It is clear that the source material, which they adapted even darker, and of course they had to change a lot in history, but the general outline left.
And that's a problem for me. I don't think the Notre Dame hunchback story is right for Disney magic. If you want to watch such a cruel story, you need more nuance. Only the villain has them here. He's cool. And the scene where an old man sniffs Esmeralda's hair raises questions, is it true that I turned on a Disney cartoon? Everything else is like darkness, and then suddenly everything is OK, everyone is alive, Paris did not notice the problem.
Even for children, the culture of the Gypsies will be super unclear. They're kind of outlawed, but they have an annual holiday. Frolo has vowed to destroy them, but is on an official visit. Gypsies are offended that they are all considered thieves and criminals, but they have catacombs near Paris, where they store the loot. Hmm.
The delightful animation of the 90s from Disney delighted children, their parents and lovers of good cinema around the world with excellent stories. “Beauty and the Beast”, “Aladdin”, “Mulan”, “Pocahontas”, “Hercules”, “Tarzan” and, of course, the masterpiece “The Lion King” amazed everyone with highly artistic, wide-format and at the same time the most understandable for the widest audience internal content, which covered various truly eternal, in its structure even philosophical issues, resolving them in simple language.
“The Hunchback of Notre Damme” is perhaps the most adult and gloomy Disney film not only of that period, but the entire main animated filmography of the great studio. Based on the legendary novel by Victor Hugo “Notre Dame de Paris”, the desired picture still has significant differences from it, which is noticeable to the naked eye, especially for those who are familiar with the literary source.
The story focuses on four characters. Namely: on the terribly attractive gypsy Esmeralda; the monstrous judge Claude Frollo, who desperately pursues a black-haired dancer, wanting to go through her to the entire gypsy people living in the bowels of Paris, in order to soon exterminate him completely; the young and ambitious Captain Phoebe, who in the process of developing the plot changes his views on the goals of his service and, of course, the humpback bellor of Notre Dame de Paris Quasimodo, which is essentially the central hero of this wonderful narrative.
The main narrative, as always with Disney, is rich in musical numbers, which here seem especially attractive because of the demonic atmosphere of the Parisian expanses. The scene with Frollo’s unexpected revelation of his true intentions for barefoot beast is illustrated most frighteningly, and the secret lust hidden in the depths of his worm heart strikes the mind with unchildish semantic content.
Thus, “The Hunchback of Notre Damme” is a truly impressive animated masterpiece, extremely underestimated in its (and current) time, amazingly immerses the viewer in the gloomy, hopeless world of the immemorial period of European history, while absolutely incomparably resurrecting in people faith in Friendship and Love.
I recently learned about this cartoon. It is not very well known and after watching it, I realized there were reasons for it. I can say that this picture is very different from the classic works of the studio. In general, the tape is more focused on an adult audience. Speaking of impressions, they are ambiguous, but rather still positive.
I'll start with something I didn't like very much. I thought the job was heterogeneous. That is, on the one hand, we are shown serious and important topics that hurt our emotions and keep us in suspense. But at the same time it is accompanied by classic Disney compositions. Some of them, of course, added atmospheres, but about half of them, I read, were inappropriate. Perhaps they were added to discharge, but again, a cartoon for children is not good, so adults especially do not need it. Also, the tape is a little overloaded with messages. The story touches on too many different topics, ranging from racism and nationality to loneliness and religion. Moments from so many tricks of problems begins to overload information. Closer to the final, the truth is more and more estate unleashes, but in the middle there is a place of inflection.
But now why is the work still good? What was done well was the visual and the atmosphere. What only one Notre Dame castle is worth. Looking at him, you can immediately see his greatness and sinister. Also, the characters are perfectly executed. The main villain shines with charisma, the heroine of the gypsy is very attractive, the Hunchback looks like that and requires an idea. But in addition to images and the development of characters at height. The owner of the Hunchback has cunning and causes scorn. And his bouts of madness get goosebumps. The main character himself has a complex character and a kind heart and does not leave indifferent. Well, in general, the tape amazes with its realism and elaboration. It should be noted that in all this there was a place for humor. I did not appreciate a few jokes, but in general, humor is qualitative for different ages.
Over. This is an experiment from the studio. At first, you may be confused, but at the end, the strong aspects of the picture will not leave you indifferent and you will not regret watching.
7 out of 10
Like everyone else, I love Disney movies. Even among them there is an elite. I am referring to the period "Disney Renaissance" (1989-1999) when the most iconic masterpieces were released: Beauty and the Beast, The Little Mermaid, Aladdin, The Lion King, Mulan and of course the 34th Disney cartoon, released in June 1996. (quarter of a century ago!) This cartoon will always remind me of my age. – The Hunchback of Notre Dame This time, Disney decided to take a big risk. First, they did not film a children's fairy tale, but swung at the famous French novel by Victor Hugo. Secondly, the cartoon itself is atypically gloomy and even cruel. However, all this worked and the cartoon is rightfully one of the Disney masterpieces.
Animation. Of course, enough Disney for a great animation is like a fish for being able to swim. But still, the cartoon is very beautiful and detailed. All the people, buildings and even the medieval Paris all painted amazingly accurate.
I can't mark another plus. Disney reminded us that animation can create scale and epic, not just beautiful characters. I mean, I like a lot of the plans here. For example, when Frollo sings his song, there are demons in red around him. And especially at the end, when Quasimodo and Esmeralda stand at the top of the cathedral and we are shown a panoramic burning Paris with pillars of flame and red sky. This really creates an epic, atmospheric and dramatic scale.
Music. Admittedly, in the previous work “Pocahontas”, Disney disappointed me with the lack of memorable songs. However, in this cartoon, the staff composer of “Renaissance” Alan Mencken completely redeemed. The cartoon is filled with excellent songs performed by the choir and orchestras from all the main characters. However, all the songs are eclipsed by the famous and chic "Hellfire" by Judge Frollo performed by Tony Jay in the original and Igor Balalaev with us. The song is sinister, eerie and brilliantly reveals Frollo's controversial nature. Personally, I think that after "Be Prepared," this song is in second place to Disney's coolest sinister songs.
Characters. It is worth saying that although the cartoon is dark and cruel, but still not as cruel as Hugo’s novel. Therefore, all the characters, although repeated as in the book, but slightly adapted for a young audience.
Quasimodo. In the novel, he was not just a hunchback, he had a huge wart on his eye, was deaf and could barely speak. In the cartoon, he is only a hunchback, but in general he looks pretty. However, in his example, the creators well showed his tragedy. After all, because of ugliness, no one loves Quasimodo and no one cares about his inner world. Even his guardian, Frollo, treats him like a small slave. However, Quasimodo does not lose kindness in his heart and willingness to help. He also has friends - 3 gargoyles, who constantly joke to diversify the situation. By the way, there is a version that gargoyles are just a fantasy of Quasimodo from loneliness and I agree with this.
Esmeralda. In fact, it has been the least changed. In the cartoon, she is the same dazzlingly beautiful, brave, daring gypsy dancer.
To Quasimodo she feels sympathy, not afraid of him and here you can see other differences from the novel. In the cartoon, for some reason, there was no place for the grief playwright Pierre Gringoire, who was in love with Esmeralda. Captain Phoebe, who in the novel was a pompous fool and the object of Esmeralda’s sighs, here, on the contrary, is in love with her and wants to help her.
However, the gold of the cartoon is undoubtedly the villain Claude Frollo. Interestingly, in his case, he was made more violent. In the novel, Frollo was also a religious fanatic misanthrope, but he acted secretly and phlegmatically. In the cartoon, Claude Frollo is not a priest but a judge, but is a ruthless, cynical killer and misanthrope suffering from the Madonna and Whore complex. At the same time, unlike all other Disney villains who know that they are villains and revel in it, Frollo does not consider himself a villain. He is convinced that all his crimes (the genocide of the Roma, the burning of Paris) are the fulfillment of the will of God, and he himself struggles with sinfulness. Even his passion for Esmeralda he considers a devilish temptation and wants to kill her to rid the world of her charms. No wonder Frollo is considered one of the brightest villains of Disney.
Plot. Again, if you've read the novel, you know that Hugo's work is much more violent, dramatic, and has no happy ending. The cartoon is softer in this regard, but there are also enough cruel moments.
In general, the cartoon repeats the plot of the novel, with the exception of the ending and the line of Captain Phoebe. At the same time, its peculiarity is that, despite the songs, jokes of gargoyles, the creators were not afraid to insert a number of terrible scenes. And the cartoon several times shows the death and murder of the characters; execution by burning alive; terrible death with a fall. Also, the idea that not always a person who talks about God and morality is good. Frollo illustrates the dangers of religious fanaticism when some people are willing to kill and burn in the sincere belief that they are doing so in the name of God. Well, the good old moral is that appearances can be deceiving. By the way, the scene of humiliation of Quasimodo is also made cruel.
Conclusion. Funny fact that the real Notre Dame Cathedral was built in the XIII century. to perpetuate the name of the Virgin Mary. Victor Hugo’s 1831 novel was written to commemorate the cathedral, which the French wanted to demolish as a barbaric monument to the Middle Ages. The Hunchback of Notre Dame immortalized Hugo’s novel and made his characters immortal better than any other film adaptation or musical.
"The Hunchback of Notre Dame" is an exciting, mega-interesting, fascinating cartoon. It differs from other Disney creations in that it allows you to demonstrate ambiguous and cruel scenes like murder, executions or religious fanaticism from a person who believes that the genocide of gypsies is in the name of God’s providence. In addition, gorgeous songs and amazing battles.
“It is time for cathedrals ...” says the first aria of the Russian-language production of the famous musical “Notre Dame de Paris”, staged on the main program work of Victor Hugo – “Notre Dame de Paris”. This plot became immortal, along with Romeo and Juliet, Tristan and Isolde, the Trojan cycle according to Homer, everything is impossible to remember. Specifically, this work has survived about fifteen incarnations of both screen and theatrical. This cartoon is one of many visions, but its imprint makes the fact that it is a cartoon studio Disney, bought and revised the story for a more adult audience, adapting it for children. “The Hunchback of Notre Dame” could not become an animated film of my childhood, but in composition and atmosphere – this is pure water “Hercules”, where the language available to children told the story of “what makes a man a hero”. Then I will share my impressions after watching and thoughts on this.
The plot tells us about the scourge of the Gypsy Claude Frollo, exterminating all manifestations of sin in medieval Paris. As a result of one of these actions in his care is a monstrous image of the child. Frollo made him the secret of Notre Dame, a mysterious bell ringer, which the inhabitants refer to as an ancient legend. The actors, in addition to Frollo himself, are also Quasimodo, who dreams of getting out of the forced imprisonment for at least a day and being among the people, the gypsy Esmeralda, who pierced the hearts of three men and the captain of the guard Phoebe, who appeared to replace his predecessor. His only drawback, according to Frollo, is that he "has a head on his shoulders and two ounces of nobility." The narrative is conducted on behalf of the local jester and all the events of the cartoon fit in one or two days.
The main advantage of this film is its soundtrack. The composer chose the right tunes to broadcast the mood in a particular scene. The songs themselves are appropriate and in sharp moments emphasize either the comic of the situation, or increase emotional tension, imbued with the first aria of quasimodo, where he is inflamed about the curse of ugliness. Through this character, the creators say that appearance in a person is not the most important thing and if he experiences sincere feelings, then it will be visible to the naked eye. Frollo here personifies the obsession with sinful passion, although it seems to me that he deliberately has not the most beautiful external features, Esmeralda and Phoebe are clearly well-drawn - two pure flower souls who are destined to strengthen their union in difficulties that temper character, test their feelings for strength.
I don’t want to say much about such cartoons, because it is better to see once than read reviews a hundred times. So let's sort through the impressions. I rated the plot by five stars, although it is Hugo at minimum, but the history has retained its monumentality largely due to the musical accompaniment. The ending of this difficult story was made less adult (no one dies), but still looks in one breath. Spectacularity also deserves praise, since there are no moments when you want to fall asleep or rewind, the whole movie from beginning to end absorbs, especially well worked by graphic specialists, drawing stunning landscapes and working out the physical proportions of the characters.
In cartoons, I am primarily interested in the actor's play of voiceovers. And here the movie is fine. Among them, the performers of the role of Frollo in musicals are noted, Igor Balalaev also voiced Frollo here, but Alexander Marakulin here sounds like the voice of the gargoyle Victor, who, as far as I understand, was named in honor of the author of the primary source Viktor Hugo. Everyone sounds convincing, everyone penetrates into the role, and I can’t help but mention Vsevolod Kuznetsov, who sounds for Phoebe, who watched “The Matrix” or “Meet Joe Black” should know this voice, penetrating into the very heart.
Music and sound are the cornerstones of the atmosphere, and therefore all the emphasis was placed on them. Everything sounds really amazing and I would like to recommend this film, in addition to lovers of good stories and adapted scripts, and also connoisseurs of sound in cinema, those who still like to review black and white cinema, in which the sound dictated even a semantic message. In this regard, the cartoon is all right.
Verdictating: A great soulful story, embodied in the form of a cartoon for children, which is worth watching the convincing play of the actors of dubbing, high quality animation, plus a simple message, but always relevant, about eternal values, about love and obsession. My score is eight out of ten. Good to you all!
It would be reprehensible to criticize the cartoon for modifying, simplifying, editing and censoring Victor Hugo's novel Notre Dame de Paris. Agree, it is impossible to fit all the actions and events that occur and unfold in the original work in the animation tape. It was extremely problematic. This is where the above actions need to be taken. The drawn animated film is not a direct adaptation of the novel, but only its free interpretation, and is primarily aimed at a young audience.
I generally liked the cartoon. But the cartoon was not without flaws. The adoption of the Disney cartoon classics turned out to be sharply uneven. The unevenness is expressed in the contrast and inconsistency of individual episodes of the cartoon’s storylines. In particular, the unfolding events regarding the character of Frollo are not harmoniously intertwined, and do not even correlate with the episodes of the performance of the gargoyles. Frolla is associated with the dark themes and adult content of the animated film, namely the film illustrates sin, lust, obsession, eradication, genocide, infanticide and religious hypocrisy. Therefore, the performances of the gargoyles with their unattractive songs against the backdrop of the unfolding events of the film are presented too inappropriately. Despite significant changes, the animated film turned out to be quite interesting. Visual effects and drawing of characters are performed in the cartoon quite qualitatively.
The cartoon, being created by Disney Studio, is designed for a children's audience and that is why, probably, the authors turned the plot so steeply.
In Hugo's novel, it didn't end that way: Esmeralda was hanged, Quasimodo died on her grave from grief, and Phoebe married Fleur de Lis (who was not in the cartoon at all, although she is a very interesting character influencing the development of the plot - according to the book).
The greatest mistake of the writers, who completely killed the logic of the whole story, is the judge Frollo. He was a priest and love is forbidden to him. What's the problem here? Can't a judge fall in love with a girl? There is a feeling that the authors of the cartoon themselves got confused with his personality during the creation, because the song Hellfire (I now mean its original in English) is sung as if on behalf of a priest: it contains many references to religion and reasoning about the sinfulness of his love for Esmeralda.
And Esmeralda herself? She is not drawn to that innocent, gullible sixteen-year-old girl (a Frenchwoman by birth, stolen by the Gypsies), here she is a depraved gypsy girl in her twenties who openly flirts with men.
Phoeb is no longer a proud soldier, but Flynn from ' Rapunzel', only in 2D: not at all serious, a stupid reveler with a stupid horse. About his sudden long and happy with Esmeralda I have already said.
But I still gave the highest rating. Disney made a few films based on serious works; they did not just take a sweet fairy tale plot and illustrate it, as they did before, but turned tragedy into a fairy tale.
It is also worth noting the schedule. Everything is drawn to the smallest detail, especially the location.
10 out of 10
There was a time when everyone thought "All cartoons are for kids"
As many people already know, if Disney screens a work (book, novel, story, fairy tale, etc.), then in 99% of cases only the title remains from the original, and the names of some characters. Although, in my opinion, this problem is almost all Hollywood cartoons. Almost everything changes: the plot, characters, their appearance, morality, new characters are added, and some of the original source is removed. It turns out that these are not even film adaptations, but separate stories that have nothing to do with the original. And this applies, and little-known children's books, and world classics. It's as if 'ours' decided to film 'Winnie the Pooh', and at the same time moved the scene to a modern metropolis, making something like 'Duck Stories'.
About the cardinal changes and inconsistencies with the novel, many reviews have already been said here. I agree with those who believe that such a complex, ambiguous, dark and cruel work can not be adapted for children. Therefore, I believe that instead of "6+" we should put "12+".
Graphics and animation. As usual, Hollywood cartoons are done perfectly. Moreover, in this case, it perfectly reflects the life of medieval Europe with its filth, cruelty, fraud, and lack of sewage.
Plot. Not very common in foreign cartoons. It is made in the style of the Loser, who has been locked up all his life, which is different from the majority who decided to see the world. Yes, this is not uncommon in life, as stated in the title.
Characters. Regarding their changes in the animated film, monotheism of reviews is said here. But in some cases, they give the cartoon significant advantages. Personally, I think the only one who looked like his prototype was Claude Frollo. I don't know about the others, but Frollo always seemed like a bastard and a scoundrel to me. And this is shown in great detail. It turned out, in my opinion, perhaps the most brutal of all Disney villains. Even more violent than Croella from The Dalmatians. It's already written on his face. Although it does not cause such negativity as, for example, Pope Cera from Earth Before Time or an old woman from Madagascar. Probably because he was clearly put on the dark side, unlike most "Moral Freaks", which is difficult to divide into "Black" and "White".
Quasimodo. From a terrible monster, blind in one eye, deaf and hating almost all people, he turned into a kind of "Freak with angelic habits." Here he does not look so scary, and despite the hump and skewed face does not cause disgust. More pity, especially during a gypsy holiday, when he was tied up and thrown rotten tomatoes, and when he looks at someone with his big eyes. And he seems ready to make friends with the world while being aggressive, only in two episodes closer to the middle. It reminds me of Shrek and Sally and Mike from Monsters Corporation. It’s both scary and charming at the same time.
Esmiralda. In the original source, she was a fragile, charming, active girl. This is a very controversial character here. On the one hand, she is affectionate, kind, cheerful and intelligent, on the other, hot-tempered, pugnacious, brazen and constantly chasing justice. Now she defends Quasimodo and talks affectionately to him, then fights with Captain Phoebe in the Cathedral and even slaps him. But hey, it gives you originality. It’s very different from most of Disney’s All Old and All New heroines, such as Cinderella, Snow White and Rapunzel, who are either “gentle pacifists” or “hyperactive adventurers.” Many did not like her appearance, but for me it is the most beloved (after Pocahontas) Disney princess. She has a very cool figure, hairstyle, costumes and facial expression gives her a mysterious interest and charm. It also seems to me that she, like classical gypsies, possesses hypnosis. There were so many people in the square and I loved the way she danced. I guess she's hypnotized me too.
Captain Phoeb. Perhaps the most radically changed character that Hugo would not recognize. If in the original it was still that goat, then here he became a noble knight. He must have been a positive character because one bastard was enough. But not only outwardly Disney Phoebe is cute, his character is also quite complex. This is a playful, optimistic, kind, serious, important, stubborn swordsman, who has to cooperate with Frollo, then help Esmiralda.
I want to say separately about the trained goat Jali, Esmiralda's pet. This character appeared in the original novel (although it was a goat there), where he helped the book Esmiralda earn a living by showing tricks with numbers. Naturally, Esmiralda, as befits the gypsies, deceived the audience, with the help of food “prompted” the pet the right decision. Here Jali changed sex to male, and turned into a typical "beast that should make everyone laugh." This goat has always stood up for Esmiralda for years and has been shown relatively little. He has done well in his role.
Naturally, the authors added their “idiot characters” to the cartoon. In this case, these are the revived statues of Gargul, reminiscent of the hyenas Shenzi, Banzai and Ed from the Lion King, only positive. One of the Garguls looks very similar to Pumba. It seems to be typical characters of this type, but they added a share of positive.
Music and Songs. If the music turned out to be still decent, especially at the end, then the songs were not really remembered, and none caught on. They are certainly better than in “Frozen”, but there are none in which you want to memorize all the words by heart, and listen to many, many times.
There are also many dark and cruel moments. Frollo at the beginning kills the mother of the newborn Quasimodo, Frollo burns houses in Paris, Captain Phoebe was seriously wounded by an arrow in the shoulder, Phoebe along with Quasimodo were captured by the gypsies in their secret shelter, Esmiral (as in the original) tried to burn at the stake (although in the cartoon she managed to escape), Frollo at the top of the Cathedral tried to kill Esmiralda and Quasimodo, the battle of the gypsies with the guards near the end was accompanied by a terrible fight. This does not fit with the cartoon, which received a rating of 6+. Of course, there were other works that were much more cruel than the film adaptation. For example, the original books How to Train Your Dragon and The Fox and the Hunting Dog. But these books were not as well known on a global scale and their drastic changes are forgivable. But why change the world classic, which is known to every educated person, and not yet suitable for turning into a "Good, children's fairy tale."
The review was neutral. It is not “green” because I do not like when children’s classics are subjected to such changes, but also not “red” because there are very fat advantages.
In my opinion, this cartoon can stand firmly on the same line with “The Lion King”, “Beauty and the Beast” and “Aladdin”. To me, this is a real masterpiece. I do not understand why everyone lowers the rating of this cartoon for the fact that the creators “voluntary” in the plot. There is nothing wrong with that.
Pluses:
- Screenplay. First of all, I want to thank you for the ending. She's gorgeous. Excellent. Surprisingly a lot of drama for Disney.
- Animation. Definitely a plus. It is beautiful, colorful, realistic...
- Musical accompaniment. Well, Disney has always had, is and hopefully will be a plus. The ending is perfectly complemented by suitable music.
I haven't found any of these in person.
In short, the cartoon is great. It’s not the best Disney movie for me, but it’s definitely one of the best. Watch it with the whole family - you will be happy, and hopefully it will also become one of your favorites. I personally do not want to watch the sequel, I do not want to spoil the impression of this masterpiece.
For a great ending from me:
"The Hunchback of Notre Dame" - cartoon, familiar and beloved since childhood. At the age of six, children just like to watch good characters defeat evil ones, no one thinks that the dance of a gypsy girl is too candid or the visual series of Frollo’s song is too passionate. I still don't think so. All the details are well-founded and do not get out of the general concept, because Esmeralda not just fell into the soul of the judge and not from the velvet bay he wanted to burn it, even if the price is burning Paris.
With the immortal work of Victor Hugo, this picture is united only by the place of events, the names of the characters and the general similarity of characters. The point of viewing the creation of Disney as a film adaptation, even if adapted for small audiences, I do not see, let alone compare. It is clear that the criteria for assessing the cartoon and classical literature are completely different. The value and significance of the latter is implied a priori.
Speaking of the Hunchback of Notre Dame, it should be noted a huge plus - it can be considered as a separate authentic work from the original source, understandable to children and adults, both who have not read and read the book. In the latter case, it can be viewed simply as one of the many variations of “If only...” or a little soothe the aching sense of anguish and drama left after reading.
Esmeralda is a beautiful and fervent gypsy, kind and brave, who is not alien to mercy and faith in God, but for whom freedom and justice are most valuable. It is because of this girl that the whole fuss unfolds.
Quasimodo is an ugly (but Disney-adorable) Notre Dame ringer. A pure and beautiful soul who did not stiffen even from the fact that he was raised by such a cruel man as Claude Frollo. He is drawn to beauty and to people, but, unfortunately, only a few can see something more behind the repulsive appearance.
Phoebe is a character, to put it mildly, inexpressive. For me, it is more of a decoration. There was a lack of a distinctive feature.
Claude Frollo - in this version nominally is the guardian of justice, but in fact - the personification of many vices, including pride, racism, cruelty. Of course, in comparison with the way that Victor Hugo created, he is hopelessly losing in depth and versatility. In fact, both he and Quasimodo are given one test - unrequited love for a beautiful gypsy. However, if the bell ringer, thanks to a huge inner strength, it develops into a creative feeling, then Frollo acquires exceptionally destructive forms.
Gorguli Cathedral and goat Jali - characters that bring a healthy dose of humor and charm to the picture.
Voice is good, except that in Russian dubbing the voice of Ekaterina Guseva for Esmeralda is rude, as for me.
Music is great, deep and disturbing, giving the cartoon the necessary atmosphere of oppressive gloom.
A cartoon in the best traditions of Disney. I would recommend watching.
A new morning will wake Paris with the chime of Notre Dame.
Fishing catch and market profit in the chime of Notre Dame,
And bass multi-ton thunders
Repeat the small bells
If you want to understand this city, listen to the call.
Notre Dame Cathedral
Perhaps it would not be an exaggeration to say that it was Disney animated paintings that brought up more than one generation of sophisticated cinema as art and just ordinary viewers. Including me, for whom the cartoons of this studio have become something quite native, pleasant, beloved and so remain even to this day. After all, long before the triumph of such studios as DreamWorks Animation, Blue Sky, Pixar and many others, it was this studio that quite effectively “shopped” classical literary works and fairy tales into something special and this animated film directed by Harry Truzdale and Kirk Wise is no exception.
The very idea of the studio to adapt to the audience of young ages and family viewing is a very complex literary work of Victor Hugo “Cathedral of the Paris Beaumetrie” was extremely risky and in many ways comparable only to the same “risk” from DreamWorks Animation in the creation of “Prince of Egypt”. After all, having as a basis such a gloomy, heavy, cruel and even not devoid of erotic history, the directors of the film Gary Truzdale and Kirk Wise presented far from the tragedy that is familiar to us from literature lessons.
To be honest, it is extremely difficult to compare this work with the novel of Victor Hugo. In fact, everything in this picture has changed. All the hardness is thrown away for the sake of fairy tales, the abundance of characters is reduced as unnecessary, and the story itself has been “purged” for severity and cruelty. Thus, turning into a real fairy tale for children, which still manages to fit the gloom and infernality in places. Thus, this animated project can be safely considered perhaps the most adult work of the studio at that time, but perfectly retaining the entire style of the studio at that time.
After all, even in attempts to please both fans of the work of Victor Hugo and fabulous cartoons for children, the studio does not lose its author's handwriting and this animated film emerges as a magnificent musical as other works of the studio. The stunning music of the composer Alan Mencken and the lyrics Stephen Schwartz gives a truly stunning musical accompaniment that makes the narrative of the picture more integral. Moreover, allowing both imbued with the general spirit of the works of Hugo, and just to enjoy the picture as entertainment. Thus, not allowing too much to abstract from the melodramatic content of the picture and even the humor that takes place in this picture.
The characters also turned out to be far from the heroes of Hugo’s novel, but in their own way they are interesting and good. Quasimodo achieves sincere sympathy, Esmeralda even more, and Frollo so completely turns out to be the concentration of everything fanatical and cruel that is in the world and this is clearly facilitated by just perfectly selected voices. When it is secondary characters in the face of “living” monuments of Victor, Laverne and Hugo and bring considerable humor and ease to the picture. It only confirms that the secondary characters are always brighter than the main ones.
10 out of 10
The Hunchback from Notre Dame is far from a straight-forward adaptation of Victor Hugo’s classic literary work Notre Dame Cathedral, which tries to simplify and “facilitate” the story for viewers of small ages. But even at the same time, the picture draws the image of the usual Disney studio at the time of the fairy tale and, having passed the time test, even now holds the laurels of the classics of the animated genre. This is the same as the first time I saw it.
To begin with, I do not understand why such a complex and ambiguous work should be adapted for children. ' Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris' - tragedy, gloomy, cruel and not without elements of eroticism. You can't turn it into a cute children's story. I don’t think this story can fit into the Disney format with a clear division into 'bad' and 'good'. And that's beautiful. In the same adaptation, Hugo’s idea of the evil Rock facing several unfortunate fates was lost.
The plot reversals are catastrophic. The film was not even based on the novel. If we consider as an independent history, then history is stupid, primitive and does not carry any idea.
Characters are a separate conversation. Not only have half of the actors lost, but also those who left, either simplified and vulgarized, or turned inside out. The most adequate (in terms of image) and similar to himself was Claude Frollo. If you look closely, you can see in him not a typical villain, but a really suffering man, burning with passion. However, his image is underdeveloped. The character of the novel is extremely ambiguous and very deep, Disney showed only one side of it. In my opinion, scenes of Esmeralde’s love would be necessary, as they perfectly reveal his character and drama. Indignant scene at the beginning, where Claude wanted to drown a newborn Quasimodo, because in the novel everything was the opposite. What about his fascination with science? That, too, could be said. In addition, the image of Frollo in the cartoon kill typical villainous phrases and some illogical actions (like ' Burn Paris'). The phrase before death simply shocked, to be honest. ' And he will destroy all sinners and send them to hell of fire ' Is that Frollo?! What the hell was he made of a religious fanatic when he himself was disillusioned with religion, and always condescending to sinners 39? In general, this is not a simple character to cram his role as a villain. The director seems to have forgotten that Claude is just a victim. His passion, his madness, and ultimately, the evil Rock. To call him a villain, a monster, can only be a person who read the novel diagonally, and even then hardly. But 'Hellfire' is a beautiful song and video sequence. In the text I even saw some phrases from the novel (say ' The Lord created the Devil stronger than man'), which pleased me. And it is this scene that brings Disney Frollo closer to his real image. I also note that he picked up a beautiful voice - pure, sonorous, sharp, deep. And drew well, if you do not take into account too rich for this character facial expressions, running eyes and age over 30 years than indicated in the book. In general, the image of the judge is interesting, he carries some idea, you can sympathize with him. But there are a bunch of ' but' that have already been listed.
However, Frollo was not bullied as much as the others, whom I am sure Hugo would never have recognized.
Let's start with Quasimodo. There is nothing left of the book image. Brutal, strong, sinister and scary, but in his own charming character turned into a jerk with good eyes and supposedly angelic character. He loves everything alive, reaches for people and does not know how to stand up for himself. But Quasimodo in the book was perceived by others as the embodiment of evil, as a demon, and for a reason. Firstly, he is endowed with a really ugly appearance, and secondly, because of this, and because of the attitude of others, he is angry, there are tons of hatred in his soul. The love in his heart exists only for two people: Claude Frollo and Esmeralda, because they are the only people who treat him humanly. What's so demonic about Disney's Quasimodo? Does he give the impression of someone everyone is afraid of? Does he look wild, angry? The thing is, no. In addition to the character, completely inconsistent with the book prototype, the hero was endowed with a completely inappropriate appearance. Despite the fact that Disney Quasimodo is mutilated - he still looks pretty, he has touching blue eyes. It can hardly inspire terror and disgust. Only pity. They lied too much with their voice. Hugo characterizes Quasimodo's voice as thunderous, laryngeal, coarse, low. Here, for some reason, he spoke a miserable tenorok.
Disney Esmeralda is not a bit like the unique image that Hugo created, this embodiment of femininity and beauty, youth and purity, this weak and defenseless girl who finds herself in a hopeless situation. Disney Esmeralda is no longer that tragic heroine, it is an exaggerated image ' a strong woman' She’s so independent, she’s not afraid of anyone, she’s fighting for the freedom of her people... but what about Esmeralda, who wasn’t even close? I don’t like it, I don’t see beauty or sexuality in it. I can't believe three men and a lot of people could look at this very mediocre appearance. Masculine face, Brezhnev eyebrows and evil eyes. Is that attractive? In addition, the rude voice of the elderly madam, despite the fact that Esmeralda, firstly, a very young person, and secondly, according to Hugo, sang like a bird. And if you consider the way she talks... of course, book Esmeralda also grew up among the gypsies, and did not observe all manners, but this girl gives the impression of a real street hubble with inflated conceit. What is worth only that she says to the judge ' you' and throws herself at the captain. Many people think the book is stupid and naive. I guess, yes, she does. But it is also an integral part of her personal charm and the charm of her youth! That girl was capable of loving faithfully and passionately. Is this one capable? At least it's not shown. Where is her awe and admiration for Captain Phoebe? Where is one scene where she repeats his name endlessly, rolling her eyes dreamily and sighing? And finally, where is the important aspect of her origin and the search for her mother? I don't think that should have been omitted.
Captain Phoebe here has not undergone drastic changes, but even, I would say, a substitution. Genuine Phoebe - a smug dude, a hoodlum, a rude man who loves to drink, and a coward - suddenly became a noble knight. But why should he be flattered?
Can such inverted images turn inside out a worthy film adaptation? And if this is not a film adaptation, then it was not necessary to take Hugo's heroes. We could make our own. Still, there are pros. Very beautiful drawing, Gothic atmosphere, beautiful music. Disney has always been great with these things.
5 out of 10
I am a big fan of the work of Victor Hugo, so, in my spare time, I try to get acquainted not only with his works, but also with films, cartoons, musicals based on his novels. Now I would like to write about such a cartoon as “The Hunchback of Notre Dame”.
The first thing I wanted to pay attention to was the movie. Therefore, naturally, the story is radically different from the plot of the work itself. And, in principle, everything that has anything to do with the book itself is the names of the main characters and the cathedral. Otherwise, this is a completely different view, on everyone’s favorite and famous story. Of course, the cartoon is based on the novel and this means that the creators can safely move away from the plot, as well as make their own changes. Someone likes it, someone doesn’t and it’s quite normal.
I liked it, although I can’t say that I’m excited about what I saw, not because the end of the cartoon was completely changed, but because of the way the characters were presented to us.
If we talk about the finale, which we have the opportunity to observe, then yes, I agree that although it has been changed, this is how children should begin to get acquainted with great works. And, of course, it is not necessary to show them all the tragedy that is described in the novel. First, it can greatly affect their psyche. Secondly, they simply cannot understand what the author wanted to convey to them. But just if you start getting acquainted with this work exactly as Disney shows us, then children can learn a lot and this is the most important thing! Here, for example, take the main character – Quasimodo. After all, on the example of the fate of this character, children can safely explain that appearance is not the main thing and that you should not judge a person only by his appearance, because appearance is deceptive. We should always pay attention to the actions of the characters, to all the qualities that we try to teach our children. Here, you can clearly see that even though Quasimodo is not very beautiful externally, he is very beautiful internally! This is what is most important in man! In general, the cartoon teaches kindness, help, and most importantly, it seems to me, it is calm towards those who are at least somehow different from you.
And now we can talk about the characters!
To be honest, I didn't really like what they did to Frollo and Phoebe! I didn’t like it at all, but the other characters liked it! Yes, I understand that changes were necessary to turn a rather heavy and depressing work into a children’s and kind fairy tale.
But Frollo is absolutely not what he appears to us! Of course, the creators did the right thing by omitting this hero’s obsession with Esmeralda. I don’t think it’s a good idea for kids to show that side of the character, but I personally didn’t like it being presented to us as a judge rather than an archdeacon of the cathedral. I think it would be better to keep him a priest. And the second thing I didn’t like about Frollo was his character. I understand that he is not the brightest person, but he has never been the most negative. Take at least what he managed to raise Quasimodo as an insanely bright and kind person. Would the “pig” he showed us could do that? I don't think. But he did. And in general, I believe that every negative character can be understood, somehow justify his behavior, sympathize with him. Here, he's causing mad irritation! And the truth is, since Frollo is my favorite character, I was disappointed. Not like that, not like that!
Phoeb. Well, what can I say? There must be a prince on a white horse! And that prince is Phoebe. I can’t say that I really liked him, but for the cartoon, I think it was worth changing it in this direction.
Esmeralda. Oh, not a stupid girl. Not like in the novel, but I really liked it! Beautiful, adventurer, with a beautiful soul! And, of course, a goat! Oh, I'm crazy about that goat. The only one missing was Gringoire. That's who could really fall in love with her.
Quasimodo. I love this character crazy. It doesn’t matter if it’s a movie or a musical. Everywhere his image is transmitted 100%. And to be honest, I've never met a person who didn't like him. An insanely kind, shy guy who sees only the good in everything, is eager to help and absolutely not vindictive. I feel sorry for him when he is being abused. What for? In fact, it's not for nothing! Just because he's different. Unfortunately, in the cartoon, in life. . It happens a lot! And it's great that by making cartoons like this, kids are being taught to treat everyone as an equal. Not to humiliate, but to accept as he is. An insanely positive hero! On the one hand vulnerable, but on the other strong man! And for that I like him even more!!
By the way, I want to highlight some people working on the voiceover of the characters, namely – this is Igor Balalaev and Alexander Marakulin! Igor Balalaev, who voiced Claude Frollo for the Russian version of the cartoon, played Archdeacon Frollo in the Russian production of the musical “Notre Dame de Paris”, and Alexander, who, incidentally, also played Frollo in the musical, voiced one of the statues – the gargoyle of Victor. And even though the cartoon came out before the musical itself, I think it's incredibly cool that they were able to relive this story several times and look at it from different angles. Special thanks to them, for the fact that thanks to these people we have the opportunity to listen to songs that have always been a hallmark of Disney cartoons. Beautiful voices, same songs. And all together - it was aware of the atmosphere that attracts viewers now.
Of all the adaptations, this is my second favorite, or rather, I watched it first as a child. I didn't even believe it was from Disney.
The cartoon is based on the book (like Hamlet's "lion king"), but not the film adaptation. And it is not clear why fans of the stupid book break down on it, if the cartoon is better than the films based on the same book (although they have not seen the version of Corradi, Jetlag Studio and it seems to someone unpleasant that the cartoon turned out in some better). What an idiot thought it was for kids! There is a lot of non-childish — 88 percent of the cartoon is adults, for example, genocide, racism, religious taboos, small elements of eroticism, murder, corruption, again executions, hypocrisy, hallucinations. Is this meant for children, and some silly romance for adults?
And I want to make something clear: Originally, the creators of the cartoon wanted to do everything based on the book - the characters and the plot (except for the ending and tone down some scenes), but religious conservatives came and said, "You're from Disney, then make a normal cartoon in your spirit without bantering religion." But the creators of this creation wanted to make a cartoon that is intended for teenagers and adults, and which only on the basis of the key point of the book and nothing more – challenged the purists, dark and cruel, epic and smart, with unconventional and beautifully grown characters, in short make legendary. But the bad uncles came again and forced a little tone down this version, asking to add a little fun, in the end it turned out an excellent cartoon, but as if shortened and with some understatement. The music and epic are off the scale, especially the first song and song of the anti-villain is generally the favorite. Although the best characters are the protagonist and antagonist. They remained almost the same as in their uncut version (95 percent, from the version at the key moment). Actually, I'll compare and choose. Although I prefer the cartoon.
Esmeralda - protagonist, young dancer and adventurer. Bold, fair, witty, knows how to stand up for herself, kind and seeks justice for her people. She's a gypsy. Bronze skin, thick curly hair of the color of a false wing, mesmerizing green eyes, graceful movements and strength. But in those days, beauty was condemned, allegedly magic. But then it is not clear, or it is only ironic, but what happens that beauty comes from the devil, and ugliness from God. I like her image only here, because it shows a man surviving in a dirty and vicious world, as well as a man whose childhood ended very early, whose mind surpassed the years. A real tomboy! In general, her name is translated as “emerald”, denoting all the traits of the gypsy character: indomitability, courage, nobility, freedom, obstinacy, self-esteem, passion and justice.
Now I'm going to compare Esmeralda and Agnes. First, the image of Esme in the cartoon is unconventional: she is 18 years old, confident and more realistic. Agnes is 16, she's gentle and weak, and she's getting tired of it. Secondly, if Agnes had been shown, the image and cartoon would have become mediocre – the girl would have looked like a typical snotty “princess” in trouble, and the plot would not have been spectacular and tense. Initially, the emphasis was on persecution and all the darkness, but still would not save. Esme, in turn, is exactly the person, that girl (originally a punk of a more childish appearance) who fits into such a dark real world. Moreover, she is one of the most well-recorded heroines of Disney, if only for the simple reason that she is smarter, a girl of an unusual character then and even if weakened, she will not leave a friend in danger. That's true bravery. My choice is Esmeralda.
Judge Claude Frollo is the anti-villain of the cartoon and one of my favorite characters both in the cartoon and in general. By the way, for some reason, I always considered his name to end in "t", not "d". A assembled, insidious, unpredictable and passionate psychopath who also sang one of the delightfully stunning songs of all time. A heartless sadist who considers himself righteous. Lonely, dangerous, but hiding something. I like his specific appearance, which I won’t be particularly scolded about. Interesting face, at the same time creepy and attractive. The facial expressions are beautifully drawn. Every gesture makes you believe in its existence. I was impressed by this character a hundred times more. Tangible and alive.
Now the boldest thing I've done so far is to compare this character to his fellow priest in the book. I say in advance that my choice is cartoon characters. Where to start. Well, I don’t understand: what this book prototype did, that almost everyone is so glorified and almost fanatical (yes, from a masochist). In general, as I said, the writer of this book was not interested in the plot (the main thing was the cathedral and its preservation), so I see no sense in barking at the differences between the characters and scenes.
It is also worth noting something else interesting: the book version is the antihero and antagonist of the work, and the version from the cartoon is an anti-villain in itself and can be both an antagonist and the protagonist. But if a person likes someone or something, then you need to look from all sides. I, for example, realized that the book version of the character is actually the protagonist (Hugo said: the one who wrote the inscription in Latin is the main character) – it still does not change my negative attitude towards him.
In general, comparing the two is like comparing the book and the Soviet incarnation of the panther. And the advantage in favor of the latter. Same here. Take at least the love for a girl: being in power, the judge for his whole life killed many people, respectively, and women, so the question is asked why Esmeralda was so fond of him; the priest almost did not see women, because Agnes first in his eyes (where only did not write).
One last thing. Perhaps the most controversial and true. In the book, the most typical biography and explanations, in the cartoon only hints and the opportunity to think for yourself. In the book, the character only talks about “love”, in the cartoon it shows. As shown through the song Hellfire, he slowly descends into madness, the only thing that can save - either kill the girl (in his opinion), or she accept him as he is. Through the song you can see how he rages and tears inside, how he hides the fire of life in an icy heart. You can feel it. But what happens? Is the cruel man in power more complex? Yes! Much stronger than a priest who desires power. The priest would look mediocre, but the judge is more difficult. More resonant "Judge Clot Frollo."
The cartoon is better written. If you showed an uncut version, you would put a ten. So here we go.
8.5 out of 10
Despite the happy ending, the cartoon promotes racism and motivates to mock people who are different from normal people. If you look from the point of view of the film adaptation of Hugo's novel - all the characters are simplified, they are without character.
1. Esmeralda.
A beautifully drawn character, I can't say anything else. The whole cartoon she portrays as a strong woman who can stand up for herself, but why does someone always save her from trouble? First Phoebe saved her, then Quasimodo. What is her strength?
The girl is fickle. Poor Frollo almost went crazy from her defiant dance. Quasimodo was struck by her phrases about the fact that he is beautiful in soul and heart. Phoebe fell for her beauty.
2. Phoebe.
I would call him a secondary character. It just adds to the picture, because what about a Disney cartoon without love? Nothing.
3. Quasimodo.
A poor and lonely humpback freak who nobody wants. From the title we understand that the cartoon, in theory, about Quasimodo. And if you follow the tradition of Disney cartoons, Quasimodo should have found peace, happiness and love, but in the end received a clear confirmation that he is a flawed person. To put it mildly, he hit Esmeralda's friendzone.
4. Frollo.
The main villain, racist and bad person. He hates gypsies but falls in love with Esmeralda. Eventually, he decided to burn it. Param-para-pam.
“The Hunchback of Notre Dame” is a parody of Hugo’s novel, which is not at all suitable for animation.
After reading the book Notre Dame de Paris, watching movies and musicals, I got to the cartoon. Apart from the fact that the cartoon is based on the book, I have nothing to complain about. Great drawing, good characters. I love the goat! A wonderful cartoon... But if you compare it with the book, the disadvantage is that it is not so similar to it.
I was very upset when I saw that some characters were not included in the story at all: Grengoire, who broke the system and fell in love not with Esmeralda, but with her goat, and from such a goat he would definitely be delighted! Fleur de Liss, who also played a role in the book.
I was surprised by what they did with Frollo. In the cartoon, it is absolutely negative, no positive qualities. Why is he a judge, not a priest, not an archdeacon? In the book, he wasn't so bad, just obsessed with Esmeralda. In the book I can find an excuse for him, I sympathize with him, and in the cartoon I wanted to hit him with something heavy, but stronger, so that he would come to his senses a little... made the last freak!
Phoeb I'm just as outraged here. He's a parasite in the book, but he's a real prince. It is clear that the children's Disney cartoon should not have expected something different, and it would not have made a shit, but what about his story with Fleur de Liss? If I could remember her at least once, I would be glad.
How pleased I was with the statues of gargoyles... I love it! I felt so much positive from them! It is a pity, of course, that until a certain time, only they were friends for Quasimodo.
By the way, about Quasimodo! Let us close our eyes to the fact that he is not deaf. He is one of the few people I absolutely liked! Sincere, real, kind, beautiful, with a beautiful soul man! Oh, I really wanted him here with a gypsy. Not fate. She's with Phoebe, but he made friends and survived! This is not enough.
Of course, it would be strange if the cartoon was completely based on the book, still it is gloomy and not for a children's audience, but if there were a little more similarities with the original work.
If you look at the cartoon as a children's fairy tale, which in principle was conceived, then the cartoon is wonderful, and if you draw parallels with the book, it did not turn out very well.
I understand Hugo’s connoisseurs who don’t like this product because of the excessive deviation from the book (although, believe me, I watched animated screenplays that were further removed from the book plot, only the names of some characters and medieval Paris as the setting). So this option is far from the worst. But, believe me, people, this is not a reason to shout: “Ahh! This will stop our children from reading French classics! To his furnace, to his furnace! And the conclusion: “After watching the novel, children will not love it because they will not see anything familiar from the cartoon” is completely absurd. What, children, in your opinion, are completely stupid - to measure with one yard a once watched cartoon and a serious adult book? I can’t speak for others, but personally this cartoon, on the contrary, caused me to be interested in the book Notre Dame de Paris. No, no, I didn't rush to read it immediately after watching it (especially since I was only six). I read it later, years later, at thirteen. And the fact that there was no happy ending, no talking statues, no decent Phoebe, etc., didn't make me despise her. Smart people distinguish between original and adaptation. Kids still will not read “Notre Dame de Paris”, before this work should grow mind and soul.
Now about the liberties. There are certainly plenty of them. But from my point of view, given what has been done for children, they are all quite appropriate. All in moderation. Even Frollo's transformation from priest to judge. For me, Frollo is not a negative character. You feel more pity for him than hatred. Meanwhile, the villains in the book, dear lovers of classics, were the judges! What do you think of the phrase: “Strong girl!” Makes himself tortured when we haven't had lunch yet! So here the creators of the animated film are closer than distant from the original. Perhaps they should have given the villain the name “Jacques Charmole”, instead of “Claude Frollo”.
Anyway, don't be afraid of this cartoon. It is dangerous only for teenagers who are lazy to read a book and who will foolishly retell its content to a teacher.
And finally - information for those who are worried that poor Quasimodo did not get a beautiful girlfriend. Watch the second part! In my opinion, she is losing the first one.
In general, I personally liked and liked the cartoon. Just like the original from which it was shot. It doesn’t hurt one another.
I will not say that I am wildly delighted that the creators of the cartoon so remade the book “Notre Dame de Paris” in their own way so that the characters simply do not recognize, but nevertheless, if we count on the fact that this cartoon is for children, we can say that I liked it. It is clear that it was impossible to make a bad ending from Hugo's book.
Characters, of course, changed very much. Claude Frollo (who here for some reason appears as a judge) has become an absolute evil (although he can also be understood), hates the gypsy family, keeps Quasimodo in the cathedral and can not stand fun (it is a pity that such an interesting character was fashioned mediocrity), Captain Phoeb brave and noble, and Esmeralda is self-confident and partly impudent. Only for Quasimodo preserved his true character, close to the book. Very funny gargoyles, friends of the hunchback.
The plot is also with changes, but for a children's cartoon is quite suitable, there are very good songs. There’s plenty to laugh about, even though the book is so dark. We were very pleased with our dubbing into Russian, especially the voice of Frollo, made by Igor Balalaev and Quasimodo, voiced by Viktor Dobronravov.
In general, the cartoon is not bad, although in my opinion, some moments could be presented differently, so that fans of the book would not be disappointed, and that children would be satisfied. But if you put all these small shortcomings aside, then the idea of making a completely good cartoon is quite good.
8 out of 10
The world-famous work of Hugo “The Cathedral of Paris Bogoiateri” has already been repeatedly filmed and now, in the mid-nineties, the famous animated studio Walt Disney Pictures drew attention to this novel. Of course, this literary work is not very well suited for creating a cartoon for young viewers. Therefore, the plot and characters of some characters were significantly changed.
The main thing that the authors changed in the plot is, of course, the ending of the story, now the narrative has a happy ending. And in the main plot there is a large number of discrepancies with the original novel. The plot was adapted for a young audience, minimizing the tragic part of the story and adding more highlights to the picture. In general, it turned out a cartoon based on the famous classical work.
There have been changes in the characters.
Esmeralda became not just a fatal beauty, but an adventurer, who everything is worth it. In addition, in this cartoon, the main character can not be called naive, while in the original work of Esmerald appears before the reader, a very naive girl.
Phoebe de Chateaupert was the epitome of heroism. He is presented in the cartoon as a knight on a white horse, ready to help everyone for free. While this hero of the novel is arrogant, arrogant and sometimes behaves very ruthlessly.
Claude Frollo became the embodiment of absolute evil in the cartoon. He executes people without trial, hates gypsies and is ready to incinerate the whole of Paris to achieve his goal. Although in the original he is not a positive character, but does not embody absolute evil.
In general, the cartoon is very different from the original, but it is necessary to forget that it is designed for children, while Hugo’s novel is aimed at an adult audience. The resulting cartoon has a great picture, a good plot and good music. The picture is likely to appeal to young viewers, as well as adults, if they do not constantly compare this cartoon with the original.
Although Disney had previously produced films based on classical literature (such as the 1949 Legend of Sleepy Hollow), the literary material on which the Hunchback of Notre Dame was based was too specific for production. The main problem was that, unlike Legend, Notre Dame Cathedral already had a certain cinematic context: by 1994, when the development of the cartoon began, there were about 12 adaptations of the novel! In addition, there was a natural need to adapt the material to the central audience of the Disney studio - so the future film should be interesting both for children who appreciate more brightness, musicality and fabulous convention, and for adults who will certainly correlate the film adaptation with the novel itself. It was necessary to avoid repetition of aesthetics and plot features of any of the previous films.
That is why The Hunchback of Notre Dame is not a direct adaptation of Victor Hugo's novel; in fact, the cartoon is not even based on the literary text itself, but simply reproduces the key plot points of the book - and then not entirely and with a completely different context. So the priest Claude Frollo becomes a judge, Jean Clopin becomes the gypsy leader Clopin Truylfu, and Phoebe de Chatoper becomes a noble military officer, the line with Esmeralda’s mother and Gringoire is removed from the plot, and the sequence and denouement of events is completely different from that in the original plot of Hugo. There is a social conflict based on the racial intolerance of Claude Frollo, Quasimodo up to a certain point has never left the bell tower of Notre Dame (and he is not deaf), Phoebe de Chatoper twice saves Esmeralda and opposes the dictatorship of Frollo, after which he was wounded (in very different circumstances than in the novel). In general, it is useless to list the differences between the original source and the film adaptation - in fact, these are two different works, one of which is only created based on the other. Because of this, Disney was accused of simplifying, editing and censoring the novel, distorting its idea. Oddly enough, but negative reviews of the discrepancy to the canonical plot of Notre Dame Cathedral were much more than the lack of historicity of Pocahontas in 1995; however, despite all the above, the change in the plot canvas and semantic accents did not make the film more primitive – on the contrary, a very large number of reviewers called “The Hunchback of Notre Dame” one of the most adult and gloomy paintings ever released by Disney.
In fact, personally, I will allow myself such a blasphemous idea that most (most, not all!) of those who are not happy with the cartoon are simply great fans of Claude Frollo from the book; indeed, between a closed bookkeeper who observes celibacy, and just a sadistically evil and confident in his righteousness judge, there is no more in common than between the stupid girl Esmeralda from the canon and the determined and strong-willed beauty from the cartoon. But the problem is that in fact their actions are no different, unlike just the image of Esmeralda, which changes just benefited (in any case, she is not naive and idealistic to the teeth of a fool from the canon; forgive me for being straightforward, but it is); yes, Claude Frollo from the book talks more about his love, but does he show it more than the purposeful Frollo from the cartoon? Still, it is he who condemns Esmeralda to torture and then to death, it is he who wounded her lover and tried to molest her; and the only difference is that his image is slightly more complex and tragic than in the cartoon. However, the difference is minimal...
But this is my personal opinion, and it does not claim the ultimate truth, of course.
The Hunchback, in fact, revolves only around Esmeralda, which, in general, is one of the few matches to the novel by Victor Hugo. She is the only one who interests each of the characters, and she is their main target, although she has acted as a hero reporter only a few times. Quasimodo, of course, a hero-reporter, and in honor of him and named the film itself, but, in fact, he is not his main character, although, of course, his story is one of the central. It is to him that a phrase is taken from the song of the narrator Klopen Truylfu, which is taken into the epigraph of the review: in fact, it is about this, and not about the canonical fate, the inevitability and wovenness of human destinies in the historical period told in the cartoon. It is not good or bad – it is just in its own way, and it is up to the viewer to accept such an interpretation or not.
As in Pocahontas, the role of magic in the film, characteristic of other films of the Disney studio, is minimized: in fact, it is embodied only by gargoyles with whom Quasimodo communicates (and that is not the fact that they are truly magical characters, because no one else, except the absolutely lonely Quasimodo, can communicate with them) and visions of Claude Frollo ... which can also have a psychopathic nature.
But it is worth noting another role of magic in the context of the cartoon: gypsies, especially Esmeralda for her attractiveness, are accused of witchcraft. And this accusation is unfair, based on stereotypes about gypsies and Frollo’s attempt to explain the nature of his feelings for gypsy. This is perhaps the only Disney cartoon where the theme of magic is perceived by the characters in a negative context: gypsies are considered sorcerers, an outcast Quasimodo communicates with gargoyles, and Claude Frollo in a fit of madness come terrifying visions of the Heavenly Judgment and revived stone chimeras. Magic in the context of The Hunchback of Notre Dame accompanies outcasts and madmen, is their marker and worthy cause for persecution.
But these are all just reflections, of course. In fact, this is one of the best representatives of Disney’s full-length animated art, regardless of the relationship you are in with the novel by Victor Hugo.
I think Disney's Romeo and Juliet can make a fairy tale with a happy ending. Even as a child, there seemed to be something missing and something wrong. And after years and after reading the book, it is incredibly difficult to watch the cartoon as one of the versions of the novel by Gyugyu. Neither those ideas, and the cartoon itself, are very far from the original, if not absolutely opposite to it. If it were not to link the story with the cathedral, but to create it as a separate work, removing attempts to tie the cartoon to the novel, then maybe everything would be fine. Since the duo Truzdale and Wise gave us such masterpieces: "Beauty and the Beast" and "The Lion King", but did not get along here, they should not be filmed, the originals turn out better.
The cartoon can be viewed from two points of view as a separate work and as an attempt to film, in either case it will not be a masterpiece. But it is better to see it separately. The story tells us about the beauty and the monster, but on the other hand, since there is still a positive handsome military and negative representative of the government (for small children I think it will be a little strange his obsession with Esmeralda), all this merges into a cacophony where everything is so transparent that even you do not want to believe yourself.
The main theme is amazing, even breathtaking, in various variations it is not boring to listen to. Drawing at old Disney is my favorite, the brightness and colors of the colors you can determine the importance of the characters and whose side they are on, which is important for children, even if they do not particularly think about the meaning of the story. The voiceover pleased me, as I watched the film in the original I can say that the actors tried to convey the character of the characters.
A Disney work that will leave you either indifferent or upset, which is not a plus of this cartoon.
What does it mean for people who are not like them?
': And if so, what is beauty?
Why do people worship it?
Is it a vessel in which there is emptiness?
Or the fire that flickers in the vessel?
I watched this cartoon recently. From the first minutes I was struck by the music, rich, deep, solemn. How the Cathedral is drawn! And cheerful Klopin begins his story about a man and a monster. . .
The story, I would say, is quite serious. Take, for example, the beginning. I'm 14 years old and I cried when a judge killed a gypsy mother and wanted to drown a baby. The serious theme of sins is raised: murder, hypocrisy, pride, lies, lust... Many children may not understand, so parents should watch with them. And the twisted plot will not let the kids yawn. When my grandmother and I watched 'Humpback...' we couldn’t help but comment. For example:
' Are you leaving already?!' - 'And what, we have a continuation of the banquet?!'
But in general, the cartoon makes you think a lot. . .
Now for the characters:
A young man quietly came out of the door. This is Quasimodo or Quasi. He is a hunchback and a freak, but his soul is beautiful! He's kind, funny and shy. How he got scared in the square when people started to bully him. He doesn't understand why he's being treated like that. But he is not vindictive, on the contrary, he tries to love people and accept them as they are. He dreams of living with them. Quasi also loves the gypsy Esmeralda as a sister, as a friend. He is very vulnerable, but at the same time a strong person. My favorite!
A young girl appeared. This is Esmeralda, a beautiful gypsy. She dances wonderfully, sings beautifully, adores her goat. She is attractive, but does not take advantage of it and does not seduce men. She also has a good soul, she helps the unhappy and disadvantaged. He believes in God and asks for His help. I like her!
Next, Captain Phoeb. Noble, proud (but not arrogant!), brave young man. He has fought, and he knows that it is the duty of a soldier to protect ordinary people. He's a real knight. He is in love with Esmeralda, but this love is pure and bright, not like some people! And our Phoebe is handsome!
Judge Claude Frollo. Old man, arrogant and gallant. He is a hypocrite, a liar and a liar. He believes that all men are sinners and must be punished, and he alone is a righteous man who has come to punish the unworthy. Although Frollo, without blinking an eye, killed the unfortunate woman and left the child orphaned, even lying to him! He ' half-built' Esmeralda decided to decide her fate. Either the girl will be his wife or she will be burned at the stake of the Inquisition. Frollo is a very scary person!
And the cartoon teaches us to understand where true faith is, and where fanaticism is. And if a person is not like everyone else, this does not mean that they should be despised and hated! Everyone deserves to be loved!
10 out of 10
I watched this movie this morning, and I found it on a website. And now I can say - 'The Hunchback of Notre Dame' - the best cartoon I've seen!
Why?The cartoon immediately swirled with its colorfulness and brightness, beautiful songs and perfectly painted streets of Paris. The first story - when it was told about the origin of Quasimodo - made breathless. The song was very powerful and sensual - most of the other songs - unfortunately - were a little weaker, but also on a level. And let the whole cartoon is very different from ' Notre Dame Cathedral', it is beautiful. And the actors deserve great praise.
Quasimodo Terrible in appearance, but his heart is much kinder and nobler than ordinary people. It is Quasimodo, half-man, the most human and kind of all heroes. He had heard from Frollo since childhood that he was a freak and a monster, although the first song clearly shows that Frollo is the real monster. Quasimodo is noble - despite the fact that Esmeralda chose Phoebe, he continues to help both the commander and the gypsy.
You fight almost like a man! I wanted to tell you the same thing!
EsmeraldaA daring, beautiful gypsy woman whose ardent temper turns the whole of Paris upside down. She is very kind and merciful (as can be seen from her song at Notre Dame), but also determined and passionate. It was Esmeralda who showed the ugly bell ringer from the cathedral that his true beauty lies in his soul, even if his body did not exist.
Achilles, sit down!
Phoeb But Phoeb disappointed me. It is as if he had escaped from another cartoon - say, 'Rapunzel' or 'Frog Princess'. His eternal jokes, frivolity, slackness. . . No, I don't like him at all! At least the final battle, when Quasimodo, with a half-living gypsy in his arms, tries to escape from Frollo, he commands horses 'Sit!' and the horse comically places its tail on the head of the defeated enemy. But the good in him was also - nobility, honor and devotion to his love.
'Idiot! - You are! Go scare the nuns!'
Gorgules I can say very little about them. Sweet, kind and funny - these are all the words that can describe them.
'Wait between strokes, otherwise the pain of a new blow will slightly drown out the old one!'
And finally Judge Frollo. That’s what I was rooting for throughout the movie. Cruel, cynical, insidious villain - yes, and again yes, that's him. But on the other side... And it was Frollo who became really alive in this film. His song, full of sinful passion for me was the strongest shock - in the good sense of the word, and hooked me much more than the notorious 'Belle'. His mad obsession with Esmeralda is truly a real, mad passion that engulfs his soul, and he burns in the very fire in which the visions of Esmeralda come to him. His face, smile, mannerism and fanaticism make him believe in his existence. And to be honest, I wanted it to be over for Frollo. . Just finished.
I don't understand why everyone's so excited about the cartoon? I never understood people who, after watching any film adaptation, begin to talk badly about it, thereby trying to raise themselves among others that they said they read the book and are so smart.
To begin with, this is not a film adaptation, but only a plot taken as a basis. And it was done primarily for children, who by all parameters it is too early to read the book. Maybe not at all.
To me, it's just a beautiful story about love and friendship. That's what children should be shown. Very beautiful, in the spirit of Disney.
This is a good movie for kids. This is an absolutely b/b children's movie. But from the point of view of the film adaptation of Hugo’s novel, the characters of the characters have been simplified, they are flat and unipolar. This causes one after another wave of deep disturbance:
-1 Frollo All the dogs were hung on him here. He is cruel, cynical, flaming with hatred of the Roma family, fighting alone against the whole city, executes without trial the guilty and innocent. Got it. The embodiment of universal evil is necessary, but Claude Frollo Hugo is the most educated man of the strongest soul!
-1 Esmeralda Well, she's a superwoman here! The Queen of the City, a daring seeker of justice and the only unmistakeable good soul! And her poor woman is so unjustly persecuted, this angel in the flesh! It's amazing that she still has to be rescued sometimes. Perhaps, there is even minus 2 points for a full dissynchron with the original.
-1 Phoebe Why is he so noble? Although for a children's film will be enough and one scoundrel.
I will be generous with praise (as much as it is possible in this situation): the quality of the picture and sound are simply magnificent, this cannot be taken away, but for those who are familiar with the content of the novel I advise you not to watch this, and not to give it to children, so as not to confuse them in advance, while "Notre Dame de Paris" is a classic and mandatory for educational reading.
6 out of 10