The Hunchback of Notre Dame's Recent Activity - Spout

Film:The Hunchback of Notre Dame

Wed, 05 Aug 2009 17:41:49 GMT

Title: The Hunchback of Notre Dame
Year: 1939
Director: William Dieterle
Plot: Few will argue with the contention that RKO Radio's 1939 adaptation of Victor Hugo's The Hunchback of Notre Dame was the best of the many screen versions of the Hugo classic. We say this even allowing for certain liberties taken with the source material-liberties calculated by scenarists Sonya Levien and Bruno Frank to draw parallels between 15th century Paris and 20th century Europe. Thus, Claude Frollo (Cedric Hardwicke), the villain of the piece, is no longer merely a religious hypocrite unable to control his own carnal desires. Instead, Frollo is a bush-league Hitler, warning that the invention of the printing press is dangerous in that it will encourage the rabble to think for themselves, and plotting the persecution and destruction of the "undesirable" gypsies. In the same vein, Gringoire the Poet (Edmond O'Brien in his film debut) has been transformed into an agit-prop "Group Theatre" activist, bent on bringing the unvarnished truth to the ignorant Parisians. Many of Hugo's subplots have been dispensed with, the better to concentrate on the grotesquely deformed Quasimodo (Charles Laughton), bell-ringer of Notre Dame Cathedral, and his puppylike loyalty towards imperiled gypsy dancer Esmerelda (Maureen O'Hara, in her first American film appearance). The schism between the haves and have-nots in the walled city of Paris is illustrated in broad, visually dynamic strokes by director William Dieterle. ~ Hal Erickson, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 27
Number of Lists: 12
Number of blog posts: 4
Number of discussion threads: 15
SpoutRating: 3

Spout Post: Re:Which of these Hollywood films released in 1939 is your favorite?

Mon, 14 Sep 2009 01:28:35 GMT

Post By: Dr_Gor
Post To: Movie Polls
Post Date: 9/13/2009 9:28:35 PM
Body: [quote user="Risselada"] Please reference this thread for the rules of this group. I just posted a blog about The Hunchback of Notre Dame. One of the things commented on the special features was how this movie was almost outshadowed by the so many other well known movies that also came out of Hollywood in this same year. I could hardly even list half of films that are still well known today, but I tried my best to pick what would probably be people's most favorites. Please vote only once in each poll. Movies referenced in this poll:Destry Rides AgainGone with the WindThe Hunchback of Notre DameMr. Smith Goes to WashingtonNinotchkaThe Roaring TwentiesStagecoachThe Wizard of OzThe WomenWuthering Heights [/quote] I think I would have to vote for The Wizard of OZ in this one only because I thought Dorothy was pretty hot and Judy Garland gave me a "tingly* feeling at a very young age... The Hunchback would be second followed by Stagecoach ... (John Wayne RULES!) ... < GOR >

Spout Post: Re:Which of these Hollywood films released in 1939 is your favorite?

Wed, 05 Aug 2009 15:40:04 GMT

Post By: Risselada
Post To: Movie Polls
Post Date: 8/5/2009 11:40:04 AM
Body: I had to say Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. I just love it. Can't help it. I saw Stagecoach so long ago, I can't remember many specifics, but I know it was amazing! Sounds like it's time for a revisit. Is there anyone here who actually found Gone with the Wind a bit long and grating? I find Vivien Leigh to be pretty annoying a lot of the time. But people say she was perfect for the part. I've never read the book though, so maybe Scarlett O'Hara the characters is just annoying to me.

Spout Post: Which of these Hollywood films released in 1939 is your favorite?

Tue, 04 Aug 2009 22:09:36 GMT

Post By: Risselada
Post To: Movie Polls
Post Date: 8/4/2009 6:09:36 PM
Body: Please reference this thread for the rules of this group. I just posted a blog about The Hunchback of Notre Dame. One of the things commented on the special features was how this movie was almost outshadowed by the so many other well known movies that also came out of Hollywood in this same year. I could hardly even list half of films that are still well known today, but I tried my best to pick what would probably be people's most favorites. Please vote only once in each poll. Movies referenced in this poll:Destry Rides AgainGone with the WindThe Hunchback of Notre DameMr. Smith Goes to WashingtonNinotchkaThe Roaring TwentiesStagecoachThe Wizard of OzThe WomenWuthering Heights

Spout Post: Spout user recommendations - Dr_Gor - The Hunchback of Notre Dame

Tue, 04 Aug 2009 18:35:54 GMT

Post By: Risselada
Post To: Risselada Blog
Post Date: 8/4/2009 2:35:54 PM
Body: I have asked certain users on Spout to recommend a movie to me. I will be blogging about these films as I watch them. This film was recommended to me by Dr_Gor The Hunchback of Notre Dame I think I may have possibly interacted with my good friend Dr_Gor more than anyone else on Spout over the years. I think he is my closest rival for the number of postings made in group discussions. The HORROR MOVIES 101 group which Gor began and has shepherded along through the years has been the most popular and active group on Spout. I don't believe there to be anyone on Spout with a greater knowledge of horror movies than Gor, and yet his definition of horror as a genre is much broader than many people try to confine it to. At times he can be a bit crude, but admits this himself with his often used self description of "caveman", but most of the time he is amongst the most articulate members of the site. He has been the instigator in many of the most memorable discussion on the site, and for that I completely love him. Although we've had some arguments, that is what the site is for after all, and I usually learn a lot and have a lot of fun by the time they are over. Gor's recommendation to me came at no surprise whatsoever, but that is only because he has recommended it to me so many times in the past and I have apparently been too lazy to finally get around to seeing it. Not that I didn't have any interest in it. On the contrary, sometimes the movies I want to see the most are the ones I put off for seeing the longest. Maybe it's because I like that looming over me. I like have a movie waiting for me that I know I will like when I really want to see it. Or maybe I'm afraid that I won't like it as much as I think I will. In this case, I knew the film's reputation as being one of the greatest literary adaptations of this book or any other book at that time. And I knew the director William Dieterle as the director of one of my absolute favorite films The Devil and Daniel Webster (which is also an adaptation but of a short story that needed to be expanded instead of a massive novel that needed to be compacted). The only thing that put me off was that I had already seen the Lon Chaney version of The Hunchback of Notre Dame and was not overly impressed. I felt like if this was the same story I might be bored, but that was my only major fear. I guess the biggest standout element of the film for me was Charles Laughton and his performance as the hunchback Quasimodo. I think it's interesting that the hunchback character is not necessarily the main character of the story, yet since his name is the title and the character takes such a special actor to handle, this is usually the actor with the most credit in the film. The makeup job here is excellent as is Laughton's acting through all of it. No complaints about the rest of the actors either though. It was exciting to see some other great actors like Thomas Mitchell and Edmund O'Brien here too. I hardly recognized O'Brien though. I saw his name in the credits and it took me half the movie before I realized which part he was playing. He is so young here! This was his first movie. And such a great actor you can see it here right from the beginning. The adaptation was different enough too from the earlier Lon Chaney film too that it kept me interested. Some characters seemed to be added, and some removed. And people seemed to have different motivations. Still, I am not really motivated to ever read the book. Maybe there's so much more there that I'm not aware of. Maybe the prose is something special that I wouldn't know about until I actually got into it. I know that Lord of the Rings was my favorite book for a long time, and the same Dr_Gor who recommended this movie to me lists the recent film adaptations of that book as some of his favorite movies as well. Now THAT is a gigantic book. And even with such long movies I know it was a struggle to try to fit the massive expanse of the text onto the screen. But I still find the hunchback story a bit bland when you pull back from it. Although after seeing these two film version I am kind of shocked to know that there was an animated Disney version of this film as well! It seems too gruesome for that. But now that I think about it, a lot of Disney animated films were culled from some pretty gruesome fairy tales and other source material. The story is not bad. For me it is good, but not the greatest. Yet the acting is fantastic, and the filmmaking is expert. It takes the story and makes it captivating. The uses of shadow in different situations gives a great sense of atmosphere. And the action scenes are epic. *SPOILER* Beginning with the scene of Quasimodo swinging down at a great distance on a rope to save Esmeralda until the end of the film is a great long sequence of action *END SPOILER* Sorry Gor if I didn't like it quite as much as you had hoped, but I still found it to be quite fun and well worth watching. William Dieterle:Total feature length films seen: 2Previous average film score: 10New average film score: 9 Rating: 8/10

Spout Post: movie year countdown #84 - 1923 - The Hunchback of Notre Dame

Wed, 18 Feb 2009 16:53:34 GMT

Post By: Risselada
Post To: Risselada Blog
Post Date: 2/18/2009 11:53:34 AM
Body: This blog entry is part of my “movie year countdown”. To read more about that check out my first Spout filmblog entry. The Hunchback of Notre Dame This is both the first version of The Hunchback of Notre Dame that I've ever experienced (I've never read the book or seen any other movies or plays about it) and the first Lon Chaney movie I've ever seen. And this actually would not normally have been my first choice for my introduction to either of these. I'm not about to set about reading the novel. It's just too long and daunting and honestly the story is just not interesting enough to me to go into it. And as for film William Dieterle's version is famously the best. And Dieterle's The Devil and Daniel Webster is one of my favorite films, so I've been wanting to see another one of his adaptations for a while. As for Lon Chaney I was hoping to see The Unknown or one of his clown films first. Or of course even his most well known The Phantom of the Opera would have been preferable. The reason I did chose this movie was simply because in creating my obsessive movie year countdown project, this seemed to be the only movie released in 1923 that really worked best with the combination of everything else I was watching. I say all this to explore the fact that maybe I didn't enjoy or rate this movie as well as I would have if I didn't have this feeling that I was missing out on something better. Also, the DVD copy available is just horribly marred and could benefit from a further restoration I think. That is, if anyone deemed it worth preserving. Another thing that really confused me for most of the movie is how the film was trying to get me to react to Phoebus. Again, I am not familiar with any other versions of this story, but at first it seemed like the movie was setting him up to be a villain, but by the end it seems like we are supposed to be cheering for him. The problem is, I'm not sure where this change takes place and it isn't a situation where the ambiguity is a good thing. Maybe if it had been presented differently where we see a more identifiable change it would work. I did some brief research on this character and it seems like different adaptations of the work present him as entirely villainous or sometimes redeemable, I'm not sure why. Although I'm not sure if I'm interested enough to care too much. I'll be sure to watch the William Dieterle version later though and see if that piques my interest. Rating: 6/10

Spout Post: Re:Classic Horror

Sun, 14 Sep 2008 01:55:39 GMT

Post By: Dr_Gor
Post To: HORROR MOVIES 101
Post Date: 9/13/2008 9:55:39 PM
Body: [quote user="Risselada"] Thanks for all of these suggestions Gor. Here's a list of films from the early days that I have run across that have horror elements. I'm wondering which of them you've seen and can recommend. Körkarlen (The Phantom Carriage) Häxan Dr. Mabuse: The Gambler, and The Testament of Dr. Mabuse Waxworks Island of Lost Souls Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde Mad Love The Most Dangerous Game Mystery of Edwin Drood Dead of Night [/quote] Ok, Rizzo, here are the ones I have seen from your list... Haxan (Witchcraft Through The Ages) ; Is a work of fiction presented as a documentary. It is a most interesting work if you are a student of witchcraft and demonology (like me). It is all here, everything you have heard of, Black Sabbath's, human sacrifice (young, virginal children), babies boiled alive, body parts from human corpses used in potions, orgies and sexuall perversions (including some nudity!) that include priests and nuns having sex and witches swearing their allegiance to Satan by kissing his anus! There are even witches flying around on broomsticks! I thought the most interesting parts were the descriptions and demonstrations of the torture devices used by the 'witch-hunters' and the Inquisition. Needless to say, this movie was (and is) highly controversial and disturbing! I would recomend it! Island of Lost Souls ; This was the first, and best, version of the classic H. G. Wells' story to hit the big screen. Charles Laughton's performance as Dr. Moreau is the best I have ever seen. Yes, he even out-did Marlon Brando and Burt Lancaster! Bela Lugosi was at his best as the leader of the 'animal-men' and this movie was genuinely creepy and frightening in a way that the remakes couldn't match. Highly recomended! Also, if you are a fan of the works of Charles Laughton you MUST check out the 1939 version of The Hunchback of Notre Dame ! I can not recomend this one enough! Quite simply one of the best movies ever made! Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde ; This is the best version of this story ever filmed just for the extraordinary acting of Fredric March. With the help of some amazing make-up effects you would swear you were watching two different actors in that role! Recomended! Mad Love ; This is the first movie version of "The Hands of Orlac" which would be redone several times. A very good movie but my favorite version of this story is The Hands Of Orlac (not listed on SPOUT) starring Mel Ferrar and Christopher Lee from 1960. The Most Dangerous Game ; This is one of my favorite movies. Made by the same production company that brought us King Kong , this movie was filmed on the same sets and with many of the same actors. This is the classic story that has been remade several times of an insane big-game hunter who has grown bored with hunting helpless animals and has chosen to spend his time hunting 'the most dangerous game'... human beings! Using a phony lighthouse, Count Zaroff lures passing ships into the dangerous reefs surrounding his island. When the survivors wash up on shore they are fed and clothed and prepared for 'the game' ... Fay Wray is one of these survivors who is doomed to be hunted by Zaroff. She has never looked lovelier running through the jungle getting her clothes ripped off bit by bit. If you are a fan of Fay Wray you should also check out Doctor X and The Vampire Bat and Mystery of the Wax Museum ... not to mention King Kong ! Dead of Night ; Was one of the original English horror anthology movies and was considered by most people to be the best. I think this movie was a major inspiration for the notorious EC Comics of the late 50's - early 60's which in turn were the inspiration for some of the great English anthology movies of the 60's and 70's! My personal favorites were Tales From The Crypt and Asylum ... Rizzo (and others), I hope all of this has been of some help to you. I do try. < GOR >

Spout Post: 10 Worst Updates of 1930s Classics

Tue, 09 Sep 2008 20:01:08 GMT

Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 9/9/2008 4:01:08 PM
Body: Anticipating the worst from Diane English’s new remake of The Women is not just typical low expectations regarding remakes in general. My dread is specifically based on dissatisfaction with remakes and updates of films from the 1930s, arguably the best decade in cinema (it is certainly my favorite). While I may recognize and appreciate some favorable redos, such as DePalma’s Scarface (of which I’ve never really been a fan), Mazursky’s Down and Out in Beverly Hills and the multiple repeats from Hitchcock, I am more often disappointed with attempts to recreate ‘30s classics, even when I approach them with already low standards. Worst, for me, doesn’t necessarily have to do with the quality of the film alone, especially when related to remakes and updates. The titles and versions I’ve selected are hardly the worst in terms of craft or production value — you’ll note there are no Dracula movies on this list — and a few would almost be acceptable if they were more unique or solitary works. 10. Return to Oz (1985) I begin with a film that is not a remake in any form but tone. Yet I still see it as a kind of response to and update of the far more popular classic The Wizard of Oz (1939), which was viewed by some as not faithful enough to the source literature of L. Frank Baum. It was a bit of a guilty pleasure for me growing up, but I lost regard for the film after suffering through a professor’s defensive screening of it on the last day of a film history course. Sure, it’s truer to Baum and the illustrations of W.W. Denslow and John R. Neill, but as MGM’s beautiful 1939 interpretation shows, it’s better to be imaginative than loyal when translating works between mediums. 9. The Front Page (1974) Billy Wilder’s version of the Ben Hecht and Charles MacArthur play, which was first adapted to film in 1931, is plenty hilarious thanks to stars Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau, as well as to a slew of terrific character actors, including Vincent Gardenia, Charles Durning, Austin Pendleton and Dick O’Neill. Also, the film’s homosexual innuendo is an interesting way of acknowledging Howard Hawks’ 1940 gender altering redo, His Girl Friday. I’d definitely choose Wilder’s film over the subsequent big screen version, the 1988 update Switching Channels, but compared to earlier adaptations and to Wilder’s earlier work, the ’74 Front Page is still quite a dissatisfying effort. My biggest problems are with the film’s artificial look, particularly its use of costumes that look more appropriate for a costume party than a period film, the gaudiness of the dialogue, especially the double entendres, and the miscasting of both Carol Burnett and Susan Sarandon (though my annoyance with the women in the film provide further acceptance of the gay undertones). 8. The Distinguished Gentleman (1992) This loose and uncredited reworking of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (1939) could have been a worthy update had it included more laughs and more of a bite. The concept of placing a small-time con man in the big-time con of politics is ripe for good comedy and satire, plus it makes me think of the respectable crook/crooked respectability angle of Lubitsch’s Trouble in Paradise. Too bad the script was unsatisfactory (not surprising given it came partly from the screenwriter behind Leonard Part 6) and star Eddie Murphy was at the awkward moment of his career when he somehow lost his usual talent for comedy. 7. Flash Gordon (1980) I have to admit that I do actually love this movie. Well, to be fair, I only really love Queen’s score, Brian Blessed’s voice and Max Von Sydow’s makeup. The rest I just like. Anyway, despite my guilty pleasure in watching the thing on television throughout my childhood, it’s neither a good movie nor a successful update. It doesn’t really do the ‘30s Flash Gordon serials justice by being either a big-budget improvement or a tonally and narratively faithful throwback (comparatively, Star Wars succeeded at doing both). 6. The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1996) Disney’s idea to animate Victor Hugo’s novel was of questionable taste, but the studio’s need to so closely imitate William Dieterle’s 1939 adaptation was of questionable creative judgment. When I watch Disney’s Robin Hood, I’m not reminded of how much better Michael Curtiz’s 1938 version is; similarly, I’m able to appreciate the animated Beauty and the Beast and Alice and Wonderland without thinking of previous adaptations. Especially given the controversial lewdness and the simplification of the story, Disney’s version of Hunchback seems an insult to the source novel, Dieterle’s film and Charles Laughton’s characterization. 5. Meet Joe Black (1998) I’m a hypocrite to criticize anyone’s inability to be concise, but a three-hour remake of a 78-minute film (1934’s Death Takes a Holiday) displays a level of excess that even my meandering can’t compare to. Don’t get me wrong, though; I’m no hater of long films. But if you can make a long story short, it’s preferred that you do so. 4. The Mummy (1999) There’s no problem with reimagining a classic horror film as a blockbuster action movie, but taking something so iconically frightening as Boris Karloff’s Imhotep (in the ‘32 version) and updating the look with laughably cartoonish CGI is unfortunate. I know I’m on the other side of the fence from the moviegoers who made this a hit, but I would have actually enjoyed it more if the villain were depicted as a guy wrapped in bandages. 3. Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein (1994) Of course, CG may have been better than this. In fact, the only thing worse than Robert De Niro as the Creature would have been a hand-drawn animated Frankenberry in the role. 2. King Kong (2005) Technically, the 1976 remake with Jeff Bridges is a worse film, but that version at least took some interesting liberties in updating the 1933 classic. Peter Jackson’s intention seemed to be only to faithfully recreate the original with better special effects. And given the fact that many of the CG sequences are embarrassingly awful, I have to say this film was a more monumental failure in terms of purpose and promise. Jackson gave me yet another reason for questioning the point of filmmakers remaking their favorite films. 1. Mr. Deeds (2002) Other than the minor way in which this comedy updates the conservative message of Mr. Deeds Goes to Town (1936), there is really no reason for Capra’s film to have been remade, especially with such broad, immature comedy from Adam Sandler. While the original Mr. Deeds completely speaks to and of its time, this includes no topicality, no compelling historical or contemporary relevancy and no lasting cultural significance. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog

Spout Post: Top 10

Thu, 31 Jul 2008 00:24:25 GMT

Post By: Dr_Gor
Post To: Horror_Movie_Freaks_4Life
Post Date: 7/30/2008 8:24:25 PM
Body: I would like to challenge everybody to list their top ten favorite Horror Movies! This is not as easy as it sounds! My top ten list changes from week to week and even day to day... Here is how my list would stand today, 7/30/08 ... 1) The Exorcist 2) Zombie 3) Night Of The Living Dead 4) Dawn Of The Dead 5) Day Of The Dead 6) Frankenstein 7) The Hunchback Of Notre Dame 8) Dracula 9) The Howling 10) The Texas Chainsaw Massacre

Spout Post: Re:Weekly Theme for July 14: The Angry Mob

Sun, 27 Jul 2008 10:49:12 GMT

Post By: leeroy711
Post To: Weekly Theme
Post Date: 7/27/2008 6:49:12 AM
Body: [quote user="Dr_Gor"] the 1939 version is one of the BEST MOVIES of ALL TIME! Just check it out and you will see what I mean... < GOR > [/quote] Yeah, Charles Laughton played Quasimoto, the subject of mob violence in this one, then 16 years later would direct another The Night of the Hunter, another movie that fits the theme.

Spout Post: Re:Weekly Theme for July 14: The Angry Mob

Sat, 26 Jul 2008 22:33:41 GMT

Post By: Dr_Gor
Post To: Weekly Theme
Post Date: 7/26/2008 6:33:41 PM
Body: I had to travel backwords in time in order to intercept this transmission.. it wasn't easy.... Anyhow, THE original angry mob movie.. The Hunchback of Notre Dame is still the best! Actually, the 1939 version is one of the BEST MOVIES of ALL TIME! Just check it out and you will see what I mean... < GOR >

Spout Tag:Classic

Sat, 19 Dec 2009 23:30:46 GMT

Classic
Number of films tagged: 816

Number of people who tagged: 313

Number of times used: 1454

Spout Tag:Great

Fri, 04 Dec 2009 17:11:49 GMT

Great
Number of films tagged: 231

Number of people who tagged: 202

Number of times used: 371

Spout Tag:Loved-It

Tue, 03 Nov 2009 17:56:35 GMT

Loved-It
Number of films tagged: 509

Number of people who tagged: 179

Number of times used: 921

Spout Tag:Boring

Tue, 29 Sep 2009 23:44:27 GMT

Boring
Number of films tagged: 177

Number of people who tagged: 105

Number of times used: 207

Spout Tag:drama

Wed, 16 Dec 2009 19:01:29 GMT

drama
Number of films tagged: 527

Number of people who tagged: 102

Number of times used: 627

Spout Tag:paris

Mon, 26 Oct 2009 16:09:48 GMT

paris
Number of films tagged: 59

Number of people who tagged: 52

Number of times used: 94

Spout Tag:history

Wed, 09 Dec 2009 05:15:22 GMT

history
Number of films tagged: 999

Number of people who tagged: 48

Number of times used: 156

Spout Tag:slow

Mon, 14 Dec 2009 22:42:26 GMT

slow
Number of films tagged: 92

Number of people who tagged: 46

Number of times used: 106

Spout Tag:torture

Thu, 29 Oct 2009 16:51:19 GMT

torture
Number of films tagged: 571

Number of people who tagged: 43

Number of times used: 104

Spout Tag:robbery

Fri, 11 Sep 2009 21:33:51 GMT

robbery
Number of films tagged: 3798

Number of people who tagged: 42

Number of times used: 103

Spout Tag:monster

Thu, 24 Sep 2009 00:22:02 GMT

monster
Number of films tagged: 1143

Number of people who tagged: 41

Number of times used: 95

Spout Tag:based-on-a-book

Fri, 20 Nov 2009 18:52:06 GMT

based-on-a-book
Number of films tagged: 173

Number of people who tagged: 37

Number of times used: 278

Spout Tag:water

Mon, 14 Sep 2009 21:09:09 GMT

water
Number of films tagged: 444

Number of people who tagged: 36

Number of times used: 62

Spout Tag:rescue

Mon, 03 Aug 2009 18:39:36 GMT

rescue
Number of films tagged: 4080

Number of people who tagged: 31

Number of times used: 142

Spout Tag:church

Thu, 12 Nov 2009 22:20:56 GMT

church
Number of films tagged: 469

Number of people who tagged: 26

Number of times used: 51