Frollo’s lust for Esmeralda is a large theme in the movie.
Hugo the gargoyle flirts with a male goat.
Esmeralda does a tame version of a pole dance in the “Topsy Turvy” musical number.
During the same sequence, Clopin makes a brief reference to “strumpets” (prostitutes).
Frollo captures Esmeralda in the cathedral and as he twists her arm, he sniffs her hair. After she asks him what he is doing, she then says “I know what you were imagining!” His reply is that as a gypsy, she knows no other way than to “twist the truth and cloud the mind with unholy thoughts.”
During “Hellfire”, Frollo says he is purer than the “common, vulgar, weak, licentious crowd.”
During a musical number entitled “Hellfire”, he sees a curvaceous apparition of Esmeralda and sings “…this fire in my skin, this burning desire is turning me to sin…” and he states “…be mine or you will burn…”
Esmeralda pulls a scarf from her cleavage in two different scenes.
When Quasimodo enters Esmeralda’s tent, he accidentally pulls a curtain and Esmeralda is shown from behind as being topless for a brief second, then she quickly puts on her robe after noticing Quasimodo behind her.

Phoebus and Esmeralda share a kiss twice in the film.


Film review:Translated by www.rabudo-ru.com


Of course, the audience’s favorite “adaptation” is “faithful adaptation”.

It is not necessary to be faithful to all the details, but must be faithful to the “spirit” of the original, which is basically the direction of the adaptation of all literary works. The little mermaid in Andersen’s fairy tales gave up her life for love and finally got an immortal soul, which itself is a very rare drama material for animated films. The tragedy of the little mermaid is no more difficult to accept than early films such as Bambi the deer, but Disney’s “adaptation” is puzzling and an unforgivable waste. It is an outright “castration original”.

Seeing the little mermaid married the prince, I immediately threw the VCD into the trash can.

But the bell tower Freak is an exception.

You can explore the ideology of Notre Dame de Paris from many angles, but you can’t spare one thing: This is a “romantic” work depicting dirty, ugly, dirty and dark people’s hearts. None of the characters in the play is not manipulated by naked desire, and none of the characters’ psychology is not distorted. The contradictory blade points directly at all levels of society. In fact, Notre Dame de Paris is a rather cruel work. Not to mention that Disney had not started the precedent of limited animation at that time, such “original spirit” was obviously a thorny material for Disney. “Notre Dame de Paris” can not be “faithfully adapted” into Disney animation.

But this cartoon is the most wonderful adaptation of Disney films I have ever seen.

As always, the hunchback is arranged as a typical role of “eager to achieve a goal but in a very environment” (usually when the character sings for the first time, he will sing the end of the film). Of course, his goal has been achieved in the end, but his goal this time is not to be a beautiful woman, but to “go downstairs and be with everyone”. In the film, the hunchback finally gave full play to the high integrity of the beauty of becoming a man. In return, the beauty introduced the freak to the public, and everyone was happy at last.

You can say that it is “random adaptation”, which just borrows a small part of the original material to play at will.

At first glance, this statement is not wrong. The story is really far from the novel. Looking at the values of the whole film: it actually emphasizes the desire and necessity of vulnerable groups to be accepted by the public. All the details are spread out around this value. In terms of values, the hunchback’s goal is actually “grade decline”. In a sense, it has been announced that his “love goal” in the film will only be a derivative and will not be realized. This is one of the low endings in the story branch, but because he has more basic goals to achieve, and the low ending of “love failure” has actually become the step for him to achieve the highest goal, this failure is not so tragic and fatalistic, and its nature is roughly similar to the ending of the original work of the little mermaid.

“The desire and necessity for vulnerable groups to be accepted by the public” is not in the original book. As the background of the story, there is no need to emphasize this in literary works.

Disney’s real purpose of adding this pen is to emphasize that “the princess can’t fall in love with the little boy sweeping the chimney”. Although the film has a lot of ink on the hunchback’s secret love and is quite moving, Disney finally rejected it completely. Of course, the handsome captain had to be reformed into a positive hero to make their love story seem reasonable. The usual education tells us that “the captain with handsome appearance is the loser of the monster with beautiful heart on the battlefield of love”. After reading the original work, we find that it is all nonsense – the beauty has not forgotten the “handsome captain” until she dies. What Disney did was just to clarify the hidden values in the original book: the only emotion for the beauty to the monster was a trace of sympathy, compassion and despair. She didn’t love the monster for a second. On the surface, this is the film’s boldest “adaptation” or even “subversion” of the original, but in fact, it only captures the focus of the ideology that is most ashamed of recognition in the original.

It affirms the necessity of the acceptance of vulnerable groups, but also clearly draws the boundary of privilege: “you can try to be an ordinary person, but you can never have all the rights of ordinary people.” This value is actually very bold in modern times, especially in the civilized society that preaches “equality between men and women” and “vulnerable privileges” — because this boundary is almost well known, but no one dares to recognize it.

Among many animated films, the bell tower Freak is almost as shocking as Notre Dame in Paris. It forces the audience (young audience) to realize a real to almost cruel value, and promotes it in a very moving form.

Under this premise, the change of the attributes of “Captain” and other supporting roles is taken for granted: the concept of “good and evil” in the film must be in the traditional sense, because there is no so-called “embodiment of beauty” in the original work, and Disney can’t come up with an animation full of anti angles. Therefore, it becomes necessary for the “Captain” to follow the “judge” to consciously resist until he reaches the opposite of the “judge” position. All other roles in the film are shaped around this silly captain. Once this role is removed, the film will lose the most important clue throughout the whole play and the fullness of role shaping. The story development of this role also makes the film finally have a traditional face of confrontation between good and evil. This seemingly random “adaptation” is actually of great significance to the newly constructed story and cannot be changed.

It is commendable that there are no thin and iconic characters like those in the usual Disney cartoons in this film. As the “only” villain in the film, judge “Frollo” is vividly portrayed: almost all people who have seen the film are moved by his affectionate monologue by the fireplace. His devotion to religion and his painful psychological struggle are as full and multidimensional as his evil voice. No matter what you think of this role, there is a message you will certainly feel: no matter how heinous a person is, he will believe that his soul is pure and what he does is right and sacred.

This also belongs to the promotion of rare values in animated films.

Even the description of the psychology of small citizens is also vivid: when a strange man is led out of the dark Notre Dame by a beautiful woman, people are still stunned. Until a little girl goes up and touches his head, everyone is happy – in fact, Disney can let people burst into a burst of cheers at this time, The result is that the spirit of “the emperor’s new clothes” shines again. Such details are very rich in the film. On the surface, they seem very warm and moving, but in fact, they imply a “mockery” of the psychology of small citizens, an embarrassing truth.

The literary masterpiece Notre Dame de Paris has reached a perfect form of artistic expression. No film can compare with the original. After abandoning the wanton description driven by desire, the evil theory of sex and all kinds of sharp criticism of social ills, Notre Dame de Paris has nothing left, so there is no need to expect how earth shaking Disney, which “sells joy”, can be. Because Disney’s creative purpose of “suitable for all ages” is unchanged, what really deserves attention and appreciation is Disney’s Screenwriter’s bold exploration outside the thunder pool. Whether the film is “faithful adaptation” or “random adaptation” is not a question worthy of discussion, but there is no doubt: the animated film “strange man of the clock tower” explores the precious materials of the original work “within the allowable scope” and gives a deep-seated dynamic expression. She fully reflects the fundamental differences between the two different media. She even makes the most of Disney works so far. For example, no one will think that an animated character image is terrible, so the design of this abnormal character image can be particularly bold; No one will be surprised that an animated character suddenly sings a song, so this affectionate singing makes the character look particularly vivid and moving. From a technical point of view, the bell tower Freak is also very excellent and creative: the “Scene scheduling” similar to the paragraph in which Quasimodo saved Esmeralda from the fire is almost revolutionary – it was very difficult for the real-life film to make such a scene.

The music of this film belongs to the painstaking work of Alan manken. The superb performance of a choir with hundreds of people created the peak moment.

As we all know, the bell tower Freak is the second lowest box office work in Disney’s animation. Many people who love the original hate the film, but her overall tone of Gothic style, deep and multifaceted role modeling, bold and frank values and excellent innovative artistic techniques make her comparable with other masterpieces of the Walt Era.

I still think she is the only nearly perfect masterpiece of modern Disney animation.

complaint

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here