DVDizzy Forum

Hey guys. I hope you don't mind this, but if you will, you could check out my new blog about Disney, where I analyze some Disney films. This is after all my first blog, so it will look uneven, but I've done my best to make it look professional. I hope you'll like it and you don't mind that I'm promoting it here. And if there's something that you think could be improved, let me know (in a constructive way, please).

http://mydisneyanalysis.blogspot.no/201 ... -dame.html

As you'll see, this first page is about "Hunchback". I will most likely update the blog with new writings. So stay tuned

I agree that Quasimodo definitely feels like one of the almost-obnoxiously cute/innocent protagonists from the Walt-era films. That might be why I never quite warmed up to the character, although it's an understandable choice for a sheltered character like him.

Interesting comparison between Esmeralda and Aladdin, and I definitely see it. Yet I love Aladdin, but I'm annoyed by Esmeralda. I think I might have liked Esmeralda if they hadn't forced the character to sing a preachy/sappy song like "God Help the Outcasts." (Of course, her voice irritates me, so maybe it wouldn't matter?) Either way, something like "GHtO" would be better as a credits song, and not sung by a character, imo, similar to "Someday." It vaguely reminds me of "Feed the Birds," which works for me most likely because Mary Poppins seemed to be more of an angel (imo) or at least supernatural, but definitely not a normal person like Esmeralda. Phoebus still annoys me. He's like a strange combination of Flynn and Kristoff (to use later examples).

Although Hunchback was harmed in some ways because it was hamfisted into the '90s formula, it's hard to imagine a better time it could've been released. I really doubt Walt would've done anything with this kind of story, and Lasseter definitely wouldn't. It might've benefited more coming out around the time of The Rescuers and The Black Cauldron although the obnoxious jokes/humor could've been replaced with the cloying cuteness some of those movies have. Maybe the early 2000's with all the other experimental films would've been a better time for it, although the film could've turned out worse considering how bad most of those films are. Who knows, it's hard to imagine it coming out better if it had been made in another time, so flaws with a Disney version of THoND were probably inevitable.

With Pocahontas and Hunchback both, even though I personally don't like them a great deal, unquestionably did well financially. It's a shame Disney chose to sweep these hits from the late '90s under the rug. Most of them could've been marketed well for years to come, even if they didn't necessarily do the same business in sales as TLK, for example. Very odd decision.

Aaaw, so nice of you to answer, Disney Divinity!

To answer your questions; I never felt that Quasimodo's endearing nature was annoying, heck, on the contrary. But personally I thought he should have stood up to Frollo a lot more in the climax, besides the one speech before Esmeralda woke up.

I agree about Aladdin and Esmeralda. While I do like them both, I prefer Aladdin, because he's a more wholesome character and frankly doesn't get the credit he deserves. Esmeralda has many good traits and qualities, but is overall not particularly smart and cunning. She stands up to Frollo, which is admirable, but in a way that would most likely get her arrested. She kisses Quasi on the cheek, but the kiss is somewhat manipulative to make him change his mind. She hides Phoebus in Notre Dame, where Frollo would most likely find him (yeah, blame the screenwriters for that contrived decision). It's understandable why she didn't brought him to The Court of Miracles, but still. I actually like "God Help the Outcast", because it shows her selflessness and willing to help others in need. Frankly, I wish we saw that side of her. I do like Phoebus, though, because of his winning personality.

I could definitively see "Hunchback" being released in the 70's or 80's, considering how dark those films were. The directors said in a interview that they thought Walt could have supported the idea of "Hunchback", but the execution would have been difficult. Either way, I like "Pocahontas" and "Hunchback", not only for nostalgic reasons, but because they're well drawn, has great music and visuals and are full of maturity and drama. While their script could have been improved, I still think they have good characterizations (although many complains about the characterizations in "Pocahontas", but I disagree). It's a pity that they get neglected as much.

Don't get me wrong, I understand the decision to have Esmeralda sing "GHtO," because it sets her--a gypsy--in parallel to Frollo and the other selfish people in the Church--"Christians"--making you ask who is more faithful/spiritually sound and pointing out that everyone is God's child, and so on. I just think the consequence of having her sing it are that she comes off too holier than thou, with lyrics like "I ask for nothing..."

Btw, I don't dislike the song itself at all. I just think it would be more appropriate with a few lyrics changes, sung over credits.

Obviously, I disagree with a lot of your assessments of Hunchback. I'm not sure how it's anymore "dramatically uneven" than, really, any other Disney film. The darkness of Hunchback is dark, perhaps darker than any other in the canon (only Pinocchio, Bambi and the Black Cauldron could compete with it for that 'honor'), but I don't think that, just because it aims higher with what it's trying to do that it should be "taken down a peg" for 'daring' to try and be adult or challenging. You complain that Djali rears Phoebus to nudge him away when the Archdeacon kicks Frollo & his soldiers out of the church because it occurs right before Frollo has a confrontation with Esmeralda... Well, what about Pinocchio singing a happy song in Stromboli's theatre RIGHT BEFORE being locked in a cage and threatened to be chopped into firewood? Is that any LESS "dramatically uneven" than the scene just described in Hunchback? Bambi is possibly the most infamous example I can think of: in the scene DIRECTLY after Bambi's mother's death, we're given a sappy, happy saccharine song. And yet, Bambi is never accused of being "dramatically uneven." Nor is The Rescuers, a film that devolves into just as many jokes and gags during its otherwise 'serious' climax as ANY of the 90s Disney films. Is it "dramatically uneven"? I ask this because I hear EVERYONE and I mean EVERYONE who picks Hunchback apart use that EXACT phrase, "dramatically uneven." "Dramatically uneven." "Dramatically uneven." I don't SEE it. At least, not compared to practically EVERY other Disney film. A Night on Bald Mountain is preceded in Fantasia by the Dance of the Hours, a cutesy segment. It is followed immediately by the Ave Maria. A completely different mood and thematic shift. Does this somehow make Fantasia "dramatically uneven" as well? I'm asking seriously. Because I'd like to know how, or why, it applies to Hunchback and not those (or Beauty and the Beast and The Little Mermaid...Ariel's grotto is destroyed, possibly the film's darkest and most emotionally heightened scene, practically RIGHT after Under the Sea, our happy big toe-tapper, is sung! Or how about Aladdin all of the Genie's gags during the VERY heightened and tense scenes of Aladdin battling Jafar?) So, no. I don't think Hunchback is any more uneven than any of those examples. And don't get me STARTED on The Lion King...

Also, this line:

It's interesting that Frollo has been given the role as the villain in the Disney version, when he's not villain in the original.

-in your review immediately made me do a spit-take. Have you READ Hugo's original novel? Let me give you the run-down, and, be warned SPOILERS follow: Frollo sees Esmeralda dancing at the Feast of Fools (just like in the Disney version, only, here, he's there as the Arch-deacon just watching because he's 'disturbed' by the sinfulness of the crowd/display), he sees her performing tricks with Djali (yes, Djali is IN the original novel, and plays a MUCH larger role than even the Disney version!), becomes convinced that her goat is an avatar of the devil and that she's a witch and runs away like a pansy. But, he can't stop thinking about her. He orders Quasimodo (Hugo describes the relationship between Quasi and Frollo as 'the dog and his master') to KIDNAP her and bring her to him. Quasi attempts to, and is stopped by Phoebus and the crowd get their hands on Quasi. He's taken to court and sentenced to the pillory. When he's being punished, Esmeralda takes pity on him, gives him water while Frollo PRETENDS NOT TO KNOW HIM (almost just like in the Disney version). Meanwhile, Frollo becomes more and more inflamed. Frollo ends up talking a drunken Phoebus into 'letting him watch' Phoebus and Esmeralda as Phoebus takes her to this brothel to try and, basically, seduce her. Phoebus is like, "Whatever turns you on, dude," and lets him hide in the closet. As he and Esmeralda start to get hot and heavy, Frollo bursts from the closet in a rage with a dagger and STABS Phoebus, causing Esmeralda, who thinks he's a demon spirit (it's a minor subplot in the book that there's this 'mad monk' that supposedly haunts the street the brothel is on...Esmeralda thinks Frollo is said Monk, basically), to faint. Frollo escapes and Esmeralda gets blamed for the stabbing. Yadda, yadda, Esmeralda's arrested, Frollo visits her in the dungeon and professes his obsession with her and she, naturally, is like, 'Dude, who ARE you? Get out!' And he runs away sobbing. He watches as she's tortured and confesses. She's sentenced to be hanged. Before she's hanged, Quasimodo swoops down and saves her, carting her off to the cathedral (Sanctuary! This happens EXACTLY like the Disney version), and Esmeralda LIVES in the Cathedral for weeks, actually, with Quasimodo. Frollo watches her every night from his window and, one night, straight up tries to RAPE HER. Quasimodo, who is deaf, had given Esmeralda a whistle to 'contact' him if she needs anything and, during this scene, Esmeralda is frantically trying to get the whistle while Frollo is, again, ATTEMPTING TO RAPE HER. Thankfully, she does, blows the whistle and Quasimodo runs in, sees someone is attacking her and BEATS THE SHIT out of Frollo, and it is SO satisfying. I mean, DAMN, this scene is the best. But, when he pulls Frollo up into the moonlight and SEES it's his 'master' he lets him go and Frollo runs off. The King of France ends up involved in Esmeralda's case (she's making him look bad) and they vote to strip her of her right to sanctuary, so, Clopin and the Gypsies all form a mob to protect Esmeralda and spring her from the church before the King's forces can. Quasimodo, mistakenly, thinks that the mob is there to hurt Esmeralda and fights them off (almost EXACTLY like in the Disney version. Literally, EVERYTHING we see in the climax; throwing the cross-beam, throwing rocks, knocking down the grappling hooks/ladders and, yes, the molten lead, are ALL here), meanwhile, Pierre Gringoire, a poet, and, technically, Esmeralda's husband (she married him to save him from Clopin and the Gypsies when he accidentally discovered the Court of Miracles location...) teams up with a disguised Frollo to save Esmeralda. Gringoire, the bastard, ends up running off with Djali (he's implied to be...sexually attracted to the goat. Or something. He's a freak.) and leaves Esmeralda in the hands of Frollo, who she doesn't recognize in his disguise. He reveals himself to her and gives her one last chance to choose him or death and she refuses. He then turns her over to the soldiers. And he laughs while she is hanged. Long story short, Book Frollo is a bastard.

He's FAR eviller in the book than in the Disney Version, in my opinion. At least DISNEY Frollo was straight-up with his intentions and didn't try to pretend he had anything but ulterior motives at heart.

Also, I take exception to this:

It's interesting how Quasimodo, Esmeralda and Phoebus have been changed to being squeaky clean and pure and especially Quasimodo. He's pretty much the oppposite of the Beast and quite endearing, naive, innocent and symphatetic. He comes across as being close to a protagonist of Walt's era, as Pinocchio, Dumbo or Bambi.

-Quasimodo is not 'squeaky clean.' Watch the film again. He treats Phoebus VERY poorly until the end. The first time he meets him, he ATTACKS him, grabbing him up by his armor and lifting him off his feet with pure HATRED in his eyes. He still acts suspicious of him when Phoebus claims he was trying to help Esmeralda. Later, Quasi KICKS Phoebus in the face when he begins moaning (he obviously enjoyed doing so), and, later, he SLAPS Phoebus in the back, right where the arrow hit him, again, out of jealousy. Throughout the film, Quasimodo's demeanor changes. Especially around Frollo. In the beginning, his entire POSTURE switches from open, tall, to hunched and closed off, he stutters, he becomes more awkward and clumsy (this is typical of REAL LIFE children of abuse when they are in the presence of their abuser), but, by the end of the film, he not only STANDS UP TO FROLLO, he even thinks about killing him. (He takes that dagger and raises it threateningly, shaking with rage, before he lets it fall and YELLS at his 'master,' something that would have seemed inconceivable at the film's start.) You, yourself, have all ready talked about Esmeralda's faults IN THIS VERY THREAD, so I won't repeat those. As for Phoebus, he is not 'squeaky clean' in the beginning, either. I've talked about this before. He sits by and lets Frollo's persecution happen and doesn't have a problem with it UNTIL he begins to fall in love with Esmeralda. Progressively, through the film, he comes to see that Frollo is wrong. Remember: until Frollo tried to burn the miller's family alive, Phoebus didn't STAND UP to anything, despite being clearly uncomfortable with what was going on ("Permission to stop this cruelty," during Quasimodo's pillory scene, grinding his teeth, snorting during Frollo's "ten pieces of silver/twenty pieces of silver for the Gypsy Esmeralda" montage.) So, again, I think this argument is invalid.

It's pretty remarkable what a realistic heroine Esmeralda is, at least in terms of her taste in men. While the movie gets criticized for not having the "monster" getting the girl, Esmeralda falls for Phoebus because of his witty, cocky charms/alpha male seduction, not only because he's handsome. Many observants have stated that the three leading men views Esmeralda differently and Phoebus is the one who gets her for threating her as a person and not as a saint, like Quasi does, or a sinner, as Frollo does.

Now, THIS, I agree with.

It was certainly criticized for taking it's risks from litterature purits, critics and audiences. But it still was a hit. While it never performed as much as it's predecessors, it still made a huge amount of money. While it never got the classic status, "Hunchback" has a huge fanbase on the Internet and deservedly so. Perhaps the new stage show will increase the fanbase of "Hunchback"

- And this.

As you can see, I'm VERY passionate about this film, and I think a lot of its critics really need to view it with a more open-mind and definitely need to pay attention to the nuances of the characters and their arcs. They are subtle, but to say they aren't there is just plain wrong.

I heard that the Disney version takes its cues from the 1939 version. I have a headcannon now that the archdeacons' real name is Jehan named after Frollo's brother in the book. In the 1939 film he was the main villain of the piece. I do have to say that Tony Jay just brought to life one of the most revered villains in all of Disney history. I certainly say he is one of the most adult villains that Disney has ever created because of the subject matter and issues that surrounds him. A child simply sees this guy as a bad man who is mean towards everyone but an adult sees a self justified bigot who uses religion as an excuse to hurt anyone who gets in his way. Frollo personifies religious hypocrisy by touting himself as a holy man but having nothing to back up his claims.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hunchb ... 1939_film)

Hah! I knew you would come, ProfessorRatigan, I just knew it. No offense. I know your passion, so I knew you had something to say about it.

ProfessorRatigan wrote:Obviously, I disagree with a lot of your assessments of Hunchback. I'm not sure how it's anymore "dramatically uneven" than, really, any other Disney film. The darkness of Hunchback is dark, perhaps darker than any other in the canon (only Pinocchio, Bambi and the Black Cauldron could compete with it for that 'honor'), but I don't think that, just because it aims higher with what it's trying to do that it should be "taken down a peg" for 'daring' to try and be adult or challenging. You complain that Djali rears Phoebus to nudge him away when the Archdeacon kicks Frollo & his soldiers out of the church because it occurs right before Frollo has a confrontation with Esmeralda... Well, what about Pinocchio singing a happy song in Stromboli's theatre RIGHT BEFORE being locked in a cage and threatened to be chopped into firewood? Is that any LESS "dramatically uneven" than the scene just described in Hunchback? Bambi is possibly the most infamous example I can think of: in the scene DIRECTLY after Bambi's mother's death, we're given a sappy, happy saccharine song. And yet, Bambi is never accused of being "dramatically uneven." Nor is The Rescuers, a film that devolves into just as many jokes and gags during its otherwise 'serious' climax as ANY of the 90s Disney films. Is it "dramatically uneven"? I ask this because I hear EVERYONE and I mean EVERYONE who picks Hunchback apart use that EXACT phrase, "dramatically uneven." "Dramatically uneven." "Dramatically uneven." I don't SEE it. At least, not compared to practically EVERY other Disney film. A Night on Bald Mountain is preceded in Fantasia by the Dance of the Hours, a cutesy segment. It is followed immediately by the Ave Maria. A completely different mood and thematic shift. Does this somehow make Fantasia "dramatically uneven" as well? I'm asking seriously. Because I'd like to know how, or why, it applies to Hunchback and not those (or Beauty and the Beast and The Little Mermaid...Ariel's grotto is destroyed, possibly the film's darkest and most emotionally heightened scene, practically RIGHT after Under the Sea, our happy big toe-tapper, is sung! Or how about Aladdin all of the Genie's gags during the VERY heightened and tense scenes of Aladdin battling Jafar?) So, no. I don't think Hunchback is any more uneven than any of those examples. And don't get me STARTED on The Lion King...

Why is "Hunchback" dramatically uneven? Because of reasons that I've stated earlier, also in my blog, that it breaks with convention! The murdering of Quasi's mother is pretty explicit, as is Frollo's harassment of Esmeralda (in the Cathedral) and let's not forget "Hellfire". So yes, I'm not saying that other Disney films aren't dramatically uneven, but since "Hunchback" does blatantly break with Disney conventions by incorporating adult and shocking themes, so yes, it is certainly dramatically uneven!

in your review immediately made me do a spit-take.

Did you actually read my initial words? My blog was never meant to be a review, but a analysis.

Have you READ Hugo's original novel? Let me give you the run-down, and, be warned SPOILERS follow: Frollo sees Esmeralda dancing at the Feast of Fools (just like in the Disney version, only, here, he's there as the Arch-deacon just watching because he's 'disturbed' by the sinfulness of the crowd/display), he sees her performing tricks with Djali (yes, Djali is IN the original novel, and plays a MUCH larger role than even the Disney version!), becomes convinced that her goat is an avatar of the devil and that she's a witch and runs away like a pansy. But, he can't stop thinking about her. He orders Quasimodo (Hugo describes the relationship between Quasi and Frollo as 'the dog and his master') to KIDNAP her and bring her to him. Quasi attempts to, and is stopped by Phoebus and the crowd get their hands on Quasi. He's taken to court and sentenced to the pillory. When he's being punished, Esmeralda takes pity on him, gives him water while Frollo PRETENDS NOT TO KNOW HIM (almost just like in the Disney version). Meanwhile, Frollo becomes more and more inflamed. Frollo ends up talking a drunken Phoebus into 'letting him watch' Phoebus and Esmeralda as Phoebus takes her to this brothel to try and, basically, seduce her. Phoebus is like, "Whatever turns you on, dude," and lets him hide in the closet. As he and Esmeralda start to get hot and heavy, Frollo bursts from the closet in a rage with a dagger and STABS Phoebus, causing Esmeralda, who thinks he's a demon spirit (it's a minor subplot in the book that there's this 'mad monk' that supposedly haunts the street the brothel is on...Esmeralda thinks Frollo is said Monk, basically), to faint. Frollo escapes and Esmeralda gets blamed for the stabbing. Yadda, yadda, Esmeralda's arrested, Frollo visits her in the dungeon and professes his obsession with her and she, naturally, is like, 'Dude, who ARE you? Get out!' And he runs away sobbing. He watches as she's tortured and confesses. She's sentenced to be hanged. Before she's hanged, Quasimodo swoops down and saves her, carting her off to the cathedral (Sanctuary! This happens EXACTLY like the Disney version), and Esmeralda LIVES in the Cathedral for weeks, actually, with Quasimodo. Frollo watches her every night from his window and, one night, straight up tries to RAPE HER. Quasimodo, who is deaf, had given Esmeralda a whistle to 'contact' him if she needs anything and, during this scene, Esmeralda is frantically trying to get the whistle while Frollo is, again, ATTEMPTING TO RAPE HER. Thankfully, she does, blows the whistle and Quasimodo runs in, sees someone is attacking her and BEATS THE SHIT out of Frollo, and it is SO satisfying. I mean, DAMN, this scene is the best. But, when he pulls Frollo up into the moonlight and SEES it's his 'master' he lets him go and Frollo runs off. The King of France ends up involved in Esmeralda's case (she's making him look bad) and they vote to strip her of her right to sanctuary, so, Clopin and the Gypsies all form a mob to protect Esmeralda and spring her from the church before the King's forces can. Quasimodo, mistakenly, thinks that the mob is there to hurt Esmeralda and fights them off (almost EXACTLY like in the Disney version. Literally, EVERYTHING we see in the climax; throwing the cross-beam, throwing rocks, knocking down the grappling hooks/ladders and, yes, the molten lead, are ALL here), meanwhile, Pierre Gringoire, a poet, and, technically, Esmeralda's husband (she married him to save him from Clopin and the Gypsies when he accidentally discovered the Court of Miracles location...) teams up with a disguised Frollo to save Esmeralda. Gringoire, the bastard, ends up running off with Djali (he's implied to be...sexually attracted to the goat. Or something. He's a freak.) and leaves Esmeralda in the hands of Frollo, who she doesn't recognize in his disguise. He reveals himself to her and gives her one last chance to choose him or death and she refuses. He then turns her over to the soldiers. And he laughs while she is hanged. Long story short, Book Frollo is a bastard.
He's FAR eviller in the book than in the Disney Version, in my opinion. At least DISNEY Frollo was straight-up with his intentions and didn't try to pretend he had anything but ulterior motives at heart.

Okay, fair enough. I've read the Hugo novel, but frankly I don't remember every single detail. But I've changed it.

Quasimodo is not 'squeaky clean.' Watch the film again. He treats Phoebus VERY poorly until the end. The first time he meets him, he ATTACKS him, grabbing him up by his armor and lifting him off his feet with pure HATRED in his eyes. He still acts suspicious of him when Phoebus claims he was trying to help Esmeralda. Later, Quasi KICKS Phoebus in the face when he begins moaning (he obviously enjoyed doing so), and, later, he SLAPS Phoebus in the back, right where the arrow hit him, again, out of jealousy. Throughout the film, Quasimodo's demeanor changes. Especially around Frollo. In the beginning, his entire POSTURE switches from open, tall, to hunched and closed off, he stutters, he becomes more awkward and clumsy (this is typical of REAL LIFE children of abuse when they are in the presence of their abuser), but, by the end of the film, he not only STANDS UP TO FROLLO, he even thinks about killing him. (He takes that dagger and raises it threateningly, shaking with rage, before he lets it fall and YELLS at his 'master,' something that would have seemed inconceivable at the film's start.)

True, but Quasi's actions towards Phoebus are justified. He thinks that Phoebus is a soldier who is going to do harm and therefore attacks him. And afterwards he's hostile towards Phoebus because of jealousy, but otherwise still managed to be around him. But that's just the exception and as I previously said, Quasi's speech was the only time where he stood up to his master, when he actually should have stood up to him more than just once. Otherwise, Quasimodo is pretty much squeaky clean, even when he's threated poorly during the entire film and especially during the mockery at the Feast of Fools. Honestly, you don't have to take everything I say so litterally.

You, yourself, have all ready talked about Esmeralda's faults IN THIS VERY THREAD, so I won't repeat those.

Okay, then it's fine that we can agree on something.

As for Phoebus, he is not 'squeaky clean' in the beginning, either. I've talked about this before. He sits by and lets Frollo's persecution happen and doesn't have a problem with it UNTIL he begins to fall in love with Esmeralda. Progressively, through the film, he comes to see that Frollo is wrong. Remember: until Frollo tried to burn the miller's family alive, Phoebus didn't STAND UP to anything, despite being clearly uncomfortable with what was going on ("Permission to stop this cruelty," during Quasimodo's pillory scene, grinding his teeth, snorting during Frollo's "ten pieces of silver/twenty pieces of silver for the Gypsy Esmeralda" montage.) So, again, I think this argument is invalid.

Phoebus comes actually across as a good guy all along. He gives money to Djali and the gypsy musician before seeing Esmeralda and he actually helps her escape. I agree that he doesn't really stand up to Frollo (which I wonder why he didn't resign to begin with, but blame the screenwriters), but otherwise, he is a good guy, it's not as he really enjoyed to see Frollo harassing the innocents. Even when he enters the Palace of Justice and hears what Frollo tells his servant about his previous captain, you clearly see in Phoebus close-up that he's realizing that Frollo is doing wrong.

[/quote] Now, THIS, I agree with. [/quote]
That's good.

As you can see, I'm VERY passionate about this film, and I think a lot of its critics really need to view it with a more open-mind and definitely need to pay attention to the nuances of the characters and their arcs. They are subtle, but to say they aren't there is just plain wrong.

True, but that's my issue with you. You are so passionate that you come across as being condescending in your statements and somewhat attacking people who disagrees with you. I'm not saying that you are completely hostile, but you are condescending. Sorry, I'm not trying to be mean and hostile, but that's how I view you.

jazzflower92 wrote:I heard that the Disney version takes its cues from the 1939 version.

Yes, Trousdale and Wise have said that the '39 version (which starred Charles Laughton) was just as much of an influence on them as the original novel was! And that's cool, because, aside from the Disney version, the 1939 version, with Cedrick Hardwicke as 'Jehan' Frollo is my favorite adaptation. (The Lon Chaney version is...okay.) Originally, Trousdale, Wise and Don Hahn, the producer, wanted to name the Gargoyles Victor, Hugo and Laverne after Lon Chaney, Charles Laughton and Anthony Quinn, aka. the three most famous people to portray Quasimodo in film! Obviously, they weren't able to do that (Disney's legal department told them they could be sued by the estates of those actors if they didn't clear it with them...I don't think the Mouse House wanted to bother with it after that.)

jazzflower92 wrote:I have a headcannon now that the archdeacons' real name is Jehan named after Frollo's brother in the book.

I have this exact headcanon, I wish Disney had done that. That way, it would hew a little closer to the book (a Frollo is an Archdeacon), but still give Disney CLAUDE Frollo all the power he needs as a magistrate for the story to make sense. Also: it would clear up why the Archdeacon allowed Frollo to stash Quasi in the belltower in the first place. (I admit, this was a bit of a contrivance in the Disney film, but, it's one that is easily glossed over, imho.)

DisneyFan09 wrote:Hah! I knew you would come, ProfessorRatigan, I just knew it. No offense. I know your passion, so I knew you had something to say about it.

I see my Hunchback reputation precedes me.

DisneyFan09 wrote:Why is "Hunchback" dramatically uneven? Because of reasons that I've stated earlier, also in my blog, that it breaks with convention! The murdering of Quasi's mother is pretty explicit, as is Frollo's harassment of Esmeralda (in the Cathedral) and let's not forget "Hellfire". So yes, I'm not saying that other Disney films aren't dramatically uneven, but since "Hunchback" does blatantly break with Disney conventions by incorporating adult and shocking themes, so yes, it is certainly dramatically uneven!

Breaking with Disney Convention does not = dramatic unevenness, though. So, I still don't see how this critique applies to Hunchback, unless you're saying it does, but, then, it also applies to Pinocchio, Fantasia, Dumbo, The Lion King, etc. etc.

DisneyFan09 wrote:Did you actually read my initial words? My blog was never meant to be a review, but a analysis.

You wrote that Frollo was, and I quote, "not [a] villain in the original [novel]." That's clearly not the case. I'm not attacking you. I'm just saying you were wrong on that point, and provided a synopsis of Frollo's actions in the novel to prove my point...

DisneyFan09 wrote:True, but Quasi's actions towards Phoebus are justified. He thinks that Phoebus is a soldier who is going to do harm and therefore attacks him. And afterwards he's hostile towards Phoebus because of jealousy, but otherwise still managed to be around him. But that's just the exception and as I previously said, Quasi's speech was the only time where he stood up to his master, when he actually should have stood up to him more than just once. Otherwise, Quasimodo is pretty much squeaky clean, even when he's threated poorly during the entire film and especially during the mockery at the Feast of Fools. Honestly, you don't have to take everything I say so litterally.

I don't have to take the words you say and the description you used multiple times literally? Well, then, how am I supposed to take them? Metaphorically? Sarcastically? You suggested that Quasi was perfect. I showed examples that contradict that suggestion. You're even now agreeing that my points were valid, but are basically saying, "I'm still right about my initial implication." Quasimodo even GIVES UP and has to be goaded into saving Esmeralda (twice!) in the film. He refused, at first, when Phoebus tried to enlist his aide to warn the Gypsies that Frollo was coming to the Court of Miracles. And the Gargoyles have to give him a kick in the pants during the climax, when he had all but given up. I don't agree that Quasi is a squeaky-clean character who NEVER acts un-heroically. Does he act heroically throughout the MAJORITY of the film? Of course! But, not 100%.

DisneyFan09 wrote:Phoebus comes actually across as a good guy all along. He gives money to Djali and the gypsy musician before seeing Esmeralda and he actually helps her escape. I agree that he doesn't really stand up to Frollo (which I wonder why he didn't resign to begin with, but blame the screenwriters), but otherwise, he is a good guy, it's not as he really enjoyed to see Frollo harassing the innocents. Even when he enters the Palace of Justice and hears what Frollo tells his servant about his previous captain, you clearly see in Phoebus close-up that he's realizing that Frollo is doing wrong.

Yes, exactly. But, standing by and not doing something (the 'pedestrian effect') while others are behaving immorally, I was always taught, is immoral in and of itself. Therefore, Phoebus, by NOT acting UNTIL the moment in HIS eyes when Frollo went over the line, well, that muddied Phoebus a bit. Ultimately, he redeemed himself. And that's what counts. But, again, he wasn't 100% a good, moral person for the majority of the film's runtime.

DisneyFan09 wrote:True, but that's my issue with you. You are so passionate that you come across as being condescending in your statements and somewhat attacking people who disagrees with you. I'm not saying that you are completely hostile, but you are condescending. Sorry, I'm not trying to be mean and hostile, but that's how I view you.

Attacking? I'm disagreeing with you, not attacking you. You posted your opinion, I posted my opinion. My opinions are different than yours. I may be long-winded, but, I don't feel that I'm condescending.

You know what's really funny the cult classic show "The Critic" made a joke about a bowdlerized musical version of the Hunchback Of Notre Dame. I gotta say this was a hilarious in hindsight moment. Although thankfully the real movie avoided a lot of the tropes found in other softer adaptations of the Hunchback. Interesting enough the softer adaptions usually have Pierre Gringoire in it as the official love interest of Esmeralda. One thing else I notice is that often times Phoebus is omitted in those versions as well. People say that Phoebus in the movie is a composite character of both his book counterpart and Pierre Gringoire. I do think making Phoebus into a genuine heroic character subverted the cliché of having the rival love interest be a jerk. Not to mention it subtle plays into the theme of true beauty comes from within because the real reason Esmeralda fell for Phoebus was his character and not his looks like in the movie. I gotta admit Esmeralda in the book was really shallow and a bit too naïve for my taste. I mean at the end of the book she pretty much dooms herself when she gives away her location because she hears Phoebus's voice.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DyPn_3bNzg

I truly think Esmeralda choosing Phoebus is what turns a lot of people off of Disney's Hunchback, to be honest. But, could you have imagined the backlash, how utterly despised Disney would have been if they had seriously given Quasimodo the girl AND the happy ending? The book purists were all ready tearing out their hair as it was! That would have been the nail in the coffin. Esmeralda chooses the dashing Knight in Shining Armor in the Disney version and that makes her "shallow." Meanwhile, in the original novel, she's far more head-over-heels 'he loves me, he loves me not' about him! And female fans of the original novel HATE book-Phoebus because was a pump 'em and dump 'em type... I've seen the novel's fans (particularly female ones) defend book FROLLO (a legitimate attempted rapist!) over book Phoebus. It's crazy. And I think that hate for the book version spills over into Disney Phoebus, and, hence, he's unpopular. And Esmeralda, because SHE chooses him, is derided as well. A shame, because I really like Phoebus. I like his arc, I like his snarky, playful nature (he named his horse Achilles just so he could make puns. That's adorable and you know it), and I like his voice. I'm a HUGE Kevin Kline fan. (A Fish Called Wanda is a classic and he is just TERRIFIC in it. If you haven't watched it, try to check it out sometime.)

ProfessorRatigan wrote:I truly think Esmeralda choosing Phoebus is what turns a lot of people off of Disney's Hunchback, to be honest. But, could you have imagined the backlash, how utterly despised Disney would have been if they had seriously given Quasimodo the girl AND the happy ending? The book purists were all ready tearing out their hair as it was! That would have been the nail in the coffin. Esmeralda chooses the dashing Knight in Shining Armor in the Disney version and that makes her "shallow." Meanwhile, in the original novel, she's far more head-over-heels 'he loves me, he loves me not' about him! And female fans of the original novel HATE book-Phoebus because was a pump 'em and dump 'em type... I've seen the novel's fans (particularly female ones) defend book FROLLO (a legitimate attempted rapist!) over book Phoebus. It's crazy. And I think that hate for the book version spills over into Disney Phoebus, and, hence, he's unpopular. And Esmeralda, because SHE chooses him, is derided as well. A shame, because I really like Phoebus. I like his arc, I like his snarky, playful nature (he named his horse Achilles just so he could make puns. That's adorable and you know it), and I like his voice. I'm a HUGE Kevin Kline fan. (A Fish Called Wanda is a classic and he is just TERRIFIC in it. If you haven't watched it, try to check it out sometime.)

Its ironic one of Disney's most vile and evil villains has fan girls. I think it has to do with Tony Jay's voice. Although I think fan girls are attracted more to the novel version of Frollo because he did have sympathetic qualities but he loses them over time in the story. It would be interesting if an adaption had a heroic Claude Frollo be the love interest of Esmerelda instead of either Phoebus or Gringoire. Don't worry he would be 36 years old as he is in the novel.

jazzflower92 wrote:Its ironic one of Disney's most vile and evil villains has fan girls. I think it has to do with Tony Jay's voice. Although I think fan girls are attracted more to the novel version of Frollo because he did have sympathetic qualities but he loses them over time in the story.

Oh, yes, I'm aware of Disney Frollo's fan girls. Tony Jay definitely has a LOT to do with it. (His voice was sexy and amazing and every adjective in the book.) But, I think another part of it is the passion he has. It manifests in a screwed up way, but, he burned down a city for the girl he 'loved' and that, in a weird, perverse way, probably resonates with some people in a romantic way. I can understand it. I've just always loved good villains. And Disney Frollo is as good as they come. Book Frollo DID have the sympathetic "he genuinely adopted Quasimodo out of charity and decentness" and all that, but, again, those qualities get SO overshadowed by the evil he does throughout the story that it makes him even WORSE to me than Disney Frollo. Does that make sense? Book Frollo still has that self-righteous "I'm a Christian and she's the devil" thing going on, but, the hypocrisy is just...more blatant, I feel, because he actually was capable of decent behavior. I don't know. It's also a preference of STYLE. The Book Frollo was sneaky and duplicitous and conniving, whereas the Disney Frollo was more methodical, planning, cunning, and forward.

ProfessorRatigan wrote:

jazzflower92 wrote:Its ironic one of Disney's most vile and evil villains has fan girls. I think it has to do with Tony Jay's voice. Although I think fan girls are attracted more to the novel version of Frollo because he did have sympathetic qualities but he loses them over time in the story.

Oh, yes, I'm aware of Disney Frollo's fan girls. Tony Jay definitely has a LOT to do with it. (His voice was sexy and amazing and every adjective in the book.) But, I think another part of it is the passion he has. It manifests in a screwed up way, but, he burned down a city for the girl he 'loved' and that, in a weird, perverse way, probably resonates with some people in a romantic way. I can understand it. I've just always loved good villains. And Disney Frollo is as good as they come. Book Frollo DID have the sympathetic "he genuinely adopted Quasimodo out of charity and decentness" and all that, but, again, those qualities get SO overshadowed by the evil he does throughout the story that it makes him even WORSE to me than Disney Frollo. Does that make sense? Book Frollo still has that self-righteous "I'm a Christian and she's the devil" thing going on, but, the hypocrisy is just...more blatant, I feel, because he actually was capable of decent behavior. I don't know. It's also a preference of STYLE. The Book Frollo was sneaky and duplicitous and conniving, whereas the Disney Frollo was more methodical, planning, cunning, and forward.

I gotta admit those are the reasons I am mildly attracted to Frollo as well. I wonder what Disney Frollo looked like in his twenties. I make no excuses that he is a complete monster but there is something about him that draws me into him. I think he is a villain that leaves an impression on you has a child that you don't really appreciate until you are an adult and then you sit back and wonder how could Disney get away with such a villain in a supposedly G-rated film.

jazzflower92 wrote:I gotta admit those are the reasons I am mildly attracted to Frollo as well. I wonder what Disney Frollo looked like in his twenties. I make no excuses that he is a complete monster but there is something about him that draws me into him. I think he is a villain that leaves an impression on you has a child that you don't really appreciate until you are an adult and then you sit back and wonder how could Disney get away with such a villain in a supposedly G-rated film.

When I was a kid, the pervy undertones didn't completely fly over my head (I knew he 'liked' Esmeralda), I just thought he wanted to 'marry her,' in the same way Jafar wanted Jasmine. You know, that innocent kid-way of thinking. I was oblivious to the SEXUAL aspect of his character, though, obviously. It's very interesting to me that Frollo may be the most hyper-masculine Disney Villain ever. People would say Gaston, but, even Gaston has that prissy coded-gay demeanor and vibe that SO many of the Villains do. Off the top of my head, Cruella De Vil, Prince John, Madame Medusa, Professor Ratigan, Ursula, Jafar & Scar (BIIIGGG time), Governor Ratcliffe, Hades, Yzma... They all just get the gaydar blipping. And yet, with Frollo, his sexual longing seems so REAL. And I think, despite being the thing EVERYONE agrees is the film's greatest strength, that THAT is precisely the reason Disney has tried so hard to make people forget about the movie.

ProfessorRatigan wrote:

jazzflower92 wrote:I gotta admit those are the reasons I am mildly attracted to Frollo as well. I wonder what Disney Frollo looked like in his twenties. I make no excuses that he is a complete monster but there is something about him that draws me into him. I think he is a villain that leaves an impression on you has a child that you don't really appreciate until you are an adult and then you sit back and wonder how could Disney get away with such a villain in a supposedly G-rated film.

When I was a kid, the pervy undertones didn't completely fly over my head (I knew he 'liked' Esmeralda), I just thought he wanted to 'marry her,' in the same way Jafar wanted Jasmine. You know, that innocent kid-way of thinking. I was oblivious to the SEXUAL aspect of his character, though, obviously. It's very interesting to me that Frollo may be the most hyper-masculine Disney Villain ever. People would say Gaston, but, even Gaston has that prissy coded-gay demeanor and vibe that SO many of the Villains do. Off the top of my head, Cruella De Vil, Prince John, Madame Medusa, Professor Ratigan, Ursula, Jafar & Scar (BIIIGGG time), Governor Ratcliffe, Hades, Yzma... They all just get the gaydar blipping. And yet, with Frollo, his sexual longing seems so REAL. And I think, despite being the thing EVERYONE agrees is the film's greatest strength, that THAT is precisely the reason Disney has tried so hard to make people forget about the movie.

The scene I did find weird was Frollo sniffing her hair. I always found it weird why he did that. Yeah, Frollo is a very sexual character who would be at home in an adult live action show. But here he is in a Disney family film where they are selling toys of this movie. I mean those who remember there was a lot of merchandise that would have fooled people into thinking this was a kiddie version of the original tale but lets just say thankfully for the adults it was the opposite case.

jazzflower92 wrote:Yeah, Frollo is a very sexual character who would be at home in an adult live action show. But here he is in a Disney family film where they are selling toys of this movie. I mean those who remember there was a lot of merchandise that would have fooled people into thinking this was a kiddie version of the original tale but lets just say thankfully for the adults it was the opposite case.

God, I'm so thankful it came out in that sweet-spot 90s period where Disney was just merchandising the crap out of everything... Because of that, we fans actually have some merchandise to collect and display. In the years since, Disney has done NOTHING for Hunchback. Two Vinylmations. That's it. The WDCC Collection did VERY high-end statues in 2008 (which I'm still amazed happened), but, yeah, in terms of merchandise, that is IT. Nearly everything that exists came out in 1996. (Though McDonald's DID release figures of Quasimodo and Esmeralda in 2002 during their 'Disney: 100 Years of Magic' kid meal promotion, celebrating nearly ALL of the canon.) I LOVED the Burger King toys in 1996. My grandmother (who was a big toy collector herself) bought a set of all of the figures for me and many of the Mattel action figures, as well. I wish I still had all of them. The only Mattel figure that survived after my parents' divorce is Frollo, and he was so played with that his paint is all chipped and scratched and he lost his hat in 1998 or so, . I still have most of the Burger King toys. Ironically, the only ones I'm missing are Quasimodo, Frollo and Clopin. My three favorite characters.

I see my Hunchback reputation precedes me.

Haha

Breaking with Disney Convention does not = dramatic unevenness, though. So, I still don't see how this critique applies to Hunchback, unless you're saying it does, but, then, it also applies to Pinocchio, Fantasia, Dumbo, The Lion King, etc. etc.

The reason why this applies to "Hunchback" is because it has blatantly violent and sexual content, alongside having juvenile, awkward humor. That's why it comes across as blatantly uneven and that's why it's not relevant to compare it to "Pinocchio", "Dumbo" and "The Lion King". I know that "Hunchback" wasn't Disney's first attempt to have sexual content, "Fantasia" was more obvious (with it's naked boobs). But at least "Fantasia" never had blatantly juvenile humor to compensate for the sexual content.

You wrote that Frollo was, and I quote, "not [a] villain in the original [novel]." That's clearly not the case. I'm not attacking you. I'm just saying you were wrong on that point, and provided a synopsis of Frollo's actions in the novel to prove my point...

Yeah, but what has this to do with you claiming my blog to be an review?

The reason why I didn't list book Frollo as a villain is because I never felt that he was such a catalyst as the Disney-Frollo is. I'm not saying that book-Frollo isn't a catalyst at all, but I feel Disney-Frollo is more powerful and proactive. But I realize that my statement was vague and I've corrected it.

I don't have to take the words you say and the description you used multiple times literally? Well, then, how am I supposed to take them? Metaphorically? Sarcastically?

Fine enough, but you were quite litteral. But moving on.

You suggested that Quasi was perfect. I showed examples that contradict that suggestion. You're even now agreeing that my points were valid, but are basically saying, "I'm still right about my initial implication." Quasimodo even GIVES UP and has to be goaded into saving Esmeralda (twice!) in the film. He refused, at first, when Phoebus tried to enlist his aide to warn the Gypsies that Frollo was coming to the Court of Miracles. And the Gargoyles have to give him a kick in the pants during the climax, when he had all but given up. I don't agree that Quasi is a squeaky-clean character who NEVER acts un-heroically. Does he act heroically throughout the MAJORITY of the film? Of course! But, not 100%.

Fair enough, but the reason why Quasi didn't went with Phoebus is because of his fear to disobey Frollo. And it's understandable why he gave up in the climax. Frankly, while Quasi is not perfect, I think the times where he shows his imperfections are justified and frankly not as relevant.

Yes, exactly. But, standing by and not doing something (the 'pedestrian effect') while others are behaving immorally, I was always taught, is immoral in and of itself. Therefore, Phoebus, by NOT acting UNTIL the moment in HIS eyes when Frollo went over the line, well, that muddied Phoebus a bit. Ultimately, he redeemed himself. And that's what counts. But, again, he wasn't 100% a good, moral person for the majority of the film's runtime.

Fair enough, but remember that Phoebus never actually accepted Frollo's bidding at the first place. When he heard the offer, he tells "I was summoned from the wars to capture fortune tellers and palm readers". I'm not saying that your statement is wrong and I definitively think Phoebus should have stood up to Frollo before (blame the screenwriters). I think John Smith is a more accurate description of yours. Although he made some good deeds, as saving Thomas from drowning and being friendly to Meeko, he is at least willing to fight the Natives before he meets Pocahontas and never shies away from it. I agree that Phoebus' passive nature in the beginning is worse than Smith's behaviour (if we'll exclude that Smith probably fought many Natives before the movie9, but Phoebus never had prejudices against the gypsies.

Attacking? I'm disagreeing with you, not attacking you. You posted your opinion, I posted my opinion. My opinions are different than yours. I may be long-winded, but, I don't feel that I'm condescending.

Fine, I understand that, but you do come across as blatant and condescending at times. I understand that your intention is not to attack, but your long-winded nature does come across as condescending. Either way, I'm not trying to be your enemy.

EDIT

God, I'm so thankful it came out in that sweet-spot 90s period where Disney was just merchandising the crap out of everything... Because of that, we fans actually have some merchandise to collect and display. In the years since, Disney has done NOTHING for Hunchback. Two Vinylmations. That's it. The WDCC Collection did VERY high-end statues in 2008 (which I'm still amazed happened), but, yeah, in terms of merchandise, that is IT. Nearly everything that exists came out in 1996. (Though McDonald's DID release figures of Quasimodo and Esmeralda in 2002 during their 'Disney: 100 Years of Magic' kid meal promotion, celebrating nearly ALL of the canon.) I LOVED the Burger King toys in 1996. My grandmother (who was a big toy collector herself) bought a set of all of the figures for me and many of the Mattel action figures, as well. I wish I still had all of them. The only Mattel figure that survived after my parents' divorce is Frollo, and he was so played with that his paint is all chipped and scratched and he lost his hat in 1998 or so, . I still have most of the Burger King toys. Ironically, the only ones I'm missing are Quasimodo, Frollo and Clopin. My three favorite characters.

Oh god, I remember all the Disney mercandise that came with each new release. It was awesome and I remember being a huge collector of Disney toys and books in general. I had the McDonalds toys, the non-US version of them. I remember getting both Esmeralda and Phoebus before seeing the movie. Afterwards, I got the official Mattel Dolls of Quasimodo, Esmeralda (her red dancing dress) and Phoebus. And i got the collectible figures of all the toys, but never the action figures. But I had several books. I still have the McDonald toys and the collectibles at my parents, but I bought the regular Esmeralda doll through eBay. And I've bought "The art of Hunchback" and several Disney and movie magazines that had something about "Hunchback" through eBay. So yes, I remember the Disney Renaissance fondly And yeah, unfortunately Disney haven't done anything for "Hunchback" after it's release.

As I previously said, the characterizations are the reason why I like "Hunchback" and the main characters are so likable and compelling.

How old was you when "Hunchback" was released?

Does anyone want to mention the fact that the original novel is actually very prejudice against Romani? In fact the only reason why Esmeralda's treatment was shown in a bad light was because she was only adopted by the Romani. In the books they are depicted as thieves, murders, and child abductors playing to the worst stereotypes of them.

jazzflower92 wrote:Although thankfully the real movie avoided a lot of the tropes found in other softer adaptations of the Hunchback. Interesting enough the softer adaptions usually have Pierre Gringoire in it as the official love interest of Esmeralda. One thing else I notice is that often times Phoebus is omitted in those versions as well. People say that Phoebus in the movie is a composite character of both his book counterpart and Pierre Gringoire. I do think making Phoebus into a genuine heroic character subverted the cliché of having the rival love interest be a jerk. Not to mention it subtle plays into the theme of true beauty comes from within because the real reason Esmeralda fell for Phoebus was his character and not his looks like in the movie. I gotta admit Esmeralda in the book was really shallow and a bit too naïve for my taste. I mean at the end of the book she pretty much dooms herself when she gives away her location because she hears Phoebus's voice.

Well said and observed.

When I saw the film initially, I thought that Phoebus was going to be another Gaston in every sense, a hunky male opponent to Quasimodo, but a shallow and arrogant one. Instead, Phoebus is pretty much a anti-Gaston in every sense. Esmeralda falls for Phoebus because of his witty charms and alpha male seductions and also because he's a good guy. According to the "Art of Hunchback" book, Phoebus is supposed to be a composite of his book counterpart and Gringoire. Personally I've always liked Gringoire and thought he was a enjoyable character. And since he is such a important character, it is odd that he's excluded in the Disney version.

DisneyFan09 wrote:

jazzflower92 wrote:Although thankfully the real movie avoided a lot of the tropes found in other softer adaptations of the Hunchback. Interesting enough the softer adaptions usually have Pierre Gringoire in it as the official love interest of Esmeralda. One thing else I notice is that often times Phoebus is omitted in those versions as well. People say that Phoebus in the movie is a composite character of both his book counterpart and Pierre Gringoire. I do think making Phoebus into a genuine heroic character subverted the cliché of having the rival love interest be a jerk. Not to mention it subtle plays into the theme of true beauty comes from within because the real reason Esmeralda fell for Phoebus was his character and not his looks like in the movie. I gotta admit Esmeralda in the book was really shallow and a bit too naïve for my taste. I mean at the end of the book she pretty much dooms herself when she gives away her location because she hears Phoebus's voice.

Well said and observed.

When I saw the film initially, I thought that Phoebus was going to be another Gaston in every sense, a hunky male opponent to Quasimodo, but a shallow and arrogant one. Instead, Phoebus is pretty much a anti-Gaston in every sense. Esmeralda falls for Phoebus because of his witty charms and alpha male seductions and also because he's a good guy. According to the "Art of Hunchback" book, Phoebus is supposed to be a composite of his book counterpart and Gringoire. Personally I've always liked Gringoire and thought he was a enjoyable character. And since he is such a important character, it is odd that he's excluded in the Disney version.

I have a feeling because he would have felt redundant with Phoebus and Clopin taking some of his traits. I did find that at the end that Gringoire was sort of a creep for stealing away Djali and leaving Esmeralda to die.

You know in the sequel instead of making the original character of Madeline. They should have made their own version of Fleur-de-Lys who was Phoebus's fiancé in the book. I could actually see her as a noble woman who is spoiled and pampered but changes her ways as she begins to fall in love with Quasimodo. I think the scenario would go is that she is a noble woman who has to seek sanctuary at the Cathedral because of some political assassin attempts on her life. At first she is rude and unappreciative of Quasimodo and looks down upon him for his appearance and being from a lower class. However, as she continues her stay in Notre Dame she learns to love him for who he is and those who are less fortunate.