#the way this lack of romance is framed just feels so fucking ableist

[jacquelinemerritt]

The Hunchback of Notre Dame vs. The Prince of Egypt

Originally posted September 21st, 2014

The Hunchback of Notre Dame

The Hunchback of Notre Dame is actually similar to The Prince of Egypt in a lot of respects. Both films deal with the nature of faith, racial discrimination, and class warfare, and Hunchback also does a fantastic job at showing the atrocities committed in the name of the Catholic Church during the Inquisition. Hunchback’s score is also phenomenal; Hellfire is absolutely brilliant, and its use as Frollo’s motif just adds to how sinister of a villain he is. So what’s wrong with Hunchback then? That I can actually narrow down into two categories: The Romance, and The Comic Relief. (Yes, I’m doing this film differently than The Lion King; work with me here).

The Romance

I’ve heard the arguments for why Quasimodo shouldn’t end up with Esmeralda. And they don’t hold up. Sure, it’s realistic that the ugly guy doesn’t get a pretty girl. Sure, the film did work to establish Phoebus as Esmeralda’s primary love interest. Those are both valid points, and they would both matter if it weren’t for one thing: the film makes us watch as Quasimodo has his dream of romantic love crushed.

Oh, well, THAT’S sure a fucked up message you’re sending, Disney. Apparently ugly guys cannot ever find love beyond platonic relationships and have to accept that that will never change!

It’d be one thing if Quasimodo hadn’t fallen in love with Esmeralda. There’s really no reason for him to be in love with her; everything he does for her could simply be considered a mark of friendship. But this film goes out of its way to directly state that because of how ugly Quasimodo is, he will never find romantic love. Ever. Hell, I’d be okay if they had set up Quasimodo as someone having a childish crush. But he’s very much in love with her, as the voices in his head (aka the gargoyles) make clear.

The only thing I find redeemable in the romance is Quasimodo’s full acceptance of Esmeralda loving Phoebus. That’s a bit of interesting drama that if played correctly, could have turned into a much more interesting story; namely, a story about Quasimodo accepting that being a “nice guy” won’t get you the girl if she’s not romantically interested in you. But instead, it focused on Quasimodo’s devotion to Esmeralda, and made that devotion into one of the key forces that drives the plot.

The Comic Relief

I want to preface this by saying that not all the comic relief in this film is bad. Some of it is fantastic, in fact.

The scene above, The Court of Miracles, is the perfect kind of comic relief for this film. It walks the line between being zany and creepy absolutely perfectly, with a bunch of flamboyantly dressed characters happily dancing and singing about how they plan to kill Quasimodo and Phoebus. It’s a nice, funny interlude that still doesn’t break completely from the gloom and darkness present in the rest of the film, while still providing quality humor and a nice break from Frollo’s rampage. Compare that, to this:

That song does not belong in The Hunchback of Notre Dame. It just doesn’t. Nothing about that sequence fits the tone of the film at all, and it ends up just serving as a distraction from the fantastic main story. And the same can be said about any scene containing the gargoyles. I wouldn’t mind there being a quirky sidekick in this film if it was Esmeralda’s, Phoebus’, or even Frollo’s sidekick. They could both be aware of the gravity of the situation and try to make it easier to bear by joking about it. But the gargoyles are completely disconnected from the rest of the plot. They are stone creatures only Quasimodo can see, and their job is to make witty commentary on Quasimodo’s love life; at no point except the final sequence do they interact with any of the main story in any substantial way.

What The Prince of Egypt does better

Everything. The only thing The Prince of Egypt doesn’t do better than Hunchback is criticize the Catholic Church for the Inquisition, and that’s because The Prince of Egypt is set in (surprise) Egypt. Prince of Egypt has a better score (only by a little though), it has better characters and character development, it has better animation, it has a better romance (which thankfully is treated as incidental, since it is only incidental to the plot), and it has much better comic relief. Hotep and Huy are much funnier than the gargoyles, and they fit much better into their story than the gargoyles.

If you liked this, consider supporting me on Patreon, or donating to my Ko-Fi.

[xxtha-blog]

Tf albeist?

Autism?

Shit what kinda shitty drama is happening this time-

Okay if you don't like drama or talks about stereotyping minorities in media, do not read further, but I'm basically just going to weigh in (tw ableism, Lgbtq+ related phobias and minority steryotypes)

In that order- just kidding, b first. Please don't send any hatred at them if you do find out who said it, that'll just make them think they're more right and other people are attacking them for it, but you can read Jakei's post apologizing to get some context if you'd like.

Someone headcanons characters as autistic if theyre emotionless then got upset Ink's a villain in Underverse because making someone emotionless a villain is harmful to autistic people so Jakei made a post apologizing, despite him neither being autistic, nor being a villain. There's your summary, I'm not going to tell you who said it a. Because they have me blocked and I'm sure they'd start something with me if they thought I was stalking their blog (my friend just showed me what they said after it kind of became a public talking point) and b. So no one harasses them.

Now, I'm not autistic, let's make that very clear, but considering they said it's also aphobic, and I am asexual, and the stereotypes they're getting upset at for both are pretty much the exact same, I feel I can weigh in/personally understand the situation enough to explain the following:

Ink is canonly not autistic and while I support people identifying that with him, the person who criticized Jakei seemed to only assigned it to him because they think all emotionless characters are autistic coded (they said Fresh must be too), which is literally just a stereotype a lot of autistic people do not like because genuine emotionlessness is very different from neurodivergence, lack of empathy, difficulty processing emotions, or not feeling romance or love for other people. So I think that in itself should render their ableist argument null and void because it can basically be instantly uno reversoed with a, but wait, you only came to that conclusion because of your own ableist stereotypes!

While I do recogonize there are stereotypes that frame these types people as cold, emotionless, or even dangerous, there's many problems with thinking Ink is falling into this:

1. Ink is not a villain, or even dangerous.

2. Ink is canonly not autistic. Ink in Underverse isn't following canon and once again, still isn't autistic, and saying he is autistic coded because he is emotionless is in itself a harmful stereotype because no one is emotionless in the way these characters are.

3. You cant call a piece of media problematic for containing a stereotype for a minority that you yourself assigned to the character solely because you connected that minority to them due to the stereotype.

Like, if they wanted even a fraction of ground to stand on then maybe, Ink being asexual and being portrayed as villain would have at least made sense because he's actually asexual

But even then I think that's complete bullshit, he's not a villain, he's certainly not being portrayed as a villain because he's emotionless, or asexual, or whatever the fuck. No one's going to look at that and go, ah yes asexual people are evil because Ink is!

Like, we have a fandom that makes horrific murderers gay buddies that kiss each other every other day. There is a harmful stereotype in media where the gay characters are villains. But I, a gay person, don't find people making Killer and Nightmare make out, or putting together a bad sans poly, offensive or harmful because a. it's just a fandom. We have so many iterations of everything that it's very very clear no one's doing that *because* they think gay people are evil. Fuck, I would like to see Killer and Nightmare make out, I think Killer is a gay icon. And b. It's very clear no one's going to see that and go AHA I KNEW IT

GAY PEOPLE ARE MURDERERRRRS.

That's ridiculous.

And Jakei didn't even make Ink autistic!!!! Like, maybe, MAYBE if he genuinely was, they'd have a point. I'd still think it was completely reaching because again he's not a villain, but still, at least then, there would actually be SOME basis for this argument. But they've literally based the entire argument on THEIR headcanon.

They've made a problem that does not exist

A harmful depiction no one saw before they said anything because it wasn't there.

And are demanding an apology because they basically created an attack against their community themselves.

And I think it's ridiculous.

this isn't about whether stereotypes against autistic people exist or are harmful or not, because they do and they are! And I deeplty sympathize with that and believe it should always be a lens in which one can criticize media! But their argument lacks either of its main points being true. Ink is neither autistic nor is Ink a villain and saying he is then demanding an apology for it is just causing more problems than the actual depiction in Underverse.