I think that ending moment with Quasimodo accepting Esmerelda and Phoebus together was also a good show of him being more religiously honest than Frollo in a way, if that makes sense. Because love is supposed to be free; it's a choice. Right? Even God himself gives us a chance to accept that Jesus died for us. He doesn't command us to accept the free gift. In that sense, Quasimodo showed his true love for her by stepping aside his personal feelings and supporting her in the decision that would make her the happiest. The Bible says we should mourn for those who mourn and comfort those who stand in need of comfort. But I think it can also be extended to celebrating success and happiness with others. He chose to celebrate her happiness instead of trying to insert himself in there. He didn't do as Frollo did: "If I can't have her, no one can." That's lust and control. He chose to choose light, to choose love, and sacrifice of his own feelings. But I think it also shows everyone that just because there is a tense and loving relationship between two people of the opposite sex doesn't mean that it has to become a relationship. He still won because he ended with true love and people who really care about him.
Eh. Yeah but at the same time it's sending to little kids if you aren't attractive you aren't getting with someone. 2nd movie try to fix that but damage was already done.
I thought the figment theory worked for Frollo too, as he clearly hasn't slept in a long time and his madness coupled with the adrenaline of the chase and his sudden fall could have caused him to hallucinate the face of the gargoyle moving.
I've always felt like the gargoyles ARE only alive in Quasi's imagination. During the scenes where we see them interacting with others, I just figure that's still part of Quasi's imagination. He defended Notre Dame alone, but imagined help. It's worth pointing out that they couldn't help him break free from his chains at the climax, which they should have been able to do if they weren't imaginary. As for Frollo being dragged to hell, I imagine that gargoyle was either Frollo's imagination (we already saw his dark imagination on display during Hellfire), or it was temporarily given life by either God or Satan. I like to imagine it was given life by God as a way of telling Frollo where he's about to go.
@@Steve-dg2udpretty sure that was just to reference the book, there’s a character that wasn’t in the movie, Pierre gringoire, he’s going to be hung in the court of miracles but esmeralda marries him to save his life and he has this bit that he prefers the goat to her
I love this movie!!!!!!! I’m actually part of the autistic minority group so I understand exactly how Esmeralda feels. The discrimination is very similar.
Frollo demonstrates the trope of Evil Cannot Comprehend Good multiple times throughout the film. First, as The Vile Eye states in his video on Frollo, while he genuinely believes in Catholicism, he bases his beliefs around the harsher aspects of his faith and never considers the benefits of virtues, such as mercy, love, forgiveness, and selflessness. Frollo seeks to punish the entire world for not living up to his expectations of holiness, he hates everyone that he believes is full of sin and believes that they are all deserving of punishment, he can never let go of perceived slights, and bases his actions on what HE believes is righteous. Second, Frollo believes that he is the righteous one in a world of sinners and can't comprehend the idea of anyone associated with a group he hates doing good. When Quasimodo tells him that Esmeralda was good to him, he claims that her actions weren't kindness, but cunning, and takes it even further by claiming that her kind, the Romani, are incapable of real love. Finally, at the end of that same scene, Frollo takes "pity" on Quasimodo by rhetorically asking what chance a deformed individual, like Quasimodo, could have against her manipulation. This indicates that Frollo believes that Esmeralda manipulated Quasimodo into letting her go, rather than the reality that Quasimodo let her go of his own free will, because of the aforementioned kindness.
If I could go back and do anything different with this video, I'd honestly say more about the points you mentioned and give a little more attention to this aspect. Because you're right and it is an interesting part of his character. It's very true to real life in many respects; with egoistic individuals who have deeply repressed inner conflicts of self-image and morality, there's a hyper-aroused tendency to seek out moral wrongs in others, and to project their own flawed, manipulative, self-serving characteristics onto everyone, to think that others must think and behave like they would; ie, the example with Esmeralda you mentioned, Frollo only believes she must have deceived and manipulated Quasimodo with fake-kindness, because that's exactly the kind of thing he would do(and *has* done, several times in the movie.) It's like Clopin says at the start of the movie: "He saw corruption everywhere, except, within."
This video is, by far, the best analysis of how Quasi triumphs (due to his empathy and strength) and Frollo fails (due to his cruelty and hypocrisy). It's a pretty unique hero-villain dynamic.
one of the things that i want to mention in the "frollo's snnaping" scene,that is kinda of intertwined with "the Villain's dominance over the hero". Is that,It's been established that,Quasimodo is strong af. He can Carry a fully grown woman and her goat through the cathdral without being slowed down. lift a fully grown armored man with one hand,can jump through buildings and climb quickly through the roofs of paris,showing great agility,for someone so huge. he is also in the prime of his life. while on the other hand,Frollo while intelligent,seems to be old and not not strong physically. if quasi wanted to,he could easily overpower him(in fact he later does) yet despite this huge power difference,Frolo STILL is able to make quasimodo shits himself. it's commonly used in superhero films,but i think its worth mentioning that
Exactly but I think the reason why is the Quasimodo dilemma is that this grim and imposing man is the only father he's ever known. It'd hard standing up to authority as young man with no standing of your own especially when that person is the only real human attachment you've had throughout your life.
I think after the Gargoylea tell Quasi we are just made of stone, we thought you were made of something different the. Turned back into stone, that should have been the last time we saw the gargoyles. I feel like that would have worked a lot better
I don’t think gaslighting is an excessive word to use to describe Frollo’s treatment of Quasimodo. He repeatedly tries to make Quasimodo feel like he’s done wrong and needs to apologize, when Frollo is the one in the wrong. If that isn’t an example of gaslighting, I don’t know what is.
you are 100% right on that. back when I first made this video I was more under the impression that gaslighting was a lot more deliberate and plotted out, with much more intent placed on making the victim question their reality and sanity. But that isn't always necessarily the case. Frollo's words and remarks definitely do constitute as gaslighting.
@@rantsolot I would argue that my analysis of how Frollo gaslights Quasimodo fits into your definition of gaslighting pretty well. Frollo's gaslighting of Quasimodo IS done with the effect of making Quasimodo question his sanity. He's trying to make Quasimodo feel like Frollo is his ONLY hope and the only person he can rely on.
the thing people seam to misunderstand about gray writing and complex characters is, that it is not about making your villain sympathetic, but giving him logical motivations and more then one charactertrait. the way they should be relatable should not be oh what a poor baby, but I kinda get where he is coming from and it scares me. A backstory is not an excuse, but an explanation and even if the story does not share it the author should know for it informs the villains actions and motivations. In a waymusical an book frollo are scaryer then cartonishly evil movie frollo, for there he has good traits, he has some redeamability, but he choses not to. He has capacity to care he just does not extends, when he does something absolutly deplorable, you are shocked, nothing of that in the movie. Movie frolo is so evil, you can avoid him, musical and book frolo cant trick you into a wrong security, he is the real danger way to many women face
By all accounts, you are correct. Counter-point: Disney Frollo is by far the most badass depiction of the character, and that definitely gives him a certain appeal. At least, for me personally. His other interprations are a lot more human, but the evil factor in Disney Frollo gives him such a strong "coolness" factor, and that plays a big role in my own interest/fascination with villains over heroes. But that's only part of it-- personal bias, at the end of the day.
I feel that you could still keep the gargoyle coming to life and taking Frollo to Hell scene with the imagination logic. Like you said, it would work better if Quasi only saw the gargoyles in his imagination to cope with loneliness. If that were the case in the movie, Frollo could still see the gargoyle come to life. Throughout the movie, Frollo is constantly trying to prove to himself that what he's doing is right even if deep down he knows it isn't. Like in the beginning where he feels that the religious statues are staring at him. They're not actually looking at him but he feels like they are. Same with the Hellfire scene where he sees in his head these cloaked figures judging him. By the end of the movie, he's clearly snapped and lost any sense of justifying his actions. He doesn't care anymore. So with him about to fall to his death, he could have a sudden flash of morality or doubt in his actions. So then you could have it "coming to life" as a symbol of his guilt and descent into madness. He even looks at the gargoyle before it comes to life in the movie so it wasn't like it randomly happened to him. He was looking for an answer and in his imagination got one.
GREAT video essay. It suddenly occurred to me that Hunchback is one of the few Disney films where the Hero and the Villain are so closely connected to each other. It's very similar to Tangled but IMO Hunchback portrayed the psychologically abusive situation with more nuance and with the added moral about prejuduce. Although the story might be a bit too complex for kids, I think it teaches a great lesson to them about how to think for yourself and think critically about what you believe. But most importantly, that those closest to you do not always have your best interests at heart. IMO it's Disney's finest work. Thank you so much for this video ❤️
Thank /you/ for your comment! I appreciate your accolades and perspective. Yeah I agree it's very much akin to Tangled but, as you rightly pointed out, Hunchback portrayed it with much more substance and grit. It certainly felt like portraying a confronting and true-to-life abusive child-guardian relationship was the centerpoint of Hunchback as opposed to a fun adventure romp like Tangled. Thanks once more for your comment and I'm very glad you enjoyed the video!
I actually think that in 22:48 the gargoyle was not alive but a little part of Frollo's guilt for all the terrible things he did by kinda showing how god rejected him and throwing him into the fire and having no mercy (Btw Idk If its actually dont know if its confirmed that the gargoyle was real honestly I just felt that)
What I like about Frollo and Scar is they have a connection between the protagonist but in a bad way and can understand more why Quasimodo and Simba didn't wanted to kill the villain they wanted that they survive but they're greed was greater and they died because they choosed to not change
1:20-1:37 Thanos from the MCU and the High Evolutionary from Guardians of the Galaxy: Volume 3 could be seen as deconstructions of this idea. Thanos' desire to stop the universe from collapsing in on itself could be seen as a good thing, but his actions are clearly horrible. In the end, it's revealed that this goal was little more than an excuse and Thanos' real motivation is to be praised for saving the universe, regardless of what he has to do to achieve it. The High Evolutionary has a desire to make the universe a better place, which could also be a good thing, but the film never frames it as something you could get behind, despite his horrible actions. It's made clear that The High Evolutionary's idea of an improved universe is unattainable, because nothing will ever be perfect in his eyes. He'll always find flaws in his creations and use them as excuses to wipe them out. He'll never be satisfied with his creations, because they'll always be flawed in one way or another. Rocket sums it up best when he says "you hated things the way they are", when The High Evolutionary insists he only wanted to make the universe a better place. These characters show us that, no matter how understandable a villain's actions might seem on the surface, their actions will show you where their beliefs really lie.
I like the High Evolutionary based on your explanation. His villain-goal seems like a more focused commentary or analogy of a narcissist's inner desire for perfection being projected outward as a need to perfect everyone and everything around--"fix" them so to speak--and taking that need for control of everyone and everything to a divine level--like 'this is the consequence when someone insecure and egoistic is given too much power and control. ' and most insidious about that type of person's striving for perfection: it will never be enough. Which is true to life in people who possess this psychology.
So fun fact, the original book based the gypsies off the Romani people and the word gypsy when used in the book is meant as an insult towards those people... Great vid btw
Had a bit of an issue with the gargoyle comments at the end. I agree about the kid stuff but Frollo's death was anything but unrealistic. It was clearly established in the beginning that follo and moreover the people of Paris see a certain mysticism in Notre Dame(making the gypsies such a poignant topic). Quasimodo's hallucinations of the gargoyles as his friends are very believable for such an abused repressed oppressed and isolated individual such as himself. As you stated the most compelling part of his character is how similar to Quasi he is for all those exact reasons. Sure HOW he is all of those qualities is fundamentally different from Quasi but that is the crux of the powers history at the end as all aspect of his power over Quasi is eroded. In the beginning when Follo was guilted into 'adopting' Quasimodo the Pastor(clergyman, father, some catholic thing idk) we see Frollo anthropomorphize the church itself. Likely a typically Gaslighting tool that had been used for generations of the clergy and congregation. Likely taught to clergy to control what was at that time period a very chaotic population to build order. To effectively deploy this type of tactic clergy could sometimes be some of the most abused repressed and isolated despite having the power dynamic working in their favor. This is because the religious idealism established during that time period allowed even the most powerful to be gaslit into being controled by the very idea they themselves are propagating which is inherently why that period of time was so significantly successful as a society that it somewhat still continues today in certain ways. Due to the fact Frollo is not just a clergyman but the top clergyman in the film context his isolation is absolute and in a way oppresses his own sanity enabling his worst tendencies and thus making an amazing villian. His demise at the end was the perfect end for the character and for the story itself. Frollo is overcome by Quasimodo much like how he had been abusing him the while time. Frollos sanity is truly destroyed as he tries to attack esmarelda holding onto Quasi to save his life as it is the symbolic peak of what Frollo has been told to believe his whole life. This causes him to miscalculate and get greedy(ironically a sin) the church itself breaks from Follo's own choices. Follow then stares into the eyes of the gargoyle and clearly hallucinate the face telling him that everything he has been saying has been him this whole time and his own premonition comes true as he, the demonic figure being purged into the firey depths is realized.
Hi, first of all thx for your detailed analysis vid! I am not sure whether or not you’ll still read the comment of a vid 2 years ago. But I’m glad that you mentioned the grape scene, it’s a interesting dynamic between Quasi and Frollo, and people seldom talk about how well-done the conversation is. About Frollo’s death scene, I always feel like if Frollo died in a more self-destructive, self-harming, even borderline-suicidal way due to his obsession with Esmeralda, it would have been a better character moment for Frollo. (Then again this movie is already dark enough for Disney so it’s just my thoughts) I get the symbolism of “literally getting plunged into hell”, and I understand people want to see a satisfying defeat of a despicable villain……but what if Frollo died bc he could not accept Esmeralda’s rejection? What if he being overwhelmed by the lust was his ultimate demise? I think this would have make a beautiful contract to Quasi’s letting Esmerelda go. Yeah I would re-write that scene so gargoyles are just imagination :D Thanks for reading my long message if you really read this! Good vid, keep up your great work!
I'm glad you enjoyed the video! Trust me, even after 2 (prolly more like 3 actually) years, comments like these still make my day lol. I think the idea of Frollo's death being self-imposed is very interesting, even though (like you said) that'd be pretty dark for Disney lol. Esmeralda's rejection could've been a good catalyst, though if it were me writing it, I'd go a step beyond and have his suicide be related to him having a type of realization about himself as a whole. Like having his identity/persona as a holy, pure man of God being shattered so irreversibly that it destroys his identity and sense of self to the point of suicide. To me at least, that would fulfill the need you mentioned before about audiences wanting a satisfying defeat for the villain, on account of him realizing his own wrong-doings and the sheer weight that entails. But that's just my melodramatic two scents lol. And thank you for your comment! I appreciate the discussion and perspective.
@@rantsolot Oh my god I got the response!!! :D I just kinda want Frollo's demise to have the same emotional weight/intensity as Quasi's "sanctuary" scene rather than the symbolism, so I figure it would be interesting if his inner struggle played a role here. But I like your idea as well, it also has something to do with what makes Frollo an interesting character! (his hypocrisy vs his limited capability of guilt) Thank you again for replying!
I think it is self-destructive though. Quasi spares him and lets him live, simply trying to escape with Esmeralda, but he chases them anyways to try and kill them. Then even after he tried to kill Quasi, he refuses to drop him and instead helps him get to safety on the gargoyle. Frollo STILL doesn't back down because he's so far gone, and chooses to try and kill them one more time before getting plunged into the flames. While Frollo's suicide would be interesting, I think the man is such a delusional egotist that in his eyes if he is miserable he will respond by destroying anything he thinks is responsible instead of himself.
I think the book version Frollo was also pretty much as disturbing, just not as visibly so. They show some of his compassionate acts, but they're mostly in flashbacks. It's also established that he is a gifted scholar (adding to the self-righteousness). By the end they aren't that much different. He is capable of compassion and is knowledgeable, but _chooses_ not to do it and giving in to his evil side. The thing is, most evil people seem nice until they aren't. Esmeralda is also barely 16 there, which makes it worse (and he does worse things to her there too). Most of his time is spent monologuing on how he is the victim of fate or Romani or whatever. Instead of presenting himself as Quasimodo's savior to him, he presents himself as her savior. The movie shows this lack of accountability and manipulation, just less. It's realistic nonetheless.
Ah but think of it like this! What if the gargoyle that killed Frollo was actually a part of HIS imagination or maybe a foreshadowing vision God gave him to foreshadow his punishment. Thats how i think about that scene atleast
Tecknicaly thinking in these movie, a movie with heavy religion strneght, and that the Gargoyls in the chatedral are guardians against evil and demons, and if you contrast what Frollo was saying, i think the gargoyle was doing the job that was suppose to do and bring the demon in the people down to the hell he belong
Seeing how there are fans who jokingly say that Gaston from Beauty and the beast was a righteous hero, you can do more or less the same with Frollo. Think about it, the entire story was narrated by Clopin, a Romani, who most likely fabricated events to vilify Frollo. Frollo genuinely had Quasimodo and the people of Paris’ best interests in mind, trying to impose strict policies to prevent Romani from skipping taxes and scamming people. Because of this, the Romani ordered Esmeralda to play the sexy card in the festival of fools and lace her silk veil with powerful drugs to drive Frollo insane. And she also planned to seduce both Quasimodo and Phoebus to join the Romani’s cause. The Frollo we see having “trouble with the fireplace” is a former shell of himself who lost his sanity through deception.
hey man! TBH the info you're giving is great!, I would make the video max 20 mins, change the font, don't use the prebuilt fonts, the don't look pro, the work on the editing, you need to find a way no make it look less like a power pint and more like an animation video. for example, add a background loop so it's not just black. apart from that, great work! now keep grinding!
Another thing, that i like about these villan, is that, at difference of many characters, be villans or heroes, both Aquasimodo and Frollo, are not powerful in the now way, they dont have super powers or anything, Frollo, is powerful in the sense of political and religious power, authority, Frollo, is a judge of the inquiesition, the head inquisitor of France, with power bigger than the king, he is a judge, that can kill and have all power to do so, so these villan feels real he has power in a sense that feels real,
I also want to debunk the narrative of the movie being "tonally inconsistent". I know movies are subjective and if people feel that the movie has tonal problems than that's fine and I have nothing against that. But people I think blow it out of proportions. Are there SOME lighthearted moments? Sure, but barely, and they don’t last very long and only last for 5 minutes and it’s not like the Eddie Murphy’s Haunted Mansion or the highly overrated Cabin In The Woods of the highly overrated Toy Story 3 where it comes out of nowhere. Now that’s a tonally inconsistent movie for ya. The 90s Batman cartoon, 90s X-Men cartoon, 90s Superman cartoon, 90s Spider-Man cartoon, early 2000s Justice League cartoon, Batman: Mask of The Phantasm (1993), Gargoyles (1994-1996), Who Framed Roger Rabbit? (1990), Nightmare Before Christmas (1993), and Corpse Bride (2005) do the exact opposite. They are considered darker, more adult oriented, intense, sophisticated, and only have a few lighthearted moments here and there, right? (The 90s Batman cartoon, 90s X-Men cartoon, 90s Superman cartoon, 90s Spider-Man cartoon, early 2000s Justice League cartoon, Batman: Mask of The Phantasm (1993),and Corpse Bride (2005) are not Disney but I think you get the idea) I guess they’re tonally inconsistent than. No because they only happen here and there and only last for like five to six minutes. Disney’s Hunchback of Notre Dame DOES THE EXACT SAME THING!!! Also anime like Naruto, Hellsing and Cowboy Beebop also similar humor to the 1996 Disney film? Are they tonally inconsistent? No. Disney’s Hunchback of Notre Dame does the same exact thing. So, the next time you say it’s “Durr tonally inconsistent” actually watch the damn movie next time. I know movies are subjective, if you didn’t care for the movie and it wasn’t your cup of tea than fine, and I have nothing against that. But to say this movie is tonally inconsistent? Yeah I don’t know what movie people were watching. If anything the overrated shitty Toy Story 3 is tonally inconsistent. That’s a movie with tonal problems for ya. Also watch these videos. They also debunk the idea that Judge Frollo is one dimensional and unrealistic: drive.google.com/file/d/1c9IeNBDBfsPeCtLMY-llVB5302b-kj8G/view?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTAAAR04dgXsHPZ19V_Dlhlr_Uv8Ihdw5qjw8wG6mgniItss5gfc-unBmrXdhK0_aem_Ad9wnFDjHin8jnPcnId85kXX0SUxMHaTrcJh9aUcHsEAz9Y05Izy1d5jgCXKuTVfzxMfknCBqXoLtpUl_yOctdcB czcams.com/video/_UySr6nowdU/video.html Also 4Shame and Lindsay Ellis are idiots who have no idea what they're talking about. I also want to debunk the narrative of the movie being "tonally inconsistent". I know movies are subjective and if people feel that the movie has tonal problems than that's fine and I have nothing against that. But people I think blow it out of proportions. Are there SOME lighthearted moments? Sure, but barely, and they don’t last very long and only last for 5 minutes and it’s not like the Eddie Murphy’s Haunted Mansion or the highly overrated Cabin In The Woods of the highly overrated Toy Story 3 where it comes out of nowhere. Now that’s a tonally inconsistent movie for ya. The 90s Batman cartoon, 90s X-Men cartoon, 90s Superman cartoon, 90s Spider-Man cartoon, early 2000s Justice League cartoon, Batman: Mask of The Phantasm (1993), Gargoyles (1994-1996), Who Framed Roger Rabbit? (1990), Nightmare Before Christmas (1993), and Corpse Bride (2005) do the exact opposite. They are considered darker, more adult oriented, intense, sophisticated, and only have a few lighthearted moments here and there, right? (The 90s Batman cartoon, 90s X-Men cartoon, 90s Superman cartoon, 90s Spider-Man cartoon, early 2000s Justice League cartoon, Batman: Mask of The Phantasm (1993),and Corpse Bride (2005) are not Disney but I think you get the idea) I guess they’re tonally inconsistent than. No because they only happen here and there and only last for like five to six minutes. Disney’s Hunchback of Notre Dame DOES THE EXACT SAME THING!!! Also anime like Naruto, Hellsing and Cowboy Beebop also similar humor to the 1996 Disney film? Are they tonally inconsistent? No. Disney’s Hunchback of Notre Dame does the same exact thing. So, the next time you say it’s “Durr tonally inconsistent” actually watch the damn movie next time. I know movies are subjective, if you didn’t care for the movie and it wasn’t your cup of tea than fine, and I have nothing against that. But to say this movie is tonally inconsistent? Yeah I don’t know what movie people were watching. If anything the overrated shitty Toy Story 3 is tonally inconsistent. That’s a movie with tonal problems for ya. Also watch these videos. They also debunk the idea that Judge Frollo is one dimensional and unrealistic: drive.google.com/file/d/1c9IeNBDBfsPeCtLMY-llVB5302b-kj8G/view?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTAAAR04dgXsHPZ19V_Dlhlr_Uv8Ihdw5qjw8wG6mgniItss5gfc-unBmrXdhK0_aem_Ad9wnFDjHin8jnPcnId85kXX0SUxMHaTrcJh9aUcHsEAz9Y05Izy1d5jgCXKuTVfzxMfknCBqXoLtpUl_yOctdcB czcams.com/video/_UySr6nowdU/video.html
The controversy around the intro to the Court of Miracles is one of those instances where modern sensibilities and a popular lack of attention to detail grate on me. Paris is ruled by a guy that reigns over it with an iron fist and hates their people. The guards try to seize Esmeralda's earnings from her street preforming as stolen. They do this under no more pretense than her race and her having money. That's heavy implication and at least one explicit seen painting them as persecuted and oppressed and thus clearly not the sort who have many legitimate opportunities. Between that and the film 's running antiracist/prejudice themes should be more than enough not to see the scene construed as racist. All it takes is bearing in mind the context of an hour and a half long film. Do the people who come up with this stuff have the attention span and working memory of a goldfish?
The film's heavy emphasis on the discrimination and oppression of the Gypsies is the precise reason why the intro to the Court of Miracles can be construed as egregious. It arguably contradicts what the film had been conveying up until that point. The lyrics allude quite explicitly to the notion that the Romani people are all thieves and cutthroats, yet the movie had spent its former half arguing otherwise. It's just bizarre and contradictory, is all.
@@rantsolot thanks for replying. Always nice when the hosts/creators engage with the feedback. That being said I disagree and am slightly flummoxed that people who present this idea are comfortable asserting what's shown to be a small group within a much broader community as stereotypes for the whole group. In the video proper you said this scene might've been less offensive if it had shown that Gypsies are only doing this because they lack legitimate opportunities but the film already gives us alot of context supporting that idea.
@@rantsolot whether it's uncomfortable to admit it or not marginalized groups tend up with criminal elements that gain standing by offering to provide for and protect the community (at least ostensibly). Clopin and his men fit this bill and their line in the song makes that quite explicit, "We have a method for spies and intruders rather like hornets protecting their hive." If we were to adapt this story. Modernize and Americanize it and swap the Romani out for say Italian Immigrants in early 1900s New Orleans would we say that being shown the Mafia exists is validating anti Italian American prejudice?
I just recently read the Victor Hugo novel. I honestly wasn’t a fan of it. It has its moments but I found it kinda boring and too long for my taste. Quasimodo and Esmeralda weren’t that likable in the book so when they died I simply didn’t care.
to each their own. i read the book back in 10th grade so it's been quite a while. i distinctively remember it having a lot of filler lol. I outright skipped the chapters, "Paris From A Bird's Eye View," and "Notre Dame." literally entire chapters explaining what Paris looks like from a bird's eye view and the Notre Dame Cathedral lol. it did have a slow start and i remember it took me a while to actually invest myself. but overall i enjoyed the book a great deal mostly. wish i could remember how quasi and esmeralda were written, it's been a long while. I thought I remembered Quasimodo being fairly well-written and sympathetic tho.
I don’t think that gargoyle at the end has anything to do with the other ones. I think that was similar to the dancing flames during the Hellfire scene
I think that ending moment with Quasimodo accepting Esmerelda and Phoebus together was also a good show of him being more religiously honest than Frollo in a way, if that makes sense. Because love is supposed to be free; it's a choice. Right? Even God himself gives us a chance to accept that Jesus died for us. He doesn't command us to accept the free gift. In that sense, Quasimodo showed his true love for her by stepping aside his personal feelings and supporting her in the decision that would make her the happiest. The Bible says we should mourn for those who mourn and comfort those who stand in need of comfort. But I think it can also be extended to celebrating success and happiness with others. He chose to celebrate her happiness instead of trying to insert himself in there. He didn't do as Frollo did: "If I can't have her, no one can." That's lust and control. He chose to choose light, to choose love, and sacrifice of his own feelings. But I think it also shows everyone that just because there is a tense and loving relationship between two people of the opposite sex doesn't mean that it has to become a relationship. He still won because he ended with true love and people who really care about him.
Eh. Yeah but at the same time it's sending to little kids if you aren't attractive you aren't getting with someone. 2nd movie try to fix that but damage was already done.
Well spoken my friend
@@mikethepokemaster2012 tbe 2nd movie was a whole another direct-to-video disaster by itself
@@mikethepokemaster2012 well no, Phoebus is the only person that treats Esmeralda as a real person
Morally Grey villains are fine and can be quite compelling. But I do miss really evil villains like Frollo and Scar.
I thought the figment theory worked for Frollo too, as he clearly hasn't slept in a long time and his madness coupled with the adrenaline of the chase and his sudden fall could have caused him to hallucinate the face of the gargoyle moving.
I've always felt like the gargoyles ARE only alive in Quasi's imagination. During the scenes where we see them interacting with others, I just figure that's still part of Quasi's imagination. He defended Notre Dame alone, but imagined help. It's worth pointing out that they couldn't help him break free from his chains at the climax, which they should have been able to do if they weren't imaginary.
As for Frollo being dragged to hell, I imagine that gargoyle was either Frollo's imagination (we already saw his dark imagination on display during Hellfire), or it was temporarily given life by either God or Satan. I like to imagine it was given life by God as a way of telling Frollo where he's about to go.
So Quasimodo was imagining that one gargoyle being in love with Djali the goat?
@@Steve-dg2udpretty sure that was just to reference the book, there’s a character that wasn’t in the movie, Pierre gringoire, he’s going to be hung in the court of miracles but esmeralda marries him to save his life and he has this bit that he prefers the goat to her
Hades and Facieller are still good decent villains but Scar and Frollo are still compelling, manipulative, and complex villians
I love this movie!!!!!!! I’m actually part of the autistic minority group so I understand exactly how Esmeralda feels. The discrimination is very similar.
I'm in the group, too.
@@harmlesshorrors7229 Autistic as well. (Not religious)
❤️
Yes, there’s always a new trend to make fun of autistic people
As tvtropes pointed out both quasi modo and frollo get equal focus in the movie which actually helps the hero-villain dynamic
That's a good point
Frollo demonstrates the trope of Evil Cannot Comprehend Good multiple times throughout the film. First, as The Vile Eye states in his video on Frollo, while he genuinely believes in Catholicism, he bases his beliefs around the harsher aspects of his faith and never considers the benefits of virtues, such as mercy, love, forgiveness, and selflessness. Frollo seeks to punish the entire world for not living up to his expectations of holiness, he hates everyone that he believes is full of sin and believes that they are all deserving of punishment, he can never let go of perceived slights, and bases his actions on what HE believes is righteous. Second, Frollo believes that he is the righteous one in a world of sinners and can't comprehend the idea of anyone associated with a group he hates doing good. When Quasimodo tells him that Esmeralda was good to him, he claims that her actions weren't kindness, but cunning, and takes it even further by claiming that her kind, the Romani, are incapable of real love. Finally, at the end of that same scene, Frollo takes "pity" on Quasimodo by rhetorically asking what chance a deformed individual, like Quasimodo, could have against her manipulation. This indicates that Frollo believes that Esmeralda manipulated Quasimodo into letting her go, rather than the reality that Quasimodo let her go of his own free will, because of the aforementioned kindness.
If I could go back and do anything different with this video, I'd honestly say more about the points you mentioned and give a little more attention to this aspect.
Because you're right and it is an interesting part of his character. It's very true to real life in many respects; with egoistic individuals who have deeply repressed inner conflicts of self-image and morality, there's a hyper-aroused tendency to seek out moral wrongs in others, and to project their own flawed, manipulative, self-serving characteristics onto everyone, to think that others must think and behave like they would; ie, the example with Esmeralda you mentioned, Frollo only believes she must have deceived and manipulated Quasimodo with fake-kindness, because that's exactly the kind of thing he would do(and *has* done, several times in the movie.) It's like Clopin says at the start of the movie: "He saw corruption everywhere, except, within."
This video is, by far, the best analysis of how Quasi triumphs (due to his empathy and strength) and Frollo fails (due to his cruelty and hypocrisy). It's a pretty unique hero-villain dynamic.
Thanks man, stoked you enjoyed the video!
@@rantsolot, np. I've been happy to share it with others since I discovered it two years ago. :)
@@reneelawton1032 🤯🤯🤯
one of the things that i want to mention in the "frollo's snnaping" scene,that is kinda of intertwined with "the Villain's dominance over the hero".
Is that,It's been established that,Quasimodo is strong af. He can Carry a fully grown woman and her goat through the cathdral without being slowed down.
lift a fully grown armored man with one hand,can jump through buildings and climb quickly through the roofs of paris,showing great agility,for someone so huge. he is also in the prime of his life.
while on the other hand,Frollo while intelligent,seems to be old and not not strong physically. if quasi wanted to,he could easily overpower him(in fact he later does)
yet despite this huge power difference,Frolo STILL is able to make quasimodo shits himself.
it's commonly used in superhero films,but i think its worth mentioning that
Exactly but I think the reason why is the Quasimodo dilemma is that this grim and imposing man is the only father he's ever known. It'd hard standing up to authority as young man with no standing of your own especially when that person is the only real human attachment you've had throughout your life.
I think after the Gargoylea tell Quasi we are just made of stone, we thought you were made of something different the. Turned back into stone, that should have been the last time we saw the gargoyles. I feel like that would have worked a lot better
This would've been perfect!
I love evil and arrogant he is but he’s also complex and realistic
I don’t think gaslighting is an excessive word to use to describe Frollo’s treatment of Quasimodo. He repeatedly tries to make Quasimodo feel like he’s done wrong and needs to apologize, when Frollo is the one in the wrong. If that isn’t an example of gaslighting, I don’t know what is.
you are 100% right on that. back when I first made this video I was more under the impression that gaslighting was a lot more deliberate and plotted out, with much more intent placed on making the victim question their reality and sanity. But that isn't always necessarily the case. Frollo's words and remarks definitely do constitute as gaslighting.
@@rantsolot I would argue that my analysis of how Frollo gaslights Quasimodo fits into your definition of gaslighting pretty well. Frollo's gaslighting of Quasimodo IS done with the effect of making Quasimodo question his sanity. He's trying to make Quasimodo feel like Frollo is his ONLY hope and the only person he can rely on.
the thing people seam to misunderstand about gray writing and complex characters is, that it is not about making your villain sympathetic, but giving him logical motivations and more then one charactertrait. the way they should be relatable should not be oh what a poor baby, but I kinda get where he is coming from and it scares me. A backstory is not an excuse, but an explanation and even if the story does not share it the author should know for it informs the villains actions and motivations.
In a waymusical an book frollo are scaryer then cartonishly evil movie frollo, for there he has good traits, he has some redeamability, but he choses not to. He has capacity to care he just does not extends, when he does something absolutly deplorable, you are shocked, nothing of that in the movie. Movie frolo is so evil, you can avoid him, musical and book frolo cant trick you into a wrong security, he is the real danger way to many women face
By all accounts, you are correct. Counter-point: Disney Frollo is by far the most badass depiction of the character, and that definitely gives him a certain appeal. At least, for me personally. His other interprations are a lot more human, but the evil factor in Disney Frollo gives him such a strong "coolness" factor, and that plays a big role in my own interest/fascination with villains over heroes. But that's only part of it-- personal bias, at the end of the day.
Holy shit this needs more views
Quasimodo and frollo’s relationship is basically a male version of rapual ( I can’t spell) and mother Gothel’s relationship
Why
I feel that you could still keep the gargoyle coming to life and taking Frollo to Hell scene with the imagination logic. Like you said, it would work better if Quasi only saw the gargoyles in his imagination to cope with loneliness. If that were the case in the movie, Frollo could still see the gargoyle come to life.
Throughout the movie, Frollo is constantly trying to prove to himself that what he's doing is right even if deep down he knows it isn't. Like in the beginning where he feels that the religious statues are staring at him. They're not actually looking at him but he feels like they are. Same with the Hellfire scene where he sees in his head these cloaked figures judging him. By the end of the movie, he's clearly snapped and lost any sense of justifying his actions. He doesn't care anymore.
So with him about to fall to his death, he could have a sudden flash of morality or doubt in his actions. So then you could have it "coming to life" as a symbol of his guilt and descent into madness. He even looks at the gargoyle before it comes to life in the movie so it wasn't like it randomly happened to him. He was looking for an answer and in his imagination got one.
I love that moment too much to ever think about leaving it out of the movie so yeah lol.
yeah fair enough. still, the gargoyle actually coming to life and letting Frollo fall makes the most sense symbolically.
GREAT video essay. It suddenly occurred to me that Hunchback is one of the few Disney films where the Hero and the Villain are so closely connected to each other. It's very similar to Tangled but IMO Hunchback portrayed the psychologically abusive situation with more nuance and with the added moral about prejuduce. Although the story might be a bit too complex for kids, I think it teaches a great lesson to them about how to think for yourself and think critically about what you believe. But most importantly, that those closest to you do not always have your best interests at heart. IMO it's Disney's finest work. Thank you so much for this video ❤️
Thank /you/ for your comment! I appreciate your accolades and perspective. Yeah I agree it's very much akin to Tangled but, as you rightly pointed out, Hunchback portrayed it with much more substance and grit. It certainly felt like portraying a confronting and true-to-life abusive child-guardian relationship was the centerpoint of Hunchback as opposed to a fun adventure romp like Tangled. Thanks once more for your comment and I'm very glad you enjoyed the video!
I actually think that in 22:48 the gargoyle was not alive but a little part of Frollo's guilt for all the terrible things he did by kinda showing how god rejected him and throwing him into the fire and having no mercy (Btw Idk If its actually dont know if its confirmed that the gargoyle was real honestly I just felt that)
What I like about Frollo and Scar is they have a connection between the protagonist but in a bad way and can understand more why Quasimodo and Simba didn't wanted to kill the villain they wanted that they survive but they're greed was greater and they died because they choosed to not change
I rewatched this movie a couple months ago after like 20 years, and realised how much I liked it.
1:20-1:37 Thanos from the MCU and the High Evolutionary from Guardians of the Galaxy: Volume 3 could be seen as deconstructions of this idea. Thanos' desire to stop the universe from collapsing in on itself could be seen as a good thing, but his actions are clearly horrible. In the end, it's revealed that this goal was little more than an excuse and Thanos' real motivation is to be praised for saving the universe, regardless of what he has to do to achieve it. The High Evolutionary has a desire to make the universe a better place, which could also be a good thing, but the film never frames it as something you could get behind, despite his horrible actions. It's made clear that The High Evolutionary's idea of an improved universe is unattainable, because nothing will ever be perfect in his eyes. He'll always find flaws in his creations and use them as excuses to wipe them out. He'll never be satisfied with his creations, because they'll always be flawed in one way or another. Rocket sums it up best when he says "you hated things the way they are", when The High Evolutionary insists he only wanted to make the universe a better place. These characters show us that, no matter how understandable a villain's actions might seem on the surface, their actions will show you where their beliefs really lie.
I like the High Evolutionary based on your explanation. His villain-goal seems like a more focused commentary or analogy of a narcissist's inner desire for perfection being projected outward as a need to perfect everyone and everything around--"fix" them so to speak--and taking that need for control of everyone and everything to a divine level--like 'this is the consequence when someone insecure and egoistic is given too much power and control. ' and most insidious about that type of person's striving for perfection: it will never be enough. Which is true to life in people who possess this psychology.
So fun fact, the original book based the gypsies off the Romani people and the word gypsy when used in the book is meant as an insult towards those people...
Great vid btw
great analysis, this deserves way more views
Thank you for your video. It's appreciated.
23:04 it’s symbolizes GOD rejection him
Had a bit of an issue with the gargoyle comments at the end. I agree about the kid stuff but Frollo's death was anything but unrealistic. It was clearly established in the beginning that follo and moreover the people of Paris see a certain mysticism in Notre Dame(making the gypsies such a poignant topic). Quasimodo's hallucinations of the gargoyles as his friends are very believable for such an abused repressed oppressed and isolated individual such as himself. As you stated the most compelling part of his character is how similar to Quasi he is for all those exact reasons. Sure HOW he is all of those qualities is fundamentally different from Quasi but that is the crux of the powers history at the end as all aspect of his power over Quasi is eroded. In the beginning when Follo was guilted into 'adopting' Quasimodo the Pastor(clergyman, father, some catholic thing idk) we see Frollo anthropomorphize the church itself. Likely a typically Gaslighting tool that had been used for generations of the clergy and congregation. Likely taught to clergy to control what was at that time period a very chaotic population to build order. To effectively deploy this type of tactic clergy could sometimes be some of the most abused repressed and isolated despite having the power dynamic working in their favor. This is because the religious idealism established during that time period allowed even the most powerful to be gaslit into being controled by the very idea they themselves are propagating which is inherently why that period of time was so significantly successful as a society that it somewhat still continues today in certain ways. Due to the fact Frollo is not just a clergyman but the top clergyman in the film context his isolation is absolute and in a way oppresses his own sanity enabling his worst tendencies and thus making an amazing villian. His demise at the end was the perfect end for the character and for the story itself. Frollo is overcome by Quasimodo much like how he had been abusing him the while time. Frollos sanity is truly destroyed as he tries to attack esmarelda holding onto Quasi to save his life as it is the symbolic peak of what Frollo has been told to believe his whole life. This causes him to miscalculate and get greedy(ironically a sin) the church itself breaks from Follo's own choices. Follow then stares into the eyes of the gargoyle and clearly hallucinate the face telling him that everything he has been saying has been him this whole time and his own premonition comes true as he, the demonic figure being purged into the firey depths is realized.
Hi, first of all thx for your detailed analysis vid! I am not sure whether or not you’ll still read the comment of a vid 2 years ago. But I’m glad that you mentioned the grape scene, it’s a interesting dynamic between Quasi and Frollo, and people seldom talk about how well-done the conversation is.
About Frollo’s death scene, I always feel like if Frollo died in a more self-destructive, self-harming, even borderline-suicidal way due to his obsession with Esmeralda, it would have been a better character moment for Frollo. (Then again this movie is already dark enough for Disney so it’s just my thoughts) I get the symbolism of “literally getting plunged into hell”, and I understand people want to see a satisfying defeat of a despicable villain……but what if Frollo died bc he could not accept Esmeralda’s rejection? What if he being overwhelmed by the lust was his ultimate demise? I think this would have make a beautiful contract to Quasi’s letting Esmerelda go.
Yeah I would re-write that scene so gargoyles are just imagination :D
Thanks for reading my long message if you really read this! Good vid, keep up your great work!
I'm glad you enjoyed the video! Trust me, even after 2 (prolly more like 3 actually) years, comments like these still make my day lol.
I think the idea of Frollo's death being self-imposed is very interesting, even though (like you said) that'd be pretty dark for Disney lol. Esmeralda's rejection could've been a good catalyst, though if it were me writing it, I'd go a step beyond and have his suicide be related to him having a type of realization about himself as a whole. Like having his identity/persona as a holy, pure man of God being shattered so irreversibly that it destroys his identity and sense of self to the point of suicide.
To me at least, that would fulfill the need you mentioned before about audiences wanting a satisfying defeat for the villain, on account of him realizing his own wrong-doings and the sheer weight that entails. But that's just my melodramatic two scents lol.
And thank you for your comment! I appreciate the discussion and perspective.
@@rantsolot Oh my god I got the response!!! :D
I just kinda want Frollo's demise to have the same emotional weight/intensity as Quasi's "sanctuary" scene rather than the symbolism, so I figure it would be interesting if his inner struggle played a role here. But I like your idea as well, it also has something to do with what makes Frollo an interesting character! (his hypocrisy vs his limited capability of guilt)
Thank you again for replying!
I think it is self-destructive though. Quasi spares him and lets him live, simply trying to escape with Esmeralda, but he chases them anyways to try and kill them. Then even after he tried to kill Quasi, he refuses to drop him and instead helps him get to safety on the gargoyle. Frollo STILL doesn't back down because he's so far gone, and chooses to try and kill them one more time before getting plunged into the flames. While Frollo's suicide would be interesting, I think the man is such a delusional egotist that in his eyes if he is miserable he will respond by destroying anything he thinks is responsible instead of himself.
I think the book version Frollo was also pretty much as disturbing, just not as visibly so. They show some of his compassionate acts, but they're mostly in flashbacks. It's also established that he is a gifted scholar (adding to the self-righteousness). By the end they aren't that much different. He is capable of compassion and is knowledgeable, but _chooses_ not to do it and giving in to his evil side. The thing is, most evil people seem nice until they aren't. Esmeralda is also barely 16 there, which makes it worse (and he does worse things to her there too). Most of his time is spent monologuing on how he is the victim of fate or Romani or whatever. Instead of presenting himself as Quasimodo's savior to him, he presents himself as her savior. The movie shows this lack of accountability and manipulation, just less. It's realistic nonetheless.
very well-put !
@@rantsolot Thanks!
Ah but think of it like this! What if the gargoyle that killed Frollo was actually a part of HIS imagination or maybe a foreshadowing vision God gave him to foreshadow his punishment. Thats how i think about that scene atleast
Tecknicaly thinking in these movie, a movie with heavy religion strneght, and that the Gargoyls in the chatedral are guardians against evil and demons, and if you contrast what Frollo was saying, i think the gargoyle was doing the job that was suppose to do and bring the demon in the people down to the hell he belong
@@Krysnha it’s ironic because just like demons gargoyles also look evil.
@@gangstagamegangstagame4467 indeed, well biblical angel looks scary
Frollo is my babygirl
Really cool video, thank you for such an interesting analysis!
Seeing how there are fans who jokingly say that Gaston from Beauty and the beast was a righteous hero, you can do more or less the same with Frollo.
Think about it, the entire story was narrated by Clopin, a Romani, who most likely fabricated events to vilify Frollo. Frollo genuinely had Quasimodo and the people of Paris’ best interests in mind, trying to impose strict policies to prevent Romani from skipping taxes and scamming people.
Because of this, the Romani ordered Esmeralda to play the sexy card in the festival of fools and lace her silk veil with powerful drugs to drive Frollo insane. And she also planned to seduce both Quasimodo and Phoebus to join the Romani’s cause. The Frollo we see having “trouble with the fireplace” is a former shell of himself who lost his sanity through deception.
hey man! TBH the info you're giving is great!, I would make the video max 20 mins, change the font, don't use the prebuilt fonts, the don't look pro, the work on the editing, you need to find a way no make it look less like a power pint and more like an animation video. for example, add a background loop so it's not just black. apart from that, great work! now keep grinding!
Another thing, that i like about these villan, is that, at difference of many characters, be villans or heroes, both Aquasimodo and Frollo, are not powerful in the now way, they dont have super powers or anything, Frollo, is powerful in the sense of political and religious power, authority, Frollo, is a judge of the inquiesition, the head inquisitor of France, with power bigger than the king, he is a judge, that can kill and have all power to do so, so these villan feels real he has power in a sense that feels real,
couldn't agree more!
I also want to debunk the narrative of the movie being "tonally inconsistent". I know movies are subjective and if people feel that the movie has tonal problems than that's fine and I have nothing against that. But people I think blow it out of proportions.
Are there SOME lighthearted moments? Sure, but barely, and they don’t last very long and only last for 5 minutes and it’s not like the Eddie Murphy’s Haunted Mansion or the highly overrated Cabin In The Woods of the highly overrated Toy Story 3 where it comes out of nowhere. Now that’s a tonally inconsistent movie for ya.
The 90s Batman cartoon, 90s X-Men cartoon, 90s Superman cartoon, 90s Spider-Man cartoon, early 2000s Justice League cartoon, Batman: Mask of The Phantasm (1993), Gargoyles (1994-1996), Who Framed Roger Rabbit? (1990), Nightmare Before Christmas (1993), and Corpse Bride (2005) do the exact opposite. They are considered darker, more adult oriented, intense, sophisticated, and only have a few lighthearted moments here and there, right? (The 90s Batman cartoon, 90s X-Men cartoon, 90s Superman cartoon, 90s Spider-Man cartoon, early 2000s Justice League cartoon, Batman: Mask of The Phantasm (1993),and Corpse Bride (2005) are not Disney but I think you get the idea) I guess they’re tonally inconsistent than. No because they only happen here and there and only last for like five to six minutes. Disney’s Hunchback of Notre Dame DOES THE EXACT SAME THING!!! Also anime like Naruto, Hellsing and Cowboy Beebop also similar humor to the 1996 Disney film? Are they tonally inconsistent? No. Disney’s Hunchback of Notre Dame does the same exact thing. So, the next time you say it’s “Durr tonally inconsistent” actually watch the damn movie next time. I know movies are subjective, if you didn’t care for the movie and it wasn’t your cup of tea than fine, and I have nothing against that. But to say this movie is tonally inconsistent? Yeah I don’t know what movie people were watching. If anything the overrated shitty Toy Story 3 is tonally inconsistent. That’s a movie with tonal problems for ya.
Also watch these videos. They also debunk the idea that Judge Frollo is one dimensional and unrealistic:
drive.google.com/file/d/1c9IeNBDBfsPeCtLMY-llVB5302b-kj8G/view?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTAAAR04dgXsHPZ19V_Dlhlr_Uv8Ihdw5qjw8wG6mgniItss5gfc-unBmrXdhK0_aem_Ad9wnFDjHin8jnPcnId85kXX0SUxMHaTrcJh9aUcHsEAz9Y05Izy1d5jgCXKuTVfzxMfknCBqXoLtpUl_yOctdcB
czcams.com/video/_UySr6nowdU/video.html
Also 4Shame and Lindsay Ellis are idiots who have no idea what they're talking about.
I also want to debunk the narrative of the movie being "tonally inconsistent". I know movies are subjective and if people feel that the movie has tonal problems than that's fine and I have nothing against that. But people I think blow it out of proportions.
Are there SOME lighthearted moments? Sure, but barely, and they don’t last very long and only last for 5 minutes and it’s not like the Eddie Murphy’s Haunted Mansion or the highly overrated Cabin In The Woods of the highly overrated Toy Story 3 where it comes out of nowhere. Now that’s a tonally inconsistent movie for ya.
The 90s Batman cartoon, 90s X-Men cartoon, 90s Superman cartoon, 90s Spider-Man cartoon, early 2000s Justice League cartoon, Batman: Mask of The Phantasm (1993), Gargoyles (1994-1996), Who Framed Roger Rabbit? (1990), Nightmare Before Christmas (1993), and Corpse Bride (2005) do the exact opposite. They are considered darker, more adult oriented, intense, sophisticated, and only have a few lighthearted moments here and there, right? (The 90s Batman cartoon, 90s X-Men cartoon, 90s Superman cartoon, 90s Spider-Man cartoon, early 2000s Justice League cartoon, Batman: Mask of The Phantasm (1993),and Corpse Bride (2005) are not Disney but I think you get the idea) I guess they’re tonally inconsistent than. No because they only happen here and there and only last for like five to six minutes. Disney’s Hunchback of Notre Dame DOES THE EXACT SAME THING!!! Also anime like Naruto, Hellsing and Cowboy Beebop also similar humor to the 1996 Disney film? Are they tonally inconsistent? No. Disney’s Hunchback of Notre Dame does the same exact thing. So, the next time you say it’s “Durr tonally inconsistent” actually watch the damn movie next time. I know movies are subjective, if you didn’t care for the movie and it wasn’t your cup of tea than fine, and I have nothing against that. But to say this movie is tonally inconsistent? Yeah I don’t know what movie people were watching. If anything the overrated shitty Toy Story 3 is tonally inconsistent. That’s a movie with tonal problems for ya.
Also watch these videos. They also debunk the idea that Judge Frollo is one dimensional and unrealistic:
drive.google.com/file/d/1c9IeNBDBfsPeCtLMY-llVB5302b-kj8G/view?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTAAAR04dgXsHPZ19V_Dlhlr_Uv8Ihdw5qjw8wG6mgniItss5gfc-unBmrXdhK0_aem_Ad9wnFDjHin8jnPcnId85kXX0SUxMHaTrcJh9aUcHsEAz9Y05Izy1d5jgCXKuTVfzxMfknCBqXoLtpUl_yOctdcB
czcams.com/video/_UySr6nowdU/video.html
Yes
Great video analysis
3:33 - 3:37
Um...
Ayo?
I woch scathed preduchion to
The controversy around the intro to the Court of Miracles is one of those instances where modern sensibilities and a popular lack of attention to detail grate on me. Paris is ruled by a guy that reigns over it with an iron fist and hates their people. The guards try to seize Esmeralda's earnings from her street preforming as stolen. They do this under no more pretense than her race and her having money. That's heavy implication and at least one explicit seen painting them as persecuted and oppressed and thus clearly not the sort who have many legitimate opportunities. Between that and the film 's running antiracist/prejudice themes should be more than enough not to see the scene construed as racist. All it takes is bearing in mind the context of an hour and a half long film. Do the people who come up with this stuff have the attention span and working memory of a goldfish?
The film's heavy emphasis on the discrimination and oppression of the Gypsies is the precise reason why the intro to the Court of Miracles can be construed as egregious. It arguably contradicts what the film had been conveying up until that point. The lyrics allude quite explicitly to the notion that the Romani people are all thieves and cutthroats, yet the movie had spent its former half arguing otherwise. It's just bizarre and contradictory, is all.
@@rantsolot thanks for replying. Always nice when the hosts/creators engage with the feedback.
That being said I disagree and am slightly flummoxed that people who present this idea are comfortable asserting what's shown to be a small group within a much broader community as stereotypes for the whole group.
In the video proper you said this scene might've been less offensive if it had shown that Gypsies are only doing this because they lack legitimate opportunities but the film already gives us alot of context supporting that idea.
@@rantsolot whether it's uncomfortable to admit it or not marginalized groups tend up with criminal elements that gain standing by offering to provide for and protect the community (at least ostensibly). Clopin and his men fit this bill and their line in the song makes that quite explicit, "We have a method for spies and intruders rather like hornets protecting their hive."
If we were to adapt this story. Modernize and Americanize it and swap the Romani out for say Italian Immigrants in early 1900s New Orleans would we say that being shown the Mafia exists is validating anti Italian American prejudice?
Another cimpersan is qazzy look up to Thule and vallus him over other and Thule treat god the Sam way
I just recently read the Victor Hugo novel. I honestly wasn’t a fan of it. It has its moments but I found it kinda boring and too long for my taste. Quasimodo and Esmeralda weren’t that likable in the book so when they died I simply didn’t care.
to each their own. i read the book back in 10th grade so it's been quite a while. i distinctively remember it having a lot of filler lol. I outright skipped the chapters, "Paris From A Bird's Eye View," and "Notre Dame." literally entire chapters explaining what Paris looks like from a bird's eye view and the Notre Dame Cathedral lol. it did have a slow start and i remember it took me a while to actually invest myself. but overall i enjoyed the book a great deal mostly. wish i could remember how quasi and esmeralda were written, it's been a long while. I thought I remembered Quasimodo being fairly well-written and sympathetic tho.
I don’t think that gargoyle at the end has anything to do with the other ones. I think that was similar to the dancing flames during the Hellfire scene
Absolute bulll....t!😂