This film is another substandard adaptation.
It is like almost every other movie based on Hugo's novel: not faithful to the story. Characters are out of character and their roles have changed. While probably talented otherwise, the actors seem to have no control over their roles. Not one of them plays their part accordingly. However, they are not wholly to blame. The script is poorly written under the pretext of faithfulness.
The actors are making an effort. But they are definitely, definitely, out of character.
Esmeralda is among the worst interpretations. She is highly sexualized, even flirtatious; she is almost sophisticated in the matters of love. Here, she is no longer the innocent girl of Hugo's novel. She therefore loses the most lovable, endearing quality of her character. Lollobrigida has the other quality: her beauty. Yet this beauty is not enough to carry Esmeralda believably. This is an almost utter failure.
A true failure is the portrayal of Claude Frollo. A MAJOR mistake in plot is made here; Jehan, his brother, is "archbishop" in this film. In the novel, Jehan is a low-life, a scholar whose only thoughts are turned toward physical needs. He causes constant pain to Frollo, who is actually the Archdeacon in the text. Jehan is just another reason for the priest's madness, not a tool to satisfy it. Character-wise, he is the same as most Frollo's. He is played evil, painted diabolic, cut down into a one dimensional, unsympathetic personage. The audience can no longer decide for itself what his feelings truly are; the priest is lustful, vengeful, villainous. He looks at his handiwork concerning Esmeralda with joy in this film. By the final act, he has been driven mad; but it also causes him pain in the novel. Esmeralda's pain is his pain, yet he MUST- do these things. He is lustful, yet the glimmer of love is almost visible. The film destroys that depth, that ambiguity.
The other actors are on the same track, yet not quite as severe. The script is shallow at some points, and seems to be missing something.
Dubbing quality is undoubtedly imperfect. The film is also low budget, so the unhappy state of costuming and set can be forgiven to an extent.
Some viewers may find this version enjoyable. It is a film after all; many have never read the Hugo novel, Notre Dame de Paris. However, die-hard fans and purists will be left unsatisfied.
It is like almost every other movie based on Hugo's novel: not faithful to the story. Characters are out of character and their roles have changed. While probably talented otherwise, the actors seem to have no control over their roles. Not one of them plays their part accordingly. However, they are not wholly to blame. The script is poorly written under the pretext of faithfulness.
The actors are making an effort. But they are definitely, definitely, out of character.
Esmeralda is among the worst interpretations. She is highly sexualized, even flirtatious; she is almost sophisticated in the matters of love. Here, she is no longer the innocent girl of Hugo's novel. She therefore loses the most lovable, endearing quality of her character. Lollobrigida has the other quality: her beauty. Yet this beauty is not enough to carry Esmeralda believably. This is an almost utter failure.
A true failure is the portrayal of Claude Frollo. A MAJOR mistake in plot is made here; Jehan, his brother, is "archbishop" in this film. In the novel, Jehan is a low-life, a scholar whose only thoughts are turned toward physical needs. He causes constant pain to Frollo, who is actually the Archdeacon in the text. Jehan is just another reason for the priest's madness, not a tool to satisfy it. Character-wise, he is the same as most Frollo's. He is played evil, painted diabolic, cut down into a one dimensional, unsympathetic personage. The audience can no longer decide for itself what his feelings truly are; the priest is lustful, vengeful, villainous. He looks at his handiwork concerning Esmeralda with joy in this film. By the final act, he has been driven mad; but it also causes him pain in the novel. Esmeralda's pain is his pain, yet he MUST- do these things. He is lustful, yet the glimmer of love is almost visible. The film destroys that depth, that ambiguity.
The other actors are on the same track, yet not quite as severe. The script is shallow at some points, and seems to be missing something.
Dubbing quality is undoubtedly imperfect. The film is also low budget, so the unhappy state of costuming and set can be forgiven to an extent.
Some viewers may find this version enjoyable. It is a film after all; many have never read the Hugo novel, Notre Dame de Paris. However, die-hard fans and purists will be left unsatisfied.