THE CLASSIC HORROR FILM

By Jeffrey-Baptiste Tarlofsky

LESSON 2
The Monster With 1,000 Faces

 

How to follow this lesson

Lesson 2 consists of four sections.

In each section, (1) first watch the video lecture, (2) next read the transcript of the lecture (3), then watch the film excerpt. Repeat for each section. For example, in section 2, watch video lecture part 2, next read the transcript for video lecture part 2, then watch film excerpt #2.

このレッスンの実行方法

レッスン2は4つのセクションから構成されています。各セッションでは、以下の順番で授業を受けてください。
(1) ビデオレクチャー(動画)を見てください。 (2) レクチャーのテキストを読んでください。(3) 動画(The Hunchback of Notre Dame excerpt #1(セクション1の場合))を見てください。各セクションで上記のステップ(1)から(3)を繰り返してください。

LECTURE – part 1

Transcript of Lecture

動画のテキスト

Last week we talked about the word “horror” and what it means. We said that horror is more than just fear, but is also associated with words such as “shocking, dreadful and repulsive”. We looked at two films which showed us people experiencing moments of true horror. Christine, in Phantom of the Opera, could not resist the urge to unmask the Phantom and see his face, but when she sees what is under the mask she is horrified…i.e. shocked, repulsed and filled with dread. Hutter, the young real estate agent in Nosferatu sees that his host has changed into a terrifying vampire and is coming to get him. Hutter reacts by hiding under the bed covers so he cannot see the horror approaching him. Both films show the characters experiencing a moment of absolute horror. In Phantom of the Opera Christine could not resist the desire to see the horror, while in Nosferatu, Hutter could not bare to see the horror. Together they show us what human nature is like when we encounter horror. We both do and do not want to see that which fills us with horror.

Now consider Christine and Erik, the Phantom, in The Phantom of the Opera. As Christine pulls off Erik’s mask with which of the characters do you identify? By “identify” I mean that you feel what that character feels or that you have empathy for that character? Pause for a moment and decide whether you identify with Christine or Erik? (Pause)

In most of my classes about 75% of students usually identify with Christine, but 25% identify with the Phantom (yes, I really do keep count). Now, please think about the same question regarding Nosferatu; do you identify with Hutter or with the Count Orlock, the Vampire? (Pause)

It’s a bit more unusual to have anyone identify with Count Orlock. Generally, about 97% of students identify with Hutter, but very few identify with Orlock. Can you think of why more students identify with Erik than Orlock? (Pause).

Students who identify with Erik usually say they do so because he warned Christine not to touch his mask. He clearly did so in order to protect her from the shock…the horror…of seeing his face. But she disobeyed him. It really is a kind of betrayal. Some students think that while Erik may be shocking to look at, it is Christine who has behaved badly in this scene by ripping off his mask. How would you feel if someone did that to you?

On the other hand, there is no reason at all to feel any sympathy for Count Orlock. He is about to attack poor Hutter. Hutter deserves all our sympathy. But, there are always a few students who identify with Orlock! I won’t even try to guess why!

However, Erik, the Phantom, and Orlock, the Vampire, are similar in that both are “monsters”. The Japanese words for monsters include “Kaiju, Kaibutsu or Kaijin” but none of these is an exact translation of the English word “monster”. You can look up the word “Monster” now. (Pause).

My dictionary defines a monster as “a human or animal of unusual ugliness or evil”. It is rather important that you understand that there are two meanings of the word “or”. For example, if you are on an airplane and the flight attendant asks you “would you care for coffee or tea?”, you can say “No, thank you” or you can say “Yes, please, I will have coffee” or “Yes, please I will have tea”. But you cannot just say “Yes, please”. If you say “yes” you have to choose one or the other. The same is true with monsters. A monster is human, or a monster is an animal, but a monster cannot be both.

On the other hand, after you choose coffee, the flight attendant will ask “Milk or sugar?”. Again, you can say “No, thank you”, or you can say “Yes, milk please” or “Yes, sugar please” OR “Yes, both please”. The same is true of monsters. A monster can be evil, or ugly, or both evil AND ugly. 

For the time being I want to focus on human type monsters. Remember, a monster can be ugly and evil, or just ugly but not evil, or evil but not ugly.

Our modern use of the word “monster” has changed a great deal over time. These days it is unacceptable to call someone a “monster” because they are very ugly. We would consider this a form of discrimination (sabetsu). But, hundreds of years ago people did not understand this at all. They did not understand that people are generally ugly or beautiful because of their D.N.A. (and it is certainly also true that ideas of “beauty” vary from culture to culture and from era to era). Hundreds of years ago people believed that ugly people had been made that way by the gods or a god as a punishment because they were evil (or because their parents were evil). So for people living hundreds of years ago ugliness was proof that the ugly person was evil.

In many cases children who were born with physical deformities were simply killed or allowed to die, but if they survived they might be hidden away by their families, locked in basements or attics and terribly mistreated. They might sold into slavery, or to circuses. The lucky ones might be given away to the Church as orphans.

Imagine such a child born hundreds of years ago with both physical and mental handicaps. How would he most likely be treated by society? What would people believe about him? Pause and think about this.

Victor Hugo (1802-1885)

We are now going to see excerpts from the film The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1923) . It is based on a novel by the great French humanist, Victor Hugo. The film was directed by Wallace Worsely, but the real genius behind the film was the remarkable, Lon Chaney Sr.. Chaney was quite simply one of the greatest film actors of all time. He was known as “the man with a thousand faces” and many of those were the faces of monsters. The hunchback, Quisimodo, is one of his most famous monsters. Let us meet the title chapter in this first excerpt

The Hunchback of Notre Dame – Excerpt 1

LECTURE – part 2

Transcript of Lecture

動画のテキスト

Quasimodo hates the people of Paris because they have always been cruel to him simply because of his deformities. This is very simple human psychology. If someone is bullied by a group, they will come to resent everyone in the group. This idea is simple, but very important for understanding the films we are studying.

Quasimodo is only a “monster” on the outside. He is actually a kind hearted and good man inside. However, Quasimodo is manipulated by the truly evil character in the film, Jehan, who uses him to kidnap the gypsy girl, Esmeralda. Quasimodo does not understand that what he is doing is wrong. He simply obeys Jehan because Jehan’s brother is the Priest who cares for Quasimodo.

The Hunchback of Notre Dame – Excerpt 2

LECTURE – part 3

Transcript of Lecture

動画のテキスト

Unfortunately for Quasimodo, he is captured by the soldiers and sentenced by the court to be publicly punished. As you watch the next excerpt don’t be shocked to see that people look forward to watching Quasimodo being punished. Public torture and execution used to be a form of entertainment (thank goodness we have movie theaters and amusements parks today!)

The Hunchback of Notre Dame – Excerpt 3

LECTURE – part 4

Transcript of Lecture

動画のテキスト

Quasimodo is publicly flogged. The crowd enjoys his suffering. Only the gypsy girl, Esmerelda, takes pity on him and brings him water. She is the very same girl he tried to kidnap! Quasimodo does not forget this simple act of kindness and when Esmerelda herself is falsely accused of an attempted murder and sentenced to death, Quasimodo rescues her and defends her from harm. He dies protecting her. This “monster” is actually the hero of the film, the protagonist in disguise. When audiences watched this film in 1923 they openly wept during Quasimodo’s death scene.

Just to check and see if you were paying attention; answer this question: which of the following correctly describes Quasimodo?

Ugly and Evil,
Ugly but not Evil,
Evil, but not Ugly
Neither Ugly nor Evil

Lon Chaney was much more than just a brilliant actor. Chaney was actually the guiding intelligence behind many of his films. It was actually Chaney himself who thought up the idea of filming Victor Hugo’s novel, The Hunchback of Notre Dame and took this idea to Universal Studios President, Carl Laemmle. Laemmle gave his approval to this massive and very expensive film and put his brilliant young head of production, Irving Thalberg, in charge of the huge project. But Lon Chaney was the real creative genius behind the film. Chaney himself chose the director, Wallace Worsely, (with whom he had worked previously). Chaney was involved with every aspect of the production and he alone created the horrifically deformed hunchback, Quasimodo.  It took weeks of painstaking experimentation with makeup and costumes to create Quasimodo. Chaney was not only the father of the first monster in a Hollywood film, he was also the father of horror film make-up in Hollywood. Most people consider Chaney to be not only one of the greatest actors in Hollywood history, but also the greatest make-up artist of all time.

READING HOMEWORK