37. Tarzan (1999)

After ten years of (mostly) critical and financial success, the 1990’s and with them, the Disney Renaissance, finally came to an end. Rounding out this Golden Age in Disney animation history was Tarzan, a film that seems to tick pretty much every box in the Renaissance list – the story of an outsider who wants to fit in, a romance between the two main characters, wacky animal sidekicks, an over-the-top, almost campy villain; viewed as a whole, the film can seem like a bit of a laundry list of Renaissance clichés. However, when Tarzan is viewed on its individual merits, it’s clear to see just how much it has to offer and how it does some things even better than its predecessors.

Once again, the animation is great, it’s fluid and energised and everything else that was great about animation in the Renaissance; there is a slight over reliance on computer animation, but it is never too distracting and blends in well with the traditional 2D animation. Where Tarzan’s animation really shines is in the incredible action scenes, there is so much energy and non-stop movement in them; for example, the way Tarzan slides on trees, which was allegedly based on the movements of skateboarders, has so much wild choreography and complex animation, it really feels like you’re there with Tarzan. These scenes are exhilarating to watch – Tarzan’s battle with Sabor, his rescue of Jane, his final confrontation with Clayton – these are just a few of the great sequences; the way Tarzan moves through the jungle, constantly manoeuvring and making use of everything in his environment, it’s just so impressively animated. The lighting is also great and comes close to the level of The Lion King and The Hunchback of Notre Dame; the backgrounds are similarly impressive, as the world of the jungle is so well realised, with so much detail and love put into every scene, creating a truly living environment. At the time, Tarzan was the most expensive animated film ever made and you can definitely see why, these action scenes are some of the best Disney has ever done.

Tarzan Pro Skater

The story is simple and traditional and serves primarily as a link between the more grandiose action and musical sequences; Tarzan’s personal journey shares similarities with Bambi and The Lion King in his role as a prince-like figure in the animal kingdom, who must win his father’s respect and overcome his own insecurities, as well as Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, The Hunchback of Notre Dame and Hercules, in his role as an outsider who wants to find somewhere he belongs. Clearly, the film’s main plot is a familiar one, but thankfully Tarzan seems to understand this, as, aside from a couple of mawkish scenes, this is mostly kept in the background. The thrilling action, gorgeous visuals and humorous interactions between the characters are at the forefront, while Tarzan’s story of personal discovery continues subtly in the background; it’s definitely there, as we see him change him grow, but slowly and quietly. Though this means that Tarzan can never quite establish an emotional connection on the level of Beauty and the Beast, The Lion King or The Hunchback of Notre Dame, it’s still fun to watch the story play out, predictable as it may be. The pacing can at times seem a little rushed – this is the third film in a row, after Hercules and Mulan, that uses song montages to skip over a lot of time and important plot points, so as to get to the action faster; while a little disappointing, Tarzan makes up for it in a way that the previous two films cannot, as its action is so good that you can forgive it for skipping over other areas. The comedy is a little weak early on, as the antics between the childhood versions of Tarzan and his friends are a little annoying, but it mellows out after Tarzan becomes an adult and the comedy between Tarzan and the human characters can actually be really quite funny. Overall, Tarzan is definitely a movie based more on its action and visuals than its narrative or characterisation, but that’s not such a bad thing with action and visuals like these.

Tarzan himself is a bit of a of a blank slate, character-wise, but then again that’s kind of the point, he’s supposed to be a primitive man who’s never really  developed a “human” personality. That being said, Tarzan has a delightful innocence and curiosity about him, he is so enamoured by the human world and seems to relish the opportunity to learn anything about it. A lot of this is communicated just through his animation, his wide eyes, the way he crawls around and examines everything very closely, a lot of character is shown through very little dialogue; this is both impressive and affords Tarzan an inherent charm, it’s very difficult not to like him. Jane is also very fun: she’s intelligent, but very clumsy and somewhat airheaded, constantly getting herself into trouble, often while being totally oblivious to the fact; Disney love interests and heroines in particular are usually either angelically kind and patient or sassy and tough, but good hearted, either way, they are effectively perfect, so it’s fun to have a Disney heroine who is just so ineffectual. Jane’s heart is in the right place, but she thinks faster than she acts and is so ill-suited to the world of the jungle that she often finds herself in more trouble than she bargained for; Disney had somewhat attempted this with the slightly ditzy Mulan, but kind of gave up half-way through, so this is the first time they went all the way with this new kind of heroine. Like Tarzan, Jane exudes so much personality through her animation, from her childlike expressions of wonder, to the awkward way she carries herself, to little touches like the fact that her hair always seems just a little out of place. More so than Tarzan, however, Jane’s character is expressed just as effectively through her dialogue, as Minnie Driver gives a great performance, constantly stammering, repeating herself and tripping over her words as she tries to formulate what she's trying to say; a lot of Jane’s dialogue was adlibbed, adding to the idea that Jane is thinking a mile and minute and constantly trips herself up as she tries to communicate what she’s thinking. The dialogue and animation combine to give Jane a strong and unique personality that makes her impossible not to like.

A very proper young lady

Though her romance with Tarzan isn’t developed as effectively as say, Belle and Beast’s, Jane’s fantastic animation displays pure attraction better than perhaps any other Disney movie; the way she blushes, avoids Tarzan’s gaze, plays with her fingers and hair, it’s all very sweet and endearing and suits their relationship – this isn’t a fairy tale romance about true love, it’s the story of a shy and somewhat socially awkward young woman who meets an intense, but gentle man who isn’t bothered by her typically unladylike and peculiar behaviour. Though Jane is never explicitly given a back story, we can imagine how she didn’t quite fit at home and when she talks about London, there is always a note of melancholy in her voice, supporting this idea – that we can imagine a history for Jane so easily shows just how much this movie can do with so little and how well realised Jane is as a character. As a result, Tarzan and Jane have a very sweet and somewhat understated relationship, which is more genuine and grounded than it is grandiose and romantic. Honestly, I wish Jane was in more of the film, as though she hardly disappears completely, she doesn’t get enough to do after “Strangers Like Me”; her interactions with Tarzan and her father are really the best parts of the movie. 

The side characters are kept, appropriately enough, to the side: Terk and Tantor are a very familiar Renaissance era comedic duo, most like Timon and Pumbaa, they’re pretty lazy copies. Wayne Knight and in particular Rosie O’ Donnell do put a lot of effort into the performance though, which saves them from just being carbon copies; they aren’t all that funny or anything, but they serve their purpose and though their interactions with Tarzan are somewhat limited, they work well. Kala is pretty much just Bambi’s mother as an ape; she’s kind, gentle, patient, maternal, she really only exists to serve the role of Tarzan’s mother and little more, but does a good job all the same. Similarly, Kerchak is quite similar to the Great Prince of the Forest in terms of his position and the way in which he commands fear and respect through intimidation and carefully chosen movements, rather than a lot of dialogue. He is perhaps more similar to stern, disapproving fathers such as King Triton and to a lesser extent, Chief Powhatan and doesn’t really have enough attention to be developed into anything more, but he’s not so bad. The Professor is goofy, but likeable, he doesn’t get to do very much and is basically just another bumbling father in the vein of Maurice and the Sultan, but his enthusiasm is infectious and his interactions with Jane are wonderful. 

Come at me bro

Clayton is a relatively reserved and realistic villain, for a Disney film, while still being entertaining; though his motivation to capture the gorillas for money is hardly a very exciting one, he makes up for it with his personality – Clayton is kind of like Ratcliffe done right, a traditional, snobbish British gentleman who sees it as his divine right to conquer the “uncivilised” world, in the name of England (and for his own financial benefit, of course). Brian Blessed is the perfect choice for such a role and his famously booming and exaggerated voice works wonders for animation, without going so far as to be silly, as Clayton is still quite threatening. It’s also interesting how he isn’t antagonistic for most of the movie, just a bit callous and Tarzan initially seems to hold an unspoken respect for him, viewing him as the model of manliness, as he imitates the way Clayton speaks, the way he walks and holds himself and eventually, the way he dresses, only to realise in the climax that Clayton is not the kind of man he wants to be and he should just focus on being himself. This theme of duality is explored well, through Clayton, without ever being explicitly pointed out; in this respect, Clayton is a very effective villain indeed, as he reflects the dark side in Tarzan and shows him that the world of man can be just as vicious as that of the animal kingdom.

Tarzan is not a traditional musical, as the songs are not sung by the characters, but are simply sung over the action, acting as a kind of musical narration of the film’s events, sort of like in The Resucers and The Fox and the Hound, though, mercifully, done a lot better. Though the lyricism of the songs is very lacking and it’s a shame that the characters don’t get to express their thoughts and feelings through music, the songs are still mostly nice to listen to; they are definitely a little sappy and polarising, but they’re written by Phil Collins, a very divisive artist, so at the end of the day you’re probably either going to love them or hate them. “Two Worlds” is definitely a little corny, but it’s still sweet and a good intro to the film that draws you into the world and plight of its characters very quickly. “You’ll Be in My Heart” is similar in style, but just a bit too lame, even for Phil Collins; it’s the closest to a “Whole New World Number” the film has, but really all the songs share that kind of style, so it’s kind of a redundant observation to make. The song is not especially awful, it just seems like an obvious attempt at recreating Elton John’s style from The Lion King, particularly the equally lame “Can You Feel the Love Tonight”.

Can you feel the love tonight?

In contrast, “Son of Man” is a fun, upbeat song; some of the lyrics are laughably bad – ‘with the power to be strong and the wisdom to be wise’, ‘in learning you will teach and in teaching you will learn’ – but like most of the songs in the film, the corniness is kind of charming in its own silly little way. It also acts as a good montage which shows us Tarzan’s growth from boy to man, taking inspiration from “Hakuna Matata” and “One Last Hope”, in this regard; it’s a lot of fun. “Trashing the Camp” isn’t even really a song, it’s just a cool jazz instrumental with a bit of scat thrown in, but hey, it’s great, so what’s the problem? This one DEFINITELY has that Phil Collins feel. “Strangers Like Me” is another upbeat song; again the lyrics are very basic and describe how Tarzan is feeling very simplistically, but it’s very enjoyable all the same and the sequence it describes is great in its own right. It is a shame that, like “I’ll Make a Man Out of You” in Mulan, it skips over a lot of the development between Tarzan and the other humans, which, in my opinion, should have been the focus of the movie, as it is the most interesting part, but it’s a good montage all the same.

In all honestly, Tarzan doesn’t really do anything that the earlier Renaissance films hadn’t already – the story of the outcast trapped between two worlds, who yearns for acceptance, the goofy, wisecracking sidekicks, the stern, disapproving father, the pompous, British baddie who wants to steal from the hero’s homeland – it’s not exactly original. Nevertheless, Tarzan does what it does so well that it’s hard to really criticise it all that much; the animation is fantastic and exciting, the characters are likeable, particularly the delightful Jane and the songs are enjoyable, even if the way in which they are presented is a little strange. Though it doesn’t have much new to say and its story is a little shallow, Tarzan is a highly entertaining film and, in my opinion, a worthy end to the Disney Renaissance.

Other Thoughts:

• It’s also quite violent for a Disney movie, in the opening Kala just finds Tarzan’s parents mauled to death!

Yeesh

8/10

Next Week: Fantasia 2000!

Email: joetalksaboutstuff@gmail.com

Twitter: @JSChilds

36. Mulan (1998)

Mulan is kind of like a midway point between the styles of Aladdin and Hercules and The Lion King and The Hunchback of Notre Dame: the story is relatively serious, with some dark moments, but is mostly light-hearted, with a strong emphasis on humour. While this gives Mulan a greater sense of narrative purpose than Hercules and the moments of levity feel more appropriate than in The Hunchback of Notre Dame, it does leave it feeling a little confused as to what it really wants to be: a drama with comic elements, or a comedy with a little action thrown in. The result is a good, but somewhat uncertain movie.

As usual for the Renaissance, the animation is very good, it’s nice and smooth and energetic, but perhaps a little unremarkable; while I certainly wouldn’t wish to suggest that the animation here is lazy, as like I said it is very well done, it doesn’t really match any of the previous Renaissance films, save for Pocahontas and maybe The Little Mermaid. While there’s nothing wrong with Mulan focusing on areas other than animation, it’s just a little disappointing because before this, the animation for the Renaissance films seemed to just keep getting better and better, with Hercules not really taking any steps forward in terms of animation quality, and this debatably taking a step back. Still, it’s a small step and a small complaint, the animation is still great. The art style is also a little more simplified, it’s similar to that of Pocahontas with its sharper, less detailed character designs, softer lines and use of colour; however, Mulan’s characters are still given enough of the Disney animated style to afford them an appropriate level of personality and identity, unlike the stilted and lifeless characters of Pocahontas, who had difficulty conveying any sense of emotion or individuality. The backgrounds are decent, if nothing special, there is some good use of wide open space and some very nice natural landscapes, but they don’t really stand out. Mulan is hardly one of Disney’s greatest works of animation, but it’s good nonetheless.

SYMBOLISM SYMBOLISM SYMBOLISM
okay you guys get that?

After the rather basic and derivative narrative of Hercules, Mulan thankfully returns to what it seems was the mission statement of the earlier Renaissance films – to take traditional Disney storylines and tropes and present them in a different way. Once again, Mulan attempts to tackle some of the perceived sexism of the early Disney movies by deconstructing gender roles and reinventing the idea of the female protagonist in their films. Mulan doesn’t approach this with nearly the amount of subtlety as Beauty and the Beast, it’s a lot more obvious about what it’s trying to say and though this at times can dampen the effectiveness of its point, I suppose it was a point that had to be made. While the ideas of reinventing the idea of the Disney heroine and variations on the “don’t judge a book by its cover” and “always be yourself” morals were getting a little stale at this point, Mulan does manage to add something new to the mix. Though we have already seen Disney heroines who are more active and not simply damsels in distress, like Belle and female characters who refuse to simply be a love interest for a male character, such as Jasmine, Meg and... well, Belle, again, Mulan is the first who’s allowed to be a real action hero. While Belle takes her life into her own hands and rejects Gaston, it is Beast who must eventually defeat him and while Jasmine and Meg challenge what is expected of them and refuse to simply be a prize to be won by the male hero, they still need to be saved by their respective male heroes in the climax. In the climax of Mulan, it is Mulan and not her male counterpart who directly defeats the villain, saves the day and is rewarded with glory; though there are some issues raised in the aftermath that I’ll get to later, this is nice to see, even if Mulan herself isn’t necessarily as interesting as some of the aforementioned characters.

Though the film rubs its message in your face a little too often, it avoids suffering the same fate as Pocahontas by injecting a lot of humour into its approach, avoiding things from ever getting too preachy. The male characters’ views towards women are never explored with much depth or intelligence, but are at times portrayed as laughably arbitrary, in order to show just how ridiculous they are; compare this to Pocahontas, where the main villain’s insane racism and completely arbitrary prejudice towards Native Americans is equally as laughable, but portrayed with complete sincerity (save for one funny line) and it’s pretty clear which film works better. Personally, I think satire is often more effective when approached from a humorous stand-point than from a serious one – if you can get your audience to laugh at something, then it’s a lot easier to get them to see just how silly that something really is, deflating any power it once had. While there are of course exceptions to this rule, I certainly think that animated movies which feature talking trees and dragons voiced by Eddie Murphy are more suited to a humorous style of satire. Although Mulan doesn’t utilise this as much as it could, it’s interesting to note just how adult its humour can get; things are never explicit or inappropriate, but for Disney’s standards, some of these jokes are pretty risqué: for example, when the men are about to bathe with Mulan, who they still think is a man, Mushu laments ‘We’re doomed! There are couple of things I know they’re bound to notice!’ These moments play well with the gender politics the film is trying to discuss and honestly, some of them are actually pretty funny.

Mulan in: For Your Eyes Only

Though she plays an unfamiliar role for a Disney heroine, Mulan herself doesn’t have much of a personality besides being a bit of a klutz, but even so, there’s something very likeable about her; she means well, but isn’t really very good at many of the things she’s trying to do, but eventually she learns to grow into who she is and take advantage of the things she is good at. She can at times suffer from that familiar Disney protagonist problem of somewhat being overshadowed by her supporting cast, but it’s not nearly as bad as in say, Hercules. While not one of Disney’s great heroines, Mulan is at least not passive, as she is driven, takes charge of her life and refuses to be defined by societal norms, she’s a perfectly serviceable main character – it’s just a shame that for all her talk about how she wishes she was allowed to be herself and let her own personality shine, she doesn’t really seem to have that much of a personality to show. Shang on the other hand is a typical boring male love interest; though he is a bit sterner than his predecessors, this hardly does much to endear him to the audience. Though not necessarily unlikeable, he just doesn’t really have much to him, he is simply dull.

Mulan and Shang’s romance, if you can even call it that, is handled very shoddily; though they do spend most of the film together, you don’t really get to see them interact much, in fact, they never even have a conversation that lasts for more than a couple of lines. Most of their warming up to one another seemingly occurs off-screen, meaning that their last minute hook-up at the end of the film comes out of nowhere and kind of takes you for surprise, it seems unnecessary and ill-suited and raises some unfortunate questions; if they were simply comrades before, with no real hint of mutual attraction, why does Mulan suddenly being a woman change their entire (mostly non-existent) relationship within the space of about ten minutes? While giving Mulan a love interest doesn’t inherently negate the feminist message the film is trying to get across, the fact that their relationship is given so little attention, seems to change so vastly so suddenly and appears to be thrown in at the last minute just because every Renaissance film needed a romance, does kind of undermine the movie’s purpose. If the whole point of the film is Mulan’s journey of self-discovery, proving to both herself and all of China that women can do anything men can do and can achieve much greater things than simply being someone’s bride, then this is somewhat complicated by the fact that the end of the movie, Mulan’s greatest prize seems to be the fact that she is quite clearly going to become Shang’s bride. Yes, she saves the Emperor and earns the respect of him and her family and it’s obvious that’s what’s supposed to be most important, but even if the romance with Shang only slightly damages this point, why have it there if it’s going to damage it at all? The climax is still focused on Mulan and her achievements, thankfully, but this poorly developed and quite frankly unbelievable romance hurts the movie more than it helps it, even if only by a little.

Mulan and Shang, seen here in a scene from a Looney Tunes cartoon

By all logic Mushu should get on my nerves, as he fits a lot of qualities of “The Hooter”: he’s a goofy, non-human sidekick, he’s clumsy, he’s selfish, he’s a loudmouth, he’s ineffectual, he screws up and brings Mulan trouble more often than he helps her and his being voiced by Eddie Murphy is also a rather transparent attempt at recreating the magic of the Genie... and yet somehow I really quite like him! Maybe it’s all down to Eddie Murphy’s spirited performance, but there’s something about Mushu I just really enjoy watching, he definitely takes from a lot of other Disney sidekick characters: Sebastian, Genie, Timon, Hugo, Phil, the list goes on and he’s very obviously a mascot character designed to sell merchandise but I dunno, for some reason, he worked for me. Yao, Ping and Chien-Po are almost like The Three Stooges in the way their triple act is set up, they are pretty standard comic relief and don’t really get enough time to be much else, but they’re not obnoxious or anything so it’s not really a problem; other comic relief characters like Chi-Fu are more abrasive, but not excessively so. Shan-Yu doesn’t really have much of a personality beyond just being brutal, but to be honest, it’s kind of refreshing; Disney villains tend to be very theatrical and devious, more often than not they are rather weak and cowardly (particularly in the Renaissance era) or at least not physically imposing and rely more on their cunning and silver tongues to get what they want. It’s interesting then to have a villain who is defined so greatly by his physicality and fearlessness; Shan-Yu is like a force of nature, he doesn’t speak very often, but when he does, his words are chilling and powerful – he knows only to speak when he has something to say. He’s not a very complex villain, but Shan-Yu serves his role perfectly as an unstoppable killing machine, someone who simply cannot be matched physically, meaning only Mulan – with her guile and intellect – can defeat him.

The songs are few, but mostly memorable; their use of a deliberately Western interpretation of Asian culture and music kind of reminds me of old Gilbert and Sullivan musicals like The Mikado, though substantially less offensive. “Honour to Us All” is a decent song, if nothing special, the lyrics make an attempt at a witty jab at the concept of matchmaking, but don’t really succeed; the tune also gets a little grating and, while it might’ve worked better later on, considering this is the very first song in the film, it really should be something more grandiose. “Reflection” is the “Whole New World Number” and not a bad one; the lyrics are a little on-the-nose, but the concept is an intelligent one, the framing of the scene is excellent and the song doesn’t overstay its welcome. “I’ll Make a Man Out of You” is certainly the best of the lot, it’s a strong and confident song (appropriate, considering its subject) that wonderfully marries music, narrative, characterisation and pacing in precisely the way a musical number should and some of the rhymes are a lot of fun. The only problem is that the song skips over all of Mulan’s training, which is good in terms of pacing the story, but unfortunate considering that this could’ve been used to show Mulan’s development as a character, as well as the development of her relationships with Shang and her newfound friends; their sudden kindness and acceptance, as well as Mulan’s newfound competence, seem a little jarring considering where things started out before the song. To continue on this tangent, I personally feel that the training camp should’ve taken up the majority of the movie – this is really where we could’ve got to know Mulan and her comrades as characters, where we could’ve had her and Shang develop a romance, where we could’ve had a lot more opportunities for gags where Mulan has to hide her femininity; instead we skip over all these interesting ideas so we can rush Mulan into a big action scene. It’s disappointing, as I think this could’ve made for a much more interesting, character based film, but whatever; to get back on point, the song is great. 

‘I will play this exact same role three years later in Shrek, and there’s nothing you can do to stop me!!!’

“A Girl Worth Fighting For” sounds perhaps the most like a Gilbert and Sullivan or Rodgers and Hammerstein number, a very fun song with some funny lyrics: ‘How ‘bout a girl who’s got a brain, who always speaks her mind?’ ‘...Nah.’ Perhaps the best part of the song is the abrupt ending, which features the most awkward cut since the death of Bambi’s mother is followed by jovial birds singing. This time things are flipped around as the chirpy and light-hearted song is suddenly interrupted by the image of a entire village burned to the ground by the Huns; this is a fantastic use of the musical format to play with audience expectations and create drama, in a way I have rarely seen done elsewhere, truly a very powerful moment.

On the whole, Mulan is an enjoyable and well-constructed film, though one lacking a little in substance. It succeeds enough in what it is trying to accomplish to be considered satisfying, but not enough to be emotionally involving; the characters are decent, but underdeveloped, the story is good, but the aspects that have the potential to be the most interesting are underutilised, the songs are fun, but too few and somewhat poorly placed. Mulan is by no means a bad film, or even an average one, at any other point in Disney history I would probably consider it very good indeed, but at the tail end of the Renaissance, we’ve seen these kinds of ideas done a little too often and too often, better. 

Other Thoughts:

• When Mulan suits up to go off to war, it plays like a scene from a goofy 80’s action movie, complete with this hilariously inappropriate synth music, it’s amazing. 

‘Groovy’

• I usually don’t like “modern day anachronisms in the Ancient World” gags but I gotta admit, this one is pretty funny.

He just looks so pleased

7/10

Next Week: Tarzan!

Email: joetalksaboutstuff@gmail.com

Twitter: @JSChilds

35. Hercules (1997)

After a set of serious and dramatic films, culminating in the very dark The Hunchback of Notre Dame, Disney took a step back into light-hearted comedy with Hercules, one of their zaniest and wackiest films. Though Hercules is mostly entertaining, it borrows perhaps a little too freely from other sources, while failing to properly borrow from what should be its most important source of all – the original legend of Heracles, or, Hercules and the Greek, or Roman, mythology that surrounds it.

It’s a Renaissance movie, do I really have to say how good the animation is? As usual, it’s smooth, expressive, detailed, it’s all good stuff and adds a lot to the great action scenes, though some of the computer animation, particularly that of the Hydra, is a little dated. The art style is more angular and stylised, without going as far as films animated in the xerographic process, such as One Hundred and One Dalmatians; it’s more similar to what Disney tried with Sleeping Beauty but, in my opinion, they are more successful here, making for some very interesting character designs. The colours are nice and clean, of particularly note is the way in which the Gods shine with this kind of neon glow, it looks great and creates a really cool effect. This neon look, combined with the art style, kind of gives the film a look of the Ancient World not as it really was, but more like how it is portrayed in Las Vegas, like Caesar’s Palace; this is a very interesting and original idea that gives the film a unique and heavily stylised look which perfectly suits its sense of humour. The backgrounds are mostly just okay, there are a couple of standouts such as the top of Mount Olympus, which looks great, but mostly they aren’t that noticeable. Overall, Hercules’ art and animation isn’t quite as grandiose or artistic as The Hunchback of Notre Dame or The Lion King; the little touches just aren’t as developed, the lighting, the shading, the framing, it’s a lot more simplistic, but there’s nothing wrong with that and it fits the more light-hearted tone of the movie well.

Hang on I thought we were watching the Hercules movie not playing the PS1 game- oh wait...

The story is... messy, at best; there are a lot of issues that hold the film’s narrative back and just leave you scratching your head and wondering why Disney ever made such strange choices. At the centre of these problems is the fact that Hercules is ostensibly based on Greek mythology and yet takes so little from it that it becomes difficult to understand why Disney even bothered calling the film Hercules at all. Practically nothing whatsoever is depicted with any accuracy – Zeus and Hera being happily married, good parents, Hades being this over-the-top bad guy, the Titans being these mindless beasts, even little things like making Narcissus an Olympian God when he was just an ordinary guy, all for the sake of one bad joke. While Disney always messes with the stories it adapts to make them fit their formula and keep them family friendly, this one really takes the cake; the original novel for The Hunchback of Notre Dame, for example, is obviously quite different to the Disney film, containing much more pessimistic aspects, adult themes and a tragic ending, but Disney still made their version dark and serious, while still suiting their family friendly style. Hercules however, ignores the original source material so spectacularly that it comes off as a parody of bad Disney adaptations; really, it feels more like an adaptation of Superman than it does the stories of Hercules – a young baby is found by a couple who live on a farm, who have been praying for a child but could never have one. The baby is revealed to have superhuman strength and grows up feeling like an outsider and looking for a place to belong; when he reaches adolescence, the boy is told the truth and so goes on a journey to find who he is. He manages to make contact with his father, who comes from another world and tells him who he truly is; the boy then trains to control his powers, travels to the big city where he meets a feisty young woman and becomes the world’s greatest hero who consistently defends the city from- do you see where I’m going with this? It’s just a very strange choice, why choose to make a film about Greek mythology if you’re just going to make a film about comic book mythology?

The weirdest thing about this is that the whole point about Greek mythology is that it is open to interpretation, there is no one source material to stay true to, so you can pick and choose what stories you want to tell and then interpret them in new and different ways – this is one of the only times where Disney had a lot of freedom and room in which to mould a story to suit their needs. It’s strange then that for one of the only stories Disney adapted where they had a lot of lee-way, they don’t take advantage of this, as they take such little inspiration from any aspects of Greek mythology that it really has nothing to do with it, it almost seems like a bad joke. At the end of the day, I understand this is probably just a personal issue, as I’m pretty into Greek mythology, so I see the flaws and strange choices more than others; still, objectively, this just feels like a really big missed opportunity, as Disney seems more focused on making The Flintstones-esque jokes about the Ancient World than it does with engaging with the source material, perhaps most blatant in the fact that the Gods, who are always the most fun and interesting parts of Greek myths, barely appear in the film. It just feels like they made all the worst choices they could’ve possibly made.

Close but no... ethereal, ancient Greek deity-conjured cigar

The movie also struggles with issues that are present in the original Greek myths as well, in terms of the Gods’ powers and the extent of their ability to interfere with mortal lives. The original stories would suggest several different excuses for this problem and go back and forth as to which was true – sometimes the Gods couldn’t interfere because of fate, sometimes they could change fate but just weren’t supposed to, sometimes the Gods had the power to interfere but Zeus wouldn’t let them, sometimes they did interfere but then apparently couldn’t later on – it never really made much sense, but this is because all these different stories were told by different people, so obviously there is not one solid continuity throughout them. This excuse doesn’t really work with Hercules however, which, as a single ninety minute film, should be internally consistent and make sense within itself; however, the writers just seem a little too lazy to really address any of these issues, as well as some  basic concepts of storytelling, ending up with a lot of things that just don’t make sense. Why can’t Hercules go back to Olympus? ‘Only Gods can live on Olympus’ seems like a pretty flimsy reason to me and even if so, I don’t understand why Zeus, King of the Gods, can’t just make Hercules a God again. How come Zeus never comes to Hercules until he’s a teenager? How come he never helps him? How come Zeus defeats the Titans single-handedly in the opening, but in the climax, the combined force of him and every God on Olympus can’t beat them without Hercules’ help? Is Zeus just getting too old for this stuff? How come in eighteen years, Hades never discovers that Hercules isn’t dead, even though he’d surely have double-checked and all the other Gods knew? It’s explicitly stated that Hera and Zeus were watching over him, so what, did they just never talk to Hades once in eighteen years? Did he not even come up to offer his fake condolences only to hear that Hercules wasn’t really dead? And when Hades takes Hercules’ strength away, why doesn’t he just kill him there and then instead of sending the Cyclops? It seems like it would be a lot easier to just slit the helpless Hercules’ throat, or for an all powerful God to just burn him to a crisp, rather than give Hercules the time to escape or formulate a plan. A lot of the story just does not make sense; even for a kid’s movie this is very flimsy.

The movie is jam-packed with stuff, there’s always something going on; while in some respects, this is a good thing and there’s certainly not a wasted minute, I’ll give it that, things just move so fast that it’s kind of hard to build up a satisfying story. We’ve only known Hercules for about ten minutes before he starts talking about how he tries so hard to fit in and doesn’t belong and yada yada, yet we haven’t seen much evidence of that; we see him screw up one time, but that’s not really enough to justify what he’s saying, it’s not that I don’t believe it’s true, but I just haven’t seen enough to really emotionally identify with Hercules’ problem. Compare this to the opening of Beauty and the Beast, where the song “Belle” perfectly communicates to the audience Belle’s place in the town, why she is an outsider and what she wants from life, all within the space of about five minutes; we instantly like Belle, believe in her problems and, most importantly, understand how and why she feels the way she does and want her to get what she wants. Hercules never does this, it’s always rushing to the next thing – one minute he’s a baby, the next he’s a teenager, then suddenly he’s met Zeus, then he’s rushing off to find Phil, then suddenly he’s an adult, then he’s the biggest hero in Greece, then he’s in love after one date, it all moves very quickly. While this frenetic pace does match the film’s irreverent sense of humour, it stops it from ever really developing a compelling narrative and prevents the audience from ever becoming emotionally involved in the characters.

Rip on, Rip off

Speaking of its sense of humour, this is perhaps where Hercules is most derivative – it’s clearly trying very hard to be Aladdin in Greece: it has the same Ancient World setting, the same zero to hero story and most importantly, the same comic style, utilising modernistic dialogue and pop cultural references for jokes. However, while Aladdin knew to keep this to a minimum and mostly only make these kinds of jokes through the appropriately wacky character of the Genie, Hercules relies on them a little too often, undermining the style and atmosphere of the film. Gags like Thebes being called “The Big Olive”, acting as a stand-in for New York City, having huge mosaics instead of billboards, pots with green and red men painted on them instead of traffic lights and Pain saying ‘someone call IX-I-I!’ resemble History of the World, Part I or Life of Brian in the way they use aspects of the Ancient World to poke fun at modern day life. However, the satire in Hercules is, unsurprisingly, not as intelligent and, though it does have a bit more bite than most Disney films, it’s still too soft and family friendly for it to ever really work as the satire it seems to want to be. The jokes aren’t insultingly bad or anything, they’re just corny and a bit too prevalent; they never annoyed me, but the only times they really made me laugh were in pure disbelief at how silly they were.

The characters are hit and miss, some are very bland, some of full of personality. Hercules himself is a very traditional Disney hero, he’s nice and noble, but dull as a rock, he really doesn’t have much of a personality to him at all, so you never really get very involved with his character or care about what happens to him. Meg is actually a much better candidate for the main character role, as she not only has a personality, but actually changes over the course of the film and has to make tough decisions and sacrifices, unlike Hercules, who seems to have everything come pretty easy to him after the first twenty minutes or so. Meg is a very likeable and different love interest, in that initially, she actively resists this role and is never defined simply as “Hercules’ girlfriend”; her back story is simple, but effective, giving her a legitimate reason for her behaviour, as well as a genuine and well executed character arc which is much more interesting than Hercules’ – the way in which she learns to trust and love again is portrayed realistically, even if her relationship with Hercules isn’t especially well developed. Meg is a classic femme fatale, charming, seductive, dangerous, witty and always in control; she’s another enjoyably sassy Renaissance love interest.

Meg in full effect

Zeus is well voiced by Rip Torn and can be quite fun, but is mostly as dull as his son and doesn’t really do much; we don’t see much of the others Gods’ personalities, besides Hermes who is just annoying, but when we do they just come off as boring sycophants who suck up to Zeus. This is a real waste considering the rich characteristics of the Gods in the original tales and also bizarre, considering, as I said earlier, their exploits are always the best part, so it’s surprising how underutilised they are here. Phil is reasonably fun, he seems to be inspired by characters like Mickey from Rocky, the gruff, streetwise trainer with a heart of gold, a fun character type Disney hasn’t really done before; Danny DeVito has a great, distinctive voice and does a good job here, he’s pretty fun. Hades is a wonderfully enjoyable villain, at times he is deliciously smug and cocky, at others humorously ill-tempered and vindictive; his mood just changes at the drop of the hat as he explodes from totally in control to completely enraged. James Woods gives a fantastic performance; he puts so much life and energy into it, when Hades is supposed to be angry, he really does sound furious, when he’s being a sleazy fast-talker, Woods delivers his lines with effortless speed and aloof disinterest, masterfully transforming Hades into this kind of supernatural used car salesman or shady loan shark who deals in souls instead of money, it fits his character perfectly. In fact, Hades is so fun and likeable it’s almost a problem, as it’s very easy to want to see him triumph over the boring and self-indulgent Gods of Olympus; he’s always a blast to watch and is one of the best parts of the movie. Pain and Panic are typical villainous sidekicks, but they at least mix the formula up a bit by being a double-act, though they are basically just the Hyenas from The Lion King, sans Ed. While I have always found Bobcat Goldthwait’s “voice” annoying, I have to admit it at least works better for animation and Matt Frewer is good as Panic. They have a couple of funny lines and obviously put effort into their performance, but at times, Pain and Panic can be a little too obnoxious.

Besides Hades, the best part about the movie is the soundtrack, which is one of the most consistently good of any Disney movie. Most of the songs are inspired by gospel music, demonstrated through the characters of the Muses; this ties in to the “Las Vegas version of the Ancient World” theme, as rather than a traditional Greek Chorus, Hercules has a modern Greek Gospel Choir to comment on its story, an appropriate and successful idea. “The Gospel Truth” is the weakest song of the bunch, but is still pretty good; it has a nice, mellow sound and serves as a good intro to the story. “Go the Distance” is effectively “The Whole New World Number” and even though it’s a bit sappy, I quite like it; yeah it’s corny, the lyrics aren’t inventive, it’s very poppy and doesn’t really fit with the style of the other songs, but there’s something about it that feels quite powerful and hopeful to me. I don’t know why, but I like this one. “One Last Hope” is the most classically “Disney” musical number and it’s a great one at that, it’s upbeat, with fun lyrics, serving as a good introduction to Phil’s character, and an effective montage which demonstrates the time span and results of Hercules’ training quickly and capably. “Zero the Hero” is the big show stopper, a great gospel-infused number full of energy and some charming rhymes – ‘Is he bold? There’s no-one braver. Is he sweet? Our favourite flavour!’ – Again, it also works as a good montage, it’s an awesome song. “I Won’t Say I’m in Love” is one of Disney’s better love songs; rather than being slow and overly-sentimental, it’s upbeat and catchy, as another gospel inspired number which, rare for a Disney movie, acknowledges the problems that come with love as well as the positives. Though “A Star is Born” isn’t really a musical number so much as just as a stand-alone song, it’s so good it doesn’t really matter; another gospel number, it’s super high-energy, catchy, triumphant and a perfect end to the movie. Though the numerous musical montages do mean that a lot of interesting parts of the story are skipped over, the lack of depth in the narrative can be forgiven for the quality of this fantastic collection of songs.

Danny DeVito plays a short, hairy, goat-like creature with a New Jersey accent... Not much of a stretch, huh?

Hercules is a fun movie, though not a very smart one; it lacks originality, drawing inspiration from a lot of other sources for its attitude and comedic style, though that’s not necessarily a bad thing. While the dedication to a more satirical style of humour is admirable, this means that story and characterisation mostly take a backseat to the jokes, which are often a little too goofy and, though harmless, not really funny enough to justify the lack of an engaging narrative or poor use of the source material at hand. While not an especially mature or intelligent film and not purely entertaining enough to make up for its shortcomings in the way that Aladdin is, Hercules is still a pretty good time – it’s nice to look at, the songs are great and the action is fun. It’s a silly movie, but I like it all the same.



7/10

Next Week: Mulan!

Email: joetalksaboutstuff@gmail.com

Twitter: @JSChilds

34. The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1996)

While the childish and simplistic Pocahontas almost completely derailed the new, more serious style Disney created with The Lion King, The Hunchback of Notre Dame did a lot to get this new attitude back on track, becoming one of the darkest and most serious of all of Disney’s films. The Hunchback of Notre Dame is a bold and different movie and while it does have some of those typical Renaissance elements we’ve come to expect, it does do a lot of things in a way no-one was really expecting from Disney. While it does have some problems, The Hunchback of Notre Dame is a fascinating and touching movie that did manage to undo a lot of the problems with its predecessor.

For starters, the movie just looks incredible – the animation is right back to being lively and energetic and is on par with any other Renaissance film, with character designs that are all so different and yet all given so much time that every character feels truly alive. The backgrounds are breathtaking, the amount of detail put into the complex architecture of Notre Dame and the way it reflects mood and emotion is genuinely astounding; the backgrounds are so wide and vast, the movie has such a large scope which helps give the story and setting a strong sense of scale and importance, it just works perfectly. The colours are also fantastic, sometimes bright and vibrant, sometimes dark and muted, again to match the mood of the scene. This effect is compounded by the lighting, which is even better than in The Lion King and very possibly the best Disney has ever done; the long shadows, the beauty of the sunset over Paris, it just looks incredible. The scenes are so well framed, with so many amazing angles and this works perfectly with the lightning and colouring to really give the film a strong visual style; scenes such as Quasimodo moving between the columns of Notre Dame as the rising sun beams over him are just wonderful and stand on par with some of the greatest visual directors of all time. This movie is a real artistic triumph.

omg u guys look at all the hidden mickeys!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The exquisite and detailed visual style is coupled with a mature and surprisingly dark story; the themes and ideas that are tackled here really are quite shocking to see in a Disney movie – lust and sexual power, racial persecution, the relationship between church and state, religious extremism, Stockholm Syndrome and the difficult fact that sometimes, even seemingly “good” people can be very cruel. Though the film is certainly optimistic and has its light hearted moments – it’s still a Disney movie – it doesn’t really pull its punches when it comes to some of the very adult issues it’s trying to deal with and never dumbs things down, unlike Pocahontas. While the film’s anti-prejudice moral has been done a bit too many times at this point, especially in Beauty and the Beast, it doesn’t stop it from being a valid one and it is handled far better here than in say, Pocahontas. Where The Hunchback of Notre Dame manages to avoid simply copying its predecessors is in the fact that it is less interested in tackling serious, wide spread discrimination and the problems of keeping an entire culture down (though it does address this with the gypsies) and more in the casual, everyday discrimination between ordinary people and how it is easy for us to forget it: we can all see that Ratcliffe or Frollo are wrong in their racism and they are so evil that we could never be like them; however, in the ordinary townsfolk who just think they’re having an innocent laugh at Quasimodo’s expense, we see ourselves. The film shows us how easy it is to mock or isolate those we view as different and that what we might view as a bit of harmless fun could have very serious consequences; it reminds us that casual, every day discrimination is just as hurtful as large scale racial prejudice, but much easier to turn a blind eye to.

Unfortunately, the “beauty is on the inside” message is perhaps a little complicated by the fact that the beautiful Esmeralda ends up not with the deformed Quasimodo, but with the traditionally handsome knight in shining armour, Phoebus. To some, this can make the message seem a little disingenuous, as if Disney is saying “well beauty is on the inside, but obviously don’t go out with someone REALLY ugly” or, if we consider Beauty and the Beast, “love them for what’s on the inside and they’ll transform into an attractive man, so then you can go out with them! If they’re still ugly, obviously don’t bother.” Still, unlike Beast, Quasimodo’s journey is not so much to find someone who can love him despite his looks, but simply to be accepted by the world. In this respect, it’s actually quite a welcome twist for a Disney movie that the hero doesn’t get the girl; Phoebus isn’t a bad guy and Esmeralda doesn’t make a wrong or shallow decision, things just don’t work out like Quasimodo had hoped and hey, sometimes that happens, whether you’re a hunchback or not. Again, the movie doesn’t pull its punches with the hard truths – sometimes, heartbreak happens, but there are always going to be people who care about you to pick you back up; Quasimodo accepts this and comes to learn the more important lesson that love and kindness can come in many forms and that you shouldn’t let one rejection keep you from living your life. With this in mind one realises that the fact that Quasimodo doesn’t get the girl is not only not counter-intuitive to the message of the film, but also slyly appropriate: Quasimodo spends twenty years of his life hiding away in the bell tower because he is so terrified of rejection; yes Frollo keeps him in there, but clearly Quasimodo could leave any time if he wanted to, the reason he doesn’t is because Frollo has convinced him that the one person who should have loved him unconditionally – his mother – abandoned him. If even his own mother rejected him, how could Quasimodo ever hope to be loved by anyone? Better to stay hidden away, where he can’t be hurt by others. The Quasimodo from the beginning of the movie would retreat back to the bell tower and give up on life if Esmeralda rejected him, however, the Quasimodo from the end of the movie has learned to accept that rejection is not the end of the world and that there are people out there who will accept him; what at first appears to be an awkward misstep in the film’s moral is actually a very intelligent piece of character development that helps strengthen the film’s true moral – “never give up on life, because for all the cruelty and rejection, there are truly kind people who will accept and love you for who you are.”

Frollo creepin’

The cast is relatively small for a Disney film, particularly one from the Renaissance era, resulting in a much more tight-knit, character based story. Quasimodo is a familiar type of early Disney protagonist, but he is utilised in an unfamiliar way – like Dumbo, Pinocchio or Bambi, he is very kind, sweet, innocent, naive and unfamiliar to the world; he is also passive and doesn’t really drive the story, which is mostly furthered by the other characters. However, Quasimodo isn’t boring, nor does he feel like a false protagonist who is pushed aside in favour of other, more interesting characters, The Hunchback of Notre Dame is just more of an ensemble film – Quasimodo, Esmerelda, Phoebus and even Frollo’s stories all share equal time and importance, they are all essentially main characters, even though the story is ostensibly about Quasimodo. This is different for a Disney movie, which tend to focus on one or two main characters (usually the hero and their love interest), with a large supporting cast to provide comic relief. This revitalising approach allows Quasimodo to be who he is without becoming a boring or unsuitable protagonist, while also providing insight into other characters, even the villain! On top of this, Quasimodo is not as perfect as some of his predecessors, as we see he can be jealous and spiteful towards Phoebus and has some quite serious emotional and social issues, but he never stops being sympathetic. Even when he’s angry, there is still this real sense of kindness and sensitivity to him, he reminds me of John Hurt as John Merrick in The Elephant Man, you just want to give the guy a big hug in every scene he’s in. Quasimodo isn’t one of Disney’s best protagonists, but he’s certainly a very likeable and relatable one.

Esmeralda is awesome, she’s brash and cocky, but intelligent and capable enough to back it up, she’s tough and stubborn, but still kind and thoughtful; she’s one of Disney’s best female characters and it’s nice how she’s not just relegated to the hero’s love interest, but gets to be her own character with her own story – her struggle to keep herself and her people safe is given just as much weight and importance as Quasimodo’s struggle for freedom and acceptance. She unfortunately does fall out of the action a little towards the end and needs to be rescued, but this doesn’t negate how cool she is in the first half, I really like Esmeralda. Phoebus is a strange character in that he is a rival to Quasimodo for Esmeralda’s affections, yet he is also a heroic character; he kind of plays the role of Gaston as a good guy, the strong, handsome hero who is also interested in the main character’s love interest. Phoebus of course, is a good guy after all and Quasimodo learns not to judge him unfairly just because he is jealous, just as others learn not to judge Quasimodo because he is different; the film does a good job of making both characters likeable and showing both their points of view, so that it doesn’t seem unreasonable or unfair that Esmeralda chooses Phoebus in the end. Phoebus is suave, noble and just all around a pretty likeable guy; as a protagonist he would perhaps be a little too stereotypically perfect, so he works better as one of the lesser heroes.

Hellooooooo nurse

The biggest issue with the movie is with the characters of the gargoyles; on the one hand, they aren’t especially annoying, or at least not nearly as much as similar character types from earlier Disney films, but at the same time, their role as comic relief doesn’t really fit in such a dark and serious movie. They seem to be there just to fill a role that had become prevalent in the Renaissance films – the goofy, magical creatures that acted as sidekicks to the hero and provided comic relief; great for say, the enchanted objects in Beauty and the Beast, but not so appropriate for the tone that The Hunchback of Notre Dame is trying to create. Their relationship with Quasimodo is sweet and does work well, giving him someone to talk to and allowing the audience to see what he is feeling, but it also kind of undermines the whole aspect of his isolation and inability to connect with others, because instead of growing up with only the cruel Frollo for company, he seems to have had them as his friends for his whole life. This problem can be rectified if we choose to believe that the gargoyles are simply figments of Quasimodo’s imagination, representing his innermost feelings and given life so that he wouldn’t be so lonely; the film does seem to be heading towards this at first, with several moments where a character enters the room as Quasimodo is talking to the gargoyles, only to find lifeless stone statues, suggesting that Quasimodo is merely talking to himself. However, there are moments such as Hugo coming to life to woo Djali and the entire climax, where the gargoyles clearly come to life to attack the soldiers that show pretty definitively that the gargoyles are real and exist independent from Quasimodo. If they are indeed real, then their presence distracts from the message and atmosphere the film is trying to create, simply for the purpose to sell toys and market the film better to kids. I don’t dislike the gargoyles as much as some people do, but I have to admit, they really don’t belong here.

Frollo is a fascinating villain and one that it’s very hard to believe is even in a Disney movie, he’s not evil for the sake of being evil, nor is he simply greedy or selfish, but he genuinely believes he is doing the right thing. Frollo simply thinks that he is ridding the world of sin and evil and is willing to go to whatever lengths he has to in order to do so. Eventually, he is driven mad by the fact that he finds himself giving into the very sin he fought so hard to eradicate, tormented by his lust for Esmeralda, who he finds abhorrent, yet also irresistible; that’s actually a really complex and believable motivation. Not only that but he is just so horribly cruel and vile, committing such heinous acts as murdering an innocent woman, attempting to drown her infant child, trying to burn a helpless family alive and ultimately burning down all of Paris just to get to one woman, who he offers to spare only if she sleeps with him! Frollo is so monstrous and yet also so human, he may very well be Disney’s best villain and is certainly one of their most evil and frightening.

Phoebus and Butt-Head

The more serious attitude of the story and the sheer scope of its visuals are mirrored in the film’s musical style, which is full of big, sweeping Broadway numbers; it’s a very emotionally charged soundtrack, one more reminiscent of traditional stage musicals than most other Disney movies, making The Hunchback of Notre Dame relatively unique, at least compared to its peers. “The Bells of Notre Dame” shows this perhaps better than any other song, with its back and forth between Frollo and the Archdeacon, the occasional piece of dialogue, the way it blends in motifs of later songs, the chanting choir, it’s a very strong introduction to the film. “Topsy Turvy Day” and “The Court of Miracles” are just kind of average, they’re not bad, I just really have nothing to say about them; maybe I just don’t like Clopin, I don’t know. “God Help the Outcasts” is kind of the closest the film gets to a “Whole New World Number”; it’s a boring, sappy and preachy song. It’s not as bad as some songs of this type, but it’s just not up to snuff with the other songs here. “Heaven’s Light” is a much better song of similar style, being a slow and tender love song with simplistic, but heartfelt lyrics and it doesn’t run on any longer than it has to; it’s short but sweet. “A Guy Like You” is a charmingly fun and silly song and the most enjoyable thing the gargoyles do in the movie, though its role as a comic song doesn’t really fit in with where it takes place, at one of the darkest points of the film. Still, bonus points for rhyming ‘Adonis’ with ‘croissant is’.

The two best songs are the most grandiose:  “Out There” is a highly powerful and inspirational song – the lyrics are emotional without being overly sappy and sentimental, the music is bold, strong and confident, the animation is great, it’s just a wonderful sequence. It has similarities with songs such as “Part of Your World” and “Just Around the Riverbend”, but it is not as shallow as those; Quasimodo has been watching the outside world his whole life, we know exactly what he wants and he isn’t selfish or greedy, promising that ‘I’ll be content with my share’ if he can have just one day outside. Then, when Quasimodo finally does reach the outside world, we discover that, unlike in The Little Mermaid, it wasn’t as perfect as he hoped; surprisingly, the villain was right, as people cannot accept Quasimodo and are cruel to him. Quasimodo learns to be careful what he wishes for and not to idealise things in his imagination, but that doesn’t mean he should give up, he just needs to be brave enough to go out there and see the world for what it really is – which is more complex and wonderful than he could ever really imagine – and not let anything get him down; all this is expertly foreshadowed within this great song. The complete opposite to the bright and hopeful “Out There” is the dark and chilling “Hellfire”, which combines good lyrics with incredible visuals, the imagery of Frollo being surrounded by cloaked figures and then sucked into the fireplace as if being drawn into hell, for example, is fantastic. This is Disney’s only villain song which takes a serious look into the villain’s tortured psyche and motivations, rather than an upbeat number such as “Poor Unfortunate Souls” or “Gaston”, which really encapsulates the dark and mature tone of the film, with some very shocking lyrics for a Disney movie; it’s a truly disturbing sequence fitting for such a memorable villain. 

This looks like the cover of a Megadeth album

The Hunchback of Notre Dame is not without its problems, the characters of the gargoyles and the comic relief they bring really don’t gel with the rest of the film and though he is very likeable, Quasimodo can at times be a bit of a flat protagonist, while Phoebus and Esmeralda’s relationship is a little boring and not very well developed. Still, the characters work better as an ensemble than they do individually and Frollo is definitely an unforgettable villain. The film looks spectacular and inspires genuine awe and emotion with every scene, the songs aren’t all perfect but are strong as a whole, with two or three real gems and the story, while not necessarily complex, is refreshingly dark and mature, with a careful, multi-layered moral at its centre. The Hunchback of Notre Dame is one of Disney’s biggest and boldest movies; it is, in every sense of the word, breathtaking.


Other Thoughts:

• If the gargoyles really are imaginary, then this shot after they’ve just finished their elaborate musical number and Esmeralda enters is the saddest thing ever

‘Oh hi, Esmeralda. Just uh, just playing with my buddies’

8.5/10

Next Week: Hercules!

Email: joetalksaboutstuff@gmail.com

Twitter: @JSChilds