The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1923)

[

Though not a favorite of mine, per se, this is now my third time watching this film, and I definitely enjoy it more with each viewing. thwhtguardian is so right to suggest that this is more a historical fiction film than a horror, and yet it was the foundation upon which the Golden Age of horror films was built, generating high interest in stories about deformed "monsters" (Phantom of the Opera and The Man Who Laughs would follow before Universal transitioned into telling truly supernatural stories with Dracula and Frankenstein), and also proving to American producers and theater-goers alike that horror films could be both heavily stylized and heavily profitable.

What I love about the film is how expansive it is. Director Wallace Worsley does a surprisingly adequate job of translating such a complex and multi-faceted novel to the screen, even in spite of censorship issues (you can't have the priest be the bad guy) and the sheer number of characters involved. But beyond that, every set and shot suggests a larger 15th Century Paris just beyond the boundaries of the camera. The sets are astounding in their scope and detail, as is the extensive horde of extras used, and the camera uses them brilliantly so that it's impossible to look at the settings and people and imagine them being anything other then authentic.

Some of you have praised the acting in this film. There's no doubt that the lead actors are all highly capable and work in some impressive nuances whenever possible, but they're directed to be overly simplistic, over the top, and hammy. This seems indicative of many American films of the period, while, in contrast, their European counterparts were full of deeply dramatic subtlety and expression. I don't think Universal really begins to develop its full flavor until the influx of German directors and cinematographers in the 1930s. What Fritz Lang, F.W. Murnau, or Karl Freund could have done for this film!

Really, the only character who I felt was done justice on the screen was that of Gudule, the once wealthy mother who has grown twisted in self-imposed isolation after losing her young child to gypsy kidnappers. Though her story arc drops off abruptly in the film, Gladys Brockwell brings such sensational energy to it that she utterly steals the spotlight:




A flawed but rich film, and a critical stepping stone on the path to Golden Age horror perfection.

Eh, that seems a bit weak to me especially as in Mallory's "Universal Studio's Monsters" he writes about how Dracula's daughter first started off as a B-reel adaptation of Dracula's Guest to be shown with future showings of Dracula before taking on its own life as a sequel, and while Stoker's short tale didn't include his daughter it did have a female vampire that they turned into Dracula's daughter in the adaptation. If we're going to say the premise is a rip off I'd say it took more from Joseph Sheridan Le Fanu's "Carmilla" than Mark of the Vampire with their shared aspect of lesbian eroticism.

Which reminds me, I should dig out Vapyr which more directly adapts Carmilla. 

That popularity may be the reason it went from a short feature to a full feature, but the idea of a vampire having a daughter just seems like a part of the genre.

For my tastes I'm going to consider any monster film that was either put out bt Universal or has a similar mood as fair game unless you'd rather a more specific definition.

The Phantom of the Opera (1925)





Another film that I enjoy more upon repeated viewings. Whereas I really disliked this film the first time around and felt it was overrated, it's now slowly becoming a favorite of mine. There are significant problems with the film, the most glaring being Mary Philbin who, while drop dead gorgeous, is a terrible actor and utterly ruins many of the scenes she is in. But this film is great on so many other levels.

Whereas Hunchback was the first film to sell American filmmakers and audiences on grand, big budget, stylized horror, Phantom is the first to borrow from the dark expressionistic feel of the German horror films of the period, utilizing it in its lighting, shadow play, and even the gothic settings. It's not an expressionistic film, per se: It's more grounded, an Americanized version of German cinematic expressionism. In essence, it's the tone that will subsequently pervade the Universal monster films and most of their contemporaries.

And man, those settings. I want my own Phantom Lair:




The story is engaging, the acting mostly strong, the visuals stunning, and Chaney's make-up...wow.

Definitely watch the restored version I linked to above. The original tinting (and, in one scene, hand-coloring) restored for this version is also a cut above. Universal threw everything at this one; it shouldn't be watched on a budget copy.

Shax wrote: "I guess people remember this film because of Chaney's makeup and because its lost. Maybe there's a reason no one bothered to save this one."

I remember reading, and more knowledgeable fans than I may correct me, but that to achieve that skull-like look to his eyes, Chaney inserted some kind of wire hook above and below each of his eyes to widen them. Must have been very painful.

That was a major concern in American cinema at the time, and also likely the reason why no film in the 1920s featured an actual supernatural presence. It was always revealed to be the work of man, or (in the case of Hunchback and Phantom) a human who was simply physically disfigured. I always find the warning at the beginning of Frankenstein (1931) fascinating because, while it's partially tongue and cheek, I think there was a real concern there as well.




Agreed about how the story holds up. The plot is Mark of the Vampire's one weakness. Beyond that, it's one of the most visually gorgeous films of the Golden Age of Horror and, in some respects, Browning's masterpiece. I can never get over that moment where Luna descends from the air on giant animated bat wings. That does so much more for me than Cheney's makeup in LAM. Though, to be fair, the general consensus is on your side in this debate.