O Corcunda de Notre Dame

'Notre Dame De Paris,' set in medieval Paris in the year 1482, tells the moving story of a beautiful gypsy dancer and a grateful hunchback who adores her...

Quinn's distinctive interpretation of the ward of the cathedral in the sumptuous, wide-screen, full-color version of the Victor Hugo successful historical novel, is full of vitality as well as pity...

Despite the spectacular appearance of Gina Lollobrigida, top-billed as Esmeralda, it is Quinn in full monster regalia who remains in the memory, not many lengths behind Lon Chaney and Charles Laughton...

The motion picture is focused on the events leading to Esmeralda's trial for witchcraft and the stabbing of her noble lover, the cavalier of King Louis XI... Esmeralda is accused of the crime, tortured and sentenced to death... When she is about to be hanged, Quasimodo pushes the hangman aside, sweeps her into his arms, and carries her into the sanctuary of Notre Dame...

Much of the rich atmosphere so vividly described in the Hugo irresistible tale - the happy Festival of the Fools, the Court of Miracles, the cathedral and its role as the center of medieval Paris, the storming of Notre Dame - provide the spectacle a timeless message of lust, jealousy, prejudice, hate, compassion and love...

Quasimodo is just 'one long, ugly face from his head to his toes,' but in his distorted body, there is lot of humanity, kindness, and gratitude... Quasimodo lives high in the church towers... We see him exceptionally agile, showing no fear for its height, climbing down its facade, embracing its huge bell, telling Esmeralda in halting words that she is safe within the walls of the cathedral... That day, Quasimodo leaps onto 'Big Louise' and rides his beloved huge bell back and forth sending its mighty sound throughout Paris for his beloved Esmeralda...

Esmeralda is the sensuous gypsy girl, who ascends the pillory to quench Quasimodo's thirst... She is fond of dancing, noise and open air... She is in love with one man whom she calls the 'bright sun.'

Master Frollo (Alain Cuny) is the man in black who inspires respect and fear... He is the haunted Archdeacon of Notre Dame, an expert on witchcraft... It is said that he is the greatest magician of all France, but magic is merely illusion... Frollo is completely taken with Esmeralda's beauty... He is the king's judge who lies about the ravishing temptress who follows him in his dreams... His thoughts are like Quasimodo's face, ugly! ('We are brothers.. your face and my soul..')

Phoebus (Jean Danet) is vain, arrogant, and opportunistic... To him, the Gypsy girl is a sexual object to be cynically manipulated, used and rejected... The only love which the Captain of the King's Archers recognizes is narcissism... His tendency to erotic self-love and his excessive self-admiration...

Robert Hirsch is the harmless poet - educated under the patronage of Master Frollo - who breaks the laws of the kingdom of thieves and beggars, and has one chance to live...

'Notre Dame De Paris' shows us that human nature always struggles between two opposing forces: The light and the darkness, the grotesque and the beautiful, love and hate, hope and despair...

Non -French users may find it hard to believe it,but Jean Delannoy is despised by almost everybody in his native country.The NOuvelle Vague clique,on H.M. JL GOdard's service ,was always putting him down.That was (and is) certainly unfair cause Delannoy made two great "Maigret" and some of his works "la Symphonie Pastorale " Dieu A Besoin des Hommes" or "les Amitiés Particulières" are certainly worth a watch.His "secret de Mayerling" which is hard to find is certainly interesting too.

Lit classics were also one of his favorite genres: abetted by Jean Cocteau,he updated "Tristan and Iseut" (as "l'Eternel Retour" ).Later he would transfer Madame de La Fayette 's "La Princesse de Clèves" (1961) with commendable results -the critics slagged it off- Here he tackles "Notre Dame de Paris" ,with a big budget (wide screen , color and an international cast were not so common in 1956 in France).His version is academic ,as would be Le Chanois's -another Bete Noire of the Nouvelle Vague- "les miserables " (1958).It's icily impersonal ,and it's the actors who save the movie from tedium:although too old ,Lollobrigida has beauty,charm,sensuality and even wit going for her;Quinn is a good -but not as outstanding as Charles Laughton-Quasimodo;Robert Hirsh is excellent as Gringoire;On the other hand,Jean Danet is a mediocre Phoebus.

Although inferior to Dieterle's version ,Delannoy's work is more faithful to the novel (the ending notably) but there's a problem concerning Claude Frollo:why has he become a layman?Part of the reason might be found in the director's belief.Jean Delannoy is a true believer: in "Dieu a Besoin des Hommes" he showed spiritual concern.And recently,he released two religious movies in a row " Bernadette" (Soubirous) and "Marie de Nazareth".So maybe ,he changed Hugo's character because it was unbearable to him that a priest should desire a woman.

Alain Cuny,whose portrayal of FRollo is a bit monotonous, had a brilliant career ,from Carné's "Les Visiteurs du Soir" to Fellini's "La Dolce Vita" and "Satyricon".

And I'll tell you why. It's not because of the dubbing (it's a foreign film and once you accept that, you can look past it). It's not because of the budget (it was 1956). It's because the film was horribly miscast & had a horrible script. If their intention was to be faithful, then they left out a lot of crucial parts and really messed up Esmeralda's character. For a tragic story, this movie is way too colorful. The ironic thing is that some of the previous and subsequent film versions, that sugar coated this story, look darker. Anthony Quinn; a good actor, so what happened? Why does Quasimodo look nothing like how he is described in the book? He played Quasimodo like a mutant ape man, who's hardly deformed, and not even hunched over, nor does he have a hump. Well he does have a hump (if one could call it that). But the fact of the matter is, he still looks like Anthony Quinn. Chaney, Laughton, Hopkins, & Patinkin were all unrecognizable. There was also no big dramatic reveal of him in Quasimodo costume. Gina Lollibrigida; I thought Esmeralda was supposed to be a 16 year old virgin French girl, that was kidnapped, and raised by gypsies? In this film, she looks like a 36 year old tavern wench. She over acts, and some of the dancing sequences are embarrassingly bad. They're long, her singing voice is almost of a baritone quality, she sings too low and out of her range, and, for a short moment, she stops dancing, laughs at the crowd, and then goes back to dancing. What the f*** was that? Another sequence that really irritated me (and wasn't even in the book) was when she first spots Quasimodo (not afraid of his features mind you, but later in the bell tower she is?) points out to the crowd and says, "Look! Look at his ugly face?" In order to crown him king of fools. Alain Cuny; Now, Victor Hugo had a knack for writing really great villains. In the novel Frollo was such a beautifully written, multi-facet character. Alain Cuny ALWAYS has the same expressionless look on his face, and not once do we ever get the scene where Frollo pours his heart out to Esmeralda in the dungeon, that scene (which is in the book) defines Frollo's character and makes the viewer able to understand and sympathize with him. But again, Cuny ALWAYS has the same stone look on his face. Even Vampira in "Plan 9 from Outer Space" had at least one different expression. No, not Cuny. All he does is just mope around. Derek Jacobi nailed it when he played Frollo, Richard Harris almost got it, and with Sir Cedrick Hardwick, you could tell that occasionally he would be troubled by his conscious, it was in his eyes and in his delivery. This Frollo is more like a grouchy kid in a playground who doesn't want to talk to any of the other kids. And what's worse, they changed his character to an Alchemist and nothing more. And even then, what is an Alchemist doing inside Notre-Dame? If he's not serving the church in anyway, why is he there? When the character is changed to a judge, at least it is a suitable and cautious change. When it's priest, it's faithful. But what is he in this version? And why does Frollo spread his arms out, and "let" Quasimodo through him over the cathedral? The actor playing Gringoire contributes a lot of embarrassing moments by injecting a lot of unneeded, and inappropriate, slapstick humor and over acting. The actor playing Clopin; doesn't display any kind of leadership skills. He's such a scrawny looking thing that one wonders, how did he become a leader of cutthroats. I always imagined Clopin to be a little more tough and intimidating looking. It's as if they cast Paul from the "Wonder Years" to play the king of thieves. The actor playing Phoebus was too sympathetic and not so much a "player" or "womanizer" as he was in the novel, or the 1939 & 82 versions. Now for the direction: The big scenes, such as the flogging, the trial, the rescue from the gallows, and the storming of the cathedral, were all executed very poorly. The more action oriented scenes were very slow paced and did not have any sort of dramatic music resulting in some very non-rousing sequences. In every film version, including the silent one, you either want to cry or feel very sorry for Quasimodo when he is flogged. This is the only version where I could not express any kind of emotion. And I've seen them all, even the bad ones. Not once do you ever feel sorry for Quasimodo in this film. The only scene that even comes close is when he hits his head on "Big Marie" after he's scared Esmeralda (who wasn't scared of him earlier in the film). Why didn't they use dialog from the book like so many other versions? The ending is the only thing in this film's defense. But... Even the ending was poorly executed. If you ever read the book, you either want to burst into tears or just kill yourself. Here, for some strange reason, you don't feel anything, and Esmeralda's death happens a little too quick and you become unaffected by her demise. And even then, they changed the way how she died and eliminated a very important character, as well as eliminating any mention of Esmeralda's real background. Should you avoid this at all costs? To me, this film did not "feel" like "The Hunchback of Notre-Dame" (aka "Notre-Dame De Paris"). But it should be viewed at least once, to see how bad it is.

No matter if critics seem to prefer the 1939 version of THE HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME, I thoroughly enjoy this one. Anthony Quinn avoids taking the Laughton path and doing Quasimodo as a monster; his is a painfully realistic performance. Gina Lollobrigida is ever so beautiful as Esmeralda. Her gypsy is a young woman who is "a queen", as her fellow Court of Miracle friends know very well. She is sensual and yet decent and pure in her actions, even as she gives herself to Phoebus. The great cast includes several legendary French actors (Valentine Tessier, Alain Cuny, Madeleine Barbulee, among others). The final scenes are indeed touching, especially in the Italian version, in which Lollobrigida speaks in her native language. A must see.

This is a movie that has all the trappings of an epic, but isn't. But it is still a credible rendition of the Victor Hugo classic, with Gina Lollobrigida giving a strong performance as Esmeralda. The weak part of the movie is Anthony Quinn's performance as Quasimodo. Mr. Quinn's portrayal is not believable. Quasimodo is supposed to generate feelings of pathos; that does not happen in this movie. As a result, the plot becomes flat. The intensity of the relationship between Quasimodo and Esmeralda is lacking. Between Mr. Quinn's mumbling of his lines, and the treatment of the poet Gringoire as a buffoon, the movie teeters on the brink of cinematic collapse. Yet, it is saved by staying faithful to the original story and by good performances by some of the supporting cast, as well as by the essential power of the original story. The story of the hunchback and the gypsy girl is classic; read the book.