Notre Dame de Paris (1956) - film review

Paris, 1492.  In and around the Catherdral of Notre Dame, the poor folk celebrate the Festival of Fools.  One star attraction is Esmeralda, a beautiful gypsy girl who enchants all with her dancing and singing.  One of her unseen admirers is Frollo, a respected judge and part-time alchemist.  He lives within the walls of the Cathedral with Quasimodo, an object of fear and ridicule because of his misshapen body and hideously disfigured face.  Consumed by his uncontrollable lust for Esmeralda, Frollo instructs the hunchback to kidnap her.  She is rescued by a guard, Phoebus, with whom she falls in love.  When the two next meet, Phoebus is stabbed in the back by Frollo.  The obvious culprit for the crime, Esmeralda is arrested and sentenced to be hung.  At the last moment, Quasimodo rescues her and takes her into the Cathedral, the one place where her persecutors cannot reach her.  Or so it would seem…

There’s a cruel irony in the fact that Jean Delannoy’s most famous film is this pseudo-historical, Hollywood-style horror classic, the film that is least representative of his oeuvre.  The man who was the personal bête noir of François Truffaut (when a critic on the Cahiers du cinéma) is better known for this overly theatrical, garishly kitsch adaptation of a Victor Hugo novel than for the dozen or so films he made in the preceding decade which showed real directorial talent.  Suffice it to say that Notre Dame de Paris a.k.a. The Hunchback of Notre Dame is not Jean Delannoy’s finest hour – it’s a plodding, characterless piece of spectacle, entertaining in its way, but by no means a masterpiece.  The only great moments in this film are the scenes where Anthony Quinn – heavily made up to the point of being unrecognisable – succeeds in evoking sympathy from Gina Lollobrigida (who is unconvincing in just about every other scene).  There’s a raw pathos in Quinn’s portrayal of Quasimodo which is genuinely moving and which prevents the film from being totally emotionally arid.  For the most part, however, this feels like a clumsy (yet still watchable) re-interpretation of the Hollywood monster film, scripted and directed with no real enthusiasm, and lacking most of the poetry and power of Hugo’s novel. Still, the final sequence does brings a lump to the throat...

© James Travers 2007

Write a review for this film...

This adaptation of Victor Hugo's novel is sadly underrated, and a lot of people prefer the 1939 one. However, this adaptation is the one that is most faithful to the book and the only one in which Esmeralda actually looks like a gypsy. Alain Cuny's Frollo is as dark as in the book, and inspires deep compassion. Quasimodo is well portrayed, even though his deformity is nearly invisible. This movie, even if it clearly is not a masterpiece, has some good moments and is worth watching.
Jean Vidal, France

What do you think of this film?