When you were a kid, did you have that one film you kept inserting into the video tape player over and over again? I did. In fact, I had lots: the Lion King, Land Before Time, The Swan Princess... just to name a few. And that’s not even including TV series like the Rugrats. On that list of mind was Hunchback of Notre Dame. I don’t know why I liked it so much then, it was incredibly dark for Disney. I remember I used to rewind the opening and watch it three or four times before I’d actually start watching it.

But it’s only recently I realised in terms of disability, Disney were ahead of the times. Actually, to tell you the truth... it was only when I became an adult that I realised there were disabled people in Disney films at all. And I think that's a good thing. It shows that the films are not about disability, or at least not only about it.

Often in media, even as recent as now, disability is seen as something to be fixed in films. The problem body. Edward Scissorhands must fit in or be ostracised; Will Trainer cannot walk and so his life is not worth living. Collin must learn to walk or risk losing his father (all adaptations).

It’s not just a problem in film, but also in books too. TV series seem to fair better, which I think is always the case when something is changing in the media. Film writers and producers are too scared because they need to increase audience ship, but a TV show is ongoing, they can adjust the show and so take more risks.

But, when I think about The Hunchback of Notre Dame, I have to applaud it for its view on disability in 1996.

What is the Problem Body?

It is of anyone who presents differently to the norm, whether that is physical, mental or other. Often, the problem body would be seen as something that needs to be solved by an outsider. Someone who represents normality. I'll give you an example of some:

“Who is the monster and who is the man?”

This is the central question of the film. Disney doesn't want their audience to miss this—they ensure that you don't by making the puppet master ask the question within the opening of the film. And if you think about this film being released in 1996, it’s outstanding that they’re thinking about this when disability was, and still is, frowned on.

One of the things I noticed in my latest rewatch last week was that only Frollo and his cronies look down on Quasimodo. It seems like more, especially when you look at the Festival of Fools. Everyone is tying Quasimodo in rope and throwing food at him. But there is only one instigator, and that is one of Frollo's guards. Followed by another... then probably a few more. Until this point, the villagers are truly celebrating his existence. They even act shocked when the guards attack him.

Frollo did nothing but watch from his tent. He is the Judge Minister of Justice; no one wants to upset him, they've all probably seen his wrath, and they're at a gypsy festival. Something they all know he hates. I honestly don't blame the villagers for the way they acted; they were probably afraid. Fear gets people to do horrible things.

It is only Esmeralda that puts a stop to it. Alright, so the Captain of the guard asks if he can, showing he isn't a bad guy, but Esmeralda, knowing she would put herself at risk, freed Quasimodo. And even then, she showed Frollo no fear.

Frollo's isolation

When speaking to Phebus, he discusses the gypsies as little ants that need to be squashed. People are being whipped in the tower of justice. He is a cruel and spiteful man.

However, he and the guards who are willing to do his bidding, are the only ones to hate on the gypsies and on Quasimodo. This actually isolates the character in the same way that disabled people are usually isolated in films.

Colin Cravey is isolated at the start due to his rudeness and inability to walk; Edward Scissorhands is isolated at the start and at the end because he cannot control his hands; Nemo is isolated with other disabled fish in a tank.

Frollo is isolated, not only because he causes fear, but because his views on the world are different to everyone else.

This alone tackles the way the Problem Body is represent in film. Usually, it is the outsider trying to get the disabled protagonist to integrate into society—something that yields mixed results. Instead, no one is paying Frollo much attention. Phebus, Esmeralda, and Quasimodo all defy him.

Frollo is a beast

By asking who is the monster and who is the man, Disney is once again taking the problem body. One of the ways disability is represented in media is by the implication that the disabled person is a monster or subhuman and it implies that disability means the lack of humanity (longmore 1985). Disney doesn't dehumanise Quasimodo. He isn't a fish like Nemo. He is a human. The film even goes so far as to confirm it when Esmeralda tells him he has no monster lines.

In many scenes, we see how Frollo hates not only Quasimodo, but the gypsies. He killed Quasimodo's mother on the steps of Notre Dame; tried to drown Quasimodo until the priest came out and warned him about the all seeing god. He hides Quasimodo in the belltower so he doesn't have to stare at him every single day.

But if that wasn't enough to convince you that Frollo was the monster, Disney also added a song that went straight over my head as a child. In this disturbing song, Frollo makes it clear that he will kill Esmeralda, not only because she defied him but because he lusts for her. Of course, she has a way of saving herself, but I think I would choose the fire too on this occasion.

I found two frames that help with the physical dehumanisation of Frollo. A frame during his Hellfire song looks like he is merging with a beast. One with glowing eyes and a demon tongue. And the other closer to the end. His eyes glows. His moth has some kind of glow to it as well, although his tongue stays where it belongs...

Either way, both scenes are scary and could definitely give nightmares.

Why is this important if it’s clear?

Well, as I said, it’s usually the other away around in films. The disabled person is the monster and the able-bodied people either need to fix him, kill him, or ostracise him. They may cycle through these options until they find one that works.

However, Frollo—the outsider—is the one that gets the treatment the "Problem Body" characters usually get. He is isolated due to his views, his cruel nature and his corrupt soul. He is dehumanised when he is merged with a fire demon, and then again near the end when his eyes glow. His issues cannot be fixed—his prejudice and hate towards difference. So there is only solution. He must die.

Describing him this way reminds me of some other fictional characters. And some real characters—natzi.

But I digress.

For me, as an adult with more understanding of how disability is represented in film even in the 21st century, it is refreshing to see the outsider be seen as the person rather than the person who is doing the right thing to fix the problem.

Quasimodo as a Protagonist of The Hunchback of Notre Dame

A lot of disabled protagonists have things that are done to them, rather than do things themselves. Edward Scissorhands wasn't in control of his situation. Neither was Colin (1993) when the matron put him in ice-cold water or when he was cooped up in bed; it was Mary who got this to change—the outsider fixing the problem body.

Quasimodo, on the other hand, rarely sits back. He's told he is forbidden to go to the festival of fools, he goes anyway. He knows that Frollo wouldn't be happy with him letting Esmeralda go, but he does anyway. The whole story is affected by whichever action he, himself, chooses to do. It's not the last time Disney does this either, they'll do it again seven years later with Finding Nemo.

I love that Quasimodo takes the lead. Usually in a film about disability it is two or more protagonists with a common villain.

Nemo, Marlin and Dory are the protagonists of Finding Nemo, the villains are the dentist and his niece; Edward Scissorhands, Joyce and Kim are the protagonists in Edward Scissorhands, Kim's ex-boyfriend is the antagonist; Colin, Mary and Dickson are the protagonists, the matron is the villain.

All these films would fail if they didn't have the extra protagonists. The disabled protagonist is just not strong enough. And no, I do not see Esmeralda as a protagonist. She is used as the desire, conflict and motivation of most the scenes.

Desire and Conflict in The Hunchback of Notre Dame

Every scene in every narrative will have a leading desire that causes conflict (Robert McKee, Story, 1997). That doesn't necessarily mean a character leads the scene. It depends what is at stake. In terms of the Hunchback of Notre Dame, both Quasimodo and Frollo desire Esmeralda... and Phoebus too, but let's forget about him.

Obviously, only one can have Esmeralda. This will build conflict in the scenes. Quasimodo knows that Frollo will hurt Esmeralda and so he does what he can to prevent her from being hurt. During these scenes, Quasimodo leads the plot. However, Frollo knows that Quasimodo doesn't know much about the world. He tricks him, pretends he knows where she is hiding and will go there to attack her. He leads this scene and the "Paris is burning" scenes.

Esmeralda doesn't do much. Nor does Phoebus, other than get shot and hinder the quest. So I'd say Quasimodo is the true and solo protagonist of the film. It is he who has something to lose, both his only friend and his master, perhaps even his life.

Hunchback of Notre Dame Protagonist isn't attractive

Alright. It's kind of part of the plot, but... disabled characters tend to be whatever is classed as attractive. Even with the scars and the messed-up hair, Edward Scissorhands is still relatively attractive. He has to be if he is going to be a threat to the antagonist.

The protagonist of The Hunchback of Notre Dame, Quasimodo, on the other hand, is not attractive. He still gets a woman in the second film, and I think that is great. But I also love how Disney didn't give him Esmeralda. They stayed friends, but they didn't get together. Perhaps a good thing as she was the only woman he knew in the first film. And alright, his social circle doesn't improve much by the second film, but it does improve a little.

Instead of giving him the main woman as a romantic prize, he ends up with two close friends and a way forward. He also earns acceptance from the villagers—shown at the end when the little girl gives him a hug.

To sum up The Hunchback of Notre Dame

Twenty-five years later, and this film is still the most progressive film on a disability I have seen so far. TV shows are doing marvelous work, but within the film industry, this is the best film on disability made to date, followed by Finding Nemo, Finding Dory and 50 first dates.

While many films fix or change the problem body, the protagonist of The Hunchback of Notre Dame, Quasimodo is left alone in that regard. Instead, it is Frollo who kind of goes through the stages of the problem body before being killed off, and I like this take on it.