So you may or may not know that in addition to my Blog and Squidoo Lenses, I have a Zazzle Store and I’ve started make Hunchback related items as well as other stuff. But since this is Hunchback Blog I’m Going to share the hunchback with you instead of just throwing the in my Hunchblog Zazzle pag, but there is more Hunchback stuff on there so be sure to check it.
Here are my items so far…
As I mentioned before I edit videos ( it’s a Hobby). Typically I make Anime Music Videos (AMV). In early 2010, My Sister and I made an AMV using Ranma 1/2 to Dechire from Notre Dame de Paris. What do you need to know to fully enjoy this? Well the guy featured in this video believes that the two girls are in love with him but they’re not, they hate him.
Please enjoy ^_^
In 2011 I joined Squidoo. Squidoo was ad-sharing writing platform where users could create a single page (a lens) on any topic. I started writing content on the Hunchback to help drive traffic back and forth between the blog and my “lenses.” In 2014 Squidoo shut-down and the content transferred to Hubpages.
Hubpages was the same type of site, a little less cheeky but much the same. Hubpages didn’t exactly shut-down but it cut users off from the revenue earning. So many of the users, myself included, opted to remove their pages from the platform.
So while these topic listed below did get moved to Hubpages they no longer exist there either this just a record of what I had once had on the Squidoo/Hubpages platforms at one time and MAYBE in future might be moved here as I been slowly posting/reworking those articles/pages/lenses here.
Read More →
The Disney version starts off with Clopin (Paul Kandel) regaling small children with the tale of the mysterious bell ringer and how he came the position. Though a song (The Bells of Notre Dame) and a flashback Clopin tells of a group of Gypsies entering Paris via the Seine, the notable Gypsy is a women with a child. After docking the Romani are caught by Judge Claude Frollo (Tony Jay). Frollo doesn’t care much for gypsies and orders their arrest but when he tries to take the baby from the women (he thinks it stolen goods) she runs toward Notre Dame. After the chase Frollo kills the women on the steps of Notre Dame and Frollo tries to drown the child who is deformed. Before Frollo can do it he’s stop by the Archdeacon (David Ogden Stiers) who guilts Frollo into taking care of child but Frollo demands that the child must live in the bell-tower. Clopin then asks us to consider what the bells supposedly say “who is the monster and who is the man”
Read More →So how does the 1939 version of “The Hunchback of Notre Dame” hold up against Victor Hugo’s novel? Well first let’s identify some MAJOR differences.
The First difference is Frollo. Hugo’s Frollo has been spilt into two characters. This was not the first film and certainly not the last film to do this, but to my knowledge it was the first to make him a High Justice and the last to separate him between brothers. If you haven’t read the book, Frollo has a younger brother name Jehan. Jehan is quite licentious while Claude, the older Archdeacon, is the lusty priest. So splitting the Frollo character into brothers isn’t a stretch. The reason why Frollo is spilt into the pious brother and lusty bad younger brother is the same reason why Quasimodo is crowned the “King of Fools” and not the “Pope of Fools”; The Hays Movie Code. The Movie Code (Censorship) that was in affect back in the 30s didn’t allow the church to look bad in any fashion (among other things). I give the film some credit, it tries to remind the viewer that Frollo should be a priest, or at least he wants to be a priest.
ESMERALDA: Who are you? You’re not a priest, and yet you look like one.
FROLLO: I am what I wish to be.
Esmeralda and Frollo, Maureen O’Hara and Sir Cedric Hardwicke, 1939 Hunchback of Notre Dame
Though him being a priest wanna-be doesn’t make me believe in his torment of “wanting” Esmeralda. Fortunately he doesn’t seem to combat his emotions, he goes from “I want you” to “you must die” in record time and doesn’t think twice. Whereas Hugo’s Frollo runs the gambit of emotions for Esmeralda. Plus it’s not important that he is in deep torment because the film is not really concerned with Frollo, Frollo is a necessary character because he is the catalyst for the story. Without Frollo, the book would have ended with Feast of Fools, the adaptations need him as a character but the lengths of his development are left to film. The ‘39′ Frollo gets some development but not enough. Instead characters that are lesser in significance get push to the forefront due to the next major difference of the movie.
Printing Press 1939 Hunchback of Notre Dame
The next big difference is modernity and the conflict between old vs new. The book did have a rather long chapter/essay called “This will Destroy that”(translations may vary) which was about how books will destroy the church and architecture. So instead of the cathedral being the conduit to teach the masses the stories and the history of the christendom, books would take over that role. But the film pushes this way too far and distracts from the main plot, hell the film opens with a scene that rehashes “This will destroy that” just with a positive spin. Also because the film takes a modernity good-old fashion bad, Gringoire, Clopin, and King Louis are made into more prominent characters despite being lesser characters in book especially Louis, whose hardly a character at all.
Esmeralda Smiling, Maureen O’Hara 1939 HUnchback of Notre Dame
But these are not the only character that are tweaked. Esmeralda is very different than in the book. In the book she is a naive, innocent, flighty, and pone to giving into whims. She also had a very different back story, a back story that seldom gets into adaptations. The only part of her backstory that can be compared to the book is that she came to Paris on the Feast of Fools in the movie, and in the book she had been in Paris a for over a year and was beloved amongst the people of Paris. In the movie, her motivation is for her people and she has a strong sense of empathy instead of love of dancing. It is interesting to note that when Esmeralda has these characteristic, Frollo is a High Justice who seems to hold more power than the king (in the 39 movie, he rounds up all the Gypsy girls in the Court of Miracles and the Disney he burns all of Paris). I suppose the caring, empathic Esmeralda is a counterpoint to the powerful, racist Frollo, but it’s a striking difference to her character in the book where she is a naive, simple, winsome child, who is unaware of her own charms. The 1939 characterization of Esmeralda she isn’t naive and she does at least in the 39 version, use girlish charms to get Louis to help her. She’s not above turning on the charms to get what she wants but doesn’t do it with Frollo, perhaps she didn’t know Frollo was in a position that could have help her. At least in the book she was afraid of him, hence she didn’t want to have anything to with him. In the 1939 version she doesn’t seem to exhibit any strong feelings towards, she neither likes him nor hates him, but she strikes an accord with him about animals. So I guess she could have turned up the feminine charms towards Frollo had he not been a bigoted pervert. The main reason why Esmeralda is never depicted as she is in the book, is she would come off unlikable, (a shallow, simple, young girl) so the film always has to tweak her character to make her likable. If she cozen up to Frollo, the villain, she wouldn’t have been as likable and has the only main female character, she has to likable.
Hello and Welcome to the Hunchblog of Notre Dame.
This Blog is dedicated to reviewing and analyzing the different adaptations of Victor’s Hugo novel Notre Dame de Paris aka The Hunchback of Notre Dame. There are dozens of retelling of the novel ranging from movies, cartoons, musicals, ballets, and operas. Some are considered masterpieces and some are just pain awful. Some are vastly popular and beloved and even more are unknown.
So why review the various adaptations of this particular novel? It’s a story that is known throughout the world but at the same time it’s misunderstood. This is mainly because the focus has shifted from “Our Lady of Paris”(Esmeralda) to Quasimodo as the main (titular) character. Of course not all the versions put Quasimodo as the main character but more than enough have. Is it a bad thing not to follow the novel faithfully? Should failure to follow the novel at least somewhat means that the version be diminish in the quality of the version? I would say no, even if I’m somewhat of purist on following the source material. But so for the sake of this blog, I’m going to review the adaptation on their own merits and then look at the version against the novel.
So stay tuned ^__^
