THE HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME 1939: A Masterpiece For All Time in Golden Age Horror Forum

Forum Jump

THE HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME 1939: A Masterpiece For All Time

Author	Comment
Ray Faiola		#41	[-]
May 5 08 10:56 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I recently watched DANGEROUS CORNER (by J. B. Priestley) and it was amazing how Ian Keith was apeing John Barrymore's acting style - nearly every facial gesture was a lift. As for Laughton, there are different levels of immersion into character. Laughton was definitely not a purely external actor. The pain with which he approached I, CLAUDIUS and the incredible successful manner in which he "found the man" is an example of his journey. There is a very large gap between Stanislavski and Meisner. I think Laughton can best be described as an "instinctive" actor. One who has a natural talent for melding technique with immersion. Classic Film Scores Restored on CD http://www.chelsearialtostudios.com
	Remove this ad
Wich2		#42	[-]
May 5 08 11:23 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	The thing is... In any seriously intentioned, talented actor, the hard Technique lines blur. When you are truly working to use your Self to create Another, the "External" efforts go so deep they touch the inside. And if your "Internal" work is strong, it blends out into your physicallity & sound. The two halves of a person are intrinsically interconnected. Best, -Craig W.
Bill Warren		#43	[-]
May 5 08 1:52 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I have long suspected that all acting techniques, including the Method, whether Stanislavsky, Strasberg or any other technique, is really a matter of putting the actor back into the mindset (more controlled, to be sure) of childhood "let's pretend." No actor is ever more in the moment or in the character than a five-year-old who declares he's a fire engine and acts like he believes one would behave. All techniques are valid, because they all lead to the same point: you are pretending to be the character. You aren't actually >being< the character.
Wich2		#44	[-]
May 5 08 3:09 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	"you are pretending to be the character. You aren't actually >being< the character" Basically well said, Bill. With one asterisk: If you HAVE done your homework well enough - and for an adult, it does take prep work the child doesn't need/use; and you ARE succeeding at the character, in the scene; and especially when - all too rare! - your partners in the moment are doing all of the same... You can FEEL - not PRETEND to feel - REAL joy, fear, love, pain, etc. Best, -Craig W.
Alonso Chaney		#45	[-]
May 14 08 8:13 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I haven't seen the Laughton version since I was a kid, so should really re-visit it. However, I wonder if the Laughton remake was made as a silent picture, would it be held so dear, as most of the reasons listed here why the Laughton version is better than the Chaney version, is to do with sound (orchestra, dialog, etc.).
VarneyVampire		#46	[-]
May 14 08 10:17 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I would say Laughton's mannerisims, facial expressions etc. would still come across powerfully without sound. But to say that a movie might be better because it does have sound is to potentially undermine the art of the silent movie. I know I was surprised to hear the tone of Chaney sr.'s voice for the first time & was happy his was almost completely a silent movie career. You HAVE to see Laughton's 'Hunchback' again, you won't be disappointed.
HAUNTEDOSPITAL		#47	[-]
May 14 08 4:14 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I certainly like the master himself Chaney as The Hunchback, but yes, Laughton did justice with his portrayl. I like the Chaney version just because it is the great Chaney! And wasn't Chaney Jr who portrayed the Hunchback in the Route 66 Halloween special??? ........ I rather stay here...With all the madmen...Then perish with the sadmen roaming free.....
Dankerdine		#48	[-]
May 17 08 1:57 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Check out my MySpace: http://www.myspace.com/monsterkid55
Dankerdine		#49	[-]
May 17 08 2:09 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Wich2 wrote: "you are pretending to be the character. You aren't actually >being< the character" Basically well said, Bill. With one asterisk: If you HAVE done your homework well enough - and for an adult, it does take prep work the child doesn't need/use; and you ARE succeeding at the character, in the scene; and especially when - all too rare! - your partners in the moment are doing all of the same... You can FEEL - not PRETEND to feel - REAL joy, fear, love, pain, etc. Best, -Craig W. Craig - Well said! I've heard others (including myself) prattle on endlessly about this but I think I've heard nothing as concise. Those moments when "everything comes together" are, really, the only thing I know that leaves me with a sense of wonder and awe just as it did many years ago. Whether it's as an actor or as an audience member, *when it happens, it's incredible! Check out my MySpace: http://www.myspace.com/monsterkid55*
Wich2		#50	[-]
May 17 08 3:36 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Yep, Glenn - and THAT is exactly why Society can get away with hardly paying the vast majority of us. -Craig W.
	Remove this ad
George Kaplan		#51	[-]
Aug 20 08 3:04 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Watched this again on Sunday (and was later surprised to learn it was coincidentally Maureen O'Hara's 88th birthday) and loved it anew. What a sensational piece of cinema and, yes, Laughton was superb (though, BTW, regarding the comments about the competition in 1939 being too heavy for him to rate a nomination -- it's worth noting that Mickey Rooney made the cut for BABES IN ARMS!!!). This time I particularly noticed the nimble film editing which I found to be the work of promising newcomer Robert Wise.
Kingkongkessler		#52	[-]
Aug 20 08 8:19 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I love the Laughton version best, he was tremendous and Maureen O'Hara was about as beautiful as it gets Kess
Rick		#53	[-]
Aug 20 08 10:53 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	though, BTW, regarding the comments about the competition in 1939 being too heavy for him to rate a nomination -- it's worth noting that Mickey Rooney made the cut for BABES IN ARMS!!!). For years before seeing all the '39 nominees, I would look at the list of nominated actors and think the same thing. Maybe with even more exclamation points. But now I have seen them all. I think Laughton belongs among the five, but I wouldn't single out Mickey Rooney for exclusion. I'm not sure who I would drop. Maybe, actually, Robert Donat, who turned out to be the winner!! As for Rooney, the role may not be Lear, but I really don't think I've ever seen a large-cast movie in which one actor does so much for to insure the movie's success as Mickey Rooney in BABES IN ARMS. He sings, he dances, and, yes, he acts very, very well. The Mick's latter-day reputation may be of a small-statured, much-married, self-promoting, braggart--a bit of a joke, actually. But the man, in his day, could really, really act. And do just about everything else as well. If I were nominating actors for '39, I'd probably start with Laughton, Rooney, and James Stewart, then I'd worry about the others.
Bill Warren		#54	[-]
Aug 21 08 1:36 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	oops
P0TRZEBIE		#55	[-]
Aug 21 08 4:02 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Bill Warren wrote: oops "Clean up, Aisle 7!" "With great power comes great rice....."
aboo43078		#56	[-]
Sep 22 08 8:40 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	This was on TMC last week(?)--I got it tivoed and dvd-r'd......nice clean print. How can anyone resist Maureen O'Hara? A LEGEND IN MY OWN MIND.... ..AND ONE IN YOURS SOON ENOUGH!!!! Last Edited By: aboo43078 Sep 26 08 6:31 PM. Edited 1 times.
Koukol 5		#57	[-]
Sep 23 08 3:11 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Oh yeah, the dvd is beautiful!
mormovies		#58	[-]
Oct 1 08 1:19 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I always liked the Laughton version but not until I saw it on the big screen last year did I feel the full, emotionally crushing impact of the film. Now I rank it above most 30's films of any genre. Laughton should have won the oscar! Get the DVD but try to see on a big screen!
todmichel		#59	[-]
Oct 2 08 2:21 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	In spite of the satinized Hollywoodian ending, it remains one of the best screen adaptations of a Victor Hugo novel, ex-aequo with the best version of "Les misérables", the 1934 three-parts movie directed by Raymond Bernard and starring Harry Baur. And - as written above - who could resist Maureen O'Hara ? certainly not me ! I saw this incredibly beautiful and talentuous Irish girl for the first time in 1952 or 1953 when THE QUIET MAN was released in France, and she became instantaneously my favorite actress - and still is, in fact.
Koukol 5		#60	[-]
Oct 3 08 3:48 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Yes, Maureen is adorable in THE QUIET MAN!
	Remove this ad

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Add Reply

Yuku free message boards

THE HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME 1939: A Masterpiece For All Time