Review of the Plot and Characters of La Esmeralda

I find it very strange that an adaptation written by the original author would differ so much from the source material.

Sure certain elements are there. Scenes like Phoebus' stabbing and Frollo's confession are often verbatim from the novel. There's a lot that differs, however, mostly in regards to characterization, but that's an issue we'll touch upon later on.

La Esmeralda differs  primarily from the novel in terms of tone and characterization.

Nicolas Levasseur, who played Claude Frollo

I find it even more strange that an adaptation by the original author could be so soulless compared to its source material. 

Compromises were made as a result of censorship at the time. Notre Dame was placed on the banned books list by the Catholic Church, which is why the title was changed to La Esmeralda.

Fair enough.

This also meant, unfortunately, that Claude Frollo could not be a priest. This was done, like the title
change, to avoid controversy. This is a problem, as it offers little insight as to why he is so determined, and so insane to have Esmeralda.

It makes him come across as a one dimensional "jealous lover type".

However, Hugo kept the word in his printed libretto, so at least there's that.

Even then, Frollo's turmoil is not explored very well.

Quasimodo's costume design by Louis Boulanger

Quasimodo is also a shadow of his former self. First of all, he's hardly in it. There's almost no depth to him, except for a fleeting moment in the show's highlight song "Aria of the Bells", but that feels more or less out of character. In the context of the opera, Quasimodo is either and "Igor" to Frollo's "Frankenstein", or a sad sack with scoliosis. To see him suddenly as a sympathetic figure who loves all but himself is out of place.

This is an even bigger problem when he saves Esmeralda at the end. Why does he do it? Well, if we go by the book, it's because Esmeralda showed him kindness during his torture. That does occur here, but it doesn't seem to leave much of an impact on Quasimodo. If there was a scene, even a short scene, where he would have mentioned his gratitude or something it would have been it a bit more clear.

But no, he just saves the damsel in distress, that's it.  His scenes with her in the bell tower, some of the most important scenes in the novel, are cut.

Quasimodo is nothing but a plot device in this version.

Cornelie Falcon as Esmeralda

As for our heroine, the titular La Esmeralda, she's not particularly well rounded either. To be fair, Esmeralda wasn't the most complex character in the book, but that was her charm. A simple girl who loves dancing. 

That doesn't really translate very well to the stage. She's just sort of bland and one dimensional.  Again though, like Quasimodo, there are little hints of depth, like in her opening monologue.

This isn't really followed up on. You can make the argument that her death by a broken heart is a callback to this, but that's a bit of a stretch.

Adolphe Nourrit, who played Phoebus

Probably the biggest change of character is Phoebus. In the novel, Phoebus is rude, boisterous, and uncaring. Here, he's the exact opposite. Bold, idealistic, willing to leave the noble aristocratic life to be with a Gypsy girl. A martyr in the end. This sort of Phoebus is one that is imitated numerous times in early adaptations.

Victor Hugo aknowleges the changes in the preface to the original libretto. He says that changes were made to make the story work on the stage, but he kept as much of the original story as possible intact.

If this was his intention, well, I guess he failed.

The novel was a sprawling historical epic, the opera is a fancy romance story. Our leads are not a morose hunchback or a bigoted priest, but rather two blandly attractive people who love each other literally till "death do us part".

I don't want to make it sound like the problems with La Esmeralda stem from changes to the book. That would be silly. All I'm saying is that, if you're going to make changes, it is best to follow through on them. La Esmeralda does not do that for the most part. Esmeralda and Phoebus, as they are here, aren't neccesarily bad characters, but they are rather boring characters. Esmeralda especially is just flat, and as a main focus, that IS a problem.

The plot itself is fairly straight forward, as I have previously described. Everything regarding characters like Gudule and Gringoire is cut. While they are missed, they would be out of place here, so it's fair. At times it can get a bit confusing as to what is going on. The same goes for a lot of the themes, although Hugo does keep the theme of fatality. Fatality, supposedly what inspired the originally story, is shoehorned in here. It's the final word, which would be powerful had the story led up to it. Phoebus and Esmeralda die and Frollo just shouts it abruptly. He mentions fate several times in the story. Mentions it, that's the problem, it's not developed.  The libretto, despite being written by Hugo, is fairly short on details and description. If you didn't read the novel, I'm sure certain things that go unexplained might be a bit puzzling.

One thing I do like, is that certain scenes are almost word for word from the book. Nice touch, if you take it out of context at least.

Much like the characterization, the plot stands in the shadow of its literary origin.

Next: Review of the music of La Esmeralda