something does this film real special. nothing precise. nothing easy to define it. sure, the cast, the script, the location, the dramatic story of Victor Hugo. but, more important, a series of details who impose , for very long time, precious memories. and this is the motif for who it remains one of my favorites films. for a form of poetry who escapes from words. for the clash / sparkles between Gina Lollobrigida and Anthony Quinn.and for a form of authenticity of a period who defines the film as art, not always perfect, but not as product for precise target.

In 1482, in the Feast of Fools in Paris, the deformed bell ringer Quasimodo (Anthony Quinn) is elected the King of Fools. After the party, the evil alchemist Master Claude Frollo (Alain Cuny), who has a repressed lust for the kind gypsy dancer Esmeralda (Gina Lollobrigida), orders his servant Quasimodo to abduct the beautiful youngster. However, she is rescued by Captain Phoebus (Jean Danet) and Quasimodo is sentenced to be whipped in the square of Notre Dame and Esmeralda gives water to him. Later Esmeralda goes with Captain Phoebus to a room in an inn to spend a night of love together. However, Frollo is stalking her and uses her stiletto to stab Phoebus on his back, and Esmeralda takes the blame and is sentenced to be hanged. But Quasimodo brings Esmeralda to the sanctuary of Notre Dame and expresses his love for the gypsy."The Hunchback of Notre Dame" is one of the cruelest romances of the literature and cinema history in a dark age in French history. In this version of this sad tale of injustice, Anthony Quinn is awesome with a memorable performance and Gina Lollobrigida is perfect in the role of the seductive gypsy. My vote is seven.Title (Brazil): "O Corcunda de Notre Dame" ("The Hunchback of Notre Dame")

Because director Jean Delannoy is not highly regarded by the new wave of French critics, very few of his wonderful movies are available on DVD. One exception is his 1956 version of Victor Hugo's "Hunchback of Notre Dame" which is actually available on two DVD labels. True, screenwriters Jacques Prevert and Jean Aurenche have made some odd changes to the novel. One I approve (minimizing Phoebus' role – he's a dull character anyway) but the other is puzzling: Frollo acts like a priest but is no longer a priest in this version. Instead he seems to be a sort of caretaker or janitor at Notre Dame where he is free to carry out his alchemy experiments. Thus the force of the drama is weakened considerably. So-so acting by Gina Lollobrigida (at least she looks great), Anthony Quinn, Jean Danet and Robert Hirsch in other main roles doesn't help. In fact, the only really impressive performance is Jean Tissier's Louis XI (a role which has been cut to the bone). Never mind, the spectacle, the action, costumes and sets carry the night anyway. A technical note: Although widely advertised as a vehicle for CinemaScope, the movie was not photographed in that process at all. No way could Michel Kelber have achieved such glorious effects and noirish panoramas with Bausch & Lomb's rinky-dink lenses. Instead the film was actually photographed in Franscope with lenses manufactured by Professor Ernst Abbe. The producers dared Fox to sue them for appropriating the title of Fox's widely advertised but vastly inferior process. Fox, of course, did not take up the challenge. The last thing chief executive Zanuck wanted was another humiliating court case (after the "You Lucky People" affair) in which Abbe would make mince-meat of both Darryl and other Fox executives who had wasted $6 million buying and "perfecting" a process that was actually in the public domain.

No, it is not as great as the 1939 version. There was some spark in the 1939 version that captivates the audience to this day. It is sadly missing here - not that this film is dull. Far from it. The French have a habit (a good one) of producing movies based on their literary classics that generally show the actual stories quite well. But that means the spirit of the story has to be kept. Victor Hugo was a brilliant 19th Century novelist. Although "Les Miserables" has a strong coterie of fans as his best novel, and it is panoramic in scope, most critics feel his tragedy (yes tragedy) of "Notre Dame De Paris" is his finest novel.He wrote it in 1832, and (reputedly) used up a whole bottle of ink writing it - so that he felt it should be called "What's Inside A Bottle Of Ink". Fortunately he changed his mind. It is a splendid historic view of Paris in the year 1470. It is a Paris ruled by a brilliant tyrant, who does not mind using torture to accomplish his ends. It is a Paris where the bulk of the population is poor, is uneducated, is bigoted, and is superstitious. It is a Paris dominated, when not by King Louis XI, by the Christian Church (today the Roman Catholic Church, but this is some forty seven years before Martin Luther comes on the scene, so there is no Protestantism - except possibly for the Hussites in Bohemia).This film version adheres to the novel far more than the 1939 version did. Frollo is as villainous as ever, but his intellectual pursuits are shown. Opposed to spreading learning, he privately is an alchemist and student of science. He does use his position as brother of the archbishop to manipulate and influence, so the central issues of his interest in Esmeralda, and the conflict with his celibacy, are still there. But he also is an isolated figure here that was not really the case in the 1939 version. Frollo's power is due to his brother. He knows if the archbishop dies, so does Claude's power.I mentioned how in the 1939 film, Harry Davenport's Louis was a lovable codger - hardly the real "Spider King". Jean Tissier's Louis is far closet to the mark - without a trace of emotion he plays cat and mouse with a political prisoner to get the advice on a clerical question. The question, brought to him by a wounded (not killed - he was only wounded) Captain Phoebus about saving Esmeralda from the church trial (and probable execution) that Frollo has manipulated her into is not what Louis feels (even he were inclined) that he should get involved in. He has enough problems keeping his state in tact from that cousin of his Charles the Bold of Burgundy, to want to get involved in a church controversy. So, he visits his old adviser (now in a cage for fouling up an important mission) and pretending to show concern gets the desired affirmation about his hand's off opinion without promising anything. That's the real Louis XI we know and respect! Gina Lolabrigida is closer to the sultry Esmeralda than Maureen O'Hara was, but her performance is not as strong. Still the gypsy victim is a reactor character, her strongest point of action being pursing Phoebus (who would really just wish to sleep with her - not marry her). She barely comprehends the behavior of Frollo, and why he is so infatuated with her. And she only gradually understands the affectionate nature (and true love) of Anthony Quinn's Quasimodo. Quinn is not as made up as Laughton was, but he is not handsome here. He is deformed, and at a great disadvantage against the other suitors.The title of the novel in French emphasizes the cathedral itself. Hugo knows what was vigorous and alive in 1470 Europe and France that survived - the spirit in it's art. The cathedral becomes part of the players of the plot. This is true in all the versions, but especially here. Not only when Quasimodo saves Esmeralda temporarily by carrying her off to the towers, or when he uses the molten iron for the bells to pour on the mob. But also at the end, when he avenges the woman he loves.SPOILER COMING UP: Frollo, in the novel and this film, does kill Esmerelda - he arranges to have her hanged in the Cathedral (thus actually revealing his hypocrisy about Catholicism - he does not care that he is defiling a holy place by such an act). Quasimodo is in an agony when he sees the dead body of his beloved taken away, and Frollo dismisses him curtly. But Frollo is looking intently at the dead girl, and obviously relishing it. Without a moment's thought, Quinn, as Quasimodo, pushes Frollo off the tower. Now in the novel, symbolically, the falling Frollo has a slim chance of regaining the tower if he grabs a ledge and holds on. He nearly does, but it proves too slippery, so he falls to his death. The building rejects saving him - he's not worth it.Not as good as the 1939 version, but still worth watching as it is closer to the original novel. Try to get a look at it some time.