Author: By Jack Thomas
Date: 02/03/1982
Always on the lookout for
good monster flicks and stories about the universal loneliness of mankind, the movie
industry has been churning out versions of Victor Hugo's magnificent novel about the
Hunchback of Notre Dame at the rate of about one every seven years. There
are six in all, beginning in 1917 with a silent version starring Theda Bara, and followed
by remakes in 1923 (Lon Chaney), 1939 (Charles Laughton and Maureen O'Hara), 1957 (Anthony
Quinn and Gina Lollobrigida), and in 1976 with a television movie (Warren Clarke).
The
most recent and most ambitious version of "The Hunchback of Notre Dame" will be
shown tonight (Channel 7 at 9), a $4.5-million production starring Anthony Hopkins in the
title role; Derek Jacobi as the degenerate Archdeacon Dom Claude Frollo; Lesley-Anne Down as the beautiful gypsy
dancer, Esmeralda; Robert Powell as Phoebus, captain of the Royal Archers; and
John Gielgud
as Charmolue, the official torturer of the courts.
Set in
15th-century Paris, "The Hunchback of Notre Dame" is a tale of gloom, doom and
evil deeds, the story of a grotesque wretch named Quasimodo, a tormented, forlorn misfit
who has been deafened by years of toil as the bellringer at the great Cathedral of Notre
Dame.
The beauty
of Esmeralda sets in motion a string of events that leads to tragedy. Esmeralda is loved or
lusted after by four men - the archbishop, the captain of the guards, a poet, and, finally,
Quasimodo, whose affection for her is awakened one day when she offers him a drink of water
after he had been whipped at the pillory.
First, the
bad news about tonight's film. As usual,
when the film industry adapts a novel to the screen, the writers have taken too many
liberties with the original, and as a result, the tone has been altered drastically. Worse,
in an apparent effort to satisfy what they perceive to be a need on the part of Americans
for happy endings to works of fiction, they have rewritten the conclusion of the story.
Hugo's
novel is literature of tremendous force, with characters that stamp themselves in memory,
and with scenes that haunt the imagination. Culturally,
it is dangerous business for television to be making drastic changes in traditional
literature. Because
television is a more powerful medium than the printed word, and because more people will see tonight's movie than will read the book,
filmmakers have the power to pollute the original work. Eventually,
we reach a point where mention of "The Hunchback of Notre Dame" no longer
conjures memories of what Hugo wrote, but rather what viewers will see
tonight.
There are,
nevertheless, strong qualities in tonight's movie.
"The
Hunchback of Notre Dame" is a variation of the story of the beast and the beauty. Like
the stage and movie versions of "The Elephant Man," it focuses on the flaw in
human beings that makes us recoil at superficial ugliness.
Although
the Elephant Man's deformities were left to the imagination of viewers, the Hunchback is
presented in such detail, both in print and on the screen, that he is considered one of the
most grotesque characters in literature. In film, he becomes one of the greatest challenges
to a makeup artist. In his role
as Quasimodo, the gentle man imprisoned within the hideous body of a hunchback, Hopkins is
as sensitive as he is ugly. Hopkins, by the way, portrayed the doctor in the movie version
of "The Elephant Man," which also focused on the beauty that can live beneath
ugliness.
Because the
makeup of Hopkins took five hours, there were mornings when he was required to report to
the set at 3 a.m. Movie buffs will concede, though, that in the technical sense at least,
he surpasses all previous Hunchbacks.
Some of
that makeup might have been applied to Lesley-Anne Down, who looks too much like the
sophisticated Georgina she played in "Upstairs, Downstairs," and not enough like
a 15th-century gypsy who had been dragged through the ditches that lie along the broad
highway of life.
The
screenwriter for tomorrow night's movie is one of the busiest, John Gay, who has three
other films on television during January and February. He is responsible for "The Long
Summer of George Adams," last month, "A Piano for Mrs. Cimino" tonight, and
"Ivanhoe," an adaptation of Sir Walter Scott's novel on Feb. 23.
Other
credits include movies such as "No Way To Treat a Lady," "The
Courtship of
Eddie's Father," and "Separate Tables," which brought him an
Oscar
nomination. His television plays include "A Tale of Two Cities,"
"Les Miserables," "The Amazing Howard Hughes," "Captains
Courageous," "Stand By Your Man" and "Berlin Tunnel 21."
Because
Paris today is crowded with 20th-century distractions such as telephone poles and
television antennae, "The Hunchback of Notre Dame" was shot at Pinewood Studios
near London, where a set was constructed that included a 15th-century Paris neighborhood
and a replica of the Cathedral of Notre Dame.
The
attention to detail is obvious, and the backdrop wonderfully evocative of Paris in the
Middle Ages. There are scenes that will remind you of Rembrandt. Beware of
tonight's conclusion, though, because it lacks the poignancy of the novel.
Tonight's
movie, for the most part, ends happily. By
contrast, Hugo provided a stunning, unforgettable final page of such gothic horror that
anyone who has read it can never forget it.
Out of
respect for Hugo, his conclusion is summarized here so that you may compare it with what
you see on television tonight and judge for yourself whether, in the rewriting of classical
novels, television is exceeding its cultural prerogative.
In Hugo's
version, Esmeralda is hanged. Quasimodo,
blaming the archbishop, hurls him from the tower of Notre Dame. The bishop catches a
gargoyle and clings to it for what seems like eternity, then weakens and falls to his
death. Esmeralda's
body is thrown into a pit where the remains of criminals are left to rot. Quasimodo
disappears. Two years
later, while searching among the hideous carcasses, workers are startled to discover two
skeletons, the one clasped in the arms of the other.
One has
gypsy beads and is presumed to be the bones of Esmeralda.
The other
skeleton is that of a man, and workers noted that the spine was crooked, the skull
compressed between the shoulder blades, and that one leg was shorter than the other.
Because
there was no damage to the neck, it was obvious the man had not been hanged, and the
workers concluded, therefore, that the man must have come to the pit himself, and died
there. "When
they attempted to detach this skeleton from the one it was embracing," wrote Hugo in
his final paragraph, "it fell to dust."