Hunchback of Notre Dame, The (1939)

Hunchback of Notre Dame, The (1939)

“I’m not a man and I’m not a beast. I’m as shapeless as a man on the moon!”

Synopsis:
In medieval Paris, a hunch-backed bell-ringer (Charles Laughton) at Notre Dame Cathedral provides sanctuary for a young gypsy woman (Maureen O’Hara) falsely accused of murder by an insanely jealous chief justice (Cedric Hardwicke) who lusts after her. Will Esmeralda (O’Hara) be saved by her new husband (Edmond O’Brien), the King of the Beggars (Thomas Mitchell), or Quasimodo (Laughton) himself?

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Charles Laughton Films
  • Disfigured Faces
  • Edmond O’Brien Films
  • Falsely Accused
  • Gypsies
  • Historical Drama
  • Maureen O’Hara Films
  • Misfits
  • Thomas Mitchell Films
  • William Dieterle Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this “visually impressive telling of Victor Hugo’s classic, set in 11th-century Paris”, features an “excellent cast” — including a young Edmond O’Brien “looking skinny”.

He notes that director William Dieterle handles “the crowd scenes (more than 3000 extras were employed) expertly” and instructed “cameraman Joseph H. August to use some interesting angles.” However, he argues that while “Laughton has received a great deal of praise for his performance”, he “doesn’t really get much opportunity to act” given that “what few lines he has are intended to make us (or Esmeralda, or the Parisians in the streets) feel sorry for him”.

Peary believes “the film surely would have worked better if Laughton’s hunchback didn’t let his physical appearance completely dominate his every thought and word, because he’ll get enough pity as it is just from his hideous looks (the make-up people must have used a deformed walrus as Quasimodo’s model”). He argues that “O’Hara, who is breathtakingly beautiful, comes across better.”

I’m less critical of Laughton’s performance and make-up than Peary, though I’ll admit to not being a huge fan of the storyline either in this adaptation or the earlier silent version with Lon Chaney, Sr. — Quasimodo’s personality and background ultimately seem under-developed (is he mentally challenged, and/or simply irreparably traumatized?), as does that of Hardwicke’s character:

… and the damsel-in-distress, Beauty-and-the-Beast narrative hook doesn’t do much for me. It’s once again the sets and crowds (along with atmospheric cinematography) that most impress in this film.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Charles Laughton as Quasimodo
  • Maureen O’Hara as Esmeralda
  • Van Nest Polglase’s sets
  • Joseph August’s cinematography
  • Perc Westmore’s make-up

Must See?
No, though it’s worth a look as an Oscar-nominated classic.

Links:

Hunchback of Notre Dame, The (1923)

Hunchback of Notre Dame, The (1923)

“All Quasimodo knew was that this girl had once been kind to him.”

Synopsis:
A deformed bell-ringer (Lon Chaney, Sr.) in Notre Dame Cathedral provides sanctuary to a young gypsy woman (Patsy Ruth Miller) falsely accused of killing a nobleman (Norman Kerry) who was actually stabbed by the jealous and unscrupulous brother (Brandon Hurst) of an archdeacon.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Disabilities
  • Falsely Accused
  • Gypsies
  • Historical Drama
  • Lon Chaney, Sr. Films
  • Misfits
  • Silent Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary recommends that film fanatics see this “first of many screen adaptations of Victor Hugo’s classic” before any others. He notes that it’s an “impressive production with large sets and hundreds of extras”, “beautifully photographed, ambitiously staged by director Wallace Worsley, and marvelously acted” by Chaney and Miller. He points out that the “key to Chaney’s definitive performance as Quasimodo is that his expressions and gestures are subtle, not demonstrative as one would expect in a silent picture”; he argues that while “later actors who played the hunchback hammed it up and worked too hard to get our pity”, “Chaney realized that the make-up alone was strong enough to make viewers feel sympathy for the hunchback — he wanted to show that Quasimodo’s personality was opposite of his monstrous exterior”. Peary concludes his review by noting that “the finale is extravagant and exciting, then poignant.” While I’m suitably impressed with how lavishly well-mounted this early silent flick is, I share less of Peary’s overall enthusiasm. It’s certainly worth a look for Chaney’s memorable performances, but the storyline creaks.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Lon Chaney, Sr. as Quasimodo
  • Impressive sets (spanning 19 acres) and handling of large crowds

Must See?
No, though it’s worth a look as a lavish early silent adaptation, and to see Chaney, Sr. in one of his signature roles.

Links:

Dodge City (1939)

Dodge City (1939)

“We’re the public disgrace of America.”

Synopsis:
A wagon train driver (Errol Flynn) falls for the beautiful sister (Olivia de Havilland) of an immature young man (William Lundigan) who is accidentally killed in a cattle stampede. Meanwhile, he reluctantly agrees to become sheriff of a town dominated by a corrupt cattle buyer (John Cabot).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Ann Sheridan Films
  • Corruption
  • Errol Flynn Films
  • Michael Curtiz Films
  • Olivia de Havilland Films
  • Settlers
  • Sheriffs
  • Ward Bond Films
  • Westerns

Review:
Errol Flynn made his western debut in this competently directed (by Michael Curtiz) yet narratively predictable oater about a reluctant sheriff taking over the lawless frontier town of Dodge City, Kansas. Flynn handles his role well, and the Technicolor cinematography is gorgeous — but as DVD Savant puts it so bluntly in his review, Dodge City “can only be described as a big-studio superwestern, an attempt to put a fancy wrapper on the same themes as had been playing out in cheap series oaters for thirty years.” A similar storyline was handled with greater panache in Jacques Tourneur’s Wichita (1955), which is recommended instead.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Sal Polito and Ray Rennahan’s cinematography


Must See?
No, though it’s certainly worth a look by Western fans.

Links:

Don’t Knock the Rock (1956)

Don’t Knock the Rock (1956)

“Rock ‘n roll is for morons!”

Synopsis:
A hot young crooner (Alan Dale) attempts to get away from clamoring crowds of groupies by returning to his hometown, where he learns that its conservative mayor (Pierre Watkins) and a local columnist (Fay Baker) disapprove of rock ‘n roll’s influence on youth. Things quickly become even more complicated when Dale falls for Baker’s daughter (Patricia Hardy), and the rock-loving teenage daughter (Jana Lund) of an influential townsman (George Cisar) repeatedly attempts to seduce Dale.

Genres:

  • Generation Gap
  • Morality Police
  • Musicians
  • Rock ‘n Roll

Response to Peary’s Review:
Modern film fanatics likely won’t have heard of crooner Alan Dale, who sings nicely but displays decidedly underwhelming acting chops in this companion piece to Rock Around the Clock (1956). The film’s most notable subplot involves a seductive underage teen (Lund) who literally won’t take no for an answer: if cell phones were around at that time, Dale would want to film their interactions as evidence on his own behalf. Of course, this “generation clash” flick is really all about showcasing key players in the rock ‘n roll “movement”, and to that end there are several enjoyable musical numbers by big names — however, it’s certainly not must-see viewing for anyone other than die-hard fans of this genre and era.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Several fun musical sequences

  • Humorously over-the-top displays of cross-generational clashing

Must See?
No; skip this one unless you’re a fan of the musicians or up for a few chuckles. Listed as a Camp Classic in the back of Peary’s book.

Links:

Brother Orchid (1940)

Brother Orchid (1940)

“I always was a great guy for orchids. That’ll be my new tag: Brother Orchid.”

Synopsis:
Before a crime lord (Edward G. Robinson) travels to Europe in search of some “class”, he helps his loyal girlfriend (Ann Sothern) secure a job and leaves his territory in the hands of an underling (Humphrey Bogart). Upon his return, he is nearly killed by Bogart and hides out with a group of flower-growing monks (including Donald Crisp and Cecil Kellaway) who help him achieve a change of heart. When Robinson learns his girlfriend is about to marry a wealthy cowboy (Ralph Bellamy), he emerges from seclusion and decides to take action — but will his new, more charitable outlook on life impact his choices?

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Ann Sothern Films
  • Cecil Kellaway Films
  • Character Arc
  • Donald Crisp Films
  • Gangsters
  • Humphrey Bogart Films
  • Mistaken or Hidden Identities
  • Priests and Ministers
  • Ralph Bellamy Films

Review:
According to TCM’s article, this comedic crime flick (featuring Edward G. Robinson and Humphrey Bogart in their fourth and penultimate on-screen pairing before Key Largo in 1948) was purportedly made by Robinson in exchange for his casting in the more serious, non-gangster-themed Confessions of a Nazi Spy (1939) and The Sea Wolf (1941). As a farce, it pales in comparison with Robinson’s delightfully goofy A Slight Case of Murder (1938) — however, it offers enough off-beat touches and narrative twists that fans likely won’t be too disappointed. Bogart’s performance is inconsequential, but Sothern is well-cast as Robinson’s deeply loyal albeit “dizzy” moll.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Edward G. Robinson as Little John Sarto
  • Ann Sothern as Flo
  • Effective cinematography

Must See?
No, though it’s worth a one-time look.

Links:

Mark of Zorro, The (1940)

Mark of Zorro, The (1940)

“How could I refuse a man anything with a naked sword in his hand?”

Synopsis:
A 19th century Spanish don (Tyrone Power) is shocked to find that his father (Montagu Love) has been replaced as governor of Los Angeles by a corrupt alcalde (J. Edward Bromberg). Donning a mask, Power becomes “Zorro” the masked avenger, fighting the villainous Bromberg and his henchman (Basil Rathbone), and winning the heart of Bromberg’s beautiful niece (Linda Darnell).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Basil Rathbone Films
  • Historical Drama
  • Linda Darnell Films
  • Mistaken or Hidden Identities
  • Rouben Mamoulian Films
  • Tyrone Power Films

Review:
This remake of the 1920 silent-era film (starring Douglas Fairbanks, Sr.) brought the fictional masked vigilante Zorro to a new generation of movie-going viewers. 20th Century Fox matinee-idol Power is well-cast in the title role, bringing verve and elan to a character embodying a hybrid of Robin Hood and The Scarlet Pimpernel. The cinematography is appropriately atmospheric, and Rouben Mamoulian directs with a solid hand throughout; a particular highlight is Power’s thrilling duel with Rathbone. With that said, the humor, romance, and corruption-driven narrative aren’t all that memorable, and I suspect modern film fanatics won’t be quite as taken with this outing as 1940 audiences were. It’s primarily worth a look for its (and Power’s) historical popularity.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • The truly exciting swashbuckling scene between Power and Rathbone
  • Arthur C. Miller’s atmospheric cinematography

Must See?
No, though it’s recommended for one-time viewing given its historical relevance. Listed as a film with Historical Relevance and a Personal Recommendation in the back of Peary’s book. Named to the National Film Registry in 2009 by the Library of Congress.

Links:

Monty Python Live at the Hollywood Bowl (1982)

Monty Python Live at the Hollywood Bowl (1982)

“They’re a typical Hollywood audience: all the kids are on drugs and all the adults are on roller skates.”

Synopsis:
Monty Python’s comedy troupe performs live in front of an audience at the Hollywood Bowl.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Comedy
  • Monty Python Films

Review:
Peary lists all five Monty Python feature films in his GFTFF: And Now For Something Completely Different (1971), Life of Brian (1979), Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1975), Monty Python’s The Meaning of Life (1983), and this cinematic rendering (by director Terry Gilliam) of the troupe’s four live performances at the Hollywood Bowl in September, 1980. Peary’s clearly a completist, and there’s nothing at all wrong with adding this enjoyable ensemble work to one’s viewing list (click here for a complete run-down of the many sketches on display). However, film fanatics not already enamored with the group should probably start with one of their better-known classics and work their way towards this one as desired. With that said, … Live at the Hollywood Bowl brings a unique flavor to the team’s oeuvre in terms of incorporating direct audience participation; we are given an undeniable sense of how authentically engaged and delighted fans were.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Numerous enjoyable skits, animation, and audience participation

Must See?
No, though of course Monty Python fans will want to check this one out.

Links:

Conqueror Worm, The / Witchfinder General, The (1968)

Conqueror Worm, The / Witchfinder General, The (1968)

“Men sometimes have strange motives for the things they do.”

Synopsis:
When a cavalry soldier (Ian Ogilvy) in 17th century England learns that infamous witchfinder Matthew Hopkins (Vincent Price) and his sadistic assistant John Stearne (Robert Russell) have descended upon the household of his fiancee (Hilary Dwyer) and her uncle (Rupert Davies), he vows revenge at any cost.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Falsely Accused
  • Historical Drama
  • Horror Films
  • Michael Reeves Films
  • Morality Police
  • Revenge
  • Vincent Price Films
  • Witches and Wizards

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this “brutal, visually and thematically fascinating cult film by the controversial Michael Reeves” — “his last work before his death at age twenty-five” — shows that “his talent as director and writer was indisputable and his condemnation of those who lust for and abuse power admirable”. He points out that the evil in this film “is all-encompassing, as is evident when Hopkins kills suspected heretics in fire, in water (by drowning), and in the air (by hanging)”. Price — playing an “angel of death” — “has never been better”, portraying “a menacing, brutal, shrewd, arrogant puritan on a black horse who conveys the scorn that a man of Hopkins’s breeding would have for a world that financially rewards him for committing monstrous acts”: he “debases… people by raping their women, taking their money, and executing those brave enough to protest.” Peary reminds us that this film is “not for the squeamish, but [nonetheless] a powerful, one-of-a-kind film”.

Peary’s GFTFF review is lifted directly from his lengthier Cult Movies essay, where he contrasts this horror film (based in name only on a poem by Poe) with “all those enjoyable Poe films starring Vincent Price, like The House of Usher (1960), The Pit and the Pendulum (1961), and The Masque of the Red Death (1965)“, which were “intentionally claustrophobic, with almost everything taking place within secluded castles”, and evil — as “personified by the mad, hermitlike Vincent Price characters” — “confined to the castles themselves, so that if the castles are destroyed the evil within their walls will be destroyed as well.” In The Conqueror Worm, on the other hand, we “are presented with an evil that is overwhelming, invulnerable, and that will emerge victorious” — it is “not confined to a single castle but runs rampant across all of England, contaminating the people, wiping out whatever goodness exists and replacing it with a contagious sickness characterized by each ‘victim’s’ desperate need to be cruel to his fellow human beings.”

Peary adds that two of Reeves’ greatest achievements with this film — his third and last after The She Beast (1961) and The Sorcerers (1967) — were managing “to keep Price from going into the ham actor routine that mars many of his performances”, and for keeping narrative tensions consistently high. He points out that the film starts with a “pre-credits sequence so powerful — a screaming woman being led to a scaffold where she is hanged — that the film must be kept at a high level of intensity in order to avoid a dramatic letdown”, but notes that Reeves is successful in maintaining “an extraordinary momentum throughout”. Viewers should be forewarned that “along the way there is much violence — executions, tortures, a nerve-wracking soldier-ambush sequence” — and “whenever there is a chance that the hectic pace might be slowing a bit, Reeves automatically has Marshall [Ogilvy] jump on his mighty steed and race it across the countryside”, thus never giving the audience “a chance to relax”. I agree with Peary’s closing statement that “by the end of the film it is as if you have just run the gauntlet”.

With that said, this film’s relentless violence has a (sadly relevant) purpose, showing how easily mankind can descend into joy of torture — or at least mindless acceptance of it as commonplace and necessary. Reeves includes plenty of tracking shots showing villagers calmly watching as “witches” are burnt to death; minor facial expressions demonstrate that they likely believe the heretics deserve their fate.

Also of note is the film’s gorgeous cinematography, showcasing real-life horror taking place in an atmospheric landscape of Gothic forests, meadows, village squares, and dank interiors. With his expert directorial hand, Reeves makes powerful visual statements throughout: for instance, as Ogilvy comes back to Dwyer and listens to her “confession” about what she’s done to try to save her uncle, she is framed by the word “WITCH” scrawled on the wall of a church behind her — but when Ogilvy brings her down to her knees with him to pray and ask God to marry them, the term neatly disappears from our view. In another notable instance, crashing waves at the seashore (freedom) turn into the fiery flames that will put an innocent victim to death. Reeves’ film is both brutal and brilliant, a worthy culmination to his far-too-short career.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Vincent Price as Matthew Hopkins (nominated as one of the Best Actors of the Year in Peary’s Alternate Oscars)
  • Johnny Coquillon’s cinematography

  • Strong direction throughout

Must See?
Yes, as a justifiable cult favorite.

Categories

Links:

Strange Cargo (1940)

Strange Cargo (1940)

“There’s nothing a man can’t get through to be free!”

Synopsis:
A convict (Clark Gable) escapes from a French penal colony with a small group of fellow prisoners — including a calm, Christ-like figure (Ian Hunter) — accompanied by a prostitite (Joan Crawford) eager to get away from a weaselly informer (Peter Lorre).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Clark Gable Films
  • Do-Gooders
  • Escape
  • Ex-Cons
  • Frank Borzage Films
  • Ian Hunter Films
  • Joan Crawford Films
  • Paul Lukas Films
  • Peter Lorre Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary opens his review of this atmospheric outing by director Frank Borzage with the simple statement: “Strange film.” He notes that the “picture begins dynamically on [a] penal colony, with extremely good, hard-edged dialogue being exchanged by the sinful characters.” He adds that the “initial meetings between Gable and the hostile Crawford are gems”, and that “Gable and Crawford sizzle throughout”. However, he argues that “the religious mumbo-jumbo gets in [the] way of what might have been a fascinating escape film. Every time anybody wants to do something exciting, the calm and solemn Hunter stops them, tells them the possible consequences of their actions, and gives them second thoughts”, thus leading to “the characters’ toughness and the picture’s as well [being] diluted.”

I’m not quite in agreement with Peary’s assessment. While it’s certainly an interesting narrative choice to have a living conscience accompanying the crew of sinners, it’s done consistently enough (Hunter really is Christ-like) that we understand what the filmmakers are aiming for. I think it’s the point of this film for the characters to become less tough, and learn how to live a more introspective, charitable life (even if they’re near the end of it — as many are). I wish Lorre had some juicier moments, but Gable and Crawford bring solid star presence and credibility to their roles — and the overall cinematography and direction are stellar. This would make an interesting double-bill with Papillon (1973), also about an attempted escape from Devil’s Island.

Note: This was the eighth and final collaborative film between Crawford and Gable, who were on-and-off-again lovers, rivals, and lifelong friends.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Joan Crawford as Julie
  • Clark Gable as Verne
  • Strong direction by Borzage
  • Robert Planck’s cinematography

Must See?
Yes, as an atmospheric, well-acted, unusual flick.

Categories

  • Good Show

Links:

Gunga Din (1939)

Gunga Din (1939)

“Come on, Din — the world is ours!”

Synopsis:
In 1890s colonial-era India, a treasure-seeking sergeant (Cary Grant) is sent with an aspiring water bearer named Gunga Din (Sam Jaffe) to investigate a mysterious lack of communication from an outpost. When Grant is captured by the leader (Eduardo Cianelli) of a criminal sect known as the Thuggees, Jaffe travels back for help from Grant’s compatriots: the elephant-loving Sgt. MacChesney (Victor McLaglen) and a sergeant (Douglas Fairbanks, Jr.) about to leave the service to marry his fiancee (Joan Fontaine). Will the fearless team be able to warn the British army about an impending ambush by the Thuggees?

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Cary Grant Films
  • Cults
  • Douglas Fairbanks, Jr. Films
  • George Stevens Films
  • Gold Seekers
  • India
  • Joan Fontaine Films
  • Sam Jaffe Films
  • Soldiers
  • Victor McLaglen Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary is unambiguously fond of this “all-time great Hollywood action-adventure” flick, “inspired by Kipling’s famous poem about an Indian water boy who won the hearts of the British soldiers he served.” Peary focuses his review on comparing the storyline to that of Alexandre Dumas’s The Three Musketeers, with Gunga Din (similar to D’Artagnan) “a fearless, poor outsider whose life’s dream is to be one of the French muskeeters”, portrayed in this film by Grant, McLaglen,and Fairbanks, Jr. as “three inseparable, cheerful, fight-loving British soldiers” who “are also reluctant to let the outsider into their select company, treating him like a mascot until he proves himself.” He points out that “the action scenes are great fun and, until the final battle, usually feature bits of slapstick and funny heroics by the three imperturbable leads”. He further notes that while the “film should have been in color”, it “still has great pictorial beauty”, and that the “super direction” by George Stevens leads to a film that’s “spirited, stirring, and, finally, sentimental.”

This is all true: Gunga Din is wonderfully mounted, featuring atmospheric cinematography, solid performances, and fine handling of action scenes. However, it’s impossible not to be disturbed by the film’s blatantly Orientalist view of colonized India. Kipling’s poem is more than casually racist, as the following quotes demonstrate:

Of all them blackfaced crew
The finest man I knew
Was our regimental bhisti, Gunga Din
. . .
An’ for all ’is dirty ’ide
’E was white, clear white, inside
When ’e went to tend the wounded under fire!

DVD Savant’s review begins to get at the more problematic aspects of this film, pointing out that “Din is the prime example of the child-like ‘native’ that lives for the doglike joy of pleasing his anglo superiors.

Grant is a nice guy, and treats Din to the ‘honor’ of military compliments, with gestures halfway between sincerity and snickering patronizing.” Savant also reminds us how blatantly history is misrepresented in the film, given that “the 1870s-1880s battles in India were [actually] fought against rebel princes and Rajas resisting English rule” — though of course “it’s always convenient to characterize those resisting Western force-of-arms as fanatic cultists.”

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Rousing performances by the three leads
  • Good use of location shooting in Lone Pine, California
  • Joseph August’s cinematography


Must See?
Yes, once, for its historical relevance and spirited storyline.

Categories

  • Historically Relevant

Links: