The 1997 version of the Hunchback
It’s like if you have all the ingredients to make a simple chocolate cake but half through you decide that you want to make it your own except you have no concept of cooking so you just start throwing whatever you want in there like Bacon, Walnuts, Cherries, whatever. Then you’re surprise when it doesn’t cook right and no one likes it.
Mandy Patinkin as Quasimodo
Quasimodo and Esmeralda are the least offensively bad but to be fair these types of versions of the characters that they are portraying are common. Humanize and sympathetic Quasimodos are the norm with film adaptions because the audience has to like Quasimodo despite his looks.
Salma Hayek as Esmeralda
Same goes for Esmeralda. Having a shallow immature girl is not the way to win over an audience. Having a strong confidence yet kind beautiful women works perfectly. Both of these character choices reflects an easy out. A Quasimodo and Esmeralda with a character arc would be hard to write. On could argue that Quasimodo’s arc would be realizing Frollo is a mean jerk face but since he is a villain that’s easy. THe real issue is with Esmeralda is that she doesn’t do anything in this movie outside of looking attractive . She gives Quasimodo water for feelings of guilt but that it. Her importance is just being there for Quasimodo and Frollo to react to and not doing anything.
Richard Harris as Frollo
Then there is colossal fail that is Frollo in this movie. The biggest issue with Frollo in this movie is that is obsession for Esmeralda is the result of feeling weak with regard to the king’s attitude on the printing press. His lust for Esmeralda feels like an afterthought and that shouldn’t be. The plot revolves around that. Once that decision was made other integral parts of the plot suffered like why would Esmeralda get the blame for the minster’s murder? Who saw the knife and knew it was her’s when it’s only in one scene? No Phoebus and Gringoire does nothing.
The 1997 Hunchback fails as Hunchback adaptation because Frollo’s lust set the story in motion. A failure to understand what drives the story is the reason why this version even with good castings fails.
Next time the Direction
Richard Harris as Frollo, yells No!
I kind of saw this version to be a cash in on the Disney movie. People who thought the Disney cartoon was to different from the source material could now see the “Real” version. See, Frollo is a priest. Look, Quasimodo is deaf. Behold, Gringoire is…there. But really, it’s a TV movie, whats there really to expect. This version also does what a lot of other adaptations, particularly the 1956 version, portraying Quasimodo almost as if he is mentally challenged or autistic. I suppose this is done to give the audience more sympathy to his character, but it comes across often as hammey, and out of character. Say what you will about the 1939 version, but at least the people involved had passion and truly wanted to make something out of it. Laughton’s Quasimodo is sympathetic but not because he made constant speeches about his predicament or secretly read Notre Dames library, it develops as the movie goes on. He really doesn’t have much dialogue it’s really mostly a physical preformence. You feel his plight and begin to pity him. It’s a shame, Mandy Pantakin is a very capable actor, but he doesn’t have much to work with.