L'homme qui rit

They did not credit Victor Hugo , which was a wise move ; like he did in "the hunchback of Notre Dame ", the writer depicted a human being considered a monster .The movie is one thousand light years from the novel.

There are some similarities though : both disfigured Angelo (Gwynplaine in the book) and blind Dea were adopted by a travelling performer ;and a high-born lady ,a duchess,falls for the ugly man (here represented by Lucrezia Borgia , but the noble was a virgin in the book!).

The rest was written from start to finish by the screenwriters; it does not take place in queen Anne 's reign but under the Borgias' and it is a pretty entertaining swashbuckler , which sometimes recalls "the prisoner of Zenda" ; Jean Sorel plays a double rôle , the "laughing man " and Borgia's enemy, a virtuous noble who fights against his tyranny : French Sorel's good looks went against him in his native country (there was no room for two Alain Delon) and he often worked in Italy ;to play an ugly figure was certainly an act of self-renewal for this rather inexpressive but handsome actor.

With its sudden new developments ,and its hilarious implausibilities ( the reconstructive surgery was far ahead of its time ,at Borgia 's time,if one is to believe the screenwriters; a psychological shock ,and voila, she can see) , the movie is enjoyable ,if you do not take it seriously ,of course. Never a dull moment.

Over the past couple of years, the English-dubbed version of this Italian-French co-production has been shown continuously on TCM UK. However, my unconditional love for Paul Leni's 1928 Silent classic (once one of my top cinematic holy grails) has always kept me away, perhaps not wishing to sully my fond memories of it. Still, now that sufficient time has elapsed and coming hot on the heels of a long list of similar Italian "sword and sandal" epics I've watched recently (a habit which seems to be nowhere near exhaustion!), I decided to give this one a go at long last...

Well, to say that Sergio Cobrucci's remake is inferior to Leni's original would be the understatement of the year. Ever since I've seen him in Luis Bunuel's BELLE DE JOUR (1967), I've always liked having Jean Sorel in a film but here, inexplicably playing a dual role, he's certainly no match for Conrad Veidt's bravura performance. The make-up itself is not particularly effective either and the film-makers' decision to take several liberties with Victor Hugo's text is a mixed blessing, too: not only has the titular character suffered a namechange (from the lyrical Gwynplaine to the more prosaic Angelo) but he even turns villainous (becoming the Court's Executioner no less) when his beloved Dea is cured of her blindness and falls for the dashing figure of a patriotic rebel played by none other than Jean Sorel himself!!

The film's setting is also unaccountably changed from 1700s Britain to Renaissance-era Italy where the hateful Borgias - Cesare (hammily portrayed here by Edmund Purdom) and Lucrezia (played by a sultry Lisa Gastoni, and the film's one undeniable bright spot) - preside over their lands with sinful recklessness. Although Veidt was also seduced by a vampish Olga Baclanova (who, amazingly for its time, does appear fleetingly naked in one sequence), unfortunately for him he wasn't allowed to indulge in any sizzling romps in the hay with her as Sorel and Gastoni do in this version. In a sense, this is also what's essentially wrong with this remake: while certainly a watchable if thoroughly routine historical melodrama, it ends up being merely a vulgarization of the sublime original with Corbucci displaying none of the visual poetry which marked Leni's masterpiece. Luckily for him, however, his luck was about to change as he immediately embarked on the film he is perhaps best-known for - the Gothic-tinged Spaghetti Western DJANGO (1966)...

As I'm writing this TCM America will be showing 1966's The Man Who Laughs, a French/Italian co-production. I saw this movie when I was boy on the tv on a Saturday afternoon. I knew nothing about the classic novel by Victor Hugo nor the classic Silent movie that starred Conrad Veidt. I was fascinated by this story of a deformed young male acrobat. He wears a leather mask over his lower face to hide the permanent "grin" that was carved into his face as a small boy. The young man is also in love with a blind woman. After a performance with a small circus this young man reveals his deformity setting in motion tragic events. Our "hero" is 'discovered' & seduced by a noblewoman; he is enticed into coming a head henchman of the noblewoman's brother. The blind woman is also 'discovered' by a young nobleman who also falls in love with her. This nobleman is the enemy of the family who our "hero" now serves. You can guess what's going to happen; mostly.

Anyway as a kid I found this fascinating. Going by the previous reviews & what I remember I'm going to say that the people behind this production were inspired by the classic silent film to do their own take on the basic premise. And it seems to me that the director, writer & who else also inspired by the '50's movie version of Scaramouche, which also has a deformed theatre performer. This is Not a Remake.

The setting is moved from 18th c. England to Renaissance Italy where politics were literally cut-throat. And this is mostly like a low to moderate production using costumes, props from other productions and the very plentiful ancient & scenic Italian buildings & landscape giving an authentic atmosphere. This is not a great nor classic movie; there are a few things done, story-wise, that would make an adult viewer scratch their head. This is a B-grade costume drama/thriller that should be appreciated on it's own; associating this movie to better works of literature and cinema with the same title would just ruin the experience. I gave it 5 stars just to be fair.

To my own personal regret, I haven't yet seen the 1928 classic on which this French/Italian version is based. The basic premise is truly intriguing and you can derive from this film that the original has got to be a fantastic film. The pivot character is a young man called Angelo (Jean Sorel from Lucio Fulci's "Lizard in a Woman's Skin") who got kidnapped as a boy by gypsies in order to turn him into an acrobat and sell him to a circus. His face was horribly mutilated on purpose (he appears to have a constant grin) to increase his "value" as a circus-freak even more. The story is set in 16th century Spain (or is it Italy?) and Angelo is torn between civil wars and an unanswered love. I hope to see the original soon, because I understand that this setting is different and a lot more confusing. This version is overlong and quickly becomes boring. Moreover, the screenplay makes a ridiculous twist near the end, when we're supposed to believe that surgeons in the 16th century were flawlessly capable of performing complex plastic surgery. The make-up effects are admirable, the body count is enormous and Sorel's acting is well above average. Even though a remake, "The Man Who Laughs" is a movie with great potential and it's a shame the execution is so darn poorly.

I shall not pretend as if I have seen the 1928 version of this movie (not yet anyway but I'm certainly planning to) with Conrad Veidt in the main lead, or the original from 1921, of which this movie is a remake but it's pretty safe to assume that those movies are better than this version.

The movie is absolutely horribly made. The concept and setting are quite good and promising but it is all wasted with the weak storytelling of it all. The story itself, based on the book by Victor Hugo, is quite fascination, almost Shakesperean like. It has some great elements in it but it is all wasted in this movie. All of the potential is ruined but the weak acting, dreadful camera-work (seriously, don't they know what a focus-puller is?) and horrible editing. The story is also told messy and at times you don't even know who exactly are supposed to be the good guys and the bad guys of the movie. It makes the movie very unpleasant and uneasy to watch at times.

There are still some good moments in the movie, especially in the middle but overall the movie is a dragging, messy, confusing one that isn't really worth watching. The movie also becomes unnecessary ridicules at times, especially toward the ending of the movie. It truly becomes laughable bad at times and loses all of it's credibility because of those many moments, that are present in the movie.

Great story, very bad storytelling and execution of it all.

3/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/