For some reason, it seems to be impossible for directors to stay true to Victor Hugo's book when making it into a film. I've seen at least 4 adaptations and none of them got the story even halfway right.
This one takes the cake though.
Not only has the story been changed at every turn (a happy ending? seriously?) but all the main characters have been turned into their exact opposite. Esmeralda, a naive and frail young girl, becomes a confident and witty woman. Quasimodo, in the book an antisocial, mean 18 year old (who is also, inconveniently, deaf - no way Disney would keep that little detail) becomes a cuddly stuffed animal who helps little birds learn how to fly. Claude couldn't possibly stay a priest of course. This isn't really unusual, as far as I know all versions before 1956 either made him a judge or left out his obsession with Esmeralda and Disney is almost always a few decades behind morally. But that they left out almost every redeeming character trait he possesses in the book, that he kills Quasimodo's mother and tries to throw Quasi down a well instead of adopting the monstrous child of unknown origin when everyone else thinks it's a demon, that he doesn't even show a hint of the romanticism that overwhelms him in the last third of the book (when he isn't threatening Esmeralda with death and/or rape that is), that instead of his fierce intellect and curiosity it is the lust for power that dominates his actions, this is unforgivable. And of course, perhaps the most absurd move, as much ridiculous as it is typical of Disney, Phoebus, the insensitive, dumb, opportunistic soldier who gets way more attention than he deserves due to his good looks, becomes the knight in shining armor - literally!
That being said, some of the scene were actually very intense and well-crafted. When liquid fire was running out of every hole of the cathedral, when Claude was hunting Quasimodo's mother through snow-covered Paris to a choir singing "Dies Irae", the song "Hellfire", these were the moments when the film, despite all its alterations, came pretty close to the dramatic and dark atmosphere of the book.
All in all I would say this is indeed the best film version of "Notre Dame de Paris" - as the book was originally called, without much focus on the hunchback, who in the book is only the 4th most important character - mainly because the other version are pretty bad.
One last thought: When I first watched the film, my reaction was: Talking gargoyles? Really? But then it occurred to me: The gargoyles aren't actually becoming alive for their friend Quasimodo, Disney in its dark cynicism made the poor, lonely Quasimodo imagine things to cope with his pain. His psyche is wounded by the constant ostracism and the emotional torture at Claude's hands to the point where it desperately makes up friends to gain at least some feeling of being loved. This is so wonderfully twisted. I have to watch the film again to check whether any of the other characters actually interact with the gargoyles and if yes, how much ambiguity there is in these scenes.
This one takes the cake though.
Not only has the story been changed at every turn (a happy ending? seriously?) but all the main characters have been turned into their exact opposite. Esmeralda, a naive and frail young girl, becomes a confident and witty woman. Quasimodo, in the book an antisocial, mean 18 year old (who is also, inconveniently, deaf - no way Disney would keep that little detail) becomes a cuddly stuffed animal who helps little birds learn how to fly. Claude couldn't possibly stay a priest of course. This isn't really unusual, as far as I know all versions before 1956 either made him a judge or left out his obsession with Esmeralda and Disney is almost always a few decades behind morally. But that they left out almost every redeeming character trait he possesses in the book, that he kills Quasimodo's mother and tries to throw Quasi down a well instead of adopting the monstrous child of unknown origin when everyone else thinks it's a demon, that he doesn't even show a hint of the romanticism that overwhelms him in the last third of the book (when he isn't threatening Esmeralda with death and/or rape that is), that instead of his fierce intellect and curiosity it is the lust for power that dominates his actions, this is unforgivable. And of course, perhaps the most absurd move, as much ridiculous as it is typical of Disney, Phoebus, the insensitive, dumb, opportunistic soldier who gets way more attention than he deserves due to his good looks, becomes the knight in shining armor - literally!
That being said, some of the scene were actually very intense and well-crafted. When liquid fire was running out of every hole of the cathedral, when Claude was hunting Quasimodo's mother through snow-covered Paris to a choir singing "Dies Irae", the song "Hellfire", these were the moments when the film, despite all its alterations, came pretty close to the dramatic and dark atmosphere of the book.
All in all I would say this is indeed the best film version of "Notre Dame de Paris" - as the book was originally called, without much focus on the hunchback, who in the book is only the 4th most important character - mainly because the other version are pretty bad.
One last thought: When I first watched the film, my reaction was: Talking gargoyles? Really? But then it occurred to me: The gargoyles aren't actually becoming alive for their friend Quasimodo, Disney in its dark cynicism made the poor, lonely Quasimodo imagine things to cope with his pain. His psyche is wounded by the constant ostracism and the emotional torture at Claude's hands to the point where it desperately makes up friends to gain at least some feeling of being loved. This is so wonderfully twisted. I have to watch the film again to check whether any of the other characters actually interact with the gargoyles and if yes, how much ambiguity there is in these scenes.