Beauty and the Beast. The famous novel by Victor Hugo “Notre Dame de Paris” was put on stage and transferred to film countless times. Each reader and viewer will name the film adaptation that attracted his attention. Someone from the theater, and someone from the world of cinema. A huge number of films, cartoons, films and TV productions based on the book. All of them are not listed, you can mention the most significant, famous and beloved by the public. Of course, it will not be possible to ignore the “spoiled” happy ending The Disney version, which became one of the hits of 1996, later overgrown with a sequel and turned into a whole animated series. We should also mention the classic Italian picture of 1956, with Ginna Lollobrigida and the young Anthony Quinn in the lead roles. This large-scale, pompous costume production with expensive scenery and large extras, was one of the widescreen “peplums”, so popular in the middle of the last century. It is impossible to pass by the rather famous, black-white tape “The Hunchback of Notre Dame Cathedral of Paris” (1939) with Charles Laughton as Quasimodo. But, I think that the most important for film art is the very first significant (on the timeline and retelling of the plot of the book) film adaptation – “The Hunchback of Notre-Dame” with “a man with a thousand faces” Lon Cheney in the terrifying image of the deaf bell ringer of the Paris Cathedral. This film, released in 1923, is now considered one of the best representatives of the silent film era. It is also one of the most expensive for Hollywood at the time (budget of $ 1.250.000). It still strikes for more than 90 years with its scope and pathos. It’s hard to imagine how the film was perceived in the year it was released! That’s what I’m talking about in this review.
The film was shot by a little-known director Wallace Worsley, and the script - adaptation was prepared by Pearly Poor Sheehan and Edward T. Lowe - Jr. These authors were able to retell the plot of Victor Hugo’s thick novel within a reasonable duration, preserving the characters of the main characters. This is a very important detail in my opinion, since in subsequent film adaptations, the writers soften it in certain characters, or divide everyone into black and white. While in the novel, the great writer depicted complex and ambiguous human characters, combining the drama of fictional heroes with historical events against which their intricate relationships occur. In this regard, the film 1923 - it can be considered almost exemplary adaptation. After all, the main thing is to convey the essence of the book, and the writers succeeded. However, much of the plot has disappeared, for example, the story of Pierre Grengoire, who was actually responsible for the tragic storming of the cathedral, or the romantic line of Captain Pheb and Fleur de Lis. Recognizing the author’s vision of the project, as well as Hugo’s multi-page Talmud, the film adaptation of which cannot avoid abbreviations, it should be noted that the presence of these two points would greatly increase the dramaturgy of the tape. But anyway, these lines were abandoned, reducing the presence of these characters only to episodic and rare appearances. But the story of the beautiful gypsy is told without changes. Even her goat Jali survived. Although the finale still made happy, saving the girl’s life and connecting her with Phab – only the hunchback and the sweet-hearted archdeacon die.
I must confess that I did not speak English and watched a silent picture without Russian credits. But being familiar with the literary source, he followed the plot with interest, noting that it is correctly and consistently presented, giving an opportunity even to an “ignorant” (who did not read Hugo’s novel at school) person, which is called “to penetrate history”. Of course, changing the ending greatly affects the aftertaste of the film, as well as its perception in general. If the book forced to admit that love is a terrible force that does not obey common logic (almost the same as passion), then in the movie in this regard is much easier. The conclusion I made after watching the film: who to love and whom to hate a person decides for himself. And love (if he loves, alas, not mutually) can in his heart, platonic love (although dreaming of carnal love). This theme may have sounded in the book, when the ugly bell ringer was ready to accept “compassion for love,” but then I did not notice this because I was not at that time in the position of miserable Quasimodo. The fact is that having by nature my repulsive appearance, I, like the character of Lon Cheney, can not count on reciprocity from the beautiful girl I love.
Returning to the picture itself, I want to mention its technical characteristics. I can not say anything about the soundtrack - the music is quite suitable for the visual series of the tape - it is cheerful, then lyrical, and then sad and pathetic. I cannot say that during the film’s demonstration in 1923, this soundtrack sounded in theaters, but it suits the film. The Hunchback was shot by three cameramen: Virgil Miller, Robert Newhard and Tony Kornman. It is difficult to say what caused this decision of the director. Probably the reason for the replacement of the operator in creative disagreements regarding the video sequence of the tape. Or maybe they didn’t like the way the producer Karl Lemmle did it? After all, the director in the “Golden Era” of Hollywood was not the most important on the set – everything was run then by eminent producers – as the rules of the owners of major film studios, who financed these canvases from their own pockets. They could easily change the filmmakers working under them. The main ones (besides the producers) were the movie stars, who liked to rock the rights and put forward conditions. For example, already quite well-known at that time, Lon Cheney, under threat of leaving the project, twice “knocked out” himself a fee increase! Lemmle was one of the founders of the Universal Studio. Actually "Humpback of Notre Dame" legendary producer opened a series of his classic "horror". Quasimodo headed the so-called galaxy of monsters "Universal" (Dracula, Mummy, Frankenstein, Man-Wolf, etc.). Now you can buy a collectible figurine Quasimodo in the online store "Gick Zone", created with a portrait resemblance to the image created by Lon Cheney. What I did without thinking about it...
The film is great: you can immediately see that the authors did not save money on its creation. Large scenery, costumes, extras and various panoramic shots of the old, built on the territory of the studio of Paris. Artists have worked hard, thanks to its pomp and authenticity, this film and “lived” so long, attracting more than one generation of viewers and moviegoers. But if you are not a fan of the book, have not watched one of its countless adaptations, and besides, you do not like silent movies, then this film is definitely not for you. In your case, you should wait for the release of the long-promised film version with Josh Brolin.
10 out of 10