So, a couple of nights ago I thought I’d crank out one of my old fave Disney animated features, “The Hunchback of Notre Dame”. What really surprised me was how what I used to think was a really great movie is now not quite as enjoyable because in almost every way (plot, characterisation, animation, music etc) Pixar has re-written the creative rule book when it comes to animated features. I wonder if anyone else feels that way. Perhaps it’s the film itself (though Ebert gave “Hunchback…” huge kudos on release) but I am not certain that’s the case. It does after all have a lot of the strengths found in the renaissance years of Disney (i.e. from “The Little Mermaid” to IMHO “Tarzan”).
Still one of the best movies of the 90s. It just needed a little less of the gargoyles and it would have been perfect. A fantastic counter to the Animation Age Ghetto mindset animation suffers from in the US.
I absolutely love the character of Frollo and his inner conflicts- that’s what makes The Hunchback of Notre Dame for me. It is a very deep, dark film considering the audience it’s aimed at, and because of that, as an adult I’m desperate to watch it again and again to see how many more layers can be revealed. Yes, there’s some light entertainment provided by the gargoyles but really, the core of this movie is very dark indeed, which I love!
(Disclaimer: I played on the score for this one too, way back when).
Gee, I guess I wasn’t the only one cringing. I was chuckling reading the posts here, because whenver I get into a discussion with someone about animated movies, I use two phrases to generically slam a bad animated movie: “fart jokes” and “singing gargoyles.” After Mermaid and Beast, with Hunchback the songs were getting less pop-ish and more grandiose and operatic in tone… yet what do they do? Include talking and singing gargoyles. Makes perfect sense to… uh… hmm…
Boy, I wish the DVD came with a “Gargoyles On/Off” button…
You know when I was a kid the Gargoyles were my favourite part of the whole movie, not now obviously, but I guess they serve some entertainment value for children. And the idea that they may well [spoil]just be part of Quasimodo’s imagination and made of stone after all [/spoil] is quite clever.
I totally aggree with you on Frollo, lizardgirl. I watched this movie just the other day and there is so much complexion to that Disney villian. The layers of torn feelings for Esmeralda … I mean he hates gypsies, yet finds himself in love with one. And in tradition with Disney villians, he threatens the hero’s love interest, but also is original because he loves her himself. It makes you wonder … how " evil " are most so called bad guys ?
I just watched it last night and I was utterly blown away! How could I have forgotten this! My father said that they ruined the beauty of the ending of the original novel, but I didn’t really care. After all, this is Disney’s darkest classic animated feature which is probably why I found it so exciting. There were adult-themed parts I understand now that I didn’t as a little kid, making it all the more thrilling to watch again since now I know what Frollo was all about and had more layers to him than I realized before.
For me, the gargoyles didn’t ruin it at all, and were interesting additions that actually made sense with the story. Gargoyles were built originally to watch over the church, but as time went by they were looked upon as monsters. Quasimodo could probably relate to that and see them as friends because they know what it’s like to be monsters. They could’ve been his imaginary friends since he was always alone, or there’s a possibility they were actually alive and had no one to trust to talk to except Quasimodo, who always has time for them up there. What makes it more interesting is that we won’t really know whether or not Quasimodo just pretended they talked to him or not, as he’s the only one who hears them but there were some actions they took that could not have been explained if they were just figments of his imaginations completely, similar to in Ratatouille with Gusteau’s spirit. That’s how I see it.
Besides, they were also funny and gave, mostly for kids, a bit a light laughter so that it wasn’t completely a stranger to younger children and could appeal to them also.
Not to mention the little homage to the author of the original novel, Victor Hugo himself- one gargoyle is named Victor and another Hugo.
I’d say that this is one of Disney’s most complicated and, as I said before, darkest classics ever. One of Disney’s traditions, according to a documentary bonus feature on the DVD, was to try something never done before for each new Classic. And they certainly have proven to do so in The Hunchback of Notre Dame and I am glad for it. It is very daring for a Disney movie which is what makes it so intriguing.
I agree with you, bright dot-dasher. It’s funny as The Hunchback of Notre Dame was on TV the other day, so I watched it again and was wondering about whether the gargoyles, in a subtle way, hinted at Quasimodo’s possibly fragile state of mind. We see Quasi almost turn into a monster at the Festival of Fools, not through his own fault but through the incitement of others, and there are other occassions when his aggressive side seems to take over despite his usually shy demeanor. After all, the guy’s been locked up all of his life and told that he’s a freak of society, which, added to the fear of his ‘master’, is enough to turn most strong minds.
Plus, without the gargoyles, I think the film just would’ve been too dark for children. Frollo stuck between religion and his own sordid temptations is not the easiest topic for kids to grasp, yet it is the reason the entire plot evolves the way it does. So, there’s got to be something to keep the kids happy.
