MovieChat Forums > The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1939) Discussion > One of my Biggest Problems with the movi...

One of my Biggest Problems with the movie

posted 12 years ago by michaelsme615
9 replies | jump to latest

Make no mistake, I do love this film, but I just re-watched it yesterday and this sort of bothered me. I'm not hating on the film by any means, just pointing this out.

The Beggars/Thieves want to break sanctuary of the church to protect the gypsy girl because they think the Royalty will do the same thing, and the girl wouldn't be safe. Okay, that makes sense. But then the Craftsmen try to protect the church, and make sure sanctuary is kept (even against Royalty). Why didn't the Beggars/Thieves just team-up with the Craftsmen and doubly protect the church? Wouldn't that have made more sense?

[–] VaticanAssassinWarlock 12 years ago

Well yeah, that's the tragedy. Everyone's fighting against each other even though they want the same thing. It's a film with a very dark, bleak tone and all the more wonderful for it.

[–] Errington_92 11 years ago

The whole sequence was a massive irony, all fighting in order to protect the same woman. To me it seemed absolutely daft but for dramatic purposes it worked.

"I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not".

[–] rc1990 8 years ago

I couldn't agree more.. My only problem is that her trial came so late. I wish she had more time with Quasimodo.

[–] spookyrat1 10 years ago

It's a film with a very dark, bleak tone and all the more wonderful for it.

I don't disagree in the slightest, but relatively light in tone compared to Hugo's book.

[–] kenny-164 10 years ago

While the OP is correct regarding the essential illogic of the crowd's involvement in attacking the cathedral, imo it still made sense given the way they exhibited a mob mentality of sorts. This was not shown in a completely negative way, ftr, as I think there would be in such circumstances a heightened desire to see the object achieved as some compatriots are, at least initially, hurt and even killed in the process. That desire would overcome an appreciation of the logic of what was occurring. Meaning the illogic.

In other words it worked for me.

[–] don-lockwood 10 years ago

This was a wonderful film. My only real problem with the execution was that I feel the story is ultimately more powerful (and coherent) either as a total tragedy, as in the novel, or with an uplifting ending, as in the Disney version. I still think this a beautiful artistic production filled with incredibly authentic performances. But because Quasimodo kills innocent people who are actually trying to protect Esmeralda, and because he himself goes on living just as before, he ends the film as neither a perfect hero nor a martyr. That said, the tragedy and humanity of Quasimodo are still wholly conveyed by the film and Laughton's performance. I do think this is probably the strongest film version of the novel.

[–] Chiscully 8 years ago

Good comment.

[–] rc-108 8 years ago

yes.. well said Don-Lockwood

Laughton was great..
and O'hara was bewitching.

[–] silverwhistle 8 years ago

I think the 1956 Jean Delannoy film remains the best adaptation, though not perfect. It at least bears in mind the fact that Quasimodo isn't the main character. The main tragic hero/anti-hero is the young priest and intellectual, Claude Frollo, who tears the world down around himself, having a mental breakdown because of the conflict between his sexuality and his vow of celibacy.

"Active but Odd"