 |
| Gina Lollobrigida |
She's written as young and naive, but Lollobrigda plays Esmeralda as lusty and mature. It just doesn't gel very well. Either the script should have been rewritten to accommodate Gina and her acting style, or a different actress should have been cast.
 |
| Anthony Quinn as Quasimodo |
I'm not sure what they're trying to portray Quasimodo as. Is he a misunderstood child, mentally challenged, an idiot savant, or just a dummy? The performance is all over the place. I can't really get a read on him. While Anthony Quinn is a great actor, I just don't think that he's right for Quasimodo. Certainly not the way he's written here.
He doesn't seem to be much of an outcast, more of a village idiot. Children play catch with him while he giggles. Even when he's being flogged, people seem more to joke around than cruelly taunt him.
Alain Cuny is thoroughly wooden as Claude Frollo. He seems to be playing it subdued, but, like Quasimodo, I can't really understand him. He doesn't seem to have a lot going on. If you hadn't read the novel, his motivations are completely vague. While their are certain hints of his priesthood, there is enough contradicting evidence to say otherwise. If it's not in the film, it's not in the film.
The 1956 adaptation is the first major film version to have Frollo as an alchemist. It doesn't add to any theme or affect the narrative, it only prolongs it.
Alain Cuny has two emotions in this version. Either he is speaking in monotone or growling like a drunken pig. Neither of which are particularly compelling. He is not very imposing, despite flapping his cloak around like a dime store Bela Lugosi. Cuny also is far too physically attractive for the part. While the actor was nearly in his fifties at the time of filming, he still looks fairly young. His full head of black hair only add to this.
I actually rather enjoy the rest of the cast, who are mostly alike to their literary rivals, but the primary three protagonists, Esmeralda, Quasimodo, Frollo, drag the movie down.
Next: Sets and Cinematography
 |
| Alain Cuny as Claude Frollo |
The 1956 adaptation is the first major film version to have Frollo as an alchemist. It doesn't add to any theme or affect the narrative, it only prolongs it.
Alain Cuny has two emotions in this version. Either he is speaking in monotone or growling like a drunken pig. Neither of which are particularly compelling. He is not very imposing, despite flapping his cloak around like a dime store Bela Lugosi. Cuny also is far too physically attractive for the part. While the actor was nearly in his fifties at the time of filming, he still looks fairly young. His full head of black hair only add to this.
I actually rather enjoy the rest of the cast, who are mostly alike to their literary rivals, but the primary three protagonists, Esmeralda, Quasimodo, Frollo, drag the movie down.
Next: Sets and Cinematography
Did we see the same film? This is the best cinema adaptation, and Alain Cuny is superb, very moving. Did you watch the original French cut or the English dubbed version (which is bowdlerised somewhat)?
ReplyDeleteAnd as for "Cuny also is far too physically attractive for the part. While the actor was nearly in his fifties at the time of filming, he still looks fairly young."
Claude in the book is only 35. OK, his hair has receded into his tonsure too young, but he's tall, dark, lean, broad-shouldered and has very compelling eyes. Although he tends to go around in an old cassock that doubles as his lab-coat (and will smell accordingly), I suspect he scrubs up very handsomely for Mass on feast days...
(Sorry for the late reply) For this review I watched both the French and English versions several times. I do agree that the English cut is the inferior of the two, but both are fairly flat in my opinion.
DeleteClaude was around thirty five in the novel, but he was described as looking far older. Hugo initially introduces him as "the man with the bald brow" after all.