kriitikko It's no wonder that people who have been introduced to the story of "the Hunchback of Notre Dame" by big movie versions, like the 1939 classic or 1996 Disney animation, don't often know what really happens in Victor Hugo's classic book "Notre Dame de Paris". I have seen totally six different movie version of the story, and although none of them is completely bad, only one has actually been really accurate to the events of the book. Although I will always say that the 1939 Hollywood version is the absolute best, this 1956 French/Italian film is closest to the book, as far as plot is concerned. Esmeralda does not fall in love with Gringoire, it's Claude Frollo and not his brother Jehan who lusts after Esmeralda and in the end almost all the main characters die. Yet, in a strange way, it does make some subtle differences also. Esmeralda is not young and innocent girl unaware of the reactions she causes in men. This Esmeralda is more mature, yet even she can't help but fall under Phoebus' charm. Claude Frollo is not an archdeacon, filmmakers probably still afraid of making a priest the villain. Instead he is an alchemist who has lived in the tower of Notre Dame almost his whole life. This is kind of strange since it's said in the film "he is in disgrace with the church". It also diminishes bit of the conflict that happens in him when he becomes obsessed of Esmeralda. Still, I'm sure fans of Hugo can enjoy this version, if they are ready to forgive the few artistic liberties. For a film made in Europe that obviously doesn't have the big budget Hollywood could use, the sets of Notre Dame's cathedral and the 15'Th century Paris are surprisingly well done. Although the low budget does make some scenes suffer, like Quasimodo' "Sanctuary! Sanctuary!"- scene, Jean Delannoy's direction keeps the story going and Georges Auric's music is beautiful to listen to. However some of the English dub does bother in the film that really should have been released in French.The Italian actress Gina Lollobrigida, ones called "the Most Beautiful Woman in the World", plays the more mature and sensual Esmeralda, and she makes it very clear why half the Paris is drooling after her. I was surprised to see how little makeup Anthony Quinn wears as Quasimodo, yet he completely convinces that this person has been seen as a freak his whole life. His performance is very physical, making Quasimodo seem like a beast who tries to be human, instead of Charles Laughton's poetic soul. Alain Cuny is bit too brooding as Frollo, but he does look up to part. Still, I feel screenplay didn't give him enough chances to fully explore the role. Jean Danet as Phoebus is not really anything but a jerk full of himself, but since that's how I see Phoebus I have nothing against him. Philippe Clay seems nothing like the Clopin I pictured from the book, yet there's something about his rather humorous performance that I like. Jean Tissier also makes a very subtle and slimy performance as King Louis XI, who in previous 1939 film was portrayed as a rather good guy. Robert Hirsch as Gringoire is not memorable and Maurice Sarfati as Jehan is simply annoying. Although the 1956 film is neither the best nor the finest version of the story, it does come closest to the book than any other film I've seen and is definitely worth watching. It's not a bad film, yet it could have been far better also.EDIT: I recently saw original French speaking version of this film. I recommend seeing that one. Not only because they speak French so you don't have to bare the horrible English dub, but it also has scenes that were deleted from English cut and Alain Cuny shows a lot more torment and conflict as Frollo.

theowinthrop No, it is not as great as the 1939 version. There was some spark in the 1939 version that captivates the audience to this day. It is sadly missing here - not that this film is dull. Far from it. The French have a habit (a good one) of producing movies based on their literary classics that generally show the actual stories quite well. But that means the spirit of the story has to be kept. Victor Hugo was a brilliant 19th Century novelist. Although "Les Miserables" has a strong coterie of fans as his best novel, and it is panoramic in scope, most critics feel his tragedy (yes tragedy) of "Notre Dame De Paris" is his finest novel.He wrote it in 1832, and (reputedly) used up a whole bottle of ink writing it - so that he felt it should be called "What's Inside A Bottle Of Ink". Fortunately he changed his mind. It is a splendid historic view of Paris in the year 1470. It is a Paris ruled by a brilliant tyrant, who does not mind using torture to accomplish his ends. It is a Paris where the bulk of the population is poor, is uneducated, is bigoted, and is superstitious. It is a Paris dominated, when not by King Louis XI, by the Christian Church (today the Roman Catholic Church, but this is some forty seven years before Martin Luther comes on the scene, so there is no Protestantism - except possibly for the Hussites in Bohemia).This film version adheres to the novel far more than the 1939 version did. Frollo is as villainous as ever, but his intellectual pursuits are shown. Opposed to spreading learning, he privately is an alchemist and student of science. He does use his position as brother of the archbishop to manipulate and influence, so the central issues of his interest in Esmeralda, and the conflict with his celibacy, are still there. But he also is an isolated figure here that was not really the case in the 1939 version. Frollo's power is due to his brother. He knows if the archbishop dies, so does Claude's power.I mentioned how in the 1939 film, Harry Davenport's Louis was a lovable codger - hardly the real "Spider King". Jean Tissier's Louis is far closet to the mark - without a trace of emotion he plays cat and mouse with a political prisoner to get the advice on a clerical question. The question, brought to him by a wounded (not killed - he was only wounded) Captain Phoebus about saving Esmeralda from the church trial (and probable execution) that Frollo has manipulated her into is not what Louis feels (even he were inclined) that he should get involved in. He has enough problems keeping his state in tact from that cousin of his Charles the Bold of Burgundy, to want to get involved in a church controversy. So, he visits his old adviser (now in a cage for fouling up an important mission) and pretending to show concern gets the desired affirmation about his hand's off opinion without promising anything. That's the real Louis XI we know and respect! Gina Lolabrigida is closer to the sultry Esmeralda than Maureen O'Hara was, but her performance is not as strong. Still the gypsy victim is a reactor character, her strongest point of action being pursing Phoebus (who would really just wish to sleep with her - not marry her). She barely comprehends the behavior of Frollo, and why he is so infatuated with her. And she only gradually understands the affectionate nature (and true love) of Anthony Quinn's Quasimodo. Quinn is not as made up as Laughton was, but he is not handsome here. He is deformed, and at a great disadvantage against the other suitors.The title of the novel in French emphasizes the cathedral itself. Hugo knows what was vigorous and alive in 1470 Europe and France that survived - the spirit in it's art. The cathedral becomes part of the players of the plot. This is true in all the versions, but especially here. Not only when Quasimodo saves Esmeralda temporarily by carrying her off to the towers, or when he uses the molten iron for the bells to pour on the mob. But also at the end, when he avenges the woman he loves.SPOILER COMING UP: Frollo, in the novel and this film, does kill Esmerelda - he arranges to have her hanged in the Cathedral (thus actually revealing his hypocrisy about Catholicism - he does not care that he is defiling a holy place by such an act). Quasimodo is in an agony when he sees the dead body of his beloved taken away, and Frollo dismisses him curtly. But Frollo is looking intently at the dead girl, and obviously relishing it. Without a moment's thought, Quinn, as Quasimodo, pushes Frollo off the tower. Now in the novel, symbolically, the falling Frollo has a slim chance of regaining the tower if he grabs a ledge and holds on. He nearly does, but it proves too slippery, so he falls to his death. The building rejects saving him - he's not worth it.Not as good as the 1939 version, but still worth watching as it is closer to the original novel. Try to get a look at it some time.

ricbigi 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.

northhallpalmers Depending on how you look at it this is either the best "Hunchback" or the worst; for my money Lon Chaney will always be the Quasimodo for me but before I discount this version too much, I'll review its good points.1) It does remain faithful to Hugo's novel; 2) We get to see Quasimodo in color.Now the bad points:1) Quinn acts as though he'd rather be anywhere than making this movie; 2) The dubbing is terrible in some spots; 3) Quasimodo doesn't appear to be hunchbacked; 4) Esmeralda is more sex pot than innocent 16 year old; 5) The musical score leave a lot to be desired.You've got to wonder about Quinn's patience in the make-up chair. His incarnation of Quasimodo isn't really that ugly and does not even come close to the description given by Hugo in his novel. In fact, Lon Chaney and Anthony Hopkins are the only actors that came close to Hugo's description. I kinda thought Quinn's incarnation of Quasimodo resembled a punch drunk boxer --- his Quasimodo just appeared dumb. Beyond Quasimodo and Esmeralda the other characters just never developed.This movie could have been good but everyone from the director to the producers to the actors dropped the ball. Watch this one if it comes on TV but save your money for the Laughton, Chaney or Hopkins version.Here's how I rank the versions of the "Hunchback"1. Chaney (The Master!) 2. Hopkins (Make-up job superb - just like Hugo described him!) 3. Laughton (Brilliant acting job - most powerful flogging scene.) 4. Quinn (It's in color.) 5. Patinkin (This ranking is not necessarily a knock on Patinkin's Quasimodo, it's a knock on the production & writing which does not follow Hugo's novel at all; the sequence of events is all out of order.) 6. Clarke (A BBC Turkey. Shot on video tape with a lower than low budget. I got the feeling I was watching some drama students put on a play their friend recorded.)