My Own Personal Nerdy Disney and Animation Scrutinizing Analyses
Hi folks! Welcome to my My Own Personal Nerdy Disney and Animation Scrutinizing Analysis blog. A blog where I'm analyzing several Disney films, Disney or Animation in general! These entries are just meant to be my analyses. Not reviews or statements. Just fun analyses! Though I'll make some personal remarks now and then, the content of these entries are meant to be depicted objectively. They're made for entertainment purpose only and the pictures/clips are copyright Disney or other companies.
Make sure to leave a comment if you like this site! And if there's something you think could be improved, please let me know. But in a constructive way, please. And just a note; I'm not a Native English writer, so my incorrect grammar may be notable.
And finally; If you haven't seen the films, beware of
spoilers! And the funny lines aren't meant to be nothing than funny. So I
hope you won't find them offensive. If so, I apologize
THE HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME
Disney's The Hunchback of Notre Dame. A genuine Disney masterpiece or a serious misstep by the House of Mouse?
Being a kid in the mid-nineties and being very interested in Disney, I remember watching Disney's The Hunchback of Notre Dame theatrically during it's release. It was the summer of 1996 and I was eleven years old and looked forward to Disney's next release! And I remember being completely blown away by it! The gorgeous animation, which almost looked real at times (for an eleven year old, anyway)! The engaging and compelling characters (which were the best thing about this movie for me). The thrilling and captivating music! And just like with my other favorite Disney films at the time, I became obsessed by it!
But there's no doubt that Victor Hugo's Notre Dame de Paris wasn't exactly a likely subject for a Disney movie! It was a risk for them! Mainly because Hunchback was a venture into adult literature, as opposed to adapting children stories, which Disney are usually associated with. However, Disney weren't the first to animate Hunchback, though! An low budget Australian version was made in 1986 and was surprisingly more faithful to Hugo's version. But considering how Disney's are usually associated with their sanitized Disneyfication and cute components, they were in hot water by adapting Hunchback!
As we Disney fans know, Disney is usually true to their legacy and to their components. But Michael Eisner wanted to take a risk and break some rules by incorporating the controversial components from the book (according to David Koenig's revealing Disney book, Mouse Under Glass, which certainly is a must-read for Hunchback fans, since there's information there about Hunchback which can't be found elsewhere).
David Stainton, a Disney junior development executive, came up with the suggestion of adapting Notre Dame de Paris. After having read a faithful comic book version of the novel as a child, he was passionate about the idea, but depicted it as a love story with Cyrano de Bergerac undertones.
 |
So what went wrong with Hunchback?
Tonal Inconsistency
As much as I love the film, I'll confess that it's deeply flawed because of it's tonal inconsistency. To quote a former IMDb-user; "The movie is zig-zagging between juvenile, awkward comedy and dark and controversial themes, without fulfilling neither". And that's really the main problem with Hunchback. Besides being not completely faithful to the novel, it's rather faithful to the Disney roots and components, while trying to incorporate the controversial and adult themes. |
| It's a cartoon, so we can have Valentine's Day here :) Ignore the time period |
But the real flaw is how the contradicting components come at expense of each other! Just think about it; Djali stagging Phoebus' (Kevin Kline) butt right before Frollo (Tony Jay) grabs Esmeralda and harasses her sexually. The placement of A Guy Like You! And not to forget the cartoony jokes during the comedic part of the climax! Some reviewers has declared that Hunchback illustrates the best and the worst of Disney from the nineties and it's easy to agree on that statement. Hunchback does indeed have some of Disney's very best moments (in my opinion), but also some of Disney's very worst cringe-worthy moments.
 | |||||
| A story about sexual lust, prejudices and religious hypocrisy! Sounds like the right ingredients for a party! |
All of this makes Hunchback a quite controversial and radical film. Of course this doesn't apply to the whole film, since there are parts that are definitively just comedic and parts that are pure darkness. But it never becomes across as quite cohesive as a whole. I know it and you know it. This is Disney's take on Hunchback after all, so a certain a user-friendliness is inevitable. It's not as Disney haven't explored dark and adult themes before it. Heck, Walt's films had some dark elements, as well as some of the films after his post-Death (The Rescuers, The Black Cauldron).
Hunchback Being Shaped Into the Disney 90`s Formula
But looking closer on this subject, would've Hunchback benefited from not being a 90's Disney film?
All of the features Disney films from the nineties followed a similar template. With the exception of the underrated and overlooked Rescuers Down Under and Fantasia 2000, all of the 90's films were musicals about a loner/outcast and featured a love interest, goofy sidekicks and a villain. It's safe to claim that they were all similar. Hunchback is reminiscent to Beauty and the Beast, not only to it's theme, but in various other aspects; (it's openings, both villains falling to it's demise and several other details).
It also has several nods to Aladdin as well; Esmeralda comes across as a female version of Aladdin (raised in the streets and persecuted by the local guards). And Frollo comes across as a Gothic version of Jafar. The scene where Quasimodo (Tom Hulce) shows Esmeralda his home is reminiscent from the same scene in Aladdin. And if you'll could go even further in Disney comparisons, Frollo comes across as a male version of Lady Tremaine in Cinderella (at least design-wise) and a human version of Prince John in Robin Hood (considering that both latter are Medieval villains in high positions, in my opinion).
   |
The Villain
Probably the main attraction for Hunchback is it's villain, Claude Frollo, who almost serves as a semi-lead in this movie. The filmmakers clearly wanted his passion for Esmeralda to be his main motivator for his actions, as it was in the original book. Frollo is indeed the most complex and adult character in the film and clearly a character that the Hunchback crew enjoyed working on (according to The Art of Hunchback book). He's definitively one of the favorite characters by Hunchback fans, thanks to 
Tony Jay's brilliant performance and Kathy Zielinskis brilliant animation (though Andreas Deja was initially offered to supervise Frollo, he wanted rather to supervise Esmeralda, who already was offered to Tony Fucile).
Tony Jay's brilliant performance and Kathy Zielinskis brilliant animation (though Andreas Deja was initially offered to supervise Frollo, he wanted rather to supervise Esmeralda, who already was offered to Tony Fucile).
But in the La'Jolla stage version, Frollo has been given a more human and gentler side (it's notable that it took so long to make an American stage version, due to it's German debut, but that's because the European audience embraced Hunchback more than the American one).
At least Disney changed Frollo's role from a priest to a feared Jugde, mainly to avoid controversy (in a rare Disney movie which is devoted to Catholic/Christian religion). The sexual tension is really the reason why fans worship Hunchback, but it's tempting to wonder how the film would have been if the filmmakers decided to exclude Frollo's sexual tension completely.
 |
| Oh, I just noticed that you're old enough to be my Ancestor and your nose is too twisted, so I'll have to let you go :) |
The Wrong Rating
One of the huge controversies surrounding Hunchback that it never got a PG rating when it clearly deserved it! According to Mouse Under Glass, Disney softed down some elements to earn the G rating. There are definitively moments in Hunchback that breaks the Disney convention and some of them quite traumatizing! I'll say the death of Quasi's mother really shocked me when I saw this film as a kid (in the great opening). Some have been traumatized by the humiliation of Quasi, but there are other noteworthy moments. As Frollo's sexual harassment of Esmeralda (which was storyboarded by Kathy Zielinski, believe it or not).
Hellfire
And let's not forget Hellfire (who integrates cues from The Bells of Notre Dame)! And I shall be honest with you, guys. When I was a kid, It never questioned what the song was about. But it's with no doubt the least kid-friendly song on the soundtrack and therefore many's favorite (unsurprisingly enough). Just look at all the views it has on YouTube!
And a remarkable story: During it's release, I remember visiting a mall where there was a convention of this movie and Hellfire was actually played through the whole mal. And yes, there were many kids on this convention, although I unfortunately can't remember their reaction to it. But if you've payed attention to the audio/video merchandise that was released in 1996, you'll notice that Hellfire is excluded, haha! With the exception of the official soundtrack, though.
Hellfire is indeed controversial, but according to the audio commentary for the film, the directors and crew really supported the song and liked the execution of the sequence. The Parisian/Italian brothers Paul and Gaëtan Brizzi storyboarded the sequence and were initially afraid of the reactions, but were met with applause!
And kudos to Stephen Schwartz for writing a song about sexual lust, shame and damnation in a quite subtle and non-explicit way!
According to Mouse Under Glass (yes, you'll read references to this book a lot during this entry), the final lyrics were toned down. But it's not that Disney haven't written controversial lyrics before! Just look at the lyrics from Savages from Pocahontas and how surprisingly hard-hitting they were! Schwartz was a lyricist who pushed Disney in a gritty direction. But let's not forget that Howard Ashman was doing the same, proven with the original lyrics for Arabian Nights from Aladdin, which were explicit and were demanded to be changed.
Disney`s Previous Hints of Sexuality
It's not as Hunchback was Disney's first attempt to include sexuality! Just remember the naked boobs in Fantasia (oh yeah, those boobs were graphic)! There were some subtle indications that Lady and Tramp had a go in the park (after waking up at the end of Bella Notte sequence). The first The Rescuers had a brief picture of a naked woman (although it wasn't explicit). Ariel and Jasmine went just with their bra's and showing their bellies. Let's not forget that Ariel was actually naked (though her obvious parts were never showed, haha).
Jasmine was a quite sexual seductress. The Lion King had the famous SEX-controversy. And let's not forget that Simba and Nala rolled into each other in the Can You Feel the Love Tonight-sequence (in a quite steamy way). As did Pocahontas and John Smith in Colors of the Wind. And what about Megara's brief, but steamy seduction of Hercules (which really is one of the most sexiest Disney moments ever and surprised that it never got as much flack)!
 |
| Read my look. I'm just pretending :) |
 |
| Yes, this can also be seen as girl power :) |
Despite it's family friendly association, Disney has never completely shied away from sexuality. For archetypal reasons, the heroines are often the most beautiful, but they've also been quite sexy and their sex appeal just increased in the 90's. Just remember the criticism Pocahontas got for being portrayed as a Native American Barbie-wannabe. And oh yeah, what a babe she is! 
Personal preferences aside, Esmeralda is indeed one of the most sexual Disney heroines to date. But Hunchback breaks the mold of having the villain having a sexual tension. Yes, Gaston and Jafar wanted the heroines, but both for shallow reasons (Gaston wanted Belle to be his price, while Jafar wanted Jasmine for royalty reasons). And don't forget that originally Scar wanted Nala in the deleted scenes. I'm not implying that Frollo's sexual tension should've been thrown out, but it certainly belongs to the non-family friendly category, which adds to the unevenness-debate of this movie.
Should`ve Hunchback Been Made in Another Decade?
But oh yeah! To answer my question; Would Hunchback have benefited from not being a 1990
Disney film?
To give an specific answer; I'm not implying that Hunchback shouldn't have been made in the 90's. Or in another decade. Not at all! But considering how the majority of the 90's films were shaped into that formula, perhaps Hunchback was too shaped for it? And not being allowed to be a completely dark film?
The crew already had to make sure to make this movie different to Beauty and the Beast. Which is the reason why Kirk Wise and Gary Trousdale were chosen to direct this movie, according to Mouse Under Glass (it's pretty odd how this movie never was promoted as "from the directors of Beauty", considering how beloved and appreciated Beauty is). Perhaps it could've been imagined that it could made in the late 70's or early 80's, considering how dark some of those Disney productions were. Hunchback is definitively dark at times and known for being the darkest of the 90 canon, but perhaps being made earlier would've allowed to it to be darker?
The Wrong Movie at the Wrong Time
But it's no understatement to say that that Hunchback unfortunately was really the wrong movie at the wrong time. At least in a logical sense. As a follow-up to the serious, trying-too-hard and much debated Pocahontas (which is a film that I also love despite it's flaws), Hunchback wasn't really the film which would redeem the Disney company from that backlash. At least it was better critically received than Pocahontas, but still not in the same way as the early Renaissance films. Although I personally didn't mind Hunchback being a follow-up to Pocahontas or The Lion King at the time, considering how much I loved it.
 |
| Yes, I know that I'm reaching for the Oscar, but considering how my predecessor couldn't read it, perhaps I could? |
Comic Relief
Either way, I think some sort of comic relief would've been included in the movie after all, whether it was made in the 90's or not. This is after all a Disney Movie and Disney is as aforementioned stuck with their sanitized staple! But considering how the creators of Pocahontas sacrificed the wisecraking animals to more naturalistic and "mute" animals, perhaps Hunchback would have benefited to have no typical Disney comic relief at all? Or perhaps not.
The Gargoyles (Jason Alexander, Charles Kimbrough, Mary Wickes and Jane Withers) are with no doubt the most hated aspect of the movie by the major Public. And are considered by many as the single problem which hampers the film (as well as this film's second showstopper, A Guy Like You). But seeing the film as a kid, I enjoyed them for their wacky personalities, which means they fulfilled their purpose; To entertaining the kids in the audience (at least me).  |
| At least I'm (the shepherd) less chubbier than them :) |
 |
| Alright, we'll admit it! We're annoyed that Frollo has more fans than us. |
Comparison to the Original Novel
It may seem superfluous to take a direct comparison to the book, but I will. There's no doubt that the Disney version has been simplified compared to the book, probably being the simplest plotline of the 90's (which was a deliberate choice from the directors, anyway). That's really one of the main criticism of Hunchback, for being a Disneyfied, lighter version of the book. Disney's Hunchback might be epic in scope, but minimalist in plot and characterization, reducing numerous characters from Hugo's original novel.
At the end, Disney's version bears quite little resemblance to Hugo's elaborate and detailed novel and is pretty much a straight-forward hero/underdog story, where Quasimodo is (for once) the main attention and the underdog who gets redeemed.
It's interesting how Quasimodo, Esmeralda and Phoebus have been changed to being mostly good characters, especially Quasimodo. He's pretty much the opposite of the Beast and being a very endearing, naive and sympathetic character. (In my opinion), he's pretty much reminiscent to the child protagonists of the first Golden Age movies from Walt's era, as Pinocchio, Dumbo and Bambi (despite being a giant douchebag, what Frollo really tells Quasimodo about the world outside is true, so it gives Quasi a legit reason to fear it). Quasimodo, Esmeralda and Phoebus are truly a contrast to their selfish, unlikeable versions in the original novel. While this of course is a Disney movie after all, it's remarkable how they have been radically changed to being mostly pure.
Comparison to Beauty and the Beast
Even Phoebus becomes a departure from Gaston as well, not being just a shallow suitor to the heroine, which I initially thought he was going to be (while
some people were complaining about the Beast would've remain a Beast
in the Disney version, let's not forget the original intention of the
tale was to turn him back into a human).Quasimodo himself is a huge progression for Disney! Though most Disney protagonists are Young and good looking, Quasimodo was truly a step further, as being a physically deformed man. But Quasimodo was twenty years old in the book as well, so his youth wasn't just a contrived choice from Disney.
Quasimodo Not Getting the Girl At The End
 |
| A goat is more work than a baby, so he counts as our child :) |
It's pretty remarkable what a realistic heroine Esmeralda is! At least in terms of her taste in men! While the movie gets often criticized for not having the "monster" getting the girl, Esmeralda falls for Phoebus because of his witty, cocky charms/alpha male seduction and his emotional maturity and not only because he's handsome. Many observants have stated that the three leading men views Esmeralda differently. And Phoebus is the one who gets her for treating her as a person and not as a saint (like Quasi does) nor a sinner (as Frollo does).
While it initially irked me as a child that Quasi didn't get the girl, he still got what he initially wanted; Acceptance by the world "out there". According to Mouse Under Glass, they thought the idea of having Quasi getting the girl seeming pretty implausible, even for a Disney film. And at least it makes Quasi the first Disney lead to not get his love interest (and truth to be told, Quasi was far less emotionally mature to get a woman like her).
There are definitively many layers and nuances to this film that are worth analyzing in an essay, also if you'll exclude the source material. As with the little girl accepting Quasi at the end, since it can be interpreted as a Biblical reference, since she's a part of a generation that will be more tolerable for outcasts. And there's definitively depth and maturity to Disney's version to cater to an adult audience. But perhaps what has truly made Disney's Hunchback reasonating with people, are it's emotional themes and how the raw and sincere emotion has tugged people's heartstrings.
 |
| I'm a stand-in for the priest. But a good one :) |
The Portrayal of the Gypsies
Btw, the portrayal of the gypsies has been one of the least discussed aspects of this movie. This version sympathizes with the gypsies by portraying them as a persecuted people, which is and has been the case for them (with the exception of The Court of Miracles sequence). And Frollo being the white, dictating demon who hates them! Considering how much flack Aladdin got for it's portrayal of Arabs (at least from the American Arabs) and Pocahontas with it's Native Americans, Hunchback falls into a PC-route with the gypsies. I'm not indicating that this movie should've portrayed the gypsies differently, but it's surprising that it's, all in all, one of the least discussed aspects of Disney's Hunchback! And yes, I dared to be truly unspoken about it.
Final Conclusion
So overall, Hunchback is a muddled and flawed film. Is it fair to call it a mess and a broken film? Yes and no. But it doesn't mean that it's without it's highlights! It was certainly criticized for taking it's risks from literature purists, critics and audiences. But it still was a minor hit! While it never performed as much as it's Renaissance predecessors, it still made a huge amount of money ($325,338,851 Worldwide). While it hasn't received the classic status (since Disney haven't given it that much attention afterwards), Hunchback still has it's fanbase and deservedly so! While it's deeply flawed, I honestly think that Hunchback is worthy to be called a Disney Masterpiece!
As for the controversial aspects, it would be pretty fair to call Hunchback Disney's most radical film and therefore Disney haven't dared to tap into such deep controversy ever again. But who wonders if Disney would dare to make a film that daring and controversial again?
 |
| Someday I'll be there. Cause I was Almost There! Pardon the pun, Tiana :) |
Ring on my updates on https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100035703494050 and https://twitter.com/NerdyLunada.
References:
The Art of The Hunchback of Notre Dame (Stephen Rebello)
Mouse Under Glass (David Koenig)
The Hunchback of Notre Dame Deluxe Cav Widescreen Edition (Kirk Wise, Gary Trousdale and Don Hahn).
Notre Dame de Paris (Victor Hugo).
Disney Magazine Summer 1996
Disney Adventures Magazine July 1996
Animation Magazine June/July 1996
http://www.playbill.com/news/article/alan-menken-and-stephen-schwartz-turn-hunchback-into-a-stage-beauty-332633/P2
www.boxofficemojo.com
http://web.archive.org/web/20030402031539/http://www.animated-movies.net/TheHunchbackOfNotreDame.html
http://www.dvdmg.com/hunchback.shtml
https://www.austinchronicle.com/calendar/film/1996-06-21/138143/
http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/reviews/the-hunchback-of-notre-dame-19960621
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/malaysia-beauty-and-the-beast_us_58c6d650e4b0598c66986fb3?guccounter=1
Ingen kommentarer:
Legg inn en kommentar