If You Like Epic Soundtracks...

The time has come for our next review! Our next animated film comes from an era called the Disney Renaissance, a period of animation “revival” that began with The Little Mermaid and ended with Tarzan (1989-1999). Say hello to…

The Hunchback of Notre Dame
Theatrical release: June 21, 1996

There’s one word that described this film perfectly: epic. Throughout the movie I just couldn’t keep from writing more and more notes about the soundtrack; it is simply stunning. You try watching the first six minutes of the movie and not being thoroughly impressed. (That choir must have felt pretty proud of itself at the premiere!)



The musical numbers are all impressive and each one has a unique characterization: as you can see from the video above, “The Bells of Notre Dame” sets the stage for a very deep film to come; “Out There” is touching and genuine; “Topsy-Turvy” is zany, a nice diversion; “God Help the Outcasts” is perhaps the most beautiful; “Heaven’s Light” is gentle, innocent, and very sweet; “Hellfire” can only be described (at least by me) with terms like “awesome” and “pwnsome;” “A Guy Like You” is the catchiest of them all; “The Court of Miracles” is mischievous yet clearly dangerous.

It is relatively common knowledge, at least to people who have seen a few Disney movies in their lifetimes, that animated features by Disney have a bothersome habit of replacing the protagonists’ voices in the musical numbers with the voices of “better singers” while letting the minor characters and villains sing their own songs. Therefore I was extremely impressed when I learned that Tom Hulce, Quasimodo’s voice actor, sang his own songs. I don’t know why, but I felt a lot better about the movie after I found that out. The only character that required two separate voices was Esmeralda; perhaps Demi Moore was unaccustomed to doing anything above alto. Heide Mollenhauer sings Esmeralda’s song instead.

Hunchback has been considered one of the more unusual Disney animated features because it deals with more adult-oriented themes than the rest, most notably lust, torture, and religious hypocrisy. One could also include things like prejudice and injustice, but these latter two are more likely to be at least partially grasped by children. There’s also the unusually extensive vocabulary; one of my favorite scenes has got to be when Quasimodo says his ABC's.

"A?"
"Abomination."
"B?"
"Blasphemy."
"C?"
"Contrition."
"D?"
"Damnation."
"E?"
"Eternal damnation."

I rest my case.

I was initially surprised that Disney would make a children’s movie that hinges on religion, but then again, if you’re going to talk about a church in 15th century France that’s kind of a given; the religious themes fit very well into the concerns of the characters, and I think these themes contribute (at least partially) to the depth of the movie. I may be an atheist here in the 2000s, but religion was very real to people in the 1400s, and I deeply respect that.

I had seen this movie when I was younger, but the only things I could remember were (a) bits and pieces of the Feast of Fools, (b) Frollo stopping his soldiers from firing at Phoebus in the water and his corresponding line, and (c) Quasimodo screaming “Sanctuary!” from the balcony of the church at the top of his lungs. Among many of the things that I did not remember was the mini-theme of Frollo’s lust for Esmeralda. I must say that the song in which it is featured, “Hellfire,” is extremely powerful. The theme is clear to older viewers, but luckily it’s been toned down just enough so that a parent could easily explain away what Frollo feels with something relatively innocent, along the lines of “He doesn’t like her, but he’s in love with her.” I think a kid would be able to basically understand that much without emotional scarring.

Don’t worry, there’s plenty enough to keep the kids happy, most obviously the comic-relief gargoyles. But aside from the obvious, the Disney team made many drastic changes to Victor Hugo’s original novel when they staged this movie out. Amazingly, Frollo was originally the Archdeacon and a relatively nice guy…who actually did take in the abandoned baby Quasimodo of his own accord. Phoebus, a real “good guy” in the movie, was as nasty as the movie’s Frollo in the book. Quasimodo was a lot grumpier than the gentle soul we seen in the movie. Esmeralda was a much deeper character in the novel; I got the sense several times that the movie version of her is too kind and nice and innocent, considering her life so far.

Even though the two stories differ so dramatically, the finished film is still deep, impressive, and very moving. I’m willing to confess that this film has become a runner-up for The Lion King’s position as my favorite movie!

Shouldn’t have said that. Now Mahewa’s sulking and won’t talk to me. Give me a second.

Okay, I’m back. She’s agreed to rate this movie well if I promise to draw the characters as anthropomorphized lions instead of humans. Shouldn’t be too hard.

Mahewa’s rating: 4.1/5




Don’t just listen to us, though. It has elicited mixed reviews, primarily having to do with the dumbing down of the material for kids. If you’d like to see this movie get bashed, have a look at Janet Maslin’s original (1996) review via The New York Times; to get a more neutral position, check out James Berardinelli’s comments on reelviews.