One of my earliest memories of seeing a movie in theaters is The Hunchback of Notre Dame—generally not considered one of Disney’s better animated films. I’ve been thinking about it a lot recently, though, and after seeing this video from Lindsay Ellis on YouTube, I wanted to write about why I think this movie is actually much better than it’s often given credit for.*
I would like to note here that this film does have a problem of racism in regards to the sexualisation of Esmeralda, a Roma character. I would direct you to this article, written by a Roma woman about the way Esmeralda has been portrayed in Disney and elsewhere; I would also encourage you to learn more about organizations that are working in the US right now to address serious racism, such as the ACLU. That being said, this essay is not focused on the film’s political or social problems, so I hope you will forgive the lack of detailed or nuanced discussion of this issue.
First off, I think we have to address the gargoyles in the room (ahem) and talk about what doesn’t work in Hunchback of Notre Dame. Specifically…the gargoyles. Um…yeah. There are a number of moments that don’t quite fit the rest of the film, but most of those are related to the terrible gargoyles. I mean, I don’t know what else we could really expect from a Disney film meant for children, particularly considering the source material they were working with, but artistically, I don’t think it’s surprising to say that the gargoyles are a big problem. I think they’re the main reason that you could argue that the film doesn’t always seem like it knows what it’s trying to be. This is especially evident, for me, in the song “A Guy Like You,” which is both cheesy and pointless. Yes, the gargoyles are really bad. Can we pretend like they don’t exist?
As exemplified primarily by the gargoyles, where this film falls down is in its attempt to be both completely a children’s film and completely an adult film. It swings back and forth between the two, and while I love some silly comic relief as much as the next person, Hunchback’s failure to completely decide what it was trying to be is, to me, its greatest artistic weakness.
There are a number of other disappointing elements in this film, and I would never claim that it is perfect, or even close to perfect. However, alongside its problems, there are things that it does exceptionally well.
One of the things that intrigues me about Disney’s version of Hunchback of Notre Dame is how Quasimodo as the protagonist and Claude Frollo as the antagonist are so perfectly set opposite each other. One example of this is in the song “Heaven’s Light/Hellfire,” which directly compares these two characters in how they view Esmeralda. Even just the names of the songs give you that idea, but the lyrics explore the contrast beautifully. With Quasimodo, we have lyrics like “Though I might wish with all my might, no face as hideous as my face was ever meant for heaven’s light” and “as I ring these bells tonight, I swear it must be heaven’s light.” With Frollo, moments later, we hear lyrics such as “Beata Maria, you know I am a righteous man. Of my virtue I am justly proud,” and “It’s not my fault. I’m not to blame. It is the gypsy girl, the witch who sent this flame,” and “Hellfire, dark fire, now gypsy, it’s your turn. Chose me or your pyre. Be mine or you will burn.”
The direct comparison is obvious without feeling laborious or patronizing to the viewer. Quasimodo and Frollo are using the exact same metaphor—just opposite sides of it. Frollo determines Esmeralda must either be his or she must die (despite also feeling that she is tempting him to sin). Quasimodo, on the other hand, has no expectations or delusions about how she might feel about him. Instead, he cautiously enjoys the feeling, which feels like heaven to him. This entire sequence is absolute genius, to me, and also thoroughly unexpected. I would argue it is among the best sequences in any Disney film.
Next, we have to talk about the music beyond that single sequence. In the video essay by Lindsay Ellis that I mentioned above (and which is embedded at the bottom of this post), she states her opinion that Hunchback is the best classic Disney score (or something along those lines—I forget her exact wording), and I have to say I mostly agree. Even aside from the masterpieces of “Out There” and “Heaven’s Light/Hellfire”, the orchestration and choral music really shine. The melodies are gorgeous, the lyrics are brilliant. But more than that, the music (on the whole) is truly steeped in the world of the film and in the characters, and serves the story, right down to the surprisingly frequent and brilliant use of Latin phrases in the lyrics. (Can we just take a moment here to dwell on that? Disney used Latin phrases in an animated children’s movie and it worked phenomenally. Hard core respect for that.) The vocal performance of Quasimodo (sung by Tom Hulce) is particularly effective, both dramatically and musically, but the score as a whole is beautiful, and impactful; it so convincingly brings the story to life that I would feel hard pressed to find one I think is superior. (Possibly only The Lion King and Beauty and the Beast.)
Another thing that fascinates me about this film is Quasimodo. He is a very charismatic protagonist—he quickly endears himself to the viewer and remains someone we care about. This, while appreciated, is nothing special. It’s not that hard to make your audience care about a character. What I think is really interesting and special about Quasimodo is the way his story ends. I vaguely remember when I first saw it in theaters wishing that Quasimodo and Esmeralda had ended up together. However, now that I’m older and hopefully wiser, it’s clear to me that it’s stronger the way it is. The fact is that Quasimodo’s arc was never about finding romantic love. It’s clear he would welcome it (see again “Heaven’s Light”), but it’s really not what he’s searching for. What does Quasimodo really want, if we boil everything down? He wants to be accepted. That’s why his arc has the resolution that it does: not romantically involved with anyone, but cheered and embraced by the people of Paris. (Slightly sappy? Maybe, but refreshing to have a Disney story that really doesn’t revolve around romantic relationships.)**
Another note here about Quasimodo. He has both a remarkably hopeful and heartbreaking cynical view of humankind (from his brainwashing by Frollo) at the same time. In the end, he has to come to terms with this cognitive dissonance. He learns that the truth is not at either end of the spectrum, but somewhere in between, and there is both good and bad. This ties in to the themes of justice in the film and the question that it puts forward about who deserves mercy.
Another very strong element of this film is Frollo as an antagonist. He is not one of those Disney villains who is “evil” just “because”. He is utterly chilling (more than any Disney villain I can think of) in the exact same way Professor Umbridge in Harry Potter is: in the manipulative and disturbing way he uses the pretext of order, law, and justice in order to abuse power in horrifyingly authoritarian ways for personal gain, with a disregard for truth and human life. He’s not one of those villains we have fun with and love to hate. He is straight up terrifying. We don’t laugh at him, like some Disney villains. We don’t ever think of him as silly or stupid or inept. The viewer never doubts that he could win, and does not have trouble believing in his character. He is a masterfully drawn villain.
On the whole, while not exactly subtle (unsurprising, since Disney is not exactly known for its subtlety), Hunchback addresses a number of issues that are not common in other Disney films, and generally does it fairly well. Some of these topics include hypocrisy, the abuse of power, religion, manipulation, and guilt—not exactly your Disney standard. Perhaps that is one of the main reasons I find it so interesting.
The Hunchback of Notre Dame has plenty of faults, as we’ve already established. Expecting any piece of media (literature, film, visual art, dance, etc.) to be perfect is asking a little too much, and it’s completely fair to feel disappointed and let down by those points. But that should not invalidate what the piece does well. In a lot of ways, I can see why this is not Disney’s most popular film. However, I think it deserves more credit than it often receives. I hope I’ve explained its merits well enough that you understand what I see in it, even if you don’t agree. If it’s been a while since you’ve seen it, maybe give it another watch and see what you think of it, nearly 25 years after its release.
*For the record, I have not read Hugo’s original novel, so I am judging the movie only on its own merits and not comparing it to anything else.
**Side note here about Esmeralda. In my interpretation, Esmeralda’s “want” or motivation in the film is twofold: to be respected and to help her people. That’s exactly what she finds in Phoebus. He, arguably, learns to respect her before he falls in love with her and also makes sacrifices in order to help Esmeralda’s people. Because of that it’s, narratively speaking, very satisfying to see them get together at the end.