Scary Scene; Esmeralda meets Frollo 1997 version

by
Salma Hayek as Esmeralda, 1997 The Hunchback picture image

Salma Hayek as Esmeralda,

In the 1997 version of The Hunchback of Notre Dame or very simple called The Hunchback, there is a scene about 45 minutes in the movie where Esmeralda and Frollo meet. It a combination a few different scenes, we have Esmeralda’s prayer, the Frollo stares scene al la 1939 and Frollo’s confession.

In the scene Esmeralda prays outside Notre Dame asking forgiveness for Quasimodo’s torture. Frollo is in a cart next to her and through the fabric he confesses his feeling. Esmeralda lingers and hears this and she draws her knife and looks into the cart only to have Frollo around the other side. The scene ends with Esmeralda seeing death in his palm which I guess he talk as sign that he should go kill someone because that is the next thing he does, ah plots you seldom ever make sense.

Richard Harris as Frollo, 1997 The Hunchback picture image

Richard Harris as Frollo

Again the this scene isn’t like scary but there is a creepy tone to this scene. It has good mood and atmosphere. It also helps that Frollo looks like Nosferatu. Really when you think about it this scene is like if the kidnap attempt scene from 1939 version and Hellfire had a baby.

Gringoire and Esmeralda’s wedding in the 1997 version

by
Salma Hayek as Esmeralda and Edward Atterton as Gringoire, 1997 Hunchback of Notre Dame picture image

Salma Hayek as Esmeralda and Edward Atterton as Gringoire

Despite being a sort of remake of the 1939 version, the 1997 version handles the wedding scene of Esmeralda and Gringoire VERY differently. It is sort of like the 1939 movie but only at its most basic core.

Gringoire wanders into the Court of Miracles, he’s almost hanged, Esmeralda saves him and they are married. However no jug is broken. Not breaking the jug is not a deal breaker per say but it is a weird subtraction since that was the name of the chapter but Gringoire does faint.

The wedding night doesn’t occur either like it does in the book. Instead it happens the next day as Gringoire is eating some of Esmeralda’s home-cooking. What is interesting is that during the wedding night scene in the book and  in the 1939 version, Gringoire tries to seduce Esmeralda. When she rejects him, Gringoire then says he’s cool with being friends and living like brother and sister. In this version he goes straight for accepting that  even though Esmeralda never rejects. In fact Esmeralda is more in to him in this version than other version. This is easier to accept in this version since Phoebus is a non-entity.

In fact it’s Esmeralda who is coming on to him with caressing him as she teaches him how to juggle and them kisses him because she wanted to.

So while the 97 has some basic similarities to the 1939 version, it is quite different. It’s just weird that they don’t have the jug and that Gringoire is cool with relationship that Esmeralda typically set-ups in other versions only to Esmeralda put the moves on him and never reject him at all.

Mini Look Back of Hunchback versions that were reviewed in 2014

by

Since this is the very last Tuesday of 2014, I thought I would do a mini look back and see what version was the best and which was the worst. This past year we have looked at like 3 versions of The Hunchback of Notre Dame, The 1986 version, the Enchanted Tales version and the 1997 version. Technically we touched on the lost films back in January but since I can’t even pretend I watched them they don’t count toward reviews.

Melody Enchanted Tales Hunchback of Notre Dame picture image

Melody

The worst version is without a doubt the Enchanted Tales version. A handsome Quasimodo and a terrible moral, yuck. But you know I could deal with the handsome Quasi and the perplexing moral if the animation and songs were decent and not a painful bowel movement  but alas this version says fuck good anything. I will say that this versions was my favorite to tear a part because that is the only thing it has going for it. Also this version was technically the first hunchback version I got screen caps for back in October of 2010, two months before the blog launched. I actually have more pictures that I didn’t use.

 

Esmeralda Dancing 1986 Hunchback Notre Dame picture image

Esmeralda Dancing

For best version of this year, that is hard one as we only have the 1986 and the 1997 versions left.

Salma Hayek as Esmeralda, 1997 Hunchback of Notre Dame

Salma Hayek as Esmeralda, 1997 Hunchback of Notre Dame

Both versions have their strengths and weaknesses. If I were to judge solely on keeping to the book, I would say the 1986 version is better but if I going on what is debatably the more entertaining movie, I would say the 1997 version. It just so hard because both films’ flaws are so apparent that it’s hard to overlook them but I will say the 1997 version is marginal better.

I can’t wait for 2015! I hope to look at some famous/infamous versions.

1997 Hunchback Conclusion

by
Salma Hayek as Esmeralda, 1997 The Hunchback picture image

Salma Hayek as Esmeralda,

The 1997 version of The Hunchback seemingly has everything a person could want in a Hunchback adaptation but it fails. It’s a boring dull mess that fails to captures the novel even though it seems to be trying on some level however it’s being lazy on so many other levels. The actors can’t save it and there in nothing else to capture interest other than thinking about what this movie could have been like if it wasn’t a TV movie but it was a theatrical movie.

Next Hunchback version; The Enchanted tales Version, oh this one, this is going to be PAINFUL!

Melody and Quasimodo Enchanted Tales picture image

Melody and Quasimodo

I can’t believe it’s not Notre Dame; The Sets of the 1997 version of Hunchback

by

The very first time I watched 1997 version of The Hunchback I was struck by the sets mainly the Notre Dame sanctuary sets and not in a good way.

Sets 1997 Hunchback of Notre Dame picture image

Quasimodo in “Notre Dame” Interior Set

The set used for the sanctuary of Notre Dame is pretty but Notre Dame it is not. Oh, it has similar aspects of Notre Dame as it’s a gothic church but it’s not Notre Dame.

Frollo inside "Notre Dame" with King and Minister, 1997 Hunchback picture image

Frollo inside “Notre Dame” with King and Minister

This church has a soft earthly glow to it that Notre Dame not have. Notre Dame is dark inside so that the light from the rose windows pours inside. This light in the movie could have been the result of lighting a set for filming but post production could have corrected that. But I don’t think so. The layout and the look of it are just different. The stones seems more brown in tone and not grey like in Notre Dame. The columns totally different. Notre Dame’s columns are bigger with more complex capitals, the tops of columns. The ones in The Hunchback have like a stacking clustering details. It’s very telling that you don’t get an establishing shot of the sanctuary of the cathedral like in the 1939 version and the Disney version.

The Church of Saint Ouen in Rouen picture image

The Church of Saint Ouen in Rouen

Clearly they are passing another Church off as Notre Dame instead of a building set or shoting at Notre Dame. The Church they are passing off as Notre Dame is The Church of Saint Ouen in Rouen. Shame of you movie, Saint Ouen is gorgeous is its own right. In truth it does not matter which Church it is, it’s not Notre Dame. It’s disrespectful to the buildings and the audience when movies pass off one landmark for another. I get that movies typically pass off Toronto for New York because it’s cheaper but somehow this switch reminds of this Bollywood movie called Hum Dil De Chuke Sanam, in which they try and fail to pass off Budapest for Rome. They did it because the filmmakers felt Budapest wouldn’t connect to an Indian audience. And clearly the film makers for the 1997 Hunchback think one Gothic Church is as good as another because people won’t notice.

The rest of the sets are ok, nothing really to say, they are like the rest of this movie meh…..

Next Time -Final Thoughts of the 1997 Version of The Hunchback.

Salma Hayek as Esmeralda, 1997 The Hunchback picture image

Salma Hayek as Esmeralda,

Costumes in the 1997 version of Hunchback; There is something familiar about these costumes

by
Salma Hayek as Esmeralda, 1997 Hunchback of Notre Dame, picture image

Salma Hayek as Esmeralda, 1997 Hunchback of Notre Dame

The costumes in the 1997 version of the Hunchback were done by John Bloomfield. Bloomfield’s credits include Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves and Waterworld, two movies not known for their costumes. Of the two movies, Robin Hood is more similar in style and design to Hunchback’s costume and two costumes show this more than others.

Edward Atterton as Gringoire, 1997 The Hunchback picture image

Edward Atterton as Gringoire

Speaking in favor of costumes as a whole they do look old. So many times in film and TV, the costumes look new and pristine. For a film like Hunchback this should not be the case, the clothes should look old and worn. This is something that was seen in Robin Hood. But are the costumes good? Meh, they’re average. Nothing is wrong but nothing is really is amazing.

Mandy Patinkin as Quasimodo, 1997 The Hunchback picture image

Mandy Patinkin as Quasimodo

Let’s just get Quasimodo and Frollo out the way. Quasimodo’s look is pretty much stolen from 1939 version. It’s a good Quasimodo look compared to the 1956 version but the Chaney version set a standard for how Quasimodo should look and the 1939 version exceed it, so most versions try to match the 1939 version. This version did and didn’t add anything.

Richard Harris as Frollo, 1997 The Hunchback picture image

Richard Harris as Frollo

Frollo’s costume……..well…………it’s probably the most interesting costume in the whole adaptation. I don’t mean interesting as good thing though. Frollo’s look in the novel was meant to be severe and austere but this version’s Frollo amps it up. He wears a black cowl robe which is what he wears in the novel but the total baldness just makes him look silly. In my 1997 Frollo post I said he looks like Nosferatu from the 1922 movie and he does. It’s too austere of look to take it seriously.

Salma Hayek as Esmeralda, 1997 Hunchback of Notre Dame

Salma Hayek as Esmeralda, 1997 Hunchback of Notre Dame

Then we come to Esmeralda’s main costume. It’s a conventional medieval get-up. She wears a chemise with ties at the sleeves to reveal more arms, a corset and a skirt. The color is mostly shades of red tones however their is multiple colors mixed in the skirt and corset. The skirt itself looks like multiple scarfs that were fused to form a skirt. However the skirt is dyed in a vertical pattern and it seems to be a very light fabric. Though this costume is very inauthentic the different colors does help make it not as boring as it could have been.

Salma Hayek as Esmeralda and Edward Atterton as Gringoire, 1997 Hunchback of Notre Dame picture image

Salma Hayek as Esmeralda and Edward Atterton as Gringoire

 

Unfortunately, this costume is made a little silly by the slave bracelet and the shoes. The shoes are forgivable on a practical sense but Esmeralda should be barefoot and somehow I think this costume would have been better sans the footwear. The Slave bracelet however is just silly. Slave Bracelets are bracelets that attract to a ring by a chain. They are based on Indian jewelry. My guess is the idea of her wearing one was to help push her an exotic beauty but the addition of it looks cheap.

Lady Marian in Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves picture image

Lady Marian in Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves

Esmeraldas’ costume and the one wore by the Phoebus-like guard are very reminiscent of Robin Hood costumes. Esmeralda’s costume with it scarf like skirt is similar to costume wore by Lady Marian. Once I learned that Bloomfeild did both movie my head link these two costumes together. Phoebus-like guard has the same heavy layered and studded armor that was used in Robin Hood and it’s black so you know he bad. However the loose layers in very similar in both films.

Salma Hayek as Esmeralda and Edward Atterton as Gringoire, 1997 The Hunchback picture image

Salma Hayek as Esmeralda and Edward Atterton as Gringoire

The costumes could have been boring but some decisions there were made either made them look good or silly. at best these costume are average to ok nothing more or less.

I just want to say, Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves is like a guilty pleasure of mine, I loved this movie as kid.

Next time; Sets

Sets 1997 Hunchback of Notre Dame picture image

Notre Dame Set in teh 1997 version of Hunchback

Competing Styles; Directing in the 1997 Hunchback

by
Richard Harris as Frollo, 1997 The Hunchback picture harris

Richard Harris as Frollo, yells No!

The 1997 Hunchback was directed Peter Medak. Medak is no stranger to TV movie directing and TV directing in general. The directing in this adaptation is mixture of weird angle frames and total utilitarian shot-verse-shots.

Salma Hayek as Esmeralda, 1997 The Hunchback picture image

Salma Hayek as Esmeralda,

The competing style of the artistic angled frames and the shot-verse-shots makes for an interesting visual style and by that I mean silly. It’s almost like Medak didn’t know what he wanted when composing the frames and the shots. He shot conversational scenes very utilitarian for efficacy and then he got bored and decided to tilt the camera for visual interest. But the weird competing approaches to directing style just make this version look very awkward. I suppose the awkward directing style is a compliment to the awkward writing choices, so at least it’s consistent.

Next Time – Costumes

Salma Hayek as Esmeralda, 1997 Hunchback of Notre Dame, picture image

Salma Hayek as Esmeralda, 1997 Hunchback of Notre Dame

THe 1997 version of Hunchback; Good Casting but bad version

by

The 1997 version of the Hunchback confounds me a lot. You pretty have the right actors for the characters and they do a fairly competent job with material they are given but the material given to them is so wrong for a Hunchback adaptation. It’s clear that this movie was emulating the 1939 Laughton version with the printing press and a very sympathetic Quasimodo but it fails to measure up became the execution is miserable.

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, 1997 The Hunchback picture image

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, 1997 The Hunchback picture image

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, 1997 The Hunchback picture image

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, 1997 The Hunchback picture harris

Richard Harris as Frollo, yells No!

1997 Phoebus: You know that Blond Guard

by
Benedick Blythe as Phoebus, 1997 The Hunchback picture image

Benedick Blythe as Phoebus with Edward Atterton as Gringoire

Phoebus is not a character in the 1997 version of The Hunchback. He is a featured extra who has a few lines but has no importance to the plot. So what does it mean for the story with Phoebus not present in the narrative?

First, it means that there is no noble presence in the characters. Nobles played a bit of a role in the book and in some of the movies. The Film gets around this a little by making the King a slightly bigger character. Not  as big as the 1939 version but he gets few lines. There is also the King’s minster who is the Frollo kills.

It also means Frollo anger isn’t targeted in regards to his lust for Esmeralda. Instead Frollo is being challenged by the minister who is all for the Printing Press. with his resolved weaken Frollo yearns for Esmeralda and when he can’t get her, he kills the minster. And because Frollo used Esmeralda dagger she gets the blame.

This weakens the core of the story as Esmeralda has no reason to kill the minster, unless you count the one line he says dismissing Gypsies as not real people. But the movie doesn’t make bring that up in her trial, so their interaction is nonexistence. It also robs the intensity from Frollo’s lust.

Not having Phoebus also changes Esmeralda’s character. With no other love interest, Esmeralda doesn’t not come off a childish and flighty which suit a standard strong-independent Hayek role well.

 

Can a Hunchback story take place without Phoebus? I suppose it can but I would say that the 1997 version is not a model for how to do it. The killing the minster plot is a weak and sloppy.

Next time – A little by more on the characters

Salma Hayek as Esmeralda, 1997 The Hunchback picture image

Salma Hayek as Esmeralda

1997 Clopin; Fun yet fairly Forgettable

by
Jim Dale as Clopin , 1997 The Hunchback picture image

Jim Dale as Clopin

The Clopin in the 1997 version of The Hunchback is very reminiscent of the Disney version. He is pragmatic and slightly cruel in his ruling approach but he is fun.

 

Jim Dale as Clopin , 1997 The Hunchback picture image

Jim Dale as Clopin

 

This Clopin is fairly standard as far of what is asked of Clopin. He is leader of the Court of Miracles and is cruel to outsiders except for Quasimodo. He uses Esmeralda for distractions but he also enjoy her dancing  over listening to Gringoire. Overall he is one of the more jovial Clopins.

 

Jim Dale as Clopin , 1997 The Hunchback picture image

Jim Dale as Clopin

Unlike other Clopins he doesn’t lead the attack to save Esmeralda. This is because the climax was changed and the assault of Notre Dame follows Quasimodo saving Esmeralda in the middle of the film.   Because he is not involved in attack on Notre Dame, he lives. He and Gringoire do lead a fairly peaceful protest to save Esmeralda and he gives a speech to Nobel’s king in her defense. Other than that he is pretty by the book

 

Jim Dale as Clopin , 1997 The Hunchback picture image

Jim Dale as Clopin

 

Is this a great memorable Clopin? No, can’t say he is.  Is it an identifiable and characteristic Clopin? Yes and that is really all one can really ask for in  an a Hunchback movie version.

Next time – Phoebus….. wait he’s not this movie…is he?

Benedick Blythe as Phoebus, 1997 The Hunchback picture image

Benedick Blythe as Phoebus