Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1939-12-25

occasions upon which the drama
dimensions of the stage upon which
Charles Laughton and his skilled
associates play M. Hugo's terrifying
tale.
Against background which
mixes majestic portions of medieval
splendor and squalor, at an OBJ
viously terrific cost, R-K-O demon.
strates it Is not afraid to follow
Hugo into the darkest corners of his
dark drama. Not once does Director
William Dieterle show the slightest
disposition to coddle his audience
with the result that the latter can
expect some pretty awful moments
In the working out of the weird
romance between the batlike mon
ster in Notre Danes belfry and the
fiery gypsy girl in whose tenderness
he found life's few grains of beauty
The role handled so brilliantly by
Lon CLANCY in 1923 is given a differ
ent Interpretation by Laughton. The
latter's Quasimodo, whose makeup
will brighten the wits out Of you, is
a portrait of what physical de-
formity can do to the human mind
For every terrible twist of face and
figure worked out by the makeup
department, which almost overbid
itself. Laughton finds the CORE
spending mark upon character. Now
it is an animal-!ike cunning. now a
crafty hatred for every one save the
little gypsy who repaid his brutal
ity with kindness, a drooling gibber-
ish as a substitute for speech, a re-
ligious fanaticism that expresses
itself in gleeful, bloodlusting de-
tense of the cathedra! which gave
him sanctuary.
AS If the personal drama Of Qua
simodos monstrous life were not
enough action on 50 spacious a stage,
the script also gives emphasis to the
subordinate social drama provided
by the conflict between the beggars
of Paris and their cruel masters,
the mobiles. 1t is not to the pictures
advantage that the camera focus
changes from the one then to the
other 50 often and 50 abruptly. al
though Dieterle's direction obviously
sought to dovetail the two on all
occasions.
His efforts in this direction are
facilitated by highly skilled sup
porting cast. It includes such
players as lovely Maureen OHara,
Thomas Mitchell, Sir Cedric Hard
wicke, Katharine Alexander, Walter
Hampden and Henry Davenport.
Their portraits of Hugos famous
characters ranged all the way from
good to brilliant, but the uneven
ness of the script hampers their
efforts to create an untroken dra-
matte continuity.
This is true especially in the first
half Of the picture, with the result
that there is q considerable degree
of confusion. Its effect is noticeable
even in Laughton's performance in
these sequences. where his stress
upon the bestiaNty of the hunch-
back double the difficulty Of max
ing the character sympathetic in
the latter stages of the story. 1t
perhaps is the finest tribute to
Laughton's talent that he does win
the audience to Quasimodo after
that famous whipping scene. one Of
the most qualifiedly brutal Sc
quences which ever found its way
to the screen. After that Laughton
is splendid as a mad monster who
finds release only in playing the
cathedraIs huge bells with his feet.
as the hunted, tortured animal who
turns human as result of his love
for the girl and finally as a gleeful
giant who hurls destruction upon
the cathedral attackers from its
hospitable belfry.
That excellence. foreshadowed by
her acting in Jamaica Inn" marks
Miss O'Hara portrait of beautiful
Esmerelda, the gypsy girl who
fought with such matchless energy
for the freedom of her people and
who in this picture occupies an even
greater footage than Quasimodo.
Even more impressive, however, are
the characterizations of the kings
high justice by Sir Cedric and OF
the beggar king, played by Thomas
Mitchell. The satanic cruelty Of
the chief justice never was more