Wednesday, 18 March 2015

The Hunchback of Notre Dame - Film Review


The Hunchback of Notre Dame - Film Review

What do you think of when you think of a Disney film? Personally I imagine a fairy tale with a likeable main protagonist lots of magic and wonder and a pleasant tale of good triumphing over evil. Something like that. I haven’t read Victor Hugo’s The Hunchback of Notre Dame but if I’m not mistaken it’s a dark and twisted story about the corruption of Church and it involves huge amounts of death, attempted rape and most the main characters dead. Not quite the same really so this does seem like a strange film for Disney to make. Furthermore this film came out after Pocahontas where Disney was starting to lose some of its popularity. This film had the making of a disaster so I sat down last week feeling extremely ill looking forward to ripping it apart. About ninety minutes later I had a film that made me wish I had written my top 5 animated films list after seeing this rather than before.

 

Does this film have problems? Yes it does. Is it perfect? Absolutely not? But the good in this film is so good I couldn’t not talk about it. The Hunchback of Notre Dame is about a hunchback named Quasimodo who lives in the bell tower of Notre Dame. He cannot leave and only interactions come with Judge Claude Frollo, a highly religious man who teaches Quasimodo to see himself as an abomination. The film is primarily about Quasimodo’s quest for acceptance and happiness as he eventually leaves the tower for the Festival of Fools and meets the Gypsy girl Esmeralda.

 

Let’s start with the story. While not the films strongest point it’s by no means bad. It’s pacing is a little off at times and it does occasionally feel slightly clunky but the film is in its characters, not plot. The film seemed to struggle whether to do what it wanted or be as faithful as possible to the novel, which as a Disney film we know won’t happen. It also confused me why the crowd randomly turned on Quasimodo and how abruptly Esmeralda and Phoebus fall in love. However it was enjoyable and the progression in the characters was clear, so I can’t complain.

 

Quasimodo is a very likeable character. It doesn’t take long for us to really get behind him and feel sorry for him, he has been so unfortunate in his life. While not the most subtle metaphor, him looking so ugly does make a point as he is such a kind individual with the purest of intentions. It’s impossible not to like this guy as he’s so endearing and good natured. However he’s not so perfect that he’s not realistic. He makes mistakes and uniquely for a Disney film he doesn’t get the girl but I can’t help but feel happy for him when he finds his acceptance and moves on with his life.

 

The love interest of the film (Quite a busy one with three guys after her) is a Gypsy named Esmeralda. She’s okay I guess but nothing special. She’s just your typical nice but independent female lead. Maybe the fact that she’s a Gypsy but acts kindly towards Quasimodo is supposed to be interesting but I didn’t really get that if it was the case. There’s nothing wrong with her, she’s just not particularly engaging. The same applies to Phoebus and their romance. Phoebus is the new captain of the guard and again there’s nothing really wrong with him. He had good intentions, he helps people etc he is kind of like the typical Disney Prince cliché, just a little bland. The romance between then is pretty dull too, they just throw one liners at each other and then fall in love. It does make more sense plot wise for them to be together it just doesn’t grasp my interest.

 

The main thing I wanted to talk about is the villain Frollo. This is a superb villain. His actions and intentions are as diabolical as any villain I can think of but he sees himself as a soldier for God and free of sin. He gets away with his awful deeds by convincing everyone, including himself that he’s doing it as an act of God. It makes not just a great villain, but a great character in general. He is very developed and interesting and is the best part of the film. His motivations are very controversial for a Disney film, he is essentially abusing his power as he lusts over Esmeralda. It’s twisted and almost shocking but at the same time it was interesting to see from a Disney film. It’s awful the way he makes Quasimodo inadequate is horrific and I couldn’t believe what I was seeing when I saw the old man smelling the young woman’s hair. Frollo was without doubt a fantastic villain.

 

Speaking of shocking, some of the imagery in this film was certainly unconventional from Disney, as was the constant talk of God and religion. I enjoyed the music in this film, not because it was catchy but because it was powerful and told the story. The opening song and Hellfire song in particular were great and I particularly enjoyed the choir which was powerful and impactful. The Hellfire song was very risqué for Disney with the imagery of a seductive woman, the begging to banish Esmeralda to Hell and Hell’s fire. This song was great because it gave us insight into Frollo and how he believes he isn’t to blame despite his many sins. It does exactly what a song should do in a musical and describe how the character is feeling and what is behind his or her motivations.

 

There were some problems however. The Gipsies and their culture in the film I thought were confusing, especially for a younger audience. It portrays them as thieves and uncivilised creatures at times, but at other times you’re supposed to be sympathetic at how they’re misunderstood. Then you see their fortress and it’s full of all their stolen stuff, but then Esmeralda, the one they all seem to look up to is kind and caring. Frollo wants to kill them all but Phoebus who is a high class civilian pity’s them. Even the Festival of Fools is conflicting in its messages. They come across at first as fun loving at first but they turn on Quasimodo quickly and practically bully and insult him to a point where he is extremely upset. Only Esmeralda is kind to him out of the entire Gypsy crowd. There song was odd too, not that it was bad, it was fairly entertaining but maybe it was just me but I found something about it quite uncomfortable and almost slightly off, like it was implying they were quite nefarious. Not the most important aspect of the film but certainly worth mentioning.

 

I’m never really a fan of the comic relief in these kind of films and here was no exception. They weren’t the worst comic relief I’ve ever seen, but in a darker film such as this they did feel more out of place. I never find these characters funny and while they weren’t so obnoxious that they spoilt the movie I did still find them irritating. I did enjoy them more when they appeared to be imaginary, it made sense for Quasimodo’s character to make imaginary friends but you see them in the final battle at the end fighting the guards and you realise they just come to life. They could be worse but they are a weaker aspect of the film.

 

The film is however grand in scale. The animation particularly Notre Dame itself was fantastic and the film just appeared huge. On top of this the Choir suits the film brilliantly as it gets across the feeling and tone of the film as well as simply sounding great. It was one of Disney’s more controversial and risky films but at the same time it’s one I think they did an excellent job with and one that I can see why they wanted to make this instead of just another fairy tale. As I said earlier it’s not perfect, it’s not that faithful to the novel. It is however and incredibly interesting adaptation, a deep and intriguing main character and villain with in depth motivation and personality and it is definitely worth a watch. If you haven’t seen it then I really advise you do, it really is worth your time.








No comments:

Post a Comment