Let me break into this with a bit of an explanation. Watching Disney movies has become a bedtime ritual for two kids I regularly babysit, and over the past three months, I’ve seen around 20 infamous gems of Disney’s Masterpiece collection. Translation: I’m getting paid to watch the classic films I grew up with. Anyways, the Hunchback of Notre Dame was yesterday’s “entertainment” –although I fail to remember watching or enjoying it as a child. Its dark themes and rounded character development set it apart from the innumerable pack and, like so many other Disney films, it boasts an applause-worthy score and an arsenal of original songs. So maybe Disney isn’t “your thing” – and that’s perfect – because this picture, happy ending aside, is radically unlike any other film in the cannon. The Hunchback of Notre Dames strays from the generic formulas of the past and into the realms of 14A ratings. Whether that’s good or not, I’ll leave the judging to you. It’s symbolic, dark, stylized, and in my opinion, a completely inappropriate film.
The story centres the intertwining lives of four Paris residents from apposing classes and upbringings. The title character Quasimodo (Tom Hulce) retains a golden personality hidden behind a face that only a mother could love – too bad antagonist Frollo (Tony Jay) kills her after two minutes of screen time and no lines. Now raised by his morally corrupt master, Frollo, Quasimodo is shut away in the bell tower where he learns he is an unlovable, eternally dammed abomination. But when the once-a-year Festival of Fools takes over Paris, he eludes his prison for the first time to attend. There, he meets Esmeralda (Demi Moore), a beautiful free-spirited gypsy who catches his eye – as well as Frollos and newly appointed captain-of-the-guard Phoebus’s (Kevin Kline). However this is where all similarities to Disney’s proceeding and subsequent films end. If you wish to preserve their pure and wholesome image in your mind, please do not read on. Quasimodo, extremely graphically, is publically tortured and humiliated. When Esmeralda frees him, Frollo orders her arrest. Phoebus, being Frollos second-hand-man, must reluctantly aid in her capture despite developing feelings for her. Frollo, while appalled by her nerve to publically challenge his authority, retains a self-destructive, growing sexual obsession for Esmeralda, which he attributes to her “witchcraft”. The once-vibrate city is soon undermined to smoke and coal under the rule of its fraudulent Catholic leader – who longs to purge the world of those who persist to live outside his norms. As Quasimodo, Esmeralda and Phoebus form an unlikely friendship, they flee to the Court of Miracles – a safe haven for outcasts, gypsies and fugitives – a shelter Frollo and his army have been searching to destroy for over 20 years.
At the hands of the films mature and controversial issues, I almost forgot it was an animated feature geared toward a child audience. The Hunchback of Notre Dame, through song and imagery, tackles the issue of “what makes a monster and what makes a man” delving into the time old struggle of inner verses outer beauty – appearances vs. personality, morals and beliefs. It accomplishes the lesson through, what is arguably, Disney’s most developed lineup of leading characters. Quasimodo is a relatable outcast born into an undesirable fate that any audience could empathize with. He is kind, honest and likable – without unrealistically overdoing it. Frollo, on the other hand, is corrupt, manipulative and malicious, worsened by the fact that he is in a position of power where the cities inhabitants, as well as he himself, truly believe he is an ethical, responsible leader. Ultimately, Frollo manages to inflict unimaginable pain and suffering on Quasimodo without ever laying a finger on him. Esmeralda is an admirable free-spirit, literally willing to die before she conforms to immoralities while Phoebus is that blonde hair, blue eyed tall war hero guy that everyone wants to be. He’s more of a stereotype than the others, but he does earn bonus points for being one of Disney’s only protagonists to serve a major comedic function.
Among all the things displayed in the Hunchback of Notre Dame, there are quite a few lessons of hope, courage, and perseverance. Quasimodo is truly self-sacrificing – he risks his life, multiple times, for a girl he knows will never love him back. While some may argue this only teaches kids that nice (and ugly) guys finish last, I disagree. Getting the girl is not synonymous with a happy ending, and it’s nice to finally see a movie that shows that. As for relationships, Esmeralda and Phoebus (spoiler alert, sorry) enjoyed a realistic one. They actually had similarities and communication to build a relationship on, and at the end of the film, were not frantically rushing to tie the knot. Love does not happen over a Montague in a single day, but this is unfortunately becoming something most animated films fail to acknowledge.
Academy Award winner Alan Menken’s original score is haunting and powerful, contrasting many of the film’s upbeat original songs. Narrator Clopin (Paul Kandel) has the unique ability to sing incredibly high, incredibly low, and incredibly fast, while Tom Hulce lends his voice to The Hunchback in a sad number expressing the grief of his isolation. But perhaps the most unique is Hellfire, in which Frollo struggles with his obsession for Esmeralda, declaring “she will be mine, or she will burn”. Yikes. And from here we transition to the “cons” of The Hunchback of Notre Dame.
I’ll just go ahead and say it: who exactly was this movie geared towards? Its premise could be condensed into three simple words: Frollo wants Esmeralda. THIS IS NOT APPROPRIATE FOR CHILDREN! I personally felt uncomfortable watching it – due mostly to the fact that a 5- and 7-year-old were in the room. I’m sure Frollo gave them nightmares as well. Anyways, all I’m trying to say is that if we’re sticking with the mature themes, making a live action version would appeal to a more appropriate audience. But when you’re grouping The Hunchback of Notre Dame with films like Beauty and the Beast and The Little Mermaid, you may want to cut out the racy parts and replace them with scenes universally appealing and appropriate. My next issue was with the Gargoyles, who were basically an irritating failed attempt at comic relief. Esmeralda’s mute side-kick goat was funnier, which is somewhat sad. And lastly, like most Disney films, The Hunchback of Notre Dame contained a disproportionate amount of night-and-day irregularities. That is, for example, it is bright at the “Festivals of Fools” – but when Quasimodo is tortured and Esmeralda is fleeing Frollo’s soldiers, it is suddenly dark and eerie. Of course, the daylight resumes once the action cesses. This pattern – harmless and virtually unnoticeable – also repeats itself in the climax.
I am ambivalent. In terms of character development and sub-plot structure, I guess you could call it cinematic masterpiece – but when it comes to the universal appeal and suitability that built the empire, it’s a downright catastrophe. By being attached to the Disney cannon, The Hunchback of Notre Dame false-advertises itself. Those who can appreciate the mature themes will likely not find themselves watching a “children’s” movie, while kids are perhaps unable to decipher the film’s “brilliance”. Simply put, it’s smart, stylized, dark and disturbing – and while it may not be for you (or me), The Hunchback of Notre Dame crossed the line into radically unique and controversial territory. And for that alone, it is commended.
By: Kirsten Gopie
No comments:
Post a Comment