The Hunchback of Notre Dame

After Pocahontas didn’t get the audience reaction Disney was hoping for, they decided to release a film based off a Victor Hugo novel. While I’m still waiting for Disney’s version of Les Miserables, their take on The Hunchback of Notre Dame was released June 21, 1996. Starring Tom Hulce, Demi Moore, Tony Jay, Kevin Kline, and Jason Alexander, it only won seven of the 24 awards it was nominated for. It also got a sequel and was featured in Dream Drop Distance.

In medieval Fance, the corrupt Judge Claude Frollo (Jay) once uncovered several gypsies entering Paris. One of them attempted to escape with an unidentified bundled object and Frollo ran her down. He realizes it’s a deformed child and tries to drown it. But he’s stopped by the archdeacon (David Ogden Stiers) and is warned that his sins must be atoned for. Frollo takes the child as his own and names him Quasimodo, making him live hidden in the bell tower of Notre Dame

Twenty years later, Quasimodo desires to leave the cathedral to see the Feast of Fools and does so after receiving encouragement from his gargyle friends (Alexander, Charles Kimbrough, and Mary Wickes). His identity is soon revealed and he is humiliated by the townspeople until he is rescued by Esmerelda (Moore). They become friends and Frollo develops an unsettling lust for her. Frollo hunts her down with the intention of having her for himself or killing her. With the entire city of Paris is at stake, Quasimodo must team up with Captain Phoebus (Kline) to stop him.

The film is tremendously complex, showing how a culture can’t be defined by the actions of a select group. The gypsies are said to be evil thieves and Frollo wants to destroy them. But there’s a celebration devoted to them and he shows up to it. Esmerelda says they’re not all crooks, but when they show up to the Court of Miracles, there’s a lot of stolen stuff. It gets complicated and can raise questions that are left for the viewer to decide. It also explores motive behind intentions. “Hellfire” being a good example for Frollo. Being unable to control his lust, he attributes it to Esmerelda and goes on a psychotic rampage to find the woman of his desire. And when she refuses him, he moves to kill her so she can’t bewitch anyone else. But here’s the thing. He knows it’s his fault, but goes through it anyway. Proof? The cloaked figures in the song sing “Mea Culpa, Mea Maximus Culpa,” Latin for “through my fault, my most grievous fault,” showing that he knows he screwed up, but since he’s convinced himself he’s so righteous, it can’t be fault. And his leitmotif happens to be “Kyrie Eleison,” Greek for “Lord have mercy,” which shows he wants mercy from God because he knows he’s truly at fault. That’s even outright stated in the song.

That brings me to say, Frollo may be one of Disney’s most human villains. He’s got his issues and does terrible things. But with every one of them, he seeks to justify it and show that he’s really doing the right thing and is actually a good person. Unlike villains like Ratigan who are aware of how evil they are, but don’t care who knows it, Frollo thinks himself to be good with everybody else on the wrong side if they don’t consider himself to be so. The only ones who really believe him stop buying into it in the end too.

Which is what makes two of the other main characters so good. Quasimodo blindly obeys Frollo because it’s really all he’s known. Also, he’s a pushover due to Frollo’s asserting dominance. Once he realizes Frollo is full of it, he stops putting up with it and starts fighting back. And it’s well done. Also Phoebus. In the beginning, he’s Frollo’s pawn. He says he’s against injustice, but never really speaks out about it, instead providing opposition under the radar. It’s only until after he saves a family from being murdered that he understands what Frollo is like without true opposition and seeks to be more overt about it.

Esmerelda also gets a small amount of development. Because of what she’s endured, she doesn’t trust and always ready to defend or attack. But after Quasimodo and Phoebus step in for her, she starts to trust them and her exterior softens. Though the ensuing romance is not as strong as it could be, not having her fall in love with Quasimodo is an interesting choice. It’s like the film is telling us that platonic relationships are just as good as a romantic relationship.  

Unfortunately though, the gargoyles stop this from being a perfect movie. For three quarters of the film, it’s implied that everything they do is in Quasimodo’s head. He imagines the song and everything they do. This would be a great way to capture the film’s comic relief. However, they take place in the final battle and it can’t be explained by Quasimodo imagining it. There’s just too much affecting the world around them.

#11