http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6n-pqs75Us
Today’s Fan-artis by floriaiglenoir. It’s a rendering of Esmeralda from Notre Dame de Paris. It’s an oil painting I love how beautiful she looks but there is an understated sultriness to her. I also love the swallow and Frollo hidden off to the side. I love this painting is very beautiful and color scheme is gorgeous.
http://floriaiglenoir.deviantart.com/art/detail-III-of-Notre-Dame-244337292
Check out more of floriaiglenoir work here
A question that comes up a lot is about Quasimodo’s hair. Why does he have red hair? I recently saw this asked on http://notredamedeparisfans.tumblr.com/. Quasimodo in both Notre Dame de Paris and Disney version is depicted as having red hair. Other version also have him with red hair. And the answer is very simple, it’s in the original novel. Quasimodo has red hair in the book. In Book 1 chapter 5 entitled “Quasimodo” It says “…..A huge head, bristling with red hair….” as part of Quasimodo description. It’s on page 50 for those who have the Barnes Nobel version.
So why did Hugo pick red for Quasimodo’s hair color? Well the reason could be that there was a medieval belief that red hair marked a beastly sexual desire and moral degeneration. Or it makes him more of a social outcast than if he had a blond, black or brown hair.
Though why Esmeralda in Notre Dame de Paris sometimes has red hair is a different question. I mean I the first person cast had black hair (Noa), Helene Segera has brown but against the red light looks reddish. Then when Julie Zenatti was cast she got the red hair as well as France D’Amour. Since then of the more than a few other opted for red hair.
One of the best companion pieces to the Disney version of the Hunchback of Notre Dame is The Art of The Hunchback of Notre Dame (Disney Miniature).
It’s for all intended purpose thisis an art book. It has tons of concept art, production stills, sketches, illustrations from the novel, and art by Victor Hugo. (Hugo’s own art work is gorgeous). However the major flaw with it is its size. It’s tiny for something that is an art book. Here’s a picture of it compare to my Final Fantasy IX art book (I had this book for a while).
The Hunchback art book is 5.6 inches by 4.3 inches compare to the art Final Fantasy IX which is 11.8 inches by 9.3 inches. However I think this isn’t suppose to be a true art book as much a more in depth look behind movie’s creation.
The book has a ton of information about the background on the book, characters and a lot of how the movie art plays with light and shadows. It’s a very interesting read although Stephen Rebello does make one big generalization. In the Quasimodo chapter page 57, he writes ” Victor Hugo probably never imagined his malformed, melancholy creation breaking forth into song.” Hugo himself wrote a libretto for Louise Bertin’s opera La Esmeralda . Making Hugo the first person to adapt the novel. Considering Hugo wrote Quasimodo an aria, I think it’s safe to say that he did imagine him breaking out into song. On a side note, that aria was only piece people liked from the opera. You can listen to it here
Anyway despite that generalization it is well researched and an interesting read with lots of great artwork. I would highly recommend it for fans of the Disney movie.
The 1956 version of the Hunchback of Notre Dame is a disappointment. It had a great set-up with its concept making a Hunchback movie that was almost accurate to the book. We had Ananke as a theme, Frollo is a Priest, Esmeralda dying and the Quasimodo lying down beside Esmeralda to die at the end.
But the movie is plagued by bad execution on almost everything. The actors seem to be not into it, the script boring, the music is nonexistent, the camera work in a sea of flat angles, it lacks directional style, the set are fake looking , etc.
This is a seems to be a problem with Hunchback movie. Either you get a movie that is really good but way off from the book OR you get something that is really close to the book but the execution sucks. I think this film has a fair regard with some Hunchback fans because of its accuracies but give them a well executed movie that is also accurate to the book and this version fade from memory.
Next Time – we’re going to look at the Wishbone version
The last time I spoke about the movie Hotel Transylvania I admitted I hadn’t seen it (read here). But now I have. So I took the time out my busy schedule of sitting down to sit down and watch this movie.
So the movie of a whole was “meh-to-bad.” It’s a pretty standard premise and homaging the universal monsters isn’t a new thing. Plus humans in the monster world isn’t anything new The pop-cultural reference were very annoying but I did enjoy the atmosphere. BUT we’re here to talk about Quasimodo and his depicted in this film or lack there of.
So after I watched Hotel Transylvania and re-reading my previous post I will say I was wrong. Esmeralda is a mouse. She is not a rat. I’m sorry.
However Quasimodo’s depiction is just really mind boggling. First he’s the key antagonist as he gives Jonathan, the token human, the out. But why? Why is Quasimodo even at the hotel. Why is he a chef? Why does he want to eat a human? So since Quasimodo is a human himself he has cannibal tendencies? I still see this role as a plug in. They had a a villain chef who has a mouse to copy Ratatouille and they needed one of the Monsters to fill in and since who ever wrote this didn’t care much for the source materials, as none of the monster bare much in common with their original movies, the just used Quasimodo as he is French and French chef is a nice little trope. From there the just gave him acrobatics to do since it looks cool. Really, the most Quasimodo-ish thing he does is he kidnaps someone but that is it.
Now I had read that they designed the Monsters after the people voicing them. But Quasimodo doesn’t look much like Jon Lovitz nor does he look like Quaismodo. I mean sure he has a hunch and one eye is slightly smaller but geez is this most bland Quasimodo depiction. Quasimodo is his look you can’t separate that accept out. The legging and shoes look the most like Quasimodo and that is because they copy that from the Disney movie.
I won’t say that this couldn’t have worked. Had Quasimodo made a villain speech about how he was cast out his beloved home after the love of his life left and he found comfort in cooking and meet his pet mouse. Or had he just called the kitchen his “Sanctuary” it would have been something. With references to original character instead nothing it would have better but instead of paying homage the Universal Monsters which was kind of the point the movies references to LMFAO and other insipid pop-culture stuff. But that is the main problem with the movie it doesn’t have any character development except Dracula who has to learn to let his child go which same lesson as King Triton in The Little Mermaid. The movie is more concerned with trying to convince its audience that’s its fun instead of having fun characters.
Also Why Wilson? Why is that his last name? Is it because all the monsters got normal names? I mean he didn’t need a last name only Mavis got a last name. But why Wilson ? It doesn’t make sense and it’s not silly. So why????
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnsT4ACzyKE
This version was performed in 2010 and 2011 (I think). This video is an interview a few clips of the cast rehearsing.
Cast:
Quasimodo – Marcin KoÅ‚aczkowski
Esmeralda – Edyta KrzemieÅ„
Gringoire- Michał Rudaś
Febus – Janusz KruciÅ„ski
Clopin – Marcin MroziÅ„ski
Frollo – PaweÅ‚ Tucholski
Fleur de Lys – Patricia Kazadi