Movie Review: The Hunchback of Notre Dame

Director: Wallace Worsley, 1923

IMDb listing

The hunchback living at Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris (Lon Chaney) hates and is hated by the populace.  Like the Arch-Deacon's brother, Jehan (Brandon Hurst), and Captain Phoebus (Norman Kerry), he becomes enamored of the gypsy dancer Esmeralda (Patsy Ruth Miller), foster daughter of Don Claudio (Nigel de Brulier) the King of Thieves.

Based on the book by Victor Hugo, this film details the treachery of Jehan, the love affair between Phoebus and Esmeralda, the torment of Quasimodo and more.  Much of the film is set in and around the Cathedral of Notre Dame, a magnificent edifice, and wonderful backdrop for such a complicated story.

I was impressed by the number of side plots the writers kept in and how expressive the actors were given the silent nature of the film.  Black and white is a great medium for a dark tale, though unlike some other b&w films I've seen the director didn't make as much use of light and shadow as he could have.

The music was fairly repetative at the beginning getting more interesting and varied as the film progressed.

Lon Chaney's performace as the hunchback was fantastic.  The make-up looked great and he managed to look hideous while still being sympathetic in the right places.

In fact, all the characters were well cast.  Esmeralda was beautiful, Phoebus charming and handsome, Jehan somewhat creepy, etc.  The acting was a bit more restrained than in other silent films I've seen, while still being expressive.

If you've read the novel, you'll notice some major changes, namely Phoebus and Esperalda not sleeping together and the happy ending they gave the film.

Still, it's well done and whether you've read the book or not there's no trouble following the plot.

The film is in the public domain and you can watch it for yourself here or here.

Movie Review: Haxan

Director: Benjamin Christensen, 1922

IMDb listing

Pros: mix of photographs and cinematic depictions, realistic sets/costumes/situations

Cons: only minor critical analysis, some of his facts/analysis have since been disproved *

The version of this film that I saw was black and white with red - and occasionally blue - colour tinting.  It had no soundtrack, which made the film... interesting to watch.  The film is split into seven parts.  It's done in a documentary style, with the background history of superstition explained using historical images and models before dealing specifically with witchcraft as understood in the middle ages.  Each part tackles the next progression in witchcraft, from generally understood practices, to their capture, torture and confession, denouncing of other 'witches', and what in the present times (the 1920s) might have been considered witchcraft in the past.

The production values are pretty good, the sets and situations somewhat overemphasized to show the director's points but within realistic lines.  More recent scholarship has disproved the number of witches he claims were killed (8 million in 8000 years)*, with older scholarship removing hysteria (his explanation of why women might have been accused of witchcraft in the past) as a disease.

I liked how he pointed out - if briefly - that people of his day still held on to some superstitious beliefs (specifically the spiritualism of the day that dealt with Ouija boards and seances).  His main point, that people have never been entirely free of superstitions (and probably never will) was a cautionary word against creating new witch hunts when dealing with things that are unexplained, or as a way of getting rid of unwanted people.

It's an interesting film if you're into the history of witches and medieval justice, though if it's the justice you're after, know that he does make some minor errors there too and use the information in this film as a jumping off point for more research rather than end source material.

* Turns out I'm wrong here.  I know the high number of witches executed were lower than assumed during the Middle Ages, but it's significantly higher in the Renaissance than I believed.

Movie Review: The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (Das Kabinett des Doktor Caligari)

Directed by: Robert Wiene, 1920  

IMDb listing   

colour tinted black & white, silent film

Pros: suspenseful, good use of shadows, clever ending

Cons: music was sometimes out of place

The version I saw was reconstructed by the Bundesarchiv-Filmarchiv of Germany with a musical score by Rainer Viertblock (1994) and English subtitles by Kino International (2002).

After hearing that a man sees ghosts, Francis (Friedrich Feher) tells the terrifying tale of recent events that affected himself and his fiancee Jane (Lil Dagover).  Francis is dragged to see the travelling fair by his friend Alan, who insists they see Dr. Caligari's somnambulist show and asks about his future.  Meanwhile several murders take place in the town.

This is a masterful film.  The director makes great use of shadows, making characters look sinister just by darkening the eye sockets and lips.  At times the music is used to advantage, heightening the suspense.

Having said that, there were other times when the jazz inspired score seemed out of place, using synthesizers and beets that thrust this viewer out of the scene.

The subtitle plates were up longer than necessary, but had a nice gothic look to them.

As with the other silent films I've seen, the acting was overdone with grand gestures and melodrama.  Given the horror aspects, the overacting actually works here, giving the drama a boost.

The ending's quite clever.  If you've wanted to try seeing a silent film, here's a good one to start with.

It's also in the public domain, meaning you can find it for free online.  You can find the version I saw here.