Loading ... Loading ... Loading ...(a Note-This is a little off-the cuff and I’m sleepy as I’m writing this (it’s like 2am))
Apparently the universe wants me to look bad because now that did I post where I did a “check-in” to show nothing was happening on the Brolin’s vanity project a.k.a Brolin’s Hunchback movie there is some actual news of the on Josh Brolin’s Hunchback other than an adjective. Now the film is called “Quasimodo” (excuse me while I gag a bit). It seems like Zhang Yimou will taking the helm on this project. Zhang directed Hero, House Of Flying Daggers
I have to say I’m glad Tim Burton isn’t directing “Quasimodo” though frankly I wouldn’t have cared if he did. I would love to have seen how he made everything all black and white and quirky. Zhang does seem to have his own style but I hope the film isn’t a action martial art movie but with pretty imagery. But given the Brolin’s interviews, Brolin himself, the script by the Sherlock Holmes writers, and now the director, I think this is going to be a Hunchback movie that will have an inappropriate amount of action in it. But to tell you the true I’m more caught up in the name “Quasimodo.” The Hunchback of Notre Dame is bad enough robbing the original titular characters of Esmeralda and the cathedral but at least there is an air of mystery to it, but these singular one word titles are meant to sound all epic. Plus this whole movie is Brolin’s vanity project and he can’t let anyone forget that like ever. He is this movie. Oh, why couldn’t have been a better actor’s vanity project?
I’m not sure if my expectations are lower or up a little from this news. Maybe the promise of director who has made some lovely movies has up it but the dumb title has made it go crashing down. Actually, I take it back, I have don’t have any expectations for this movie really. I hope it’s bad, It’s more fun for me if it is.
Source; http://www.firstshowing.net/2013/hero-director-zhang-yimou-to-direct-quasimodo-starring-josh-brolin/
Josh Brolin Interview for Men in Black
Let’s check in and see how the “Jazzy” and “Funky” Brolin version of The Hunchback of Notre Dame is going……
Google Search on The Josh Brolin Version of Hunchback
Nothing since May 2012! In all seriousness, Brolin is going to be in new movie. It’s a disaster movie that takes place on Mt.Everest. He is going to be in Spike Lee’s remake of Oldboy which slated to come out in Novmeber. So when he start promoting Oldboy maybe he will add the word “hip” to describe his Hunchback movie. And when he is promoting the Everest movie he will introduced the word “Spicy” into the mix. So we’ll have a Jazzy, Funky, Hip, Spicy version of The Hunchback of Notre Dame.
KamaSutra; A Tale of Love DVD cover
A film that has similar elements to the Hunchback is the 1996 movie KamaSutra; A Tale of Love
Indira Varma as Maya, KamaSutra; A Tale of Love
First off, It’s an about a young women names Maya (Indira Varma) who has studied dancing. We have a young beautiful dancer, though Maya isn’t the prude as Esmeralda is.
Khalid Tyabji as Biki, KamaSutra; A Tale of Love
Second, we have a Hunchback who is not too good this the ladies. The Hunchback who is a prince in this movie. Is in love with Maya. He is no where near as devote as Quasimodo.
Ramon Tikaram as Jai Kumar, KamaSutra; A Tale of Love
Third, we have two guys in love with Maya (in addition to the Hunchback prince). One is an artist who loves her more in a human way.
Indira Varma as Maya and Naveen Andrews as Raj Singh, KamaSutra; A Tale of Love
The other is King who is obsessed with her. He even says his mood depend solely on her, which is true. When she rejects him even though she is his courtesan he get depressed and more dependent on opium. He is where near as complex or as interesting as Frollo.
Indira Varma as Maya and Naveen Andrews as Raj Singh, KamaSutra; A Tale of Love
These similarities are coincidental and I highly doubt that KamaSutra; A Tale of Love was even remotely influenced by Hunchback but still the similar elements are striking.
KamaSutra; A Tale of Love isn’t the greatest movie in the world but it’s pretty and enjoyable.
Derek Jacobi as Frollo, 1982 Hunchback of Notre Dame
The 1982 version
Derek Jacobi as Frollo, 1982 Hunchback of Notre Dame
However, the way this movie handles his relationship with Esmeralda is weird. First off, Frollo never sees Esmeralda dancing. I’m going to repeat that, Frollo never sees Esmeralda dancing. That is a HUGE oversight. Her free-spirited dancing and radiance is what captured him. Instead he sees her being arrested for dancing and is enchanted. It’s not too far-off but it’s just wrong for both characters. Although I will get more into Esmeralda and her “dancing” when we get to her.
Lesley-Anne Down as Esmeralda & Derek Jacobi as Frollo, 1982 Hunchback of Notre Dame
Frollo is also more forceful towards her. When Frollo is a judge this force makes a level of sense but as Priest the approach-avoid conflict should be part of this dynamic with Esmeralda. In this version he lets her off-the-hook for dancing, which is apparently a no-no. And the when she is arrested again she is brought to him for his consent to take her to Bastille (I don’t know why this would happen). However he offers her sanctuary and she goes along with it. He brings her to a room where he makes attempt for sex. She runs off and Quasimodo tries to bring her back. So in the course of a few hours Frollo goes though all the moments that in the books took him months of suffering to reach.
Derek Jacobi as Frollo, 1982 Hunchback of Notre Dame
Also he tries to buy Esmeralda from Gringoire for 40 gold crowns. I’m not sure how much that would be today because to my understanding a crown is an English silver coin. But it probably was a sizable amount. However Frollo offering to buy is quite silly but at least the scene is alluded to again when Gringoire is trying to get Frollo to help him save Esmeralda so I overlook the absurdity of then scene.
Derek Jacobi as Frollo & Lesley-Anne Down as Esmeralda, 1982 Hunchback of Notre Dame
Let’s talk about his looks. Derek Jacobi makes a great Frollo but that wig, that wig makes him look like a dork. Jacobi’s Frollo may have the most hair of any Frollo, which considering the character is bald with tuffs of hair isn’t a good thing. It’s just 100% dork salad bowl cut. Also he doesn’t have that angular austere look that Frollo should have.
Derek Jacobi as Frollo & Lesley-Anne Down as Esmeralda, 1982 Hunchback of Notre Dame
However, despite all that this version tweaks and weirdness, there is jail scene where Frollo bares his soul to her. Is it perfect? No, the scene has its flaws and is not as powerful as the book. But its there and that is more than most of the other versions have.
Derek Jacobi as Frollo & Lesley-Anne Down as Esmeralda, 1982 Hunchback of Notre Dame
All in all the 82 version of Frollo is commendable. It didn’t get all the facets of his complex character but it tries and does fine job communicating it. I think the credit has to given to Jacobi for his portrayal because he really works to sell this Frollo. So it’s an almost a fantastic depiction but not quite.
Next 1982 Review Post; Esmeralda
Lesley-Anne Down as Esmeralda, 1982 Hunchback of Notre Dame
I don’t know why but this made me chuckle so much.
Samantha Barks would make a great Esmeralda (she’s on my casting list since I saw Le Mis)
Question; Why does Disney act like Hunchback of Notre Dame never happened?
To be fair, there is another Disney film Disney ignores more famously than The Hunchback of Notre Dame and that would be The Black Cauldron
The Hunchback of Notre Dame Blu-Ray Cover
The Hunchback of Notre Dame received mostly positive reviews from critics and actually was a box-office success as its budget was $100 million and its gross revenue was $325.5 million, although it did barely only broke-even domestically. So with this info why does Disney ignore The Hunchback of Notre Dame? The Hunchback doesn’t have the levels of products as a lot of the other films in the Disney pantheon and looking at Disney’s presence on Zazzle, they don’t have a single Hunchback product but they do have stuff for Treasure Planet, which bombed at the box-office. Then you have the blu-ray of Hunchback
Disney Princess Kitchen Set
(Does anyone else think this is Hilarious?)
I would theorize that the reason why Disney ignores the Hunchback stems from they don’t know who to market this movie to. The film didn’t really appeal to children which is Disney’s primary demographic. The film’s darker tones and the more heavy subject matter more likely distances children for it. If the film has done better with their key demographic we would more than likely see Esmeralda* in the Disney Princess Brand and her face would grace the likes of blenders, bed sheets, bikes, shoes, baby dolls, chairs, ect. (They make a lot stuff for that brand). *Before you say Esmerald can’t be part of the Princess Brand as she is not a Princess, Mulan is not a Princess nor does she marry a Prince and yet she is part of the Brand, here is a Muan Baby Doll
The Art of the Hunchback of Notre Dame
As a company Disney is not going to put money in developing products for a film that didn’t appeal to its core demographic after its initial release. As Hunchback is part of the Disney family it did get it’s entitled blu-ray treatment but Disney did extended any extra effort into the extras which would have cost them. More then likely when Hercules‘ blu-ray comes out it will get extras because had more appeal to children. Plus it would seem that Hunchback’s popular is recent so if starts to gain a big enough following Disney will start showing it love. But It’s a two-street, Disney may think the Hunchback blu-ray failed because people dislike the movie and not because there no real incentive to buy it when the DVD has extras and blu ray doesn’t.
I think the question is why doesn’t the Hunchback of Notre Dame really appeal as much to children and who is does this movie appeal to? Maybe if Disney has a demographic to target they would show Hunchback a little more love.
Lesley-Anne Down as Esmeralda, 1982 Hunchback of Notre Dame
Pretty much the 1982 version follows the 1939 model of how to tell this story. However the 1982 version doesn’t dive into social commentary the same way. The blight of Gypsies is not an issue and Esmeralda doesn’t concern herself social inequality. Esmeralda’s main concerns are not getting arrested, marrying Phoebus and keeping Frollo off of her.
Derek Jacobi as Frollo & Lesley-Anne Down as Esmeralda, 1982 Hunchback of Notre Dame
Frollo is also different than his 1939 incarnation. For one thing, in the 1982 version he is a priest and has no younger brother. Also he is a little more forward, instead of staring at her he basically tries to get with Esmeralda in the first 20 minutes. He went right to lust. But this version has a decent jail scene so point in its favor. Although I would point out that having Frollo bring Esmeralda into Notre Dame after she gets arrested for dancing and then trying to seduce her robs a bit from the jail scene when Esmeralda asks why he hates her. Esmeralda in the book was scared of Frollo and Frollo’s interaction with her was very limited to no existent. In this movie he is not really acting hateful toward Esmeralda. He acting confused and desperate but he was acting fairly nice toward till he tried touch her and she ran off. So Esmerald questioning him was tad on the unnecessary side.
Lesley-Anne Down as Esmeralda & Gerry Sundquist as Gringoire, 1982 Hunchback of Notre Dame
Since the social concerns are not presence in this movie Gringoire has little else to do but moon over Esmeralda, although like in 1939 version he and Esmeralda do fall in love and leave together at the end.
The Death of Frollo, 1982 Hunchback of Notre Dame
Speaking of the end, Quasimodo kills Frollo in self- defense by impaling him on a nail. This…..this ……is not cool movie. While I get that the self-defense angle, impaling Frollo on a nail is A) stupid and anti-climactic and B) having Frollo fall from Notre Dame is a powerful metaphor. My guess the reason why Frollo dies in this manner is the budget but still shame.
Anthony Hopkins as Quasimodo, 1982 Hunchback of Notre Dame
Quasimodo is pretty much the same from 1939 version, Hopkins plays him very sympathetic but it works.
David Suchet as Clopin, 1982 Hunchback of Notre Dame
Clopin is not fun in this version, He is very conniving. He is not to concern about anything other than survival.
Robert Powell as Phoebus & Lesley-Anne Down as Esmeralda, 1982 Hunchback of Notre Dame
Phoebus is depicted as huge womanizing jerk who is married in this version. Another strange addition to this version is Frollo offering to buy Esmeralda from Gringoire.
Lesley-Anne Down as Esmeralda & Derek Jacobi as Frollo, 1982 Hunchback of Notre Dame
This version plays the story out pretty conventionally. It doesn’t make too many big annoying changes to the plot. The changes they make are small and mostly the impact the characters.
So let’s dive deeper into those characters, let’s start with the heart and soul of the movie; Frollo
Derek Jacobi as Frollo, 1982 Hunchback of Notre Dame
Anthony Hopkins as Quasimodo, 1982 Hunchback of Notre Dame
The 1982 version of The Hunchback of Notre Dame was a US made for TV movie. It was made 4 years after the 1977 version was released the US in 1978. It’s part of the Hallmark Hall of Fame series. It starred Anthony Hopkins and Derek Jacobi as Quasimodo and Frollo. Most of the cast is made up of British actors.
Anthony Hopkins as Quasimodo & Lesley-Anne Down as Esmeralda, 1982 Hunchback of Notre Dame
Pretty much this movie plays out like the 1939 version but without King Louis and the modernity angle and the blight the Gypsies in Paris. And it follows the book a bit more than the 1939 version but there a lot differences from.
Derek Jacobi as Frollo & Lesley-Anne Down as Esmeralda, 1982 Hunchback of Notre Dame
So, is this good version, an adequate version, or terrible awful version? Let’s Jump in, shall we?
Next 1982 Post – Let’s look at that plot
Lesley-Anne Down as Esmeralda, 1982 Hunchback of Notre Dame
Anthony Hopkins as Quasimodo from the 1982 version of The Hunchback of Notre Dame
The 1982 version a.k.a The Anthony Hopkins version.