Rumination Analysis on The Hunchback Of Notre Dame
Вставка
- Опубліковано 18 вер 2024
- Website: www.lorerunner.com
Help Support Lorerunner: / lorerunner
Twitch: / thelorerunner
Stream Uploads: / @lorerunnerstreamarchives
All original works are the property of respective owners.
Genocide, infanticide, the threat of implied sexual violence. Judge Frollo has always been in my opinion the absolute most despicable villain in all of disney, and a surprisingly real kind of evil at that. Even as a kid I recognized the different tone in this movie and that has a lot to do a lot with why it's a personal favorite of mine. Anyway great job as always Lore, thanks for the rumination.
To Phoebus and Esmerelda’s credit, they do have good chemistry and compliment each other quite well.
10:43 Lore, 1831 is when the book came out, the story takes place during the late Middle ages, 15th century if I remember correctly.
Correct. The original novel takes place in 1482, so I always pictured the film taking place at the same time as the novel.
TallManVanitas to build off of that, in 1482 France was engaged in conflicts in Italy, if I remember correctly. It would have either been for the Papal States or Milan marching on Naples.
yeah, I actually rewinded to see if I heard "1831" correctly. I get not being a history buff, but if you go out of your way to look up french involvment in those wars you should notice that every image screams at you that this is a vastly different time era then the movie. Everything from ships, muskets to clothing SHOUTS not late medieval.
I really don't get how he could have messed up like this...
@Tesla-Effect The Catholic Church would also have nowhere near this level of power and influence if it took place when Lore thinks it did because the French Revolution severely gutted their power as a class in French society.
Everyone hates the gargoyles, Lore. Literally, every single video discussion of this film that I've ever watched, as well as the people I've spoken to, say that the gargoyles were unnecessary. The musical based on this film does a much better job in portraying them as just voices in Quasimodo's head. I suppose Disney needed something ligh-hearted constantly jumping around and interrupting the narrative to balance out all the darkness, which is, in my opinion, silly, because Phoebus (if that's how you spell his name) and his horse, as well as Esmeralda's goat, serve their role of comic relief fairly well.
Again, the musical portrays Frollo much better, because we get his backstory. It makes his character almost sympathetic, if you can believe that.
How is Frollo’s character portrayed better in the musical? He goes from decent man to rapist because he sees a pretty girl. That sounds like terrible writing.
@@OrtegaSeason "i dont like this character" =/= terrible writing
Hunchback was G. The MPAA didn't even care at that point.
Also, as someone who actually DOES like the Gargoyles, trust me you are in the majority opinion. I will admit some of their execution leaves something to be desired and they are the weakest part of the film, but I do appreciate what they were trying to do and feel they are a net positive.
And the whole Quasi-Phoebus-Esmeralda thing...I don't see it as Quasi getting over his crush as much as it is further emphasising "Who is the Monster and Who is the Man?" (Following from Heaven's Light vs Hellfire). Frollo would burn down Paris to possess Esmeralda. Quasi would let the woman he loves go because he respects her wishes and autonomy as a person. I do ultimately think this was the right call, even though I would have personally preferred seeing someone like Quasi succeed romantically, because even 25 years later too many people still lean the Frollo route, especially when the crush is question is a woman.
Lastly - I hear a lot of people interpret the Court of Miracles bit as a negative depiction of the Romani and going against what was previously established. What people seem to not take into account - this is their secret sanctum, being invaded by people they recognize as agents of the man trying to genocide them. Why WOULDN'T they be proactive in self-defense based on the information they had?
This is easily my second favorite Disney Canon film after BatB, and I will argue it is the absolute best score in any Disney film.
Thank you!
Would you ever consider doing a rumination on Prince of Egypt?
Too epic 😎
Great suggestion.
Now that I would love to see.
Have to nominate it next year and it gets enough votes
Dreamworks ruminations, yes.
This movie reminds me of the 3 Musketeers that Disney made which also had a despicable character played by an amazing actor, Tim Curry.
Prepare for a long comment because it is LONG overdue, but there's something very key about what makes the song Hellfire work so well, and it is because we were primed for it. We were primed for it by having it stand in comparison to the song it immediately follows after, which is Quasimodo singing Heaven's Light.
Heaven's Light.....its hard to put into words because I'm so biased about this song. Most people view it from cutesy to cheesy as hell, but when you really look at it, it has just as many layers of depth as Hellfire. I. LOVE. THIS. SONG. Even as a grown adult the song is so beautiful and earnest that it can still get me all teary eyed. Yes, it's about a hunchback with a crush, but peel back a few of those layers. First, it stands in contrast to both Frollo and even Esmeralda, in that this love is wholly innocent. Quasimodo may as well be a baby in that he fails to exist as a sexual creature in any way. The contrast with Frollo should be obvious, but even with Esmeralda she has an air of eroticism to her. She's a dancer, and she knows how to use her female nature to benefit her directly, even Phoebus, a holy knight, recognizes this. Esmeralda could never have a physical relationship with Quasimodo, and Quasimodo wouldn't know what to do with her in any capacity other than place her on a pedestal. This is not to denigrate Quasimodo, but to reflect his purity and innocence. All of his life Quasimodo was raised by Frollo to believe he is a hellspawn, a demon, a monster. For Quasimodo to experience that pure act of compassion that Esmeralda offers to him, it becomes almost like a purity rite itself, in that heaven itself opened up to shine its rays upon him for just that brief moment in time. Frollo feels the fire too, but instead of it being rays of light from Heaven, it is the flames of hell consuming him from his deep lust. You could even say it was the first time Quasimodo experienced the infinitely moving power of God's love compared to a life of pain, servitude, loneliness and misery. Given the religious overtones of the film, it seems fitting that this is how both sides of the coin are portrayed and contrasted by one another.
Sorry I went on a rant there lol. This is by far my favorite Disney film and considering how much I love both Heaven's Light and Hellfire, I figure I would shine a light on the one that is overlooked more often.
Hellfire has some really good covers out there
Now you have to do Bambi just to say there WAS a Disney film with Patrick Stewart in the cast. Bambi 2 but whatever. They actually did get Patrick Stewart guys!
Right at the end of the opening narration it says “who is the monster and who is the man?” And I think it’s such a nice summary of the film and it’s theme and message
Last week, I was debating with some friends of mine about who the most evil Disney villain was. Having watched your rumination on the Little Mermaid Ursula came to mind, but Frolo also came to mind. The way he twisted everyone he could with his political and personal power and leverage is sickening in ways Ursula can't replicate. That abuse of power, and most notably Quasimodo...
I also nominated Hades and Captain Hook for the opposite end of the spectrum, to which one friend considered Peter Pan more villainous.
weird. Having heard you bring it up multiple times has made me go "huh, yeah, that is kinda weak." but this one really cinches it. For the longest time, since the th efirst time I watched to movie as a kid, I had a mental image of specifically Theebus and Esmeralda having known each other longer than the duration of the movie and there fore ending up together, but I guess it really is a disney thing.
One: Frollo's a horrible monster for trying to drown a baby.
Two: Had he succeeded he would have poisoned not only the church's but the surrounding neighborhoods drinking water.
Excellent foreshadowing.
It takes place in the 14th or 15th century, if memory serves. So it'd be a French war around then
It’s such an enigmatic film, so I’d love to hear your analysis on David Lynch’s film Mulholland Drive!
The Hunchback of Notre Dame doesn't take place in 1831, that's just the year that Victor Hugo wrote the original novel. It takes place in the 15th century.
Apparently the book takes place in 1482. France was not at war with anyone in that year (a rarity!).
Fuck yes, favorite Disney movie hands down right here.
I've always felt that Frollo's twisted relationship with Quasimodo is complex in it's absolute horribleness. Quasimodo is a gypsy, whom Frollo cannot kill. So, Frolo delights in mentally tormenting Quasimodo by ingraining in him self-damaging ideas "I am deformed, i am ugly". If a gyspy is to live, it will hate itself as much as i hate it. At the same time, Frollo enjoys having someone who he can spew his twisted dogma at- Quasimodo is almost literally there to listen to Frollo. Frollo genuinely believes that the outside world is awful and sinful and wicked (after all, Frollo "saw corruption everywhere, except within"), and uses that as a way to keep Quasimodo under his thumb and out of sight. In sort, he believes his own bullshit but turns it up to 11 to torment Quasimodo.For all his faults, Frollo only lies once in the movie that i can remember, specifically to flush out the remainder of the gypsies, which is after he's already exhausted literally all other options *and* had his fall from grace moment.
Also, just want to point out that, in the event that Frollo's "penitence" for murder on holy ground would be accepted by heaven, he still would be damned- after all, the Bishop's order was for Frollo to raise Quasimodo "as his own", which Frollo does not do in any way, shape, or form. I've always had this headcannon that it was the Bishop who actually did the majority of the raising of Quasimodo, which is why Quasi turned out as a kind, compassionate person rather than a horrible shall of a man like Frollo.
Hellfire (my favorite song in the movie too) is awesome. I’ve always really apreciated how they show just how tormented Frollo is. Obvious stuff is obvious, too- Frollo’s self-aggrandizing remarks about his virtue are said in the light, outside, looking out over the city. As soon as he goes inside, into the privacy of his dark room, that’s when he starts talking about his internal desires. It’s always struck me as well how Frollo, supposedly (to himself, by any rate) the most pure and stalwart soldier of virtue is brought low, destroyed by a single instance of lust. His “purity”, his moral fiber, righteousness, all of it goes up in a flash because an attractive woman brushed against him (mostly as a joke) during a show. My point being that, despite all his talk and action of strength and moral standing, internally he was weak. He’d never been tested, and the moment he was, he failed.
But yeah, once that little crack appears in his armor, he goes to pieces. He blames Esmerelda for being attractive, he blames God for not making him stronger (cause why should he have to improve, God should have just made him stronger so he wouldn’t be tempted at all), and in the end he succumbs to his desire. I’ve always loved the moment when the fire wraps around him before flowing back into the fireplace. Right after the moment he is the most divided, the moment where he is weakest, he gets the news that Esmerelda has escaped. And this, this breaks him. Cause while she had sanctuary, she was “safe”. He could not pursue her, and so was caught. That’s why he’s having the hellfire moment to begin with. He’s caught between his desire and the knowledge that it is 1) sinful, but more importantly 2) out of his reach. The unattainable being more tempting. But now that she’s escaped, he has full right to give chase, and that collapses his remaining defenses. He has to give chase to the gypsy who so publicly defied him, he would be *expected* to play hardball here, but internally it’s because he wants her. He never accepts that, either. Not really. He jumps straight from “I’m damned for this, oh woe is me” to “She will be mine.”. To avoid dealing with the problem of his weakness, his lust, he lunges for the prize he wants. He shields himself from his failing with the promise of base self-gratification.
Now, I will to my own surprise) argue for Esmerelda and Phoebus’s moment after Phoebus is shot.The moment, not the romance overall. Cause it’s not “you are my one true wuv” at all in my opinion. Take note- he kisses her. Cheesy pick up line, go in for the kiss. Now, she is not uninterested, but I’ve never felt like she has any true romantic attachment to Phoebus at this moment. She’s at the exploration phase, and especially given the events that just occurred (what with both of them nearly losing their lives), the adrenaline rush is in full swing so yeah, attraction. If not for the sequel (which frankly, I do my best to forget about the sequel), I wouldn’t actually expect Phoebus and Esmerelda to be together for very long. There’s not much actual chemistry there beyond flirting. But for the timeline of the movie, circumstance pushes them together. Not that I think that Quasimodo and Esmerelda have any chemistry either, but there it is.
As far as the gypsies’ bloodthirst goes, I completely understand it and I’ve never agreed with the interpretation that it paints them as bad as well. They’re being actively hunted, dozens of them have been captured (and those left behind know exactly what kind of fate awaits those they’ve lost), and here wanders in Phoebus (who, regardless of recent actions, still participated in the hunt up to this point), and Quasimodo, who if he’s known to any of the gypsies, he’s either known as the bellringer, or perhaps even as Frollo’s ward or whatever. They’re in pain, they’re scared, and they’re angry. Regardless of Clopin’s humor (which I’ve always felt is the darkest of gallows humor, a parody of the courts which condemn his people to death for no reason.), what’s happening there is the gypsies lashing out. Just like many oppressed peoples over the years.
In the same vein, I hesitate to call Pheobus riling up the crowd as pure mob mentality. The Feast of Fools? Yeah, pure mob mentality, no question. But keep in mind that Frollo has been burning and butchering his way across the city for days, possibly weeks, and is now set to burn dozens of people alive, not all of whom are gypsies. This is important- not all those people are gypsies, but also people who aided or harbored gypsies. This breaks Frollo’s immunity in the eyes of the people. After all, the gypsies aren’t of the same religion, they’re thieves, whores, etc. “They” are not “us”, and even if some people didn’t like what Frollo was doing, they could still ignore it because powerful man and he what’re you gonna do. But now Frollo’s taken Parisians. He’s shown the crowd that “They” are not safe from him either. This crowd was gathered for the executions, yes, and had they gone off without a hitch I’m sure the crowd would have been cowed for now. But that crowd was not a happy one like at the feast. This was a crowd with angry, scared people in it. Phoebus riled them up, yes, but they wouldn’t have needed much urging. Like what’s his asshole, over in Tales of Zestiria- Frollo had crossed too many lines for it to have gone unopposed. The Bishop of freaking Notre Dame would have seen to that- whatever Frollo’s rank or power, blocking the Bishop from leaving his cathedral was already a step too far.
As far as the Gargoyles and the demon spout thing goes, I’ve always liked the idea that It’s Notre Dame itself. Maybe as a nod to Victor Hugo’s love of the building, the idea that Notre Dame itself is not just stone and mortar, but something bigger, something magical. A place that grew to love Quasimodo, and so gave him friends when he longed for them. This theory also explains why the gargoyles turn to stone when others arrive- the magic of Notre Dame is just for the person beloved of the building. It’s only when Notre Dame itself comes under attack that they begin to interact with the outside world- though I’ve always felt that the battle scene leaves the area of Paris. You don’t really see the city at all once the metal is poured- it’s just fire and smoke and red. It’s a place where the lines of reality blur. And so the gargoyles can interact with the world- cause Notre Dame has brought the world to it. It’s extended the range of it’s area of influence, so to speak. Then, when Frollo, the monster attacking Notre Dame, moves to kill Quasimodo, the man beloved of the building, Notre Dame drops him, and animates the demon head so that Frollo knows exactly where he’s headed. Weird theory, I know, but it’s always made sense in my head.
Freaking loved the rumination, man. I’ve always wanted to see these movies get more deliberate, thoughtful discussion, and Hunchback in particular. Sorry for the novel.
this should be a interesting one since it implify some rly heavy stuff
The gargoyle coming alive was pretty explicitly God punishing him. It's too thematically relevant for it to not be that.
I love this film's villain.
Patrick Stewart AGAIN?!
I don't find it the least bit surprising that Disney is not gonna try antagonising the catholic church. There is *nothing* more mainstream and iconic to the family perspective than the house of mouse. If they were to create a film that even vaguely gave the church a bad perspective in the eyes of children then said church absolutely would take notice of it. They aren't going to care about (or at least, not react to) some random author or videogame company showing them in a less than favourable light but _Disney?_
And Disney knows this.
The film actually was rated G which was shocking to the studio
"... this is very, very low tier magic." in reference to the gargoyles
me and my dnd character whom have been struggling to create work golems for the town to help rebuild "OH?! LOW-TIER MAGIC, is it? I'd liek to see you pull an animated in animate object WITH A COMPLETE PERSONALITY AND IT'S OWN WILL OUT OF YOUR BUTT, YOU LEXICAL, LUMPY COUCH POta-"
Patrick Stewart is now a meme 😂😂😂
There two main things, I dislike about this movie. The first one is the gargoyles. They shouldn't have been there, Everytime they appear, the movie stop the narrative for a bad pun.
But the most important one is the romance of pretty boy with Esmeralda. I think it heavily hinder the narrative they wanted to go for. Because as I normally hear, beauty is inside but Esmeralda still chooses the pretty boy. It would have been a lot better if there was no romance between then. And you let them as doing what must be done because it was the right thing to do.
It's my fav. Movie of disney. Great video and input as always!! :D
As someone who grew up in a church, environment shall we say, I 100% agree that the people like Frolo, and there are MANY, is what destroys the good that can be seen of a church.
It's what has made me disenfranchised with churches in general, but I still have the whole faith thing working for me. Just wish I could find a decent place to connect with that I don't smell hypocrisy from a mile away.
But thats what church is. Everyone's a sinner. So when ever someone scoffs and says frickin hypocrites I just say come on pal we have room for one more. All of us suck. Christianity is unique in that you can't earn your way to heaven its hopless by yourself but that God paid the ticket for you essentially. But also cant judge a religion based on its misuse. Every religion must be judged by what it teaches. So a Christian stabbing a gay person goes agaisnt what Christianity teaches whereas that would be consistent with other religions like Islam since it calls violence upon many people so thag would be an accurate critique of the religion
@@magnenoalex2 Doesn’t the Bible say that men who engage in anal sex should be killed?
Disney Standard Romance could potentially become a Loreium, as there are games that are prone to it as well.
Blaming Esmeralda for making him lust after her.
Reminds me of the Beavis and Butt-Head episode when they learn about sexual harassment and Beavis tries to sue one of the girls in his class for arousing him.
Then again, in a lot of religions, particularly of the Abrahamic faiths (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) this is actually very common in their more Conservative sects. Hell, in Saudi Arabia, if a woman gets raped by a man, she gets jailed for it. The reason? It was "her fault" for provoking the man in that way and not dressing modestly.
so, 1. the movie takes place in the 14-15th century, not post napoleon. 2. people actually did break sanctuary all the time even in medieval times with varying degrees of consequenses... but yeah his career is done. breaking sanctuary to capture a criminal is one thing. attacking a priest, much less an archdeacon while doing so is something else entierly.
My annoyance with this film, not that I hate it, it’s the fact that Quasimodo is friendzoned. Which is reinforcing the fact that he is too ugly for her. It makes him a better character for not giving into jealousy, but still implies that your looks do matter when talking romantic relationships.
I believe the film is actually set during the 100 Years War, based upon the armor and lack of gunpowder. I don’t think I have heard *anyone* say that they like the Gargoyles, so you’re not alone. They really should have been voices in his head, and the song “A Guy Like You” is so tonally clashing with the scene just before (Phoebus rescuing Peasants from being burned alive) that it makes me cringe.
I really have enjoyed listening to your thoughts on this movie, Lore. I think that Hunchback really doesn’t get the credit and respect that other Disney movies do, because it’s really made for adults to be able to understand. I find that you get a snapshot of the true definition of the Christian faith in Esmerelda, who prays for the Lord to take care of the outcasts. I think she also makes a point of mentioning that Jesus Christ was an outcast too, which is true. I view Frollo not as a servant of God, but instead a religious Pharisee who blindly believes that his egregious actions are justified in the service of God. I went back and watched Hellfire, which is even more messed up than I remember. Not to get too preachy, but Frollo actually believes that God made the devil more powerful than a man, when Christians (different than Catholics) believe that Jesus Christ, in dying on the cross in order to save the world, embarrassingly overthrew the devil and his cohorts. (I’m a pastor’s kid. I believe this stuff.) The point being, I say that to question how much Frollo actually knew the Bible in order to know how his actions were remotely justified. I definitely agree with you on your thoughts about Frollo falling to his death being a judgment of God. He spoke his own death into existence, and it happened. I think that Frollo became the one winged angel during the Hellfire scene. He outright pulls a Captain Ahab speech on camera, that he would burn the entire city of Paris in order to either have Esmerelda or kill her. So at that point, he’s already too far gone, IMO. Breaking the sanctity of the Catholic Church was kid stuff in comparison to what he was willing to commit. He is arguably the darkest villain Disney has ever put on camera. Enough about Frollo.
The problem with villains like Frollo is that they start from "I am a righteous man" and deduce from that that they are always right, and anything they do must be justified, otherwise a righteous man wouldn't do it.
rmsgrey Yeah. You’re right.
From the words you’re using I figure that you don’t know that Jeffrey Katzenberg was a founder of DreamWorks
Was the first film i watched in the cinema, didnt like how qwazie modo was treated
Hum... the story doesnt happen in the 1830s ! It is set in the middle ages, somewhere around 1200 or so. There were plenty of wars then.
Given the costumes desigb, maybe more around 16th / 17th century, but still
@Tesla-Effect yeah, I think Lore got confused with the time when the book was written
Frollo is "in name only." For one. Also one of those people who thinks they believe the faith but have only read cherry picked bible verses.
Itll been funnier if it was God at the end.
I don t know if anyone likes the gargoyles. Better film without them.
Yeah this one I like hellfire song but never did like the rest of the movie the gargoyles are the worst part and the rest is just forgettable until frollo's death. I think its the worst romance
together with Pocahontas(if that can be called romance),I understand why you dont like it in the other ones but inside my mind I can make excuses but this 2 are just bad and makes no sense.