Norden’s
article on the portrayal of disabilities in Disney’s The Hunchback of Notre Dame discusses Quasimodo’s characterization
as disabled and how his appearance adversely impacts his ability to function
normally in society. In conjunction with disability studies, Norden claims that
Disney “uses Quasimodo’s physicality to imply that he is emotionally stunted”
(Norden, 168). While I understand the idea that Quasi appears to be socially
stunted and immature for his supposed age, I do not agree that Quasimodo’s
physical appearance is the reason for his being so, nor do I think this is the
message Disney intended.
As
Norden discusses, making the original story suitable for an animated Disney
film was a challenge, and filmmakers were faced with the task of making the
characters more relatable for young children. As a result of this demand, I
believe the creators of the movie purposely made Quasi more childlike in his
obedience, imagination, and fondness for playing with figurines in order to
make the main character someone that kids could relate to. Quasi’s youthful
tendencies are a product of an attempt to make him into a character children
can understand, not a product of filmmakers’ desires to equate physical
deformity with emotional underdevelopment.
Additionally,
it is much more reasonable that Quasimodo’s being socially or emotionally
stunted is a product of his being trapped in Notre Dame for his entire life
instead of simply a product of his deformity. It would be much easier for me to
accept the argument that his underdevelopment is a result of the oppressive,
discriminatory religion Frollo exhibits. After all, it is not Quasi’s physical
deformity that keeps him trapped in the tower, but rather Frollo’s inability to
accept Quasi and his handicap.
I really like your positive explanation for Quasimodo’s childlike tendencies. Since some of the other characters and much of the actual story are arguably related to a more mature audience, it makes complete sense that Disney would make Quasi more childlike to relate to their younger audience, rather than because he is a deformed character. Unfortunately, I think critiques like this are made too often of Disney. Many people attack Disney for using stereotypes and other perhaps oversimplified or unrealistic plot twists and character traits without acknowledging that Disney films are usually intended for a younger audience who perhaps can’t understand the complexity of reality or wouldn’t be able to relate to the films if a more realistic, worldly approach was taken. Norden is one of the few authors I remember who actually does acknowledge this; he writes, “Disney had selected an exceptionally dark piece of classic adult literature with the daunting task of making it child-friendly” (165). After this acknowledgement, Norden goes on to critique Quasi’s character, which I think fine, because it is still valid to argue that, after the changes made to accommodate a younger audience, the movie may portray harmful messages. Just because it was not Disney’s intent or that there was no way around it does not make it excusable, but it should be noted that Disney does face certain challenges because of their audience.
ReplyDelete