Post by Will Dockery Post by Will Dockery
The main point is that the Hunchback of Notre Dame is considered one
he Universal Pictures "monsters", as is the Phantom of the Opera,
Dracula, and so on.
The Lon Chaney version is considered, first and foremost, as a Lon
Chaney film. Despite having been filmed at Universal, Chaney films
constitute their own sub-genre.
It's technically considered a horror film, although it really doesn't
fit the genre format; and, unlike horror, is adapted from a rather
boring novel (French literature) by Victor Hugo. And, at least when I
was a kid, we sometimes referred to horror films as "monster movies,"
so speaking in an extremely broad sense, "The Hunchback of Notre Dame"
is a monster movie.
However, the "Universal Monsters" generally refers to the quartet of
Frankenstein (The Monster), The Wolf Man, Dracula, and The Mummy.
The Hunchback, Quasimodo, was certainly not a monster. He was a
physically deformed man who'd been abandoned as a baby and raised by
the clergy at Notre Dame Cathedral.
That said, I think Hunchback poetry would qualify for this week's Sampler.
How about Torgo? Or The Master?
Before you ask, I'm planning on doing Torgo.
"What kind of movie would a fertilizer salesman from El Paso, Texas
make?" -- Michael Weldon, The Psychotronic Encyclopedia of Film
Cujo - The Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in dfw.*,
alt.paranormal, alt.astrology and alt.astrology.metapsych. Supreme Holy
Overlord of alt.fucknozzles. Winner of the 8/2000, 2/2003 & 4/2007 HL&S
award. July 2005 Hammer of Thor. Winning Trainer - Barbara Woodhouse
Memorial Dog Whistle - 12/2005 & 4/2008. COOSN-266-06-01895.
"And again, anyone who believes they have THE answers, is suffering from
delusions of granduer, a liar, a fool, and lacking in mature
- Edmo in self-diagnosis mode.