The dramatic tool of having someone in love with another who will never return their feelings has been used extensively in cinema .I am willing to bet that it's never been done better or with more emotional resonance than the 1939 version of Victor Hugo's novel set in 15th century France.
This is more of a straight up love story than the previous 1923 silent version starring Lon Chaney with the hapless disfigured bell ringer Quasimodo (Charles Laughton) hopelessly in love/lust with the stunningly beautiful gypsy girl Esmeralda (Maureen O'Hara) who naturally doesn't reciprocate .The film though draws parallels between 15th century France and the 20th century . Claude Frollo( Cedric Hardwicke ) the films villain is not only a sexually repressed religious hypocrite , and they ,ve always been in short supply , but advocates the destruction of the printing press so the proles will never be able to think for themselves and the wholesale destruction of the gypsies so the comparisons with Hitler are clear.
Many of the sub-plots of Hugo's, novel however have been dispensed with so director William Dieterle can concentrate primarily on the relationship between Quasimodo and Esmeralda though he does use the poet Gringoire ( Edmond O'Brien) as an agit-prop to further highlight the difference between the haves and the have- not's. The movie catches the tumultuous sweep of events very well while retaining the intimacy of the characters motivations and stories.
The sets of medieval Paris are truly awesome , particularly Notre Dame Cathedral itself ( which cost an at the time astonishing $250,000) and the score by Alfred Newman is excellently restrained. The script is literate -Quasimodo asks of a gargoyle -"why was I not made of stone like thee?" but has moments of pithy brilliance but what really elevates this movie is the performance of Laughton which unbelievably did not even earn him an Oscar nomination. Though the movie did earn two nominations for score and sound the fact that Laughton radiating the despair and desire of the hunchback through his makeup, failed to be recognised is one of the academy's truly glaring omission's . It's a truly staggering performance , one of the greatest in cinema history , and even now is not really given the recognition it deserves.
It's all the more powerful given that the makeup , which took two and a half hours to apply wasn't really that great , giving the character a slightly false almost cartoon like look. That Laughton was able to overcome this and palpably invest his character with such pathos and soiled dignity is remarkable .His performance still resounds today because what this film deals with ,is as eternal as man kind. The love of one for another particularly when it is,nt reciprocated , and the nobility and splendour of a persons nature , despite their grotesque visage is always likely to appeal to us. This film, along with David Lynch,s brilliant "Elephant Man" as I said before, does it better than any other.