Notre-Dame de Paris

This classic silent version of the often-filmed story of "The Hunchback of Notre Dame" features good atmosphere and one of Lon Chaney's many fine renderings of an unusual character. Between Chaney and the ponderous medieval settings, it really seems like a strange and unusual world. The rest of the cast helps out as well, and makes this version well worth seeing despite the many newer adaptations that have had the advantages of later technologies.

Chaney is ideal for this kind of role, since he not only creates an interesting and suitable look for the character, but also conceives of the right gestures and expressions to make the character come alive. On the silent screen, Chaney was able to portray characters like Quasimodo and the Phantom with a believability and humanity that few of today's actors can even approach, much less surpass, despite all of their advantages.

While Chaney is the main highlight, the rest of this production works well also. The portrayal of the Parisian underworld, the atmosphere in the great cathedral, and the portrayals of most of the main characters are also strengths. Among the supporting cast, Patsy Ann Miller as Esmerelda and Ernest Torrance as Clopin are particularly good. It fits together well, and creates a satisfying version of the classic story.

This early version of the legendary story is (so far) the oldest film I've ever seen. Personally, I find it fascinating to purchase movies made before my grandparents were even born. The entire concept of cinema as a form of art is scarcely out of the egg it all still looks so grotesque. I did learn something from this film…these ancient milestones aren't necessarily brilliant but impressive beyond belief. The Hunchback of the Notre Dame often gets referred to as one of the first ‘horror' classics but much more than that, it's a historical spectacle with massive sets and groundbreaking elements. The actual plot is so easy to summarize but you get so much more than that! Like a very detailed and imaginative portrait of Paris in the 15th century, the variety of social classes and an idea of medieval interpretation of the law. At some times in this film, you almost get the idea Quasimodo and Esmeralda are just second-class puppets in what is primarily a historical and educating documentary. Magnificent without a single doubt…but time-consuming and ponderous to sit through…Although, I have to say I hunt down the extended version, furnished with a stained musical track and lasting 140 minutes.

The actual plot and the presentation of Quasimodo's personality is still unparalleled and touching beyond comparison. Lon Chaney is simply outstanding as the unworldly and deformed ‘freak' who's willing to sacrifice his life unconditionally to rescue the girl who once treated him in a human way. He might be hideous, but he's the only who's pure, honest and free of prejudices. Lon Chaney's facial make-up and hunch are early horror triumphs. Along with his natural charismatic appearance, the Quasimodo portrayal provided Chaney with the immortal status of horror-cinema icon. Even though he already starred in over a hundred films before The Hunchback, he'll always be remembered starting from this point of his career. Like none other actor, Chaney gave a face to Quasimodo and that is not exaggerated! Multiple other well-respected actors gave image to Quasimodo after Chaney (like Charles Laughton, Anthony Quinn and Anthony Hopkins) but only he will truly be remembered for it. Same goes for Lon's personification of Erik in `Phantom of the Opera' which is his greatest achievement in cinema along with Hunchback.

The Hunchback of the Notre Dame is over eighty (80!) years old now and it still stands as one of the most overwhelming heavyweights in cinema ever. Some of the sequences shown here are pure mythical inheritance. Like Chaney acrobatic movements while tolling the massive bells…or his descent off the Notre Dame's walls! Still, this film might not be for all tastes as it's too bombastic all together and Woresly's direction is kind of rough and ponderous. He surely put too much energy in it, as it was the most ambitious project of his career. Therefore, it's hard to stay focused continuously as the shots of Medieval Parisian streets seem to be endless

If I were to say what my favourite versions were, they are the 1939 film with Charles Laughton and the 1996 Disney version. Neither are the most faithful to the book but I found myself to be the most engaged and most moved by them. This 1923 film is very good though. I did think some of the more secondary roles were rather stock here, especially Phoebus and Jehan, but still found the actors adequate. For its time and even now the film is very well made with beautiful(if not quite as Gothic of 1939) cinematography and make-up. The music score is also very good, atmospheric and often haunting, and the story is compelling too. I did find the ending to be of an anti-climax somewhat though, it is much more moving and convincing dramatically in the book and in other versions. The performances are very good on the whole, with Lon Chaney stealing the show as a grotesque and poignant Quasimodo, and Patsy Ann Miller as a beautiful and understated(if perhaps not quite sexy enough) Esmeralda and Ernest Torrance as Clopin faring best in support. All in all, recommended for especially how it was made and for Chaney. 8/10 Bethany Cox

It's hard to rate this film. Much of this is because the film has been floating around for years and is available in many forms--some longer and some significantly shorter. I have a videotape version that only runs about 90 minutes and it lacks any musical score. The version I just saw on TCM lasted almost two hours and had a very good musical score by Robert Israel. However, despite the excellent score he recently wrote for the film, the print itself was in pretty poor shape--looking like it needed further restoration. The review I am giving is for this longer version with music.

The film was exceptional from a technical standpoint. There were huge numbers of extras, very impressive sets that make you think it was really filmed in Paris and the acting was very good. Not surprisingly, Lon Chaney was exceptional and his makeup very convincing. However, despite the technical merit, I still found myself preferring his PHANTOM OF THE OPERA--it was a more interesting story and has been completely restored, so it is a visual treat--unlike HUNCHBACK. Also, the story itself never seemed super-compelling. A good chance I feel this way is that I have seen at least five different versions of the story and it just feels a bit old. So I really can't blame THIS film--it's more a case of "burnout". Still, it's an amazing film and not to be missed by silent movie fans.

"Notre-Dame De Paris", known in English as "The Hunchback of Notre Dame", is definitely one of the most popular French novels of all time. Written by Victor Hugo, this Gothic tragedy explores many of his favorite themes, including social injustices and romantic idealism. However, the element that is nowadays the most famous trait of the novel, is without a doubt the character of Quasimodo, and the mistreatment he suffers due to his horrible deformities. While Hugo didn't intend this to be the main theme of the novel, the enormous appealing of Quasimodo quickly turned him into the iconic representation of good nature under a monstrous face, and so it is not a surprise that this is also the angle taken by the film adaptations of the novel. In this the first movie version of the immortal novel, the classic role of Quasimodo is performed in film for the first time by another legend, "The Man of a Thousand Faces", Lon Chaney Sr.

Set in the 15th Century, the movie starts as just another day in the simple life of Quasimodo (Lon Chaney), the bell-ringer of the famous Cathedral of Notre Dame in Paris who has spend most of his life inside the Cathedral because most people fear his gruesome deformity. Under the care of archdeacon Claude Frollo (Nigel De Brulier), Quasimodo has lived a good, albeit lonely life; however, this is about to change when the archdeacon's brother Jehad (Brandon Hurst), orders Quasimodo to help him to kidnap a young gypsy girl named Esmeralda (Patsy Ruth Miller) that he wants for himself. Jehad's plan fails as Phoebus (Norman Kerry), Captain of the Guards, rescues Esmeralda and takes Quasimodo to prison, however, this will be only the beginning of the tragedy that will unfold under the shadow of the Cathedral of Notre Dame.

Adapted by Edward T. Lowe Jr. and Perley Poore Sheehan, the story is really a good adaptation that remains true to the novel's themes of human tragedy despite the fact that the story was significantly simplified. While the focus is certainly on Quasimodo (and he is indeed made a more prominent and sympathetic figure), the screenplay remains an epic tragedy about life and death in Paris, and takes its time to introduce and develop every character, surprisingly including many of the novel's subplots that became forgotten in subsequent versions of the story. The story unfolds nicely and with a good pace, slowly introducing us to the universe of this characters and carefully setting the basis for the climatic finale of the tragedy. Interestingly, despite the changes done to the story, the movie keeps the dark depressing tone of Hugo's Gothic classic.

Wallace Worsley may not be a director known for his personal style (the fact that most of his work is lost doesn't help), but he takes on this monumental project with courage and makes this epic tale work nicely. While Worsley was not the first choice to direct the movie, he already had directed Chaney in four movies before this one (including the classic "The Penalty"), so being already familiar with Chaney's method of work, Worsley could let him do his thing while he focused on the difficult organization of the complex project. With a cast of thousands and enormous sets, Worsley makes 15th Century Paris to come alive once again and, just like Victor Hugo would wanted, the Cathedral of Notre Dame is made another character of the story thanks to the beautiful cinematography that gives an ominous atmosphere to the building.

Lon Chaney is without a doubt the star and highlight of the movie, delivering one of the best performances as Quasimodo (second only to Charles Laughton), and creating one of his most amazing works of make-up. Proving why he is called "The Man of a Thousand Faces", Chaney makes a gruesome, yet very expressive "monster" that truly conveys the nature of the almost silent character. Patsy Ruth Miller is very effective as Esmeralda, and nicely avoids exaggerated gestures in her dramatic scenes; something that sadly can't be said about Norman Kerry as Phoebus, although being fair, his character is not as developed as the rest. Brandon Hurst is simply amazing, and sometimes even manages to overshadow the enormous Chaney, with a remarkably wicked portrayal of evil in his performance as Jehad. Truly another of the film's highlights.

"The Hunchback of Notre Dame" was Universal's most successful film of 1923, and honestly, it's not hard to tell why. Not only Lon Chaney's magnificent performance as Chaney (as well as his outstanding work of make-up) is a true highlight of the film, the lavish sets built for the movie are definitely one of the most amazing works done in silent films, with the reconstruction of Notre Dame's Western facade being extremely detailed and actually very accurate. One would think that given the attention payed to the technical aspects of the film, the performances of the actors were unimportant, but thankfully this is not the case, as Chaney and company proved to be up to the challenge in this movie. As a side note, among the many assistant directors who helped Worsley in this project, there was a young man named William Wyler receiving his first work in the movie industry.

Depsite its flaws, this first version of "The Hunchback of Notre Dame" remains as one of the best movies of the silent era, and one of the best versions of Victor Hugo's classic. It's probably a bit dated by now, but it still retains the beauty and monumental power of its initial release. Inaugurating the horror genre for Universal Films, this epic tragedy proudly ranks as a classic of the genre and of cinema in general. 8/10