THE HUNCHBACK

Victor Hugo's classic novel “The Hunchback of Notre Dame” was a bestseller from its original publication in 1831 and has been a favorite of filmmakers since the dawn of motion pictures. This one, called just The Hunchback, is TNT’s 1997 TV movie adaptation, which won the screen writer John Fasano a Writer's Guild of America Award nomination. The film was also nominated for four Prime Time Emmy Awards and five Cable Ace Awards, including one for Many Patinkin as Best Actor in a Movie/Miniseries. The film did win a Cable Ace for Outstanding Make-up. Here's TNT's Official Site and some reviews here.

Edward has the supporting role of Pierre Gringoire. You can read my Edwardian Review below and click on the thumbnails to see them full size. (Videocaps courtesy of HayekHeaven.net.)

" 'Why was I not made of stone like thee?' Quasimodo, bellringer of Paris’ Notre Dame Cathedral, is more hideously deformed than any of the nightmarish stone gargoyles adoring the famed building. Yet he is very much made of flesh, blood and human emotion.
The power and compassion of one of the most beloved novels of all time unfold triumphantly in The Hunchback, a lavish, all-new adaptation of Victor Hugo’s “The Hunchback of Notre Dame”. Chicago Hope Emmy winner Mandy Patinkin plays Quasimodo, and Salma Hayek (Desperado, Fools Rush In) is Esmeralda, the spirited gypsy whose kindness awakens the ill-fated hunchback’s higher nature. And Richard Harris (Camelot, Unforgiven) is Dom Frollo, whose priestly office hides his hypocrisy and cruelty. Against the turmoil of 16th-century Paris, the destinies of these three play out in a timeless and uplifting story of courage, love and redemption."

My Edwardian Review:

"THE HUNCHBACK"

The Hunchback was promoted as ‘critically-acclaimed’ and it could have been a great movie. The premise is there, but ultimately I found it pretty average as far as TV movies go....

The sets for starters, looked far more authentic to a theme park than medieval Paris. (The setting is 1482 and not 16th century as the video cover states). The characters remained consistently two-dimensional and even though the film touched upon some social issues (state censorship, tradition vs. progress), their treatment was superficial enough to seem irrelevant and forced onto the plot.

Mandy Patinkin however, who played the challenging role of Quasimodo, succeeded where the film floundered. His performance was solid and at times inspired; and the make-up was in fact fairly solid and consistent as well. I also thought Richard Harris as Dom Frollo was a good casting choice. His stern style and bloodless countenance adding just the right tough of drama in portraying a man of God capable of perverse lust, cruelty and murder.

In contrast, Edward’s character Gringoire has more of the touch of the pathetic than the dramatic, at least he does in the novel; but in the movie, nothing much about Gringoire or his background is revealed.

Almost all of Edward's scenes are at the beginning of the film: he’s first seen delivering an anti-state rhetoric at the public square, but soon he’s cut short when Esmeralda (played by Salma Hayek) grabs everyone’s attention - including Dom Frollo’s watching from a window far up at the cathedral and Gringoire’s in the crowd, with open-mouthed admiration (I like that look Edward does!) - by her provocative dance. Subsequent events lead Esmeralda to save Gringoire from the gypsy court’s verdict by agreeing to marry him and after a scene where they’re getting to know each other and sharing a brief kiss, Gringoire pretty much disappears from the screen....

Pierre Gringoire was in fact an actual historic figure - a somewhat successful poet and playwright at the turn of the century (1475-1539) and he also has the dubious distinction of being the first juggler in history to have been described in detail! In Victor Hugo’s fictionalized version, he is a rather ineffectual and weak man who has pretty much failed at everything he’s tried and who proves himself a loser yet again when Esmeralda - the woman he loves, the woman who had saved him - is facing the gallows. Edward does not quite portray (or succeed in portraying?? I found it hard to judge) the character as such - instead of frightened and cowered, he looks noble; instead of looking indecisive and wimpy, he manages to come across as adorable. There just isn’t enough in the script to give the character any substance or depth.

The exact opposite is the case as far as the role of Esmeralda, but Salma Hayek just did not deliver. In most of the scenes, she struck me as if she was modeling gypsy costumes in period decor, rather than acting (or even pretending to act) a character.

As far as Victor Hugo vs. TNT??....I always think that no matter how good / bad the book or the film may be, it’s always a lousy idea to compare the two, so all I will say is that the script did not dramatically differ from the plot of the novel; but as always I guess, purists will find far too many inconsistencies. And do I actually recommend it? Mandy Patinkin is good, the movie.... well, you read the above, so I hate to bring it down to this, but take a look at the Edward pics above and then decide..... (I did wonder if the Emmy nomination for Outstanding Hairstyling had anything to do with his lovely haircut???)