"The Hunchback of Notre Dame": What Do You Mean "Not For Kids?"

(Originally posted on 12-15-2008.)

So, I remember why "Hunchback of Notre Dame" was one of my favorite movies as a kid.

I was a seriously fucked up kid.

'Course my other favorite Disney movies were "Aladdin" and "Mulan." That's more normal I guess.

Actually in first grade I used to play "Hunchback" with my two best friends at the time, Stephanie and Maxa, who happened to have crushes on each other and look kind of like Esmeralda and Pheobus. I picked up the extra parts, usually playing an anonymous gypsy who parties all the time. I had a purple mask from a McDonalds happy meal that I wore to assume character.

I watched it today because after a mind-tearing computer issue, I decided to treat myself to something fun.

Then I made a list of all the things about the movie that make it unsuitable for children:
1 Count Murder (of Quasimodo's mom)
1 Count Attempted Infanticide (of Quasimodo)
7 Counts Attempted Murder (At least, there are probably a lot more)
1 Count of Public Abuse and Humiliation (Quasimodo getting tied down and pelted with tomatoes)
1 Count Extreme Lust/Creeperness ("Destroy Esmeralda/And let her taste the fires of hell/Or else let her be mine and mine alone")
1 Count Implied Tortune (Inside the church too!)
1 Big Ass Count of Religious Debate (Is it Witchcraft? Is that wrong? Should children watch a movie with such prominent religious aspects? Is evoking the spirits of Hell too scary? Is the concept of Hell inappropriate for children? Is "God Help The Outcasts" offensive? Should they be allowed to say 'hell' and 'damn' without a PG rating? Honestly, I bet you could not do these kind of things in today's uptight world)
1 Count of Corrupt Power and Hypocrisy (by Frollo)
>2 Counts of Unwarranted Property Destruction (by Frollo)
1 Count Extreme Prejudice (by Frollo against Gypsies as a whole)
>5 Counts of Social Injustice
1 Count Stripper Reference

On the plus side, they made Pheobus a "good guy" and not a rapist like in the novel and . . . well, people live happily ever after and don't die at the end like Hugo had done to them in the original (Seriously, Victor Hugo and I have a lot in common as writers except my stories aren't nearly as long or musically adaptable). It's a kid's movie! Right?

And one thing the kept exactly the same as the novel? Esmeralda's goat. Yes, the goat was magical and intelligent in the novel. Perhaps even moreso.

I did read a while ago that apparently they were initially going to have Quasimodo's mom abandon him like in the novel but studies showed that kids can handle the idea of a parent dying better than just abandonment.

It's funny that that was where Disney drew the line. They still left in plenty of corruption and moral ambiguity but distilled it down into terms children could better understand. Frollo is no longer a priest but a judge, still a position where good judgment is a prerequisite but without the religious controversy (and this was before the highly publicized molestation cases). However, Frollo is never shown to be a virtuous judge in any capacity. From the beginning, he is self-interested and cruel (although truly, judges of the time were often cruel to some degree as the method of getting an answer was often to torture it out of the defendant). In the novel, he is mostly a fairly decent priest, as shown through his adoption of Quasimodo and the fact that he is his brother's sole support system. It's only through his lust for Esmeralda that he behaves badly.

But kids' movies are designed with only black and white morality. Frollo is a bad guy with a position of power. Esmeralda is not naive but generally good-hearted like in the novel but unfailingly clever and an advocate for her ethnic group and therefore good. Quasimodo is entirely pure of heart and a victim of society and therefore good. In fact, in the Disney movie, Pheobus is the most ambiguous. For a lot of the movie he is following Frollo out of obligation but then finally snaps and rises against him when he believes he has gone too far. In the novel, he is actually the most clearly defined "bad guy." And the funny thing is, when I talk to people my age about "Hunchback" pretty much all of them say that they thought Pheobus was the bad guy of the movie in spite of him paling around with Quasi and macking on Esmeralda.

Could it be because he was the successful romantic rival for Esmeralda? Are kids really incapable of shades of grey on the good/bad spectrum?

Maybe that is what makes it a kid's movie more than the censorship of the material: the simplification of character. Because in all honesty there might have been some refuge in audacity here. A lot of those things I listed above as being inappropriate for kids probably either went right over their heads or were things they were used to seeing in their movies.

After all, Bambi's mom got shot by a hunter.