Silent cinema has its charm and, even today, despite the almost one hundred years since the advent of talking cinema, there are admirers of this era of the seventh art. I'm not one of the most absolute fans, but I do recognize that I enjoy watching these movies from time to time. This is the one I saw most recently. The version I saw is almost two hours old, and I assume is the result of editing work and, eventually, restoration work by Film Preservation Associates, done in 2007 by Davis Shepard and Serge Bromberg (this is information and dates that appear at the end of the film).
The story, inspired by the novel by Victor Hugo, takes place in the city of Paris at the end of the Middle Ages, during the reign of Louis XI. The film is very close to the story of the original book: with the Parisian cathedral in the background, the film tells the story of the loves crossed over a beautiful gypsy named Esmeralda, and how she is the object of the lustful desires of Frolo, a cathedral priest willing to do anything to possess it, despite the burgeoning romance between her and an officer in the king's guard, and the passion of Quasimodo, the deaf and deformed cathedral bell-ringer, for whom she is the only person who has shown him affection disinterested.
The cast is made up of pretty good actors, but it's Lon Chaney who takes the film on his back, hunchback and all. He's an excellent actor, and he made, with this film, one of the works of his life as an actor. Nigel de Brulier is good in the role of the villain, Frolo, but he never looks like a real priest... more like a twisted version of a Richard III of Shakespeare. Patsy Ruth Miller also seemed a good choice for Esmeralda. Norman Kerry doesn't do much more than try to be the hero on the white horse, Ernest Torrence is underused and the character's ending is rather abrupt.
A hundred years ago, when this movie was released, it was a big-budget, ambitious super-production. The amount of extras is colossal, and thinking that almost all of them were prostitutes and bums makes me imagine the abnormal environment of the studio, with cops watching, pickpockets hanging around and prostitutes doing their business behind the scenes. It is difficult to assess the cinematography, as the film is quite damaged, there are segments that were lost or were found in formats that are different from what already existed. However, what exists is good and well done. The film has a good pace, doesn't waste time on unnecessary scenes. The sets are colossal and detailed, and the costumes, although very imaginative, are the best there was at the time and match what was done in 1920. A note, also, for Chaney's makeup, with that false hump, the eyes and everything else sounding very realistic and misshapen. The original soundtrack is lost, but the version I saw contains a good replacement, arranged by Robert Israel, which automatically transports us to the theater and makes us feel like spectators of the film at its premiere.
The story, inspired by the novel by Victor Hugo, takes place in the city of Paris at the end of the Middle Ages, during the reign of Louis XI. The film is very close to the story of the original book: with the Parisian cathedral in the background, the film tells the story of the loves crossed over a beautiful gypsy named Esmeralda, and how she is the object of the lustful desires of Frolo, a cathedral priest willing to do anything to possess it, despite the burgeoning romance between her and an officer in the king's guard, and the passion of Quasimodo, the deaf and deformed cathedral bell-ringer, for whom she is the only person who has shown him affection disinterested.
The cast is made up of pretty good actors, but it's Lon Chaney who takes the film on his back, hunchback and all. He's an excellent actor, and he made, with this film, one of the works of his life as an actor. Nigel de Brulier is good in the role of the villain, Frolo, but he never looks like a real priest... more like a twisted version of a Richard III of Shakespeare. Patsy Ruth Miller also seemed a good choice for Esmeralda. Norman Kerry doesn't do much more than try to be the hero on the white horse, Ernest Torrence is underused and the character's ending is rather abrupt.
A hundred years ago, when this movie was released, it was a big-budget, ambitious super-production. The amount of extras is colossal, and thinking that almost all of them were prostitutes and bums makes me imagine the abnormal environment of the studio, with cops watching, pickpockets hanging around and prostitutes doing their business behind the scenes. It is difficult to assess the cinematography, as the film is quite damaged, there are segments that were lost or were found in formats that are different from what already existed. However, what exists is good and well done. The film has a good pace, doesn't waste time on unnecessary scenes. The sets are colossal and detailed, and the costumes, although very imaginative, are the best there was at the time and match what was done in 1920. A note, also, for Chaney's makeup, with that false hump, the eyes and everything else sounding very realistic and misshapen. The original soundtrack is lost, but the version I saw contains a good replacement, arranged by Robert Israel, which automatically transports us to the theater and makes us feel like spectators of the film at its premiere.