre Dame is The Church of Saint Ouen in Rouen. Shame of you movie, Saint Ouen is gorgeous is its own right. In truth it does not matter which Church it is, it’s not Notre Dame. It’s disrespectful to the buildings and the audience when movies pass off one landmark for another. I get that movies typically pass off Toronto for New York because it’s cheaper but somehow this switch reminds of this Bollywood movie called Hum Dil De Chuke Sanam, in which they try and fail to pass off Budapest for Rome. They did it because the filmmakers felt Budapest wouldn’t connect to an Indian audience. And clearly the film makers for the 1997 Hunchback think one Gothic Church is as good as another because people won’t notice.

The rest of the sets are ok, nothing really to say, they are like the rest of this movie meh…..

Next Time -Final Thoughts of the 1997 Version of The Hunchback.

Salma Hayek as Esmeralda,

24Sep 2013

Nice and Ignored; The Sets of the 1982 version of Hunchback

by jess

Sets of the 1982 Version of The Hunchback of Notre Dame

One of the Hallmarks of any Hunchback adaptation is Notre Dame and since Notre Dame falls into the set category this makes the sets important to the movie. At least the sets should be important to the film but in the case of the 1982 version they are not. The sets in the movie are not showcased and this makes them look uninteresting and not memorable.

Sets of the 1982 Version of The Hunchback of Notre Dame

The film does not waste a single shot to establish anything, not even Notre Dame. We only get a few shots of parts of the Cathedral, mainly the door and the gallery. The reason for that that might be the didn’t really have a full scale set of the facade or a even model. They just had a set of the door up to the row statues and the upper galley where Esmeralda and Quasimodo look down on Paris. The most they seem to have of the facade is probably a matte painting.

Interior Set of the Bell tower, 1982 Version of The Hunchback of Notre Dame

Other than that the interiors sets of Notre Dame are very dark and seem imposing which goes against the ideology of Gothic Architecture of letting the light into the interior. Though we don’t get many shot of Notre Dame’s Sanctuary. However most of the sets are dark in the movie which doesn’t help them to stand out to the viewer.

Sets of the 1982 Version of The Hunchback of Notre Dame

But are the sets bad? No, they are not when you actually look at them. They look like are they are nicely made and have good aging to them. The problem is the film doesn’t care about the sets so the viewers can’t care about them, not even Notre Dame. Which is unfortunate because they are actually decent sets.

Next 1982 Article…………..

16Apr 2013

Medieval Paris Experience – The Sets of the 1956 version of Hunchback

by jess

Streets In Front of Notre Dame, 1956 Hunchback of Notre Dame

Unlike other versions of The Hunchback of Notre Dame I can tell I’m looking at a set in the 1956 version. The sets are nice and they do their job well but there is no life to them. That maybe the fault of the film’s direction and not entirely the sets themselves.

The upper Set of Notre Dame, 1956 Hunchback of Notre Dame

Notre Dame itself looks fine. It has a nice sense of age and weathering on it. But you never see the full grandeur of it. You get hints of it in shots of the city but nothing expansive.

Esmeralda’s room set, 1956 Hunchback of Notre Dame

You do get a sense of the narrow poky streets of medieval Paris but with the flat angles of the direction of this movie the sets really just sit in the background and do not get a sense of feeling like I have been transported back in time I feel like I’m looking at decent looking sets.

Esmeralda (Gina Lollobrigida) in the bell tower, 1956 Hunchback of Notre Dame

I had there been more style to way this film was shot maybe the sets would have stood out more and felt less fake. I feel like the sets were designed for Disney’s Epcot Medieval Paris Experience*” and not a movie.

Interior Set, 1956 Hunchback of Notre Dame

Next Time – The style of this movie i.e. The Direction

The Famous Sanctuary scene at a flat angle, 1956 Hunchback of Notre dame

(*) This totally should exist

09Aug 2012

The Set of 1923 Version of Hunchback

by jess

Besides Quaismodo’s make-up and Lon Chaney is there anything else that this movie has going for it? Yes, yes there is, the Sets. The sets are well done.

Notre Dame de Paris Set from the 1923 version of Hunchback

The sets for the 1923 version of the Hunchback were built on the back-lot of universal. To create the cathedral they built the set up to the row of statues. The upper portions of Notre Dame in the long shots were the results of a floating miniature. A floating miniature means that they would hang the model in front on the camera to force the miniature to match up with the set to look like a whole. It’s a trick of the camera that isn’t used to much these days. But the result look seamless.

A Matte Painting used 1923 Hunchback of Notre Dame

The production also used age old film tricks like matte painting to give the sets more depth. In the picture above, everything beyond the chest is a painting

Group cluster together

Also strategic positioning of extras helped to give the sets more scale.

The Notre Dame Set in the Chaney version of the Phantom of the Opera

According to the DVD commentary, the Notre Dame set was used at the end of Chaney’s Phantom of the Opera. Notice how you don’t seen the upper portion of the church that was filled in bu the floating miniature

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

So the set are great but does that couple by Chaney, his make-up and one of my favorite Esmerladas make this a Good movie?

Find out Next time

Patsy Ruth Miller as Esmeralda 1923 Hunchback of Notre Dame

08Mar 2012

Set Designs of Der Glöckner von Notre Dame

by jess

Frollo and Quasimodo Der Glöckner von Notre Dame

The Hunchback of Notre Dame has a long film history of being a big grand production and Der Glöckner von Notre Dame of does a good job of capturing a grand scope on stage.

Esmeralda singing Helf den VerstoÃŸ'nen Der Glöckner von Notre Dame

The Stage Design uses a lot of tricks to simulate heights and locations. They way the show does this is by using hydraulic to raise portions of the stages and they also use projections to show various locations. The Lighting also work well to capture the mood of the scene by also lets the projections shine. For example, a Rose Window Projection with columns on stage and soft dark lighting to indicate the nave of Notre Dame or Clouds and Stone Carving with bright lights to show the top of the tower of Notre Dame. There are also a lot of moving pieces which add to the spectacle.

Esmeralda saving Phoebus Der Glöckner von Notre Dame

The overall effect looks well integrated and rich and less cheesy than standard sets. You can tell that this where the budget was mostly spent but I think it was worth it The Stage design combine the sets, lighting and projection to give Der Glöckner von Notre Dame a grand majestic style.

Molten Lead Der Glöckner von Notre Dame

Set Design by Heidi Ettinger, Projections by Jerome Sirlin, and Lighting by Rick Fisher

Watch a video the sets in action here

Next Time – Costumes

Esmeralda Dancing Der Glöckner von Notre Dame

22Feb 2011

Sets of the 1939 version of Hunchback

by jess

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).