The 1997 version of Quasimodo is very much a throwback to Charles Laughton’s depiction in the 1939 version. There are some differences to the character but the focus of this Quasimodo is very much sympathetic and heavy on the pathos.
Quasimodo in this version is softer and sweeter than in the past versions. There is no darkness to him, even Disney Quasimodo was darker than this version. He is the only Quasimodo not to be a part of the kidnap attempt instead was trying to help. He is also the only Quasimodo to be an intellectual, having read every book in the Notre Dame’s library. His sad sweetness mingled with his intelligence makes him likable.
Mandy Patinkin also does a great job at portraying Quasimodo. He gives a great physical performance as well as an emotional one. In particular I love his walk.
Despite his likeability, he’s little boring. He’s too generically nice. If he had an edge or had arc it would have made him interesting but in taking way him kidnapping Esmeralda it ruins the pillory scene and robs Quasimodo of his arc of trusting Frollo 100%.
This Quasimodo could have been great, the performance was great but the interest of the character was made void but him being too nice and sweet.
Next time; FrolloFollow thehunchblog
And they picked some really good actors…Old Wizard from Harry Potter, Rube from Dead Like Me and Selma Hayek. It’s a shame, because the actors can only do so much with a lousy script and either too much or lack of direction.
I even sort of remember when this first aired on TNT back in ’97 and how cool it seemed. It also had a “making of” segment right before the movie. Back then I had a bed time and I didn’t get to stay up and watch the whole movie.
This had the potential to be a relatively decent adaptation, but for some reason there is almost no character development…which makes the movie kind of boring.
It really is boring. It’s really a shame because it has almost everything to be decent but the script is awful