The Hunchback Of Notre Dame (1923)

Maybe not exactly a horror film as we define it today but a good movie to spotlight nevertheless.

As someone who grew up loving the animated Hunchback from a young age even I'm kinda surprised it took me this long to see the original film adaptation. This could very well be considered the first Universal Monster movie almost a decade before Dracula, and it's not often you get to talk about a film that's now 103 years old so let's talk about it! Set in 15th century Paris the film more or less consists of a love square between the eponymous hunchback Quasimodo, a gypsy Esmerelda, a captain of the king's guard Phoebus, and brother of the arch-deacon of Notre Dame Jehman as revolution broils under the surface, it's not a very involved plot which could be said about several silent films but you can get into it. What the film may lack in story the production well makes up for, with a true to scale facade of the Notre Dame cathedral on the Universal backlot that stood untouched until unfortunately a fire devastated the backlot in 1967 and it really does feel like we are seeing the church in the fifteenth century. All the sets are massive and decorated to the max, the costuming is garish and while I'm no expert on french clothing in the 1400s feels authentic, the staggering amount of extras for crowd shots, and there always seems to be a crowd shot, around every corner gives it such weight and scale that most movies could never even dream of achieving. In terms of acting, while this is not my personal favorite performance of Lon Chaney the dedication he always brought to the makeup and the sheer disdain Quaismodo has for humanity mixed with a tragic love for Esmerelda makes it still a fine acting part that is still talked about to this day. Patsy Ruth Miller brings such light to a sometimes grim movie as Esmerelda, showing great compassion and innocence which really makes me feel bad she's gotta deal with some real pieces of work at times and while I feel her backstory is woefully presented with a true out of left field element I'm also aware about fifteen minutes of this film is lost but we have a mostly intact copy. Norman Kerry who you might remember as Raoul from Chaney's Phantom plays Phoebus and I know this is modern sensibilities coming from me, but he's a bit of a fucking whore in this! I'm serious man he's already engaged to one woman and is known to get around as they say before zeroing in on Esmerelda, and I'm just like bro move on my God. Solid performance but an irksome character. And boy does that compound hard and fast with Brandon Hurst as Jehan who is our Claude Frollo equivalent in this film, you can just tell from Brandon's face he's a real devil of a swine and he just cannot leave this poor girl alone, tries to abduct her, literally stabs Phoebus to get to her, and pretty much orchestrates a failed coup just to run off with her, like Christ alive he's not as interestingly evil as the Disney version but he's still a bastard! It's easy to get invested because you do want the best for Esmerelda and can sympathize with Quasimodo even if he isn't a baby face voiced by angel sent from above Tom Hulce, and for a almost two hour film takes it's time but doesn't drag it's feet either. I would say it's more a minor classic of both the silent film era and the horror genre, but I still liked it just fine. I certainly can appreciate the art all made by hand no less, and this was a megabucks hit for Universal gaining over 3 million dollars and I need you to think about that for a sec considering movie tickets were dimes back then, and I'm happy to say I ginally have seen it. I give it 2.5 stars, 7/10, and we have a semi-horror title up next.

He Who Gets Slapped

Once again proving a big distinction between best and personal favorite.

Ever since I first saw this film just a few years ago, it quickly became my favorite of Lon Chaney's films, despite Phantom being his most well known and yes I still consider it a great film, a film I love even, but this story just worked for me. It follows a scientist who is cheated and betrayed by his wealthy patron, and mocked openly at a seminar leading him to go a bit off the rails and takes up being a clown in a circus act, as we get to know a few of the side characters it all culminates in a revenge story which is probably why I love it so much. It still has the romance, and the tragic ending, but revenge while being a worthless cause can elevate storytelling and it works great here. Chaney gives another good performance but yet again I strongly stress his acting quality in The Unknown which was the highlight of the week, but the emotion in his eyes and more subtle moments of acting is really wonderful stuff. I don't know what it is, he just pulls off clown makeup better than anybody I've ever seen. Yeah, even more so than any Joker. In fact I did get ever so slight Joaquin Phoenix vibes from this, a down on his luck lower class guy gets snubbed by an upper class rich guy, goes a bit mental, puts on clown makeup, has someone close to him that he does love but is not reciprocated back, as a clown he becomes this celebrity with hundreds of admirers, and it ends with two people being murdered. Sounds a bit familiar in a way. The quality is quite good, and considering this was the very first film Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer started production on they did a good job, with good sets, huge amounts of extras, very good costumes, some pretty nifty cross dissolve's which was ambitious for that time and they do work quite well, it's a solid movie. It's not often I touch on films that are nearly a century old, but it really does go to show how much things change they stay the same. The world keeps turning, films are still being made, and here I stand amongst billions with such a passion for one of many artful mediums. 4 stars, 8/10, I'll see you next week everyone.

The Unknown

I'm gonna find it difficult this week to see a better performance from Chaney.

Even though tomorrow we look at my personal favorite of his films, I really couldn't ask for better acting from him like ever in this picture. I think it was almost law, regardless of genre or story material, there had to be some love triangle scenario in the silent era, it pretty much is at the forefront of every Lon Chaney film I've seen in my life. So we follow a circus troupe, specifically Alonzo an armless trickshot, Nanon the ring leader's daughter, and Malabar the strong man as romance buds and tragedy is right around the corner. What fascinates me about this film is there actually is no complete print of this movie, which is kind of the shameful reality of it all when it comes to silent cinema. The full runtime was an hour and three minutes, the only surviving print is 50 minutes so you lose about 13 minutes and yet not once does the film seem like it's missing anything. It's a concise, easily understandable, and still engaging story that can be watched in the time of a modern television drama's runtime. Quite a few horror connections in this film, it was directed by Tod Browning who directed two previously reviewed films here on the show, Freaks and the 1931 Dracula. Speaking of Dracula, Bela Lugosi is in a very brief cameo near the beginning of the film. Norman Kerry returns as Malabar, two years after Phantom Of The Opera with Chaney so the trend continues for returning cast members from that film. And Joan Crawford stars as the romantic lead Nanon, who had a long and illustrious career in Hollywood with notable horror examples being in Rod Serling's Night Gallery, and the cult classic Whatever Happened To Baby Jane. Apparently Joan fully commited to acting after watching Chaney perform, and it does go to show what a truly unbelievable figure he was in that time and palce in the world. You get so much great acting out of him in this movie, and I can pin it down to the big emotional breakdown scene he has near the end. Good God, I felt everything in that scene. If people ever wondered or wanted reason why critics and fans praise Lon Chaney's acting ability despite the lack of sound, this is immediately the film I am pointing to. It even has a more cathartic and final ending, cause there is a point where the film could have faded to black, The End, done and over, with actually a pretty solid Rod Serling feel to it now that I think about it, but it gives you that little bit more of an emotional finale which I think works wonderfully. I think it's a great film, cannot even believe it could pop up in the public domain in a few years time, MGM get on top of your movie history, seriously everybody needs to pay more attention to films of the silent and early sound era from the studios that made them to the audiences who still watch them. I dare even say they are more important than cinema breaking films like Star Wars, Citizen Kane, or any blockbuster franchise going on now. We cannot let these films slip into obscurity and out of history, not for anything. 4 stars, 8.5/10, it's been a good week and we still got one more.

Laugh Clown Laugh

I still like the clowns.

Decided to do something a bit different with some silent films this week that all strangely have a circus theme for Lon Chaney this week, but honestly they are some of my favorite films of his. Made during the height of Chaney's popularity the plot involves a circus performer named Tito who one day finds a young girl abandoned in the woods and decides to raise her and names her Simonetta, as time passed and the girl grew up into a young woman Tito feels conflicted emotions on his love for her and quite soon she meets a young count named Luigi Ravelli as a sort of love triangle forms. I say kind of because in an aspect I greatly love and appreciate of the film, it's not this big rivalry between Tito and Luigi for the affection of this woman. In fact they meet while seeing the same doctor, Luigi has bouts of uncontrollable laughter while Tito weeps frequently and they actually decide to help each other out. So they actually have a good standing relationship and both have the intention to bow out gracefully if Simonetta chooses one of them. No nonsense, no fighting, no unecessary drama, just two men who will respect the woman they love's choice on who she wants to be with. Another thing I find interesting is you're not entirely sure how Simonetta feels about Tito, they keep it vague until near the end and it works well because of their relationship. Tito loves her unconditionally and wants her happy but raised her as his daughter so he has a dilemma of whether to confess his love, and Simonetta feels the same very much loving him and doesn't want to leave him but you can't pin down if it's romantic or familial love. It's an incredibly basic story but the performances are what makes it truly worth watching, I hardly think I need to say much about Lon Chaney the man was one of the greatest actors like...ever and can convey so much through facial features, Loretta Young was a mere 15 years old in her first leading role and she handles it very well being able to keep up with the pace of Chaney and is believable in the role, Nils Asther is a good secondary leading man and the writing they gave his character keeps him from being a one note dashing suitor like say Raoul in Phantom Of The Opera, speaking of which Bernard Siegal who played Joseph Bouquet in the 1925 version is the stage partner of Chaney in this film, isn't that neat. I feel the tragedy angle isn't nearly as strong as another film we're gonna look at this week, it focuses on the romance and the internal drama of the characters which is the important part, the tragedy element is really only at the end and while Chaney pulls it off with ease it's not something in the foreground throughout the movie. Production values are really good, the image of Lon Chaney in clown costume is striking and memorable, the version I watched had a score composed by H. Scott Salinas which was actually quite pretty in places and complemented the scenes effectively, and for a movie just a bit over an hour you really don't have much to lose. It's a very good movie, and anytime silent cinema is available to me I have no problem sitting down and watching it even at a much later hour like I did for this movie. Film has barely been around for a 100 years and every era is worth discussing and seeing to distinguish where we were and where we are going from here. 4 stars, 8/10, catch you next time.

Phantom Of The Opera (1925)

That final scene though is great regardless.

I've always been intrigued by the story of The Phantom Of The Opera, a story over a 100 years old written by a mystery novelist Gaston Leroux which has been adapted quite possibly more than any other famous monster during the golden age of horror. But in my humble opinion and to many others as well the 1925 version starring The Man Of A Thousand Faces, Lon Chaney is not only the closest to the book but the superior film above all other versions. The story takes place at the Paris Opera house where a young singer named Christine Daae is being wooed by a mysterious man better known as the Opera Ghost, and is soon fought over by the villainous Phantom and the heroic Raoul de Chagny. I think I can say Phantom is the first true American horror film, where others like Nosferatu came from Germany though I could be wrong for Chaney made several films in the horror genre around this time including The Hunchback Of Notre Dame. Regardless this is a classic movie and the restored version which I caught on TCM was outstanding complete with an original score by Carl Davis and the version I suggest you watch. I strongly urge despite Phantom being a public domain film and could be viewed free on YouTube, do not watch it on those terms. The picture quality is horrendous and the music is stock and boring, the restored version made me greatly appreciate the film so much more and the score is definitive in my opinion. The sets are outstanding, a dead ringer for the Paris Opera House to be sure, and the production quality was very high for the time. And for the longest time the set for which this film was made stood standing decades after the film wrapped up shooting. It has such a rich history and is one of the most well documented of any silent picture in history. And for good reason, the story is timeless to be certain. The acting though no words can be heard are excellent, a real tribute to the restoration, so much acting is done through the eyes and body language, and of course the best part and actor of the film is Lon Chaney. Born to deaf and mute parents, Chaney was created for the silent era without a doubt, being able to say so much with a simple movement of his hand and really did the character of Erik justice in his potrayal of a genius but insane musical composer who fell in love with a woman. But all the credit cannot go to Chaney alone, Mary Philbin in my opinion is the only Christine and she is gorgeous and brings much to the character who was kind of a blank slate in the book. And the actor who plays the Persian, is underrated in my opinion giving a mysterious and interesting potrayal of an already interesting and puzzling character. Needless to say I adore this movie and the story it tells, it does bring me back to the discovery of this movie, my repeated rentals and viewings of it from the video store, appreciating and yet being scared of Chaney's outstanding self made makeup. And my love and further expansion of other versions of Phantom Of The Opera came to ahead in my teenage years. All sprung from this classic of American and horror cinema that deserves to be seen by current generations. In fact I give this movie a solid 6/5 stars, and look forward to the next iteration of Phantom tomorrow where we look at Claude Raines potrayal in the color musical made in 1943.

Also a major recommendation for the Phantom Reviewer who you can find on Youtube for more Phantomy goodness!