MovieChat Forums > The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1923) Discussion > Universal's First?

Universal's First?

posted 17 years ago by Alienator
20 replies | jump to latest

I am a longtime Universal horror fan and I have been watching such wonderful pieces of classic horror cinema as 'The Hunchback of Notre Dame' (1923), 'The Phantom of the Opera' (1925), and 'Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde' (1920) for years now.

I have come to believe that the oldest Universal horror picture is Lon Chaney's classic 1923 rendition of Quasimodo in 'The Hunchback of Notre Dame'. Is this true? Does anyone know of any older Universal horror pictures (even those which have a mildly horrific premise)? If anyone has any knowledge of this I would be much obliged if they filled me in! Thank you!

"Pull the string, pull the string!" -Bela Lugosi

[–] The-Silent-Photoplayer 17 years ago

Some of Universal's earlier releases with Chaney border on the horrific and "weird." Around the time he started directing, Chaney was playing some strange parts.

-J. Theakston
http://centraltheater.blogspot.com

[–] Alienator 17 years ago

What are some of these releases?

"Pull the string, pull the string!" -Bela Lugosi

[–] James12345203799 17 years ago

Universal made a short version of "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" in 1913 - their earliest contribution to the horror film.

[–] Alienator 17 years ago

Ah, yes. You are referring to the version starring King Baggot, I assume. I own this version on VHS and it is a wonderful little short of the late Nickleodeon-era.

"Pull the string, pull the string!" -Bela Lugosi

[–] Aulic Exclusiva 17 years ago

HOW is Hunchback a "horror" movie???

If the Kingdom of Heaven is like a grain of mustard, It can also be like a chicken-pox mark.

[–] Alienator 17 years ago

'The Hunchback of Notre Dame' (1923) is generally considered to be a horror film for a number of reasons. First and foremost, it features a grotesque lead character or monster. Lon Chaney's presence probably furthers this notion. Secondly, it has a defined "gothic horror" aura about it; it is rather comparable to the other horror masterpieces of the era, such as 'The Phantom of the Opera' (1925) and 'Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde' (1920).

I agree that this film is not the purest example of the horror genre, but it certainly does explore bizarre and grotesque themes in a uniquely gothic style, which is good enough for me.

Wallace Worsley’s 1923 opus is indeed a unique asset to the early horror genre, in my opinion.

"Pull the string, pull the string!" -Bela Lugosi

[–] Aulic Exclusiva 17 years ago

I think of horror films as mainly meant to scare the socks out of a juvenile audience. Within that genre you have a lot of trash, as well as superb films like The Phantom of the Opera (1925) and Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde (1920.) Lon Chaney certainly transcended the horror mould, in that he was a great exponent of the lost art of pantomime. He was an artist, as distinct from, say, his son.

I still have trouble thinking of Hunchback as a horror film. I don't think its prime intent was to scare, but rather to move the viewer. Certainly the towering masterwork on which it is based, Victor Hugo's Notre Dame de Paris, is no "pennydreadful", but one of the greatest romantic novels of the Nineteenth Century. It has some gothic elements because of the time in which it was written, but the character of Quasimodo is not a "monster": his loving interactions with Esmeralda are among the most memorable moments in the silent screen; Chaney understood that this is essentially a love story and his performance is full of poetry.

Anyway, I am glad we are agreed that Chaney's best films are masterpieces. I love his work and would like to see a lot more of it on DVD.

If the Kingdom of Heaven is like a grain of mustard, It can also be like a chicken-pox mark.

[–] Alienator 17 years ago

I certainly agree that Chaney's character is not a "monster" per say. After all, the task of refuting such labels is the film's primary endeavor and to disregard it would be to disregard the films central convictions and themes. I agree with just about everything you have pointed out; however, you must agree that Chaney's makeup/character probably did manage to conjure up some scares in 1923.

Furthermore, if one is to argue that Quasimodo is not a monster, one could also have legitimacy in saying that Frankenstein's Monster is not a monster (nor The Wolf Man, for that matter). Both are characters which, despite their horrific appearance and sometimes horrific (yet unavoidable) acts, generate sympathy within the audience.

"Pull the string, pull the string!" -Bela Lugosi

[–] Aulic Exclusiva 17 years ago

Yes, but Frankenstein's Monster or The Wolf Man are horror fantasy; Quasimodo is a real man. He not only evokes sympathy: he feels a man's love. He's not a killing automaton, he has a sense of justice.

Lon Chaney makes these human qualities searingly apparent. I can hardly think of any other screen instances in which human emotions are so vividly conveyed, except perhaps some of Chaplin's; but Chaplin was more maudlin; Chaney's work has enormous virility.

If the Kingdom of Heaven is like a grain of mustard, It can also be like a chicken-pox mark.

[–] Alienator 17 years ago

I could not agree more with you in regard to your comments about the great Lon Chaney, but I must ask: do you consider 'The Phantom of the Opera' (1925) a horror film? Erik, The Phantom is indeed a real man, as is Quasimodo. What I mean to say is that horror does not always need to be tied into fantasy (in fact the most terrifying examples of the genre are not, but that is neither here nor there in regard to this film). I understand that 'The Hunchback of Notre Dame' (1923) is not the purest example of horror and is in fact more of a drama, but I feel as though it does deserve a place in the horror genre for the reasons I stated.

"Pull the string, pull the string!" -Bela Lugosi

[–] Aulic Exclusiva 17 years ago

Phantom is closer to pure horror that Hunchback in that its primary purpose is to scare you. But Erik, fancyful though his character be, is a man, a real psychopath and, again, Chaney brings out his obsessionality and his suffering in a memorable way. And while wearing a mask! Who else ever did that?

The way he almost hypnotises Christine, beautifully played by the lovely Mary Philbin, is, indeed, very Gothic, and haunting. I love Phantom ! How I wish the original 12-reel film survived!

The scene in which Lon solemnly walks into the waters of the subterranean lake just tops it all. Not only is it spine-chilling, but it expresses the submerged danger that the character is all about, thus marrying the scary to real drama. That is art.

If the Kingdom of Heaven is like a grain of mustard, It can also be like a chicken-pox mark.

[–] Alienator 17 years ago

I could not have said it better myself. Chaney's performances were an art form unto themselves, one which no one has since been able to mimic. He knew the dance; meaning, he knew exactly how to evoke within the audience the deepest emotions that he so desired. Your comments pertaining to 'The Phantom of the Opera' (1925) are spot on.

Obviously, his performance in 'The Hunchback of Notre Dame' (1923) is also not to be overlooked. The look of sheer society-born hatred in Quasimodo's face, which slowly fades to that of utter sorrow and regret as he comes to the realization of both his seemingly-hideous appearance and his spiteful actions, when he first sees Esmeralda is one of the single most powerful scenes in cinema history. Furthermore, the ending sequence, in which Quasimodo sounds his very own death-knell, is one of the most moving finales ever put to celluloid.

"Pull the string, pull the string!" -Bela Lugosi

[–] Aulic Exclusiva 17 years ago

Yes, that finale is memorable. Quasimodo is transfigured as he rides the bell and dies.

I love the expression of complete furious hatred at injured justice which Quasimodo shows when he discovers Jehan de Frollo raping Esmeralda. Jehan is already a dead man. He wounds Quasimodo mortally, but NOTHING can save him from the divine justice that Quasimodo will administer by disgorging him from the body of the cathedral like a cancer that must be cut off. And what has transformed Quasimodo into such a physically as well as morally powerful agent? Love. Chaney's every move, every facial expression makes this perfectly clear, in a way that words never could.

If the Kingdom of Heaven is like a grain of mustard, It can also be like a chicken-pox mark.

[–] Alienator 17 years ago

I could hardly have said it better myself.

"Pull the string, pull the string!" -Bela Lugosi

[–] neffer 17 years ago

I am very curious about this film. One of you guys who have seen... Years ago (I don't even want to try and remember)...I saw the tail end of a film that I would swear was the Chaney Hunchback film, but it ended differently than the more modern. I hate to confess I've never read the story... Does it end with the crowd carrying Esmeralda out and the "soldiers" take up bows and arrows and kill her. Quasimodo comes down from the church and lays beside her...then the picture speeds up and we see the dust blowing in the wind?

No laughing! Much appreciated.

[–] hawkeye_74 14 years ago

That was the Anthony Quinn version from 1956 and the ending was closer to the true ending in the book.

[–] MissyH316 12 years ago

I totally agree.

BTW, it seems that I read somewhere - maybe in one of Michael Blake's great books - that some people on the "Hunchback" set weren't too comfortable looking at Lon Chaney in his full Quasimodo costume & makeup, finding it a little too grotesque even in "real life".

From what I know and respect about Chaney, I wouldn't doubt that one bit.

"Think slow, act fast." -Buster Keaton

[–] mahawk2 17 years ago

I know this for two reasons - one is being a Chaney nut and the second is having been in the collectibles business for almost 19 years. But this is unofficially regarded as the first Universal Horror. Yes, there have been earlier films in the horror genre, but we're talking tentpole figures here, not asides. I have gotten over the years several licensed items which are touted as such, the newest being a trading card set entitled "Universal Monsters of the Silver Screen" which was released a few years ago. Granted, it is a summation (check the book "Universal Horrors: the studio's classic films 1931 - 1946" for a complete listing for then - its huge, Godawful expensive book though) but the Hunchback is number 1. (The Phantom of the Opera and the Cat Creeps are 2 and 3, incidentally.) One has to take into account that "official" is not necessarily the same in every group, each person wants to market their own item. But I do know that Hunchback has been touted as such.

[–] Alienator 17 years ago

Why, thank you.

"Pull the string, pull the string!" -Bela Lugosi

[–] www1125 8 years ago

Hunchback is most certainly NOT a horror film. I get why it's labeled as such, but it's just not