The Hunchback of Notre Dame

THE HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME (1982) turns out be the first time I've watched a filmed adaptation of the Victor Hugo novel. It's just something I've never got around to before now, despite owning both the silent version and the Charles Laughton outing on video. I guess it says something about my tastes in film when I've watched Paul Naschy's HUNCHBACK OF THE MORGUE before this story! As it happens, HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME turns out to be a fairly decent film, although I can't vouch for how faithful it is as I haven't read the novel. Despite being a made-for-TV production, it's eventful and intriguing, mainly worth watching for a superior cast who acquit themselves well with the material.

Anthony Hopkins, in the titular role, plays it for sympathy and it works. He's virtually unrecognisable beneath the heavy and effective makeup, and his hunchback is a tragically maligned character throughout. Lesley-Anne Down is a believable object of lust and affection for most of the cast, and Derek Jacobi has a fine line in playing villainous characters (his turn as Claudius in Branagh's HAMLET was another favourite).

Watch out for minor roles for David Suchet (with hair!), Tim Pigott-Smith, John Gielgud, Nigel Hawthorne and Robert Powell, who's wasted in a minor part. Also watch out for decent production values, with elaborate sets, and assured direction from TV helmsman Michael Tuchner. I wouldn't necessarily call this depiction of the novel definitive - it feels a little slow and stagy in places, a little cold - but it is a solidly entertaining picture.

I had been looking forward to watch this film after reading reviews praising the acts of Derek Jacobi and whatnot, but was disappointed. His Frollo seems very detached from Esmeralda, even with his talent, it doesn't connect.

Also, this Esmeralda is laughable. The hair is hilariously 80s and doesn't work. Nothing against the actor.

The one that saves this rating from even being a 6 is Quasimodo. Unfortunately we don't see a lot of him until the last half (sort of like the book), where we almost get to see more development of him but hardly see any from anyone, not even Q with Frollo. The only good scene would be the aftermath of the flogging and Quasimodo talking to Esmeralda in the tower (but only Quasimodo's dialogue, a nice touch being it's mostly lines from the book).

The ending got to me, I will admit. Hopkins does a stellar job. One of the better adaptations, but wouldn't be so quick to recommend. Watch the 1997 version if you're looking for a modern live-action Hunchback.

With every different version of "The Hunchback of Notre Dame" that I have ever seen, I hope again that I will one day see a film that copies the novel exactly. Victor Hugo's novel is a tragedy all the way, and it does NOT have a happy ending, or even a semi-happy one! The only version that is most like "Notre Dame de Paris" is the 1977 film described elsewhere in this site. However, the 1982 version comes closer than the earlier ones, which, because of censorship, could not have an Archbishop feverishly pursuing a heathen gypsy female through the dark streets of Paris, laying aside his priestly vows to lust after her to the death. This dark, Gothic romance cries out for black and white--it just doesn't work in color, and the color here is gorgeous. See the 1939 Laughton version to see what I mean. And speaking of the Laughton version, Anthony Hopkins is obviously copying Charles Laughton's legendary performance, and does it quite well--one great actor's nod to another. Has Anthony Hopkins ever given a bad performance? Or has Derek Jacobi, for that matter? He succeeds in making Dom Claude what I have always considered this character to be--not a villain, but a pathetic, pitiable character torn between his holy vows and his forbidden lust for a beautiful gypsy dancer. Lesley-Ann Down is lovely, to say the least, as Esmeralda, and the supporting cast is solid. David Suchet as Clopin is fine in his own way, but it was a thankless task to try to follow Thomas Mitchell's great, over-the-top turn as the King of the Beggars in the 1939 version. Though this version is not as good as it could have been, it still is one of the best, and well worth your time.

Hunch

Not the epic that you would expect from a film starring Anthony Hopkins, Derek Jacobi, Nigel Hawthorne, David Suchet and John Gielgud, who do at least play their parts well. However it's just missing a certain "je ne sais quoi" (X Factor).

I have no real frame of reference for the story having never read or seen any other version, not even the Disney one, but like Mr Hugo's other works, it is a good story to be told, which is probably why it has been made and remade so many times, with at least two more versions in the pipeline at this time, according to IMDB.

The leading cast all really shine against a supporting cast that don't have their fantastic experience on stage and screen.

It's a shame that Mr Hopkin's prosthetic is quite poor by today's standards, as his face is so expressive and it gets a bit lost, but you still get his usual high standard nonetheless. Although you'd think he could afford a decent dentist!?

I'd be surprised if the people of Notre Dame ever learned how to tell the time with the bells ringing so constantly and erratically as they do, but I have to say that the set is really something quite impressive too.

It does have that very typical "Made in the 80's" kind of filter and feel to it. I think it would probably be handled very differently and more artistically if the same production was made more recently. Even in the 90's I think we might have seen that certain something that this was missing.

That doesn't take away the fact that it is a relatively good film with a good cast and tells the story well, as far as I know. It's unlikely that it will ever be in anyone's top 100 list, but it's a short and simple watch for any rainy day with a cuppa.

476.15/1000.

This glossy US television version of The Hunchback of Notre Dame followed a well worn formula of that era.

Round up as many well known British thespians who prefer theatre and shower them with money to appear.

Get a few veterans who have an Oscar for a little cameo. So that's Sir John Gielgud sorted.

He is not the only knight in this movie, others would get one later. Sir Nigel Hawthorne has a small role. The main parts are reserved for Sir Derek Jacobi as the priest Frollo who is bewitched by gypsy woman Esmeralda (Lesley-Anne Down.)

Quasimodo (Sir Anthony Hopkins) is the disfigured hunchback who is mocked by the people of Notre Dame.

Strangely Quasimodo has a reduced role here. He only appears sporadically in the first half of the movie.

The film steps up the moment Frollo glimpses Esmeralda and is enchanted by her. It drives him to madness and cruelty.

This is certainly a more campy reworking than one that should had been a gothic horror/romance. In that sense it wasted its cast.

Interestingly two fishwives who appear, Pam St Clement and June Brown would later find fame in Eastenders.