The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1939)

☆ ☆ ☆ ☆

The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1939) – W. Dieterle

I approached this as a horror movie and, apart from Charles Laughton’s terrifying make-up as Quasimodo (the hunchback of the title), it is clearly not.  Instead, it is an historical drama (one hesitates to say romance) drawn from Victor Hugo’s novel, detailing events at the dawn of the 16^th century in France.  Louis XI is king (Harry Davenport) and he seems open to the new era, including the printing press (and the ideas it spreads) and immigration (by gypsies and others). However, his cruel chief justice Frollo (Cedric Hardwicke) is not.  This causes problems for gypsy Esmerelda (Maureen O’Hara) who entrances everyone with her dancing but who is nearly hung on the orders of Frollo (who has killed her love interest and pinned the crime on her, to suppress and reject his desire for her).  She only escapes because of a last minute rescue by Quasimodo who she had earlier pitied and soothed when he was punished and pilloried (for attempting to capture her on Frollo’s command). That’s the main story but a significant subplot tells of a secret beggar’s kingdom, led by Clopin (Thomas Mitchell) who captures the poet Gringoire (Edmond O’Brien in his film debut) and nearly hangs him except he is also pitied and then “married” ‘in a beggars’ wedding to Esmerelda.  I wish there was more of this hidden world in the film with its claustrophobic detail and crafty denizens. Indeed, the money spent on sets and costumes here must have been extravagant; apparently the Notre Dame cathedral alone cost $250K, with its belltower a significant element of the story (Quasimodo is, of course, the bellringer).  Laughton, known for his sneering eloquence, is surprisingly mute for most of the film, instead expressing himself non-verbally, impressively under all that makeup.  Apparently this made quite an impression on those who saw it in childhood and it still has the power to bewitch today.