Hunchback of Notre Dame 1996

This is one of the most heavily underrated Disney animated films out: The Hunchback of NotreDame. Like myself, many other children were probably warned by their parents it was too adult, dark, or demonic to watch so they didn’t see it till they were teenagers. I was maybe 14 when I saw it all the way through for the first time, and while it was indeed dark–I thought it was a great movie. And it wasn’t till I got older when I could articulate what made it so uniquely dark, inspiring and just plain excellent. I could spend all day saying I like something but like many out there, I enjoy hearing why something was so good. Let’s break it down.

The musical Score:

 Music doesn't always make a movie, but let’s face it—sometimes it does. The music in the 1996 film is phenomenal and bursts with emotion. Every single song sets a tone which contributes to the weight of the film. The opening number lasts through the entire recap of Quasimodo and Frollo background and the theme plays continuously over the film setting a dramatic tone. The music was so epic a musical was made in 1999 inspired off the film's score. 

Darkness and Weight:      

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, what gives a story or action tension is how seriously characters in the world are taking the events. For example, if  someone is threatened with bodily harm and characters crack five jokes, and then no one gets hurt–tension is low and weight is non-existent. However, if someone threatens to kill a family and the characters look afraid for their lives, and a character is hurt or injured–then we, the audience, know this is a world where people don’t walk away unscathed. It’s the possibility of extreme actions and that possibility being treated with serious attention and even fear which makes a story compelling. Hunchback of Notre Dame is full of actions having dire and sometimes horrific consequences:

• In the flashback, Frollo is striving to purge the world of gypsies and so he hunts down a mother and her infant. Frollo kills the mother and finds the disfigured infant, he’s going to kill Quasimodo and is only halted by the Arch Deacon. 

• Quasimodo is warned continuously about the outside world being wicked and cruel all the while he longs to be part of it. The minute he ventures outside into the world for the festival of fools he’s abused and made a mockery of in public for his disfigurement.

• Esmerelda stands up for Quasimodo and other gypsies, as a result she is persecuted and has to hide in a church. In the finale she’s nearly burned to the stake (but that specifically is for other reasons Frollo can tell us more about). 

• Phoebus (not my favorite person in the world but he has some good points) refuses to kill a family of gypsies and in turn Frollo wants him dead. 

Characters are motivated to do different things and don’t walk away unscathed because the film addresses the actions of the protagonists with weight and doesn't make light of consequences. 

The Characters:

• Quasimodo is the main protagonist and we probably won’t see another male Disney hero like him. He’s good hearted, brave, impossibly strong and very innocent.

- He falls for Esmerelda because she shows him kindness and expects nothing from her, he simply wants to protect her and keep her safe. 

-He has to re-examine his own world view (which has been largely formed by the only person he knows: Frollo). Quasimodo has to decide for himself what makes someone evil (and it’s not being a gypsy), and what makes someone virtuous (and it’s not being learned in the law or a member of the church).

- Quasimodo allows himself to be treated horribly by Frollo (who frequently demeans him and calls him an ugly monster who should be grateful Frollo tolerates him). But when Frollo’s toxic nature extends to Esmerelda, up to the point where he plans to kill her–Quasimodo decides for himself who the real monster is.

• Esmerelda is a female gypsy performer–making her an underdog in various respects who the religious authorities at the time may have looked down upon as a witch or a heathen. Granted, it’s Frollo who vilified her the most (which I appreciate because it makes the other religious people in the film not look like self righteous hypocrites), but she still wouldn't have been considered upright by most in her time. In the book by Victor Hugo it’s more clear that she’s viewed as a witch and a harlot by more people than just Frollo. But Esmerelda isn’t defined by how she looks, or what title she has. 

-Her character is defined by her courage, compassion, and her desire to fight injustice against the innocent like herself and Quasimodo. 

-The reason we empathize with her in this, is because Esmerelda has no plot armor. She faces consequences for defending Quasimodo and for questioning Frollo. I can’t stand characters who speak up or try to do what's right when characters around them never challenge their beliefs or go against them. Karen in Netflix’s Daredevil speaks up against Kingpin, and the villain has every right to kill her. There’s no reason he doesn't except the writers wouldn't let him, making it pretty obvious Karen has plot armor. 

• Claude Frollo is the opposite of the characters we’ve just talked about–he’s not good. And while his exterior appearance and thorough knowledge of the law and scripture would give the impression he’s a righteous man–knowledge, pride and esteem are not traits of a righteous man.

- Frollo is a classic Pharisee who on all accounts believes he is worthy and right with God. The only reason he doesn't kill infant Quasimodo is because the Arch Deacon warns him if he kills the child he may face eternal punishment in hell. 

-What makes the villain, Frollo, all the more disturbing is the fact he truly doesn't believe he is the villain. In his warped and distorted view of Christianity he believes Esmerelda is to blame for his own sin. 

-Somewhere deep down like all hypocrites, he knows he’s the real villain but he projects it onto everyone else as a means of vindicating himself. His own sin becomes so destructive that it leads him to attempt burning Esmerelda to the stake and killing the Hunchback.

The Romance:

So, in the book description it says “three men fight for the love of a beautiful woman…” I have so many issues with that because let's face it: Phoebus is a pervert, Frollo is obsessed and Quasimodo is desperate. However, in the 1996 animated film there is definitely romance–between Quasimodo and Esmerelda. In my opinion, the fact there isn’t enough romance between them is the only thorn in the movie’s side. But I’ll get to that.

• The relationship between Quasimodo and Esmerelda is a touching one that isn't seen much in Disney. 

-It’s not materialistic, because she shows him kindness even though he’s disfigured. He cares for her because of her compassion (yes she’s one of the prettiest women animated in Disney but he clearly expects nothing from her and doesn't believe himself worthy of her love).

-Esmerelda has a good friendship with Quasimodo and causes him to rethink what he believes truly makes someone good or evil. 

-The genuine feelings of Quasimodo are contrasted well in his song Heaven’s light with the possessive and lustful feelings of Frollo’s, Hellfire. The two numbers draw a clear distinction between love and lust (which is also why there’s not really love in the book though an argument could be made for Quasimodo).

-Quasimodo sings, “but suddenly an angel, has smiled at me, and kissed my cheek without a trace of fright. I dare to dream that she, might even care for me…” he expresses Esmerelda as a divine creature, is humble in assuming he has no right to imagine she would ever love him, but for the moment he’s happy at even the possibility. 

-Frollo firstly begins his alleged prayer by stating he’s perfect, righteous and better than everyone, then he proceeds to go into his own personal desires for Esmerelda and blame her for them. When he believes those desires can’t be satisfied, he threatens to destroy her. Lust is distinguished by being possessive, objectifying, and self serving. Also the objectifier generally cares not for the safety and well being of the object of their desire. Frollo only sees two options: he has to have Esmerelda or he’ll kill her. What Frollo feels is NOT love in any shape or form (1st Corinthians 13: 4-8 tells us what love is), but his desires contrasted with the feelings of Quasimodo show us the clear line of sin and love.

The couple we got but didn't want:

So, everything in the movie from the music, the character arcs, the drama and the themes is top notch. The only thing which falls short of even a B + is the relationship between Esmerelda and Phoebus. This might be a personal bias, but I’ve never cared for the witty banter between the confident woman and the flirty guy. It’s important to make distinction on this:

• Banter as I see it, is a lady and a gentleman who are both romantically interested in each other but insult and poke for the purpose of flirting but don’t begin a relationship right away. I don’t like this trope because unless you're very young children, why would you be bickering and poking at someone you're interested in instead of being an adult about and asking them out? If you're a man who has a desire to be with a certain lady, pursue her. If you're a lady who likes a certain man, accept his pursuits. Don’t play games for extended periods of time like children. Boys play games, men do NOT. 

• There is a variety of banter in which perhaps two characters really DO NOT like each other, or one isn’t interested and so they argue until they actually develop feelings. I’m okay with this because the dislike and banter is natural and not a way of flirting. With Esmerelda and Phoebus, I get the impression they were both already interested–him primarily because of her looks–but that they just bicker while flirting till they end up together.  It just feels weak compared to the rest of the film and isn’t treated with as much weight.

  On a whole, my only complaint is who the leading lady ends up with. Other than that the movie gets and A+. Granted, I do think the film requires a certain age to appreciate it because the film has its questionable elements and dark themes like self righteousness, religious hypocrisy, lust, corruption and an unflattering view of humanity-but there’s a light at the end of the tunnel. In a nutshell, if you saw it once and didn’t get it-watch it again. If you’ve never seen it, go watch it.

  -Jubilee