Humanizing the ‘Human’ Quasimodo
A Contemporary Analysis of Victor Hugo’s Notre Dame de Paris
“What makes a Monster and what makes a Man?”
This paper will discuss various adaptations of Victor Hugo’s Notre Dame de Paris, among them including, BBC’s radio drama, a broadway musical production, Disney’s 1996 animated adaptation of The Hunchback of Notre Dame, and a real-life production, which followed the animation’s release in 1997, directed by Peter Medak. Each adaptation uses a different medium — radio, musical, animation, and film to portray their own version of the story and reshaping Quasimodo as a unique character. Each adaptation, however differs greatly with the original plot, which is more accurately depicted in David Foon’s script in his play version of The Hunchback of Notre Dame. My argument will discern what it takes to understand disability and people with disability (PWD) without enforcing abusive, baseless definitions that some forms of media have imposed on PWDs, by revealing and comparing the positive outcomes and shortcomings of each medium used to reenact Quasimodo, along with his quest for love and acceptance. According to the collection of such external sources, the essay will then attempt to surmise Hugo’s original intention of creating such a tale and what it means for the contemporary audience.
The first defect to be addressed is apparent in the seemingly happy ending of the 1996 Walt Disney’s production of The Hunchback of Notre Dame. Due to its filmic identity as a children’s movie that must satisfy the taste of mass media, it is highly presumable that the directors, Trousdale and Wise, forced the film to meet its happy ending for it to be acceptable for young audiences. However, this ending that excludes Quasimodo from the romantic relation between Esmeralda and Phoebus seems extremely unnatural for those who have a keen understanding of the original plot and Hugo’s intention of concluding his novel, in such a tragic fashion. In Foon’s script version, which is most congruent to the fatal ending of Hugo’s work, Quasimodo cries out, “I loved. Everything I loved. I loved” (Foon 60). Following his grievous cry, the epilogue discloses that the two skeletons of Quasimodo and Esmeralda have been reunited in death, as their forms are likened to two lovers enamoured in each other’s embrace (Foon 61). There are numerous ways to interpret the true meaning of love Quasimodo feels for Esmeralda, but my assertion is that romantic love is indeed a significant factor when discussing this topic.
In contrast to this notion, Trousdale and Wise ignores Quasimodo’s sexuality by having him “clasp his hands over those of Phoebus and Esmeralda near the end of the film”, since he “cannot have a mature relationship with Esmeralda; he is, despite his years, just a kid” (Norden 171). The creators’ refusal to design their Quasimodo as a romantic hero promotes desexualition of PWDs, that have long been fought against by the PWD community. In Dona Avery’s study on the cultural impact that different retellings of Notre Dame have on their audience, she claims that in “[t]he third Hunchback project… a made-for-television movie, written by Peter Mendak for Turner Broadcasting, (1997)… there is virtually no emphasis on [Quasimodo’s] sexuality” (Avery 23). However, I oppose Avery’s opinion because Mendak’s revision of Quasimodo is still a huge improvement from the adaptation by Disney the year before, in terms of him representing the PWD community. Mendak does portray Quasimodo’s sexuality and desire for romance with Esmeralda, but his desires are more subtle and expressed in a more gentle fashion, contrasted to his abusive character foil, Archdeacon Frollo. When Frollo forsakes Esmeralda to the soldiers after she spurns his advances despite given the opportunity to evade her death sentence, he and Quasimodo share a conversation about their struggling feelings for Esmeralda. Even when Frollo gripes to Quasimodo, “Do you know the torture you can be made to endure through long nights by a bursting heart?!”, Quasimodo responds calmly: “Why do you think I do not know of such things?”(Medak). While Frollo cannot ‘endure’ his sexual urges for Esmeralda, due to his overbearing lust and hypocrisy that clouds his judgment, Quasimodo, on the other hand, does ‘know of such things’ yet chooses not to act upon them, as his love for Esmeralda is much greater than his own sexual desire. As a result, Medak places Quasimodo at a higher standard than Trousdale and Wise, as a romantic hero who values the heroine more than his carnal wants, for he is able in his ability to suppress those urges out of love, in which Frollo is clearly disabled.
Another evidence on Quasimodo’s sexuality can be detected in the ending scene of his death in Medak’s production. In his dying breath, Quasimodo utters: “Never have I seen my ugliness as I do now.” Quasimodo is acutely aware that his form deprives him of physical attractiveness according to the general public, which serves as a sign of sexual prowess in his society, and such proof indicates that he is indeed conscious of his place in nature’s competition for mates. In addition to his utterance, Quasimodo clearly expresses his grievances on his role in his one-sided romance with Esmeralda, when he places her hand over his heart instead of the physical wound he received on his stomach (Medak). Heartbreak from the knowledge that his unrequited love has no hope is harder for him to bear than the fatal injury he receives from his opponent.
However, Medak is not without faults, as he fails to break the prejudice against Quasimodo and other PWDs “that no matter how heroic [they] are, [they] will never have a loving, romantic relationship”, as declared by Kathi Wolfe, a freelance writer who is legally blind (Norden 173). Wolfe’s bitter assertion must be noted since “a society’s beliefs about the body are influenced… by its dramas, sculptures, [and] poems” (Avery 49). Therefore, Disney and Medak’s reiterations of Notre Dame must be deemed as problematic, not only to criticize the artwork itself, but because of their influence to the public that consume mass media. Apart from weeping and sympathizing over Quasimodo’s noble heroism and Esmeralda’s acts of beautiful kindness, it is more important for the movie goers to understand that: “[w]hen [their] gaze [fall] upon Quasimodo’s body and [find] him ‘ugly,’ then, it [is] not due to conclusions informed by reason; rather, it [is] a learned response” from absorbing such portrayals of PWDs prior to watching the current productions of Notre Dame (Avery 49) . As a result, this lack of satisfaction and enlightenment in the concluding moments for each production imply that there is still a glass ceiling between PWDs and their aspirations to achieve their happy ending by their own terms.
Directors’ mistake of failing to deliver a decisive ending that reveals an accurate depiction of a PWD character, which discloses society’s skewed perception of PWDs, continues in their over-idealization of Quasimodo. Perchance, due to their need for simplicity to appease the young age spectrum of the viewing audience, Trousdale and Wise’s Disney version of Notre Dame gives an impression that they cannot confidently say ‘yes’ when asked the question: ‘Can a disabled character still be likable without characteristics that compensate his disfigured personality?’ Their Quasimodo exhibits inhuman strength when he rips apart the iron chains to rescue Esmeralda, his damsel in distress (Trousdale and Wise). Adding compensatory physical qualities, such as inhuman strength and agility, to balance out Quasimodo’s disfigurement is another way of abusing PWDs, since it is a method of dehumanization. Trousdale and Wise have been unsuccessful in deviating from the urge to shape Quasimodo to be “‘perfect’ in every respect except for an impairment” (Norden 169). Medak, moreso subtly dehumanizes Quasimodo in his version by replacing physical strength with intelligence. When showing Esmeralda around his church attic home, Quasimodo refers that “[t]he book in the library below became [his] only companions” and that he “read every one of them” (Medak). And from what the audience can conjecture from the director’s emphasis on Quasimodo’s extensive habit of reading, he is not only aware of how others may view him, but in addition to that, he expresses this self-intuition in a calm, cultivated manner when speaking to Esmeralda: “You think that is the last straw, don’t you? To be made this way and deaf as well. It’s truly horrible… Yes, I am deaf, you know” (Medak). Even though Esmeralda politely rejects such thoughts, Quasimodo’s tone of neutrality in his speech, contrasted to that of his flustered listener, shows that his years of weariness and isolation have forced him to have a keen sense of self-awareness in his relationship to his surroundings. Although Esmeralda’s intentions of denying the fact that she ever viewed Quasimodo as ‘deaf’ and ‘horrible’ originate from innocence, they cannot be considered as completely true, and Quasimodo has the inquisitive nature to see through that. However, even this additional, compensatory gift of intelligence that increases Quasimodo’s dignity, does not give him the confidence enough to overcome the shame he has for his vulnerability. For example, Quasimodo tries to hide his deformed side from Esmeralda’s view, when speaking to her (Medak). Medak’s rendering of Quasimodo has improved from Trousdale and Wise’s childish, strong, and simple Quasimodo, yet the former’s intelligence still faces heavy limitations as it lacks the self-confidence and self-love enough to understand that he has nothing to be ashamed of. One of his last lines in his deathbed to Esmeralda proves this suggestion, as he murmurs with raw grief, “Never have I seen my ugliness as I do now” (Medak).
There is also an idealization commonly misused by filmmakers, which pertains to “one of the most enduring beliefs about ‘good’ PWDs: that they possess an inner beauty that compensates for their less-than-perfect exteriors… [and] [s]uch a simplistic belief represents stereotyped thinking at its most insidious precisely because it appears to be well-intentioned and therefore typically goes unquestioned ” (Norden 166). Medak is tentative as to not idealize Quasimodo by this belief to prevent from creating an overly virtuous, almost faultless to the point of saint-like individual. Instead of being a gracious Christlike figure, Quasimodo quietly exerts his opinion with brutal honesty to Frollo’s flaw: “You are pitiable. But I have to pity for you” (Medak). Increasingly, different sources that re-enact Notre Dame are reproducing a more humane, faulty, yet realistic Quasimodo, who protests against being defined as “‘an angel in a devil’s body’” since 1997, the year Medak’s film was released (Norden 164). In 2008, BBC radio drama broadcasted their re-enactment of Notre Dame, and their choice of lines for Quasimodo’s narration was, compared to the character’s predecessors, quite provocative. For instance, Quasimodo, watching the people down below him, indicates that they are “[l]ittle ants crawling to the streets”, which connotes haughtiness and pride from his false sense of empowerment due to his current position of securing the viewpoint of the omniscience (Bulmer). Quasimodo using a derogatory term (‘ants’) on someone other than himself, is a unique re-capture of a side that may have been previously ignored in analyzing Quasimodo’s psychology. The 2015 musical production of Notre Dame also triggers a similar phenomenon, as it challenges the rarely questioned virtuousness of Quasimodo. The musical, even though it shares a considerable amount of similitude with Disney’s interpretation of Notre Dame due to a few of the same musical numbers, stays more loyal to the original ending where “Quasimodo throws Frollo off the tower” (Foon 59). The hero’s murder of his opponent may bring a sense of catharsis for most of the viewers, but now Quasimodo’s hands are far from being innocent due to its bloodshed.
One of the most repetitive lines in the musical, “what makes a monster and what makes a man?” is a question that pierces the continuing discourse on Quasimodo’s identity (Menken). Quasimodo’s pure, unconditional love for Esmeralda juxtaposed against his murderous hatred for Frollo grants his character a duality, two opposing identities (‘monster’ and ‘man’), which creates depth and room for further analysis. Yet, Quasimodo cannot only be defined by this binary, so his identity can be more thoughtfully contextualized through the meshing of the two — a confusing being who is both a monster and a man, or neither. Such an identity however, does not only extend to the characterization of the main character, but to people, our human race as a whole. Humans are complex and cannot be defined solely on a certain ability or disability. And Hugo’s Notre Dame de Paris seems to configure, but at the same time disfigure such duality and complexity that results from the inability to simplify that duality. Thus the reason why his title is inclusive of the entire Notre Dame universe, while the adaptations that followed its lead have changed its title (‘Hunchback of Notre Dame’) by excluding the individual. I conjecture that Hugo’s focus on the disabled city has turned gradually over the years, to the more visible deformity in Quasimodo’s hunched back. As a result, individuals must steer away from imposing simplification and definition on others, but instead, turn their heads towards the “Topsy-Turvy” madness that is satirized in Notre Dame, which may possibly be a projection of our own society, which we have failed to identify, according to the more popularly known, renewed title: The Hunchback of Notre Dame (Menken).
Works Cited
Avery, Dona M. “Bending “The Hunchback”: A Rhetorical Inquiry into Hollywood’s Quasi-Medieval Relationship with Disability.” Order №3123515 Arizona State University, 2004. Ann Arbor: ProQuest. Web. 11 Dec. 2017.
“Episode 1.” Hunchback of Notre Dame, by Alex Bulmer, BBC Radio 4, 30 November 2008
Foon, Dennis, and Victor Hugo. The Hunchback of Notre Dame: A Play. Playwrights Canada, Toronto, 1983.
The Hunchback of Notre Dame, Directed by Peter Medak, TNT Productions, 1997
Norden, Martin F. “Section III — Of Beasts and Innocents: Essays on Disability.” Diversity in Disney Films : Critical Essays on Race, Ethnicity, Gender, Sexuality and Disability, McFarland & Company, 2014, pp. 163–174.
The Hunchback of Notre Dame, Directed by Gary Trousdale and Kirk Wise, Walt Disney Pictures, 1996
The Hunchback of Notre Dame. Dir. Alan Menken. By Stephen Schwartz. U.S.A, Millburn, New Jersey. 4 Mar. 2015. Performance.