MovieChat Forums > The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1939) Discussion > Who would have made a great Frollo and Q...

Who would have made a great Frollo and Quasimodo?


Boris Karloff or Bela Lugosi as Frollo, Peter Lorre as Quasimodo.

I have heard that Peter Lorre was offered the part, but turned it down because it was too soon after the Lon Chaney version.

reply

Why mess with perfection? Hardwicke was fine as Frollo and Laughton was simply magnificent as Quasimodo. As far as I'm concerned, he was The UK's second greatest export, second only to fish 'n chips.

reply

LOL:

he was The UK's second greatest export, second only to fish 'n chips.


And I concur with you, Charles Laughton was magnificent as Quasimodo, insuperable.

reply

' Chubby Chuck ' is one of my five favorite actors. He had a wonderful range.

reply

You question infers that you don´t seem to be satisfied with Charles Laughton´s performance as Quasimodo. I think that it was magnificent and I can´t think that anyone else could have been better. It should have received an oscar nomination.

I don´t know where your source comes from but it makes no sense that Peter Lorre would turn down the role only because it was just too soon after the 1923 Lon Chaney version. What I read was that MGM had considered making the film in 1937 with Peter Lorre as Quasimodo but it did not materialize. And what I also read is that ¨Bela Lugosi, Claude Rains, Orson Welles, Robert Morley and Lon Chaney Jr. were all considered for the role of Quasimodo¨ but the part went to Charles Laughton. I don´t see why it was not good enough for you. What is it that you did not like?

As for Frollo, Cedric Hardwicke´s performance is unforgetable as the fearsome and sinister villain. He reminds me of Judith Anderson as Mrs Danvers in Rebecca as such a haunting, dark and ghostly character. I like this site´s view of the character:

¨In a role originally intended for Basil Rathbone, Hardwicke gives a performance which surpasses even Laughton’s for sheer horror. Physical repugnance can hardly compete with the sickness of the soul which Frollo projects.¨ http://www.aycyas.com/liz_hnd.htm
Those are the qualities that make a memorable character. I see no point in looking for alternatives for a better performance than the one already given.

reply

Well said.

And the other actors mentioned by the OP all had their shining moments on the screen for the roles they are remembered for - just as Laughton and Hardwicke are for this film.

reply

[deleted]

Thank you for your comments, mogeary. ¨The Hunchback of Notre Dame¨ is one of my favorite films.

Quoting you:

¨I'm not surprised the role of Frollo was originally intended for Basil Rathbone. Rathbone played that type of character in many films. In fact, when I watch this I immediately think of Rathbone whenever Hardwicke is on screen. I wouldn't go so far as to say Rathbone could have played the role better, but if he had played the part I'm sure he would've been as good as Hardwicke was.¨

I read that Basil Rathbone did not start his career playing parts as a villain but more of a romantic type.

I only remember his part as a villain in ¨David Copperfield¨. What other parts as a villain do you remember as memorable? I don´t think I saw him in ¨Tower of London¨ (1939), where he starred with Boris Karloff. They were probably both very good and I would like to see it. It was released on DVD and available as part of four films in the ¨The Boris Karloff Collection.¨ I am now editing the message to add a commentary made in Amazon:
¨Basil Rathbone is the man! This is not a horror movie but a historical drama depicting the unscrupulous rise to power of Richard the III, played in the most evil and backstabbing way by Basil Rathbone( most excellent actor of Sherlock Holmes fame and Son of Frankenstein). The plot and script are so much more intricate and intelligent than the other universal horrors, but no wonder it's not a horror movie. Some say this is a bland role for Karloff, but he plays an executioner that is the subserviant friend of Richard the III, of course he is going to come across as a brute, but what else would you expect of an executioner from the middle ages. Vincent Price(in an early role in his career) is excellent as a snivelling coward, that is in the way of Richards rise to power. Overall an excellent movie, one of Universal's best from the time period of the classic monsters.¨

And someone else´s commentary is also worthwhile quoting:

¨Laurence Olivier's Richard III is fun to watch, but his Duke of Glouchester is warped inside and out: ugly and humpbacked, strutting about. Basil Rathbone's Richard is very different from that.True, he has a humpback too--in fact, his armor has a bump in it to allow for the hump--but he carries himself gracefully, as Rathbone always does. He's just as evil, though.¨


Quoting you:
I can't think of anybody who'd come close to Laughton's Quasimodo.

I don´t think any of the living actors of that time could have been as good. I have not seen the 1923 original silent film, only photographs and some scenes. It looks like Lon Chaney could have played Quasimodo as good as Laughton but he was dead when the 1939 film was done. His son was not considered as good for the part.

Below I am copying a few relevant commentaries from IMDB TRIVIA:

Producer Pandro S. Berman (from RKO) offered Basil Rathbone a principal part in this film but Universal refused to release him.¨

¨Irving Thalberg (from MGM) first presented the project to Charles Laughton in 1934.¨

With reference to the above, I guess that that was when ¨MGM considered making the film (in 1937) with Peter Lorre as Quasimodo.¨

¨But plans didn't materialize until Laughton signed with RKO and chose this film as his first assignment at that studio.¨

¨Bela Lugosi, Claude Rains, Orson Welles, Robert Morley and Lon Chaney Jr. were all considered for the role of Quasimodo.¨

¨Lon Chaney Jr. screen tested extensively to play the role that his father had originated (in the 1923 silent version). When it appeared that trouble with the IRS might prevent Charles Laughton from working in America, RKO Studios promised the role to Chaney Jr. if Laughton's services could not be secured. Laughton, however, overcame his tax difficulties and made the picture.¨

¨Having worked with her in London, Charles Laughton insisted that Maureen O'Hara would be the perfect Esmeralda for the film.¨ He was not wrong, was he?

¨This picture marked Maureen O'Hara's http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000058/bio?ref_=nm_ov_bio_sm debut in an American picture, radio actor Edmond O'Brien's screen debut, and stage actor Walter Hampden's screen debut.¨


I agree with you:
As for other characters, I think Errol Flynn could play Gringoire better than Edmond O'Brien did, but he was probably too well known at the time to be playing a relatively small supporting role. Regardless O'Brien's work in Hunchback wasn't bad for his first film, despite that he got better over the years.





reply

[deleted]

I see, thanks. I have not seen all these films (Captain Blood, The Mark of Zorro, and The Adventures of Robin Hood) again since childhood and I did not recall.

Basil Rathbone as Sir Guy of Gisbourne: http://www.basilrathbone.net/films/robinhood/rh502.jpg

reply

I read that Basil Rathbone did not start his career playing parts as a villain but more of a romantic type.
He'd have been great if they'd done it by the book, then: the tragic, passion-tormented, scholarly young priest with the intense dark eyes.

The 1939 adaptation was horribly damaged by the Hays Code.



"Active but Odd"

reply