Fast Film Reviews

Medieval drama about a gypsy girl who comes to Paris and the physically disfigured bell ringer she befriends. The narrative’s success derives from how it captures the tragic plight of our bell ringer in Paris’ legendary church so perfectly. Society’s tendency to build someone up one minute only to tear them down the next, is likewise paralleled in Quasimodo’s story arc. First being crowned “King of Fools” at the festival one moment, then they’re publicly whipping him in the town square soon thereafter.

The quality of the performances is what elevates this to a work of art. Charles Laughton gives the definitive performance in the sympathetic role of Quasimodo, the deformed hunchback of Notre Dame. A delightfully atypical choice for an actor often type-cast as people with arrogant or unscrupulous qualities. His expressive face speaks volumes. Indeed for the first third, he doesn’t utter a word. He’s supported by a stellar cast. Maureen O’Hara is radiant as Esmeralda, a lovely gypsy who inspires passion in several men. Her touching act of kindness toward Quasimodo at one of his darkest hours is a beautifully acted gesture filled with poignancy. At the other end of integrity is Frollo played by Sir Cedric Hardwicke. A villainous tour de force, he is a stern, deeply flawed individual consumed by earthly desire and a lack of accountability. Also worth mentioning is Edmond O’Brien in his film debut. Esmeralda’s chemistry with him as the slightly goofy poet-playwright Gringoire is sweet. Much more believable for example, than her relationship with Phoebus, captain of the King’s guards. Her brief infatuation with him feels more like a story construct to advance the plot, than an affair with any honest emotion.

The production is highlighted by stunning set design. You might think the movie was filmed entirely in Paris from the vivid locations, but that is surprisingly not the case. Notre-Dame Square is a remarkable set at the RKO ranch. Whether it’s the elegant shots of ‘Festival of Fools’ carnival in the opening scenes or the storming of Notre Dame later on, the square is a character in itself. The Cathedral looms over it, an exquisitely realized vision of French Gothic architecture. The cast of hundreds further bring magical life to the city.

The drama takes a very simplistic, but refreshingly straightforward approach. Subtlety, however, is not director William Dieterle’s strong suit. From the intro we’re explicitly told the late 15th century is a time of superstition and prejudice. Paris is not a society tolerant of outsiders. From criminal gangs to the gypsies of Europe to Quasimodo himself, there were many outcasts of society. The story is painted in bold strokes. At times the script can be fairly simplistic, particularity with dialogue that is obviously manipulative. Many in the government oppose progress and political reform. Frollo, in particular, views free thought as subversive and leading to violence against the state. This is manifested in his single-minded focus to thwart this new invention called the printing press. Immediately upon the introduction of the device, his 20/20 foresight predicts it to be a dangerous tool that could be used to denounce the government. Seems more like an anachronistic projection than genuine cognitive ability if you ask me. Nevertheless, it does wonders in readily inciting the audience’s dislike of him in the first 10 minutes.

The reverent presentation of religion is an unexpected attitude that bears a mention, particularly for the 21st century audience. When Esmeralda first finds herself in the sanctuary of the Cathedral, her prayer to the Virgin Mary is sincerely moving, especially when contrasted to the self-serving prayers of the rest of the congregation. Furthermore, in the movie the Archdeacon, Claude Frollo, is a model of justice and virtue. This is a change from the character in the book where he was a clergyman overwhelmed by lust. Here, it is his younger brother, Jehan Frollo, that becomes the main antagonist instead. He opposes progress and political reform, so that forms much of his discord with the church. That he bitterly struggles with his attraction to Esmeralda is a bit harder to understand since he isn’t even a member of the clergy at all, but rather a sexually repressed judge and adviser to Louis XI, who simply wishes to be pure in thought. This probably had less to do with artistic license and more to do with the Hays Code which forbade depicting members of the clergy in a negative light. Still, it’s unexpected to see religion and even the church itself presented as an example of integrity and open-mindedness in thought.

Despite the many adaptations, few would argue that is the definitive version of the classic 1831 novel by Victor Hugo. (In 1996 Walt Disney Feature Animation produced a competent animated rendition which was heavily influenced in style and tone by this version.) Performances and set design combine perfectly to create a sweeping historical epic for the ages with a surprising amount of human intimacy. Whether it‘s 15th century France or elsewhere in the modern world, the film‘s themes transcend time and place.

Quirky account of a man suffering from mental illness who communicates using a beaver hand puppet. Strange film is a weird mix of dark comedy and poignant drama. If you can cuddle up to the story’s offbeat rhythms, then you’ll probably enjoy this unconventional tale. For the most part, it isn’t funny, but deadly serious. A movie like Lars & The Real Girl for example, had a charm to it that presented its narrative as amusing, so it felt ok to laugh. Here laughter feels inappropriate as his condition is grim. Yet his friends and family don’t treat his predicament as such. Their bemused annoyance is apparent in every scene. I found it aggravating that no one seemed concerned enough to sincerely reach out and truly help him.

The script does make some extremely intelligent points, however. That a person’s success will encourage people to permit ultimately destructive behavior is a particularly biting attack on contemporary culture. The obvious parallels to a certain sitcom star are coincidental perhaps, but very timely nonetheless. There is a clear objective to the story too. It’s well written and all of the little vignettes actually add up to something in the end, so I give writer Kyle Killen’s debut script credit for that. I only wish we had deeper insight into his disability. He’s already mentally unbalanced right at the beginning, but we don‘t know to what extent. Furthermore, we never see him as healthy, so it’s difficult to appreciate how he used to be and got to this stage. That might have made the tragedy of his deterioration a bit more compelling.

Any review must address the Mel Gibson situation. His problems with alcohol and public drunkenness linger. His subsequent rants have been so well documented, they’re impossible to ignore. I suspect, if anything, this fiction benefits from his notoriously real image as persona non grata. What better actor to play a man on a downward spiral? Although the issues involved are different in scope, there are definite similarities in life imitating art. Or in this case, the other way around.