Since I took a survey of Architecture once in college this clearly makes me an expert in the subject. Every Monday in September the Hunchblog is going to look at the building behind the book Notre Dame de Paris Cathedral.
Les Miserables and Notre Dame de Paris are both originally by Victor Hugo, both have been given the popular musical treatment and they have very similar endings. Both endings deal with death and dying But which one is more tragic or dare I say “Miserable?”
If you want to get all technical, it’s Les Miz because they tote the name but when I first saw it I thought, “Dear god, this ending is pretty uplifting!” So at the end Jean Valjean is dying and he seems pretty cool with it. Cossette doesn’t want him to die but Fantine, who is a like a vision, is all like Jean you have been awesome now come to Heaven it’s awesome here. Sure Jean is dying but he’s not sad, in fact this musical makes death look pretty nice. Everyone who is died seems pretty happy and they’re super hopeful. I guess the Miserable people are still alive? This musical promised me Miserable people and you don’t really get it at the end. Don’t misunderstand, I love the ending and it’s great but miserable it is not.
Now if we compare it to the Notre Dame de Paris ending proper, Le Miz is even more upbeat. Esmeralda has just been executed and Quasimodo is mourning her while asking her to dance once again and heavily implies his own impending death. This ending is so sad that after the curtain call the tradition is to have the cast reprise the opening song while smiling so that audience is totally bummed.
Which ending do you find more Tragic? Clearly, I’m in the NDdP camp.
Essentially, the 1982 Gringoire function the same of he does in the 1939
movie as the lovestruck poet who falls in love with Esmeralda and is desperate to save her. However the 1982 Gringoire employs different means than his 1939 counterpart to save her. The 1982 Gringoire doesn’t use words and the printing press to save Esmeralda. Instead he uses a speech. He also suggests to Frollo that he could switch places with Esmeralda and that he will be willing to die in her place. This was in the book except it was Frollo that suggested the idea and Gringoire rejected it.
The 1982 Gringoire has some new facets to the characters. First we see Gringoire trying to sell some sonnets. I think this is the first and only time we see him doing this. he also is the only Gringoire to write a poem for Esmeralda. He is also the first and only Gringoire to get very jealous at Esmeralda’s adoration for Phoebus.
Aside from these instances of character the 82 Gringoire is very much like 1939 version. However, the 1982 version of Gringoire feels more like a real person. The 1939 version was a bit too nice and perfect. He doesn’t seem as in control the same way as the1939 version. This one gets jealous and petty in regards to Phoebus and his utter desperation to save Esmeralda while really expecting nothing makes him compelling.
Is it the 1982 version of Gringoire greatest bestest Gringoire ever? No but it’s not an offensive depiction and it’s solid which consider most adaptation of the story is a very good thing (having flashbacks to Enchanted Tales version of Gringoire).
Next 1982 version Article; Jerky Jerk Phoebus
I was watching Screen Junkies Hottest Animated characters (watch here) and the first group they discussed were Disney Princesses and this picture came out
My first thought was “Is Esmeralda a Princess now?” But the Host, Hal Rudnick picked her, so shrugs on that one. they also didn’t quite get Esmeralda character down. But where is that picture come from? I would venture it’s photoshopped.
But I think it’s high time Esmeralda, Megara and Kida joined the ranks or Disney should create a brand for older girls. I mean come on Disney, you’re wasting a demographic opportunity here.
While the prospect of an English movie version of Notre Dame de Paris is probably the last thing Hollywood would ever do, it’s still fun to contemplate who should be cast in a role for it. Obviously for a musical you need actors who can sing and act. So who would make a good Frollo?
I think David Bowie would make a great Frollo. First off, he can sing and he has a lot of theatrically to his voice which is necessary for Frollo. Second, he can act.
Bowie is most well known for his role as Jareth the Goblin King in Jim Henson’s Labyrinth. Jareth on the surface isn’t the most complex role but there is a lot shades of complexity which Bowie communicates very well.
He did play a more dramatic and complex role in Merry Christmas Mr. Lawrence . In that he plays Maj. Jack ‘Strafer’ Celliers. The film is about the relationship between four men in a Japanese prisoner of war camp during World War II. Bowie’s character is rebellious and he harbors a secret that torments him (fun hint, it involves a Hunchback).
David Bowie also has a good angler look for Frollo. He just seems to be an all round great choice for the role.
The 1982 version is like the 1939 version of Quasimodo; Good Night everyone.
Alright, is all serious Hopkins plays Quasimodo pretty much like Laughton 1939 version. He is very sympathetic and humanized. He doesn’t have any malice in his personality. There is few difference to this Quasimodo verses the 1939.
First the big one, Quasimodo dies in this version. Frollo stabs him while he is protecting Esmeralda. Now this is the second time Quaismodo has died as a result of Frollo stabbing but this is the first time where Quasimodo kills Frollo by impaling him on a large nail. It rob Frollo of his dramatic death. But seeing how Quasimodo doesn’t exactly go into a fit of rage it’s a mute point.
As Quasimodo doesn’t swing down from Notre Dame. Instead he climbs down and fights off the guard and carries her in. It’s less dramatic but it have good tension and action.
Let’s talk about his looks. Quasimodo has a very 80’s style haircut. It’s like a mullet. His protrusion is more wart like. The teeth were very jagged. It a good look except for the hair it’s too silly 80s hair.
Another difference between the 82 and the 39 version is in was they approach to the character’s lines. Laughton plays him with a lot of pathos and sympathy. Hopkins has a great combination of pathos and jovial-ness to his dialogue.
While this version is comparable to the 1939 version Hopkins does brings a new angle to the sympathetic Quasimodo and it’s a very good depiction of Quasimodo except for that mullet.
Next 1982 Article

























