Description

(1954-France). With ORSON WELLES, CLAUDETTE COLBERT, EDITH PIAF, SACHA GUITRY, JEAN MARAIS. Written and directed by SACHA GUITRY. Narrated by ORSON WELLES. Guitry, the esteemed French playwright, screenwriter, director and actor, caps his illustrious career - he both acted in and directed his first films in the second decade of the century - with this sublime historical drama. It is at once a story of the grandeur of France and an ode to the "secret, mysterious, intimate" Chateau of Versailles, which for centuries was home to the nations monarchy. Featured is a hand-picked cast of French movie talent, joined by a pair of American stars, Orson Welles and Claudette Colbert. Guitry expertly weaves a complex story of three-hundred years of the French monarchy, in which many of the names in the history books come to life. Among them are three kings named Louis (XIV, XV and XIV); Marie Antoinette; Moliere; DArtagnan; Mme de Pompadour and Benjamin Franklin. Of all these figures, perhaps the most extraordinary is Louis XIV (who, as an elderly man, is exceptionally well-played by Guitry); he is shown to have cultivated Versailles, making it into Europes most glorious palace. Another performance of note: Welles, in outrageously heavy make-up, as a fat, jowly, aging Ben Franklin, who comes to France to secure assistance for the American Revolution. Welles does double duty as narrator and he effectively keeps the story moving. The entire film, by the way, was shot on location at the Chateau of Versailles. Caution: this is a black and white print of a film originally released in color. Dubbed in English. 103 minutes. ... Read more

Reviews (4)

Surprisingly faithful, surprisingly good
Strangely, there has never been a bad film of Victor Hugo's classic tale, and while this is indeed less successful than Laughton, Chaney or Disney's versions, this French effort is still a surprisingly good and much under-rated film. To get the most out of it, you have to bear in mind that Hugo did not write a horror story but a tale of unrequited love and anguish. There is little of the Gothic on show here; rather, everyone is trapped by a desire for what they are denied. This is much more 'Notre Dame de Paris' (the novel's actual title) than 'The Hunchback of Notre Dame': Quasimodo probably gets less screen time here than in any of the other films, only dominating the drama in the last third. Instead, as with Hugo, it uses the cathedral of Notre Dame as the thread that binds all social stratas - Kings and beggars, thieves and soldiers, gypsies and alchemists, playwrights and aristocrats - giving a vivid portrait of a time and place half imagined, half real.

Quinn is more of a brute than we're used to seeing in our Quasimodos: unlike Laughton, he's no poetic soul trapped in a broken body but an animal who is given an inkling of what it means to be human. Lollabrigida fares better than usual as Esmerelda, and if their relationship is never moving, the ending, for once taken directly from the novel, is genuinely touching.

There are problems: the dubbing is at times irritating (and there is no French-language option on the disc), while Jean Danet is quite the most embarrassing Phoebus imaginable, stilted, impossibly smug and just plain odd-looking. Some key scenes are poorly staged, most notably Quasimodo's rescue of Esmerelda, while the hunchback is not given a strong entrance. But, if you're willing to take a chance and watch it with an open mind, the pleasant surprises outweigh them. While not the most lavish version, the scale and colour of the film, particularly in scenes such as the Court of Miracles, gives us a sense of a world around these characters, the addition of CinemaScope and some impressive sets helping to broaden the scale. Delannoy's direction is occasionally imaginative, with a good eye for the Scope frame. The script (co-written by 'Les Enfants du Paradis' Jacques Prevert) is often witty and doesn't shy from the darker tragic tone of the novel. Georges Auric's score, though ill-served by the original sound recording, is also a fine effort.

The transfer is good, with only a few edge enhancement problems, although it seems very slightly cropped in some shots, and the failings of the early CinemaScope lenses do result in an occasional loss of detail in some shots. The DVD even includes one brief torture sequence that has long been cut from many prints, as well as the original theatrical trailer.

Kept out of distribution for years (Disney bought the rights around the time they were working on their version and shelved it), the film has not been able to gain much of a reputation. Indeed, it continues to get short shrift from many critics - 'Time Out's film guide is particularly hostile. But, as they say in Britain, 'Time Out hated it, so it must be good.' And it is - not great, but certainly pretty good.

Faithfull
This is the first version of the movie and in my humble opinion, the best. I say this for one reason and one reason only, and that is that its the only version that ends the way the novel does. Without spoiling it I'll just say that its tragic yet the most romantic imaginable!!

More like the "Stoopedback" of Notre Dame
While this version of Victor Hugo's novel is more true to the tragic story than most, this version suffers from lackluster performances, slow pacing and some awkward dubbing. Anthony Quinn's performance in the title role suggests a cheap thug rather than the beautiful soul trapped in a hideous body. Gina Lollobrigida is full of sex appeal as the ill-fated gypsy dancer, Esmeralda, but she comes across like too much the tart, and not the innocent of the novel. While the photography is lovely, this film suffers in comparision to the other major versions of this classic tale. I would recommend this film only if you want to compare it with the other versions. Otherwise, see any of those instead.

This version runs a distant last place with all the other ve
While filmed in color, this version does not have the same menace as the Chaney and Laughton versions. Although in some areas' it follows Hugo's story better than the other versions. Quinn gives a good try, but Chaney is the best! ... Read more

Reviews (12)

The Face of Silence
Bresson set himself a special challenge in making a movie whose central drama is the writing of a diary. How do you make writing exciting on the screen, and how do you film the inwardness of a private journal?

Bresson approaches the problem by filling the screen with Laydu's starved, haunting face at every opportunity. Plot, dialogue and acting take a back seat to the actor's troubled expressions, which Bresson shoots from a number of dramatic angles, especially the zoom-in close-up. While this does a lot to build atmosphere, it also left huge holes in my understanding of this troubled priest and his crisis. I found myself getting bored at yet another seemingly aimless scene where Laydu shivers or prays or writes in his journal. Bresson's technique is so effective that I felt I got the point--I had the essence of the character--after the first couple scenes. Still, the images of Laydu on a motorcycle and his midnight collapse in the country are unforgettable.

Bresson's ideas about film are sometimes said to be more interesting than the films themselves. I'm not sure that's fair, but it certainly helps to know something about his hopes for making film a language of its own, free from the conventions of the theater, in approaching this quiet & arresting work.

great
god is silent in diary of a country priest but for this very reason ever more present. the film examines the heart of humanity which abhors an emotional vacuum. the priest, morose and socially inept and dying of cancer, works in the name of the lord who never makes his presence felt. the world is gloomy, harsh, and unsparing. yet, thru thorny thickets of life, the priest manages to hold onto his quiet dignity, because spirituality is the one thing that gives him sustenance despite his failure among his fellow beings and the failure of his worldly flesh. this film is doubly difficult for being slow-paced and for its shy incommunicative hero. but few movies make us understand and feel the soul of another person as totally as this masterpiece by bresson.

Ehhhh
This is far from Bresson's best work. In fact, after having read the book, I found this film a disappointment. While it is certainly worth watching, and is packed with atmosphere (the lead actor is phenomenal with what he is given, which isn't much) it seems like more of a chore than anything else. Bresson does not incorporate many of the most crucial scenes from Bernanno's novel, and the dialogue seems rushed and forced. This is more of an expressionist film than anything else, and I suppose Bresson figured that Laydu's facial movements would compensate for the lack of continuity in the film. The most memorable scenes take place with Laydu and the angry young girl, but even these scenes do not live up to the text. The ending of the novel, heart rendingly powerful, is trampled on: Bresson merely shows us a cross with some dialogue. "All is grace" does not have any touching quality here. This isn't a classic, but I would say it is mandatory to watch simply for Laydu's performance, which, while a little ambiguous in its wealth of emotion and suffering, is unforgettable. Rent it.

The state of art
Is it necessary to say this is mude film with almost unneccesary subtitles. The superb eloquence in Bresson's language supported on Bernanos'story give us the most intimate portrait of a priest in a lost village.
The poetic images are enriched by a precise dialogue. The multiple reflections derivated from the story are so many that you must see this movie several times , a priest with epic sense in a dark neighborhood. The methapors are everywhere, in the images, in the suggested ideas beyond the visual language.
In this sense nobody could give a best homage to Bresson's art that his friend Tarkovsky, who after knowing him said in Paris these wise words: If we admit that Bresson is the biggest filmaker in the world, then the filmaker who is in the second place, really is in the tenth".
I sincerely recomend to get one work of Andre Bazin titled What's is the cinema? where Bazin (who belonged to Cahiers du Cinema) offers an amazing and exhaustive analysis about this film.

Great Film, bad transfer
It is amazing to me that Criterion would realease such a landmark film of the French Cinema on DVD, in this condition. The transfer looks great, the only problem is that the film is loose in the gate, causing it to jump and move in and out of focus. This tends to subside a little as the film progresses, but was very dissapointing to an ardent Bresson fan, and will be to anyone who enjoys Bresson's classic "cinematography". ... Read more