Hunchback

Go ahead, insert your Silence of the Lambs joke here. You know you want to.

Hunchback is a remake of an oft-adapted Victor Hugo classic The Hunchback of Notre Dame, about a deformed, mad bell ringer who falls in love with a gypsy girl who has been falsely accused of murder. She has also inspired the love of a corrupt priest and a poor, would be poet, though she seems oblivious to all three of their advances and prefers the courageous (and sultry) Phoebus, an officer to the king. This soap opera/fairly tale is set to the backdrop of the Spanish Inquisition and 16 th century politics, which all come into play to demonstrate Hugo’s clear disgust of his own contemporary government.

Thanks to Disney’s 1996 animated version of the tale, at least a variation of the above plot description should be familiar to people of all ages, though I’m not sure what Hugo would have thought about the talking gargoyles and the made-for-video sequel. But that’s another review.

I’ve read and loved great deal of the classics—I’m an English graduate after all—though somehow, Victor Hugo’s classic tragedy has always managed to elude me. I actually have the Penguin Classics edition collecting dust on my bookshelf as we speak, wedged in between Jane Loudon’s The Mummy! A Tale of the Twenty Second Century and Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, two books a little more worse for wear. Why I’ve never read it I can’t say, except that I’ve had it on my shelf for so long that I’ve forgotten about it. It’s one of those, “I’ll get around to it someday” books, a thought that usually comes to me when I’m busy rereading Great Expectations for the umpteenth time.

I have, however, seen several of the film adaptations, including the 1923 version starring Lon Chaney and the 1939 version starring Charles Laughton. Thus, the tale of Notre Dame’s gloomy, deformed bellringer Quasimodo and his love for the beautiful gypsy Esmeralda is not unfamiliar to me, and while I cannot to compare this Hunchback, a low budget 1982 made-for-TV production, to Hugo’s book, I am in the position to compare it to these earlier, great films.

Both films are considered classics, and deservedly so: They had stirring performances from two brilliant leads, and both carefully took the time to create the characters of Quasimodo, his crush Esmeralda, the lustful priest Frollo, and the other key cast members. In addition, both contained epic scopes, showcasing ancient Paris in grand set pieces, including Notre Dame and its twisted gargoyles, the godless "religious" courtrooms that accept torture as a means of confession, and the dark, anarchic alleyways of Clopin’s homeless kingdom—the true face of France and its corrupted politics.

This Hunchback is a little quieter and a little subtler than the previous films, more concerned with soapy subplots and whispers in the dark than spectacular set pieces. This probably has to do with the limited budget, but to my understanding, the quieter approach allows for some of the details from the novel that escaped the earlier versions to make their way into the limelight. Indeed, there seems to be a whole lot of talking, politics, and subplots going on in this version, but I didn’t mind the slow pace; in fact, I appreciated the further insight into some of these minor characters that were either stripped down to bare-bones or omitted in the previous adaptations.

Anthony Hopkins stars as Quasimodo, and his performance is so thoughtful and unforced that I’ll be damned if I didn’t admire his interpretation more than both Chaney's and Laughton's. His makeup is certainly a little less convincing, but compare the way he interprets Quasimodo to that of the predecessor’s approaches. Chaney played the part as sort of a mad clown, hopping to and fro and only stumbling upon crucial plot developments as they come. Laughton gave us a more intelligent hunchback, keenly aware of what was happening around him and always one step ahead of those plotting Esmeralda’s demise. Hopkins is a combination of both interpretations, giving us an awkward Quasimodo who fumbles for his words and slurs his speech, but is also in good control of hits wits and emotions.

Consider the scene in which he has rescued Esmeralda from execution and has her hidden in the church’s bell tower, where he lives. There is some wonderfully written dialogue between them in which Quasimodo properly introduces himself and shyly shows her around his quarters (since both this version and the 1939 film contain this scene, I can only assume that it’s from the book). Laughton plays the part as if Quasimodo has rehearsed this moment a thousand times in his head, and he is pleased with himself when he gets it right. Hopkins, on the other hand, stumbles over his words, keeps his hands busy, and trips over himself as he speaks, as if these thoughts are coming to him faster than his deformed lips can speak them. Laughton’s interpretation is perhaps more calculated, but Hopkins’ is far more emotionally fulfilling.

The rest of the cast is also good, though they are all decidedly underplaying. Lesley Ann-Down is a quiet and introspective Esmeralda, certainly a departure from the damsels in distress from the previous versions. Robert Powell, whose diversity as an actor has seen him cast both as Jesus Christ and Dr. Frankenstein, makes a good, scandalous Phoebus. I like the way he laughs at Esmeralda when she proposes marriage and exclaims, “I’m already married!” Here is a true scoundrel who knows what he wants, and he isn’t afraid to get it. Derek Jacobi also makes an effective Frollo, though he’s more mustache-twirling than tortured by repressed thoughts of sexuality.

The key tragedy in all of the versions I’ve seen of TheHunchback of Notre Dame is the obvious fact that Esmeralda will never love Quasimodo, even though both he and the audience understand that they are perfect for each other—two outcasts trying to survive in a harsh world. Thus, the story’s finale is bittersweet and melancholy. Both the ’23 and the ’39 versions give us very satisfying endings that showcase this sadness (Laughton’s heart-wrenching dialogue to a stone gargoyle, “Why wasn’t I made of stone, like thee?” will particularly ensure tears in every audience member), but I feel like the filmmakers go for a bit of a copout here. The film ends after the falling action but before the final resolution, and the closing credits hit us so abruptly that we’re left with a bad taste in our mouths.

I can only speculate why the film ends on such an awkward note. Perhaps Hopkins is so touching in the role that the filmmakers couldn’t bare to see him experience the heartbreaking ending that Laughton faced. Their replacement ending is certainly not an improvement; it comes across as hasty and contrived. Too bad—until the abrupt, final scene, Hunchback is an interesting variation on an old story.

A.K.A. The Hunchback of Notre Dame

Cast:
Anthony Hopkins: Quasimodo
Lesley Ann-Down: Esmeralda
Derek Jacobi: Frollo
David Suchet: Clopin
Robert Powell: Phoebus
John Gielgud: Charmolue

CBS television presents a film by Rosement Productions Limited. Directed by Michael Tuchner. Written by John Gay, from the book by Victor Hugo. No M.P.A.A. rating, but fine for older kids (contains brief violence and mild images of murder). Running time: 102 minutes (video edit - original television version runs 150 minutes). Original United States television broadcast date: February 4, 1982.