Quasimodo during Out There Disney Hunchback of Notre Dame
Thirty years ago today Disney’s “The Hunchback of Notre Dame” was released in movie theaters.
Its legacy, not to be confused with the album of the same name, is fairly mixed. It lauded for being Disney’s darkest work that deals with more serious issues. It’s also criticized for its attempt of levity with gargoyles. The gargoyles especially Hugo adds cognitive dissonance to the narrative and tone. Frollo and “Hellfire” are praised for being one of best Disney villains and “Hellfire” is considered by many to be the best villain song of all times not just in Disney movies. It’s also criticized for its representation of the Romani people as well as Esmeralda picking Phoebus over Quasimodo as well as hyper sexualizing Esmeralda.
It’s simultaneously an underrated gem yet the most well-known film adaptation of the novel.
Lately I’ve been rewatching “The Gilded Age,” which I love. One of the great things about that show is the abundance of Broadway actors that they cast, including Patrick Page who played Frollo for the Disney Musical revision version at The LaJolla and PaperMills Playhouses. Now it’s completely a wild pipe-dream to even think about casting a Broadway actor for a version of Notre Dame de Paris but here we are. So might I submit for consideration for Phoebus from Notre Dame de Paris, Derek Klena.
This suggestion was given back in March 2024, I’m just a forgetful procrastinator.
Calahan Skogman
Calahan Skogman’s name does pops up for Phoebus fan-casts, and does seems that people are spilt on him but then again Leo Tolstoy has two votes for Phoebus so I don’t think mycast is the best metric or maybe Tolstoy would have been a great Phoebus, we will never know.
Also this suggestion is more skewed towards the Disney version of Phoebus which is a blond romanesque aesthetic, owning to his name rather than the novel. The novel is rather vague on Phoebus’ looks other than he’s handsome and has Burgundian mustache (Book 2 Chapter 4.) However it’s worth pointing out that most, if not all, Phoebus actors prior to the Disney version had darker hair and Phoebus actors post Disney are blond even though there are all but two them (1997 and 1999). So Skogman’s fan-cast is Disney live action version minded which most of the fan-casts seem to be anyway.
Calahan Skogman as Matthias Helvar & Danielle Gilligan as Nina Zenik, Netflix’s Shadow and Bone (2021)
So would Calahan Skogman make a good opinion for Phoebus – Disney version or otherwise? As of right now Skogman is only really known for his role of Matthias Helvar in Netflix’s Shadow and Bone. Oddly Skogman is one of the only actors in that cast who is American though he using a “Scandinavian-like” accent. Side note still salty about the show and the spin-off getting canceled. Also side note, the first time I watched Shadow and Bone, I loved Matthias and Nina’s (Danielle Gilligan) storyline.
Matthias is not at all like Phoebus, he starts off a by-the-book prudish guy who falls in love with the enemy. He also quite religious and is falsely imprisoned – seems a bit more like Esmeralda the Phoebus. However one shouldn’t judge an actor based on one role. Is Skogman convincing a Matthias? Yes. Does he seem like he can act? Yes, he has MFA in acting so I should hope he can. So he more than likely could play a version of Phoebus.
However as previously mentioned the suggestion for Skogman as Phoebus seems to be for a Disney version Phoebus which is quite different from the novel as Disney Phoebus is nobler/heroic and has moral compass. Given his role as Matthias and Skogman’s build and looks he defiantly has a good overall look for a “Disney-like” version of Phoebus. I hesitate to say the Disney live-action version since that version has been shelved but some versions of Phoebus are depicted more favorably than the novel so he could work well in the role and he deserve another high-profile role.
Calahan Skogman
So yes, Calahan Skogman would be an great pick for Phoebus. But what do you think?
I did consider doing a post on fan-casting using the Shadow and Bone cast, much like the one I did for the Bridgerton cast. Still might but as was previously stated I’m a procrastinator.
Also you can leave suggestions for a fan-casting in the comments.
I have been obsessed lately with Jenny Nicholson’s video on Pandora- The World of Avatar at Disney World’s Animal Kingdom. Also she drops a Hunchback reference, so if you haven’t seen that video, go see it. I have seen it multiple times and it’s and it’s like an hour long and I have no attention span.
In Jenny’s video she talks about the history of Animal Kingdom and how there was supposed to a medieval fantasy section called Beastly Kingdom as the concept of the park was explore animals of the present, past and myth but they ran out of money and went for the Dinosaur part. Long story short, after Disney lost out on Harry Potter to Universal, the management of Disney went for another cultural significant movie franchise experience that was insanely immersive, so they went with Avatar, not the Airbender one, the Dances with Wolves in space.
Unlike Harry Potter or Star Wars, the buzz and staying power of Avatar haven’t held up over time so it’s odd that Disney just went for this concept but the land looks really cool and does speak to the fantasy element and conservation angle. But it also of speaks to Disney’s influencing power. It maybe a generalization but kids haven’t seen the movie, it was rated PG-13, came out nearly a decade ago and is really only good in an imax setting but Disney went for it and kids can now adopt Banshee puppets for $65 dollars a pop, $90 if you include the perch. FYI I think the Banshee puppets are cute.
It really fascinates me that Disney pushed so hard on this project and yet a lot of their own properties get ignored within the parks, like Hunchback. So I have been on a slight deep drive into Disney parks, learning what I can about them, mostly via Youtube videos since I have no plans as right now to go to any of the parks.
First let’s talk about the Characters, the Face characters, though I guess Frollo and Quasimodo are not technically Face Characters but all I mean is characters that you meet. The Question is can you even see/meet/greet any of Hunchback Characters at any of the Disney parks worldwide?
According to Fill my Passport, you can but not a Disney Land or Disney World. This information is a bit old as it’s from 2017.
According to Fill my Passport Quasimodo makes extremely rare appearance at Disneyland Paris. Esmeralda can often see at Tokyo Disney and once in a while at Disneyland Paris. Frollo can be see at Halloween at Tokyo Disney. He used at appear at Disney USA parks during Halloween but not so much now. Clopin can be see at Disneyland Paris. And Phoebus doesn’t show up anymore. Fill my Passport as talks about other rare Disney characters in the Disney park so do check out that blog.
However videos from a year ago show a rare meet and greet with Esmeralda and Clopin. It seemed to have occurred at DVC Moonlight Magic Special Event during after hours in the Magic Kingdom, in early 2018.
Here is a meet and greet with Phoebus from 3 years ago at the France pavilion at Epcot.
Hunchback characters meet and greets seem to be extremely rare these days so if you see a hunchback character walking around try to see them, if you like that experience.
Clairemarie Osta as Esmeralda & Karl Paquette as Phoebus, Roland Petit Notre Dame de Paris
Phoebus is an interesting character as he whatever a given version needs him to be. He can be a good guy, bad guy, romantic lead, asshole, just sort of there, or non-existent.
Although the ballet does go out of it way to showcase Phoebus’ attentions on other women who appear to be prostitutes or at least tavern wenches or maybe just whores so either Phoebus has a bad seduction game or he is a massive slut. I would say he is a slut.
Given that his function is to add to the tragedy of Esmeralda and torture for Frollo, he doesn’t need to have a deeper character. He does what he needs for the purposes of the ballet’s narrative.
Fleur de Lys’s most interesting function in Hunchback is to act of Esmeralda’s foil. If Esmeralda is dreamy and romantic towards Phoebus then Fleur de Lys has knowledge of his tendencies for wantonness.
Hetty Baynes as Fleur de Lys & Richard Morant as Phoebus de Chateaupers
In this version’s case the Esmeralda is earthy yet childish. Many people call her “girl” and Phoebus calls her “child.”So this Fleur de Lys is prim and for lack of a better word, an unfeeling bitch.She also seems very sexually overt, like she always ready for Phoebus.It just makes her more interesting than a straight depiction of the character.
Hetty Baynes as Fleur de Lys
I want to mention really quickly that the juxtaposition between Fleur de Lys and Esmeralda leads to a really great edit, and this many be the only time I mention the editing in this version because there is not much to discuss.
As Esmeralda torture is going on the movie cuts to Fleur de Lys and Phoebus. Phoebus is feeding her grapes. This is symbolic of pleasure. Fleur de Lys’ mother enters the scene and tells Phoebus his name has been brought up in a witchcraft case. Fleur de Lys questions how can that be and he makes an excuse saying it was nothing. He then rests his hands near Fleur de Lys’ mouth and she bites his fingers. It then cuts to Esmeralda screaming as she being torture. Esmeralda’s scream starts over the Fleur de Lys’ scene before it cuts away, or a sound bridge.
Hetty Baynes as Fleur de Lys
Fleur de Lys is one of the few highlights of this version. Her bitchiness is just so refreshing in an otherwise soulless adaptation.
Ultimately, there is not that much to say about this version’s treatment of Phoebus. He is book-accurate. He’s a soldier and a slut, that’s it for his characterization. He makes it clear he’s only marrying Fleur de Lys for her money though they are well suited for each our but that could just be the actor’s chemistry.
That’s really all there is to say on this version of Phoebus.
Sorry for yet another video, personal life and stuff.
Just a few reactions of this video;
– I really do want to analyze Fleur-de-Lys’ costume. I haven’t sat down and REALLY thought about but I’m not sure how to feel about. Of course the costume I REALLY want to discuss is Frollo’s, I have some words for that one.
– Not sold on Martin Giroux as Phoebus. Granted I haven’t gone through this cast with a fine tooth comb to really assess their performances but he just seems from this vid to be on the generic side. To be fair few Phoebus performer stand out so it could be the role.
I feel like I’m in some weird ring of hell. A Ring of Hell where my sole torture is rewatching this version of Hunchback. I can’t tell you in how many ways I just loathe this version and it’s not even in a logical, it’s visceral, it strikes me down to my core. I hate everything about this version and it hurts my soul in so many ways that I’m not sure I can quantify anymore why it’s a puke stain on the already dirty carpet of Hunchback version aimed at children. I think the main reason I can’t articulate why it’s terrible is because it has the same problems as every other Disney knock-off versions, at this point it’s a case of “second verse same of the first.” Everything is just the worst but you came here to read something that in some way resembles a review or you just click on a picture or you’re lost and have already clicked away but whatever the case the subject line has spoken and it’s not even trying to be clickbait so let’s get this over with.
Esmeralda and Quasimodo,
As is standard with these knock-off Disney direct to video movies the animation super low budget. The use of repeat animation for extras to pad out the run time is beyond annoying and I might not have minded it so much if the movie didn’t start that way. It takes nearly three minutes to get to Esmeralda awkwardly dancing about, three minutes of just nothing but random town’s people laughing and clapping on repeat. In addition to animation being stilled, awkward and mostly on repeat most of the shots are at flat angles. There is nothing interesting or memorable about the way the shots are composed to even hold a remote sense of attention.
Frollo
But again I’m not done, though I wish I was, this will never end. There is the color design of this thing. If you think I was joking about calling this movie being like puke you were wrong. The color this movie most likes to use is a weird dark yellow color that resembles vomit. They also use a green that looks like another shade of puke. I’m not kidding this movie has an ugly and all-round unpleasant color palette. If they were trying I guess they were trying to make it warm but they failed, they failed hard.
Esmeralda meets Phoebus
Then there is the character design. Can you believe I didn’t really touch in the character designs yet? Both Phoebus and Esmeralda are drawn to be the prettiest that the shitty animation will allow. This of course gives them no visual interest so being “beautiful” by this movie’s standard is a mute point. Though the best line in this movie is Frollo describing Esmeralda’s eyes as “shining brighter than the most beautiful stars in the night sky.” Too bad they don’t.
Quasimodo with his doves
Quasimodo is your typical cute, nice, deformed design that you see over and over again. He is very bulbous and round making him “cute.” Which is like standard in character design round is good and angles are bad.
Frollo
Speaking of angles there is Frollo. And he is yet another case of “second verse same as the first. Agian he looks like a mix of Disney Gaston and Jafar. Why? Who are they even coping at this point? This is like the third Frollo to look like this? He doesn’t look like either Disney Frollo or the 1939 version. Is this a case of parallel thought between three stupid Disney Knock-off versions, where they combined two popular Disney villains or did this version copy Secret of the Hunchback of Enchanted Tales? Both options scream laziness. Though to be fair this version did take Frollo’s design beyond merely combining Gaston and Jafar and instead cross that combination with a fish.
Esmeralda
This version is just entirely forgettable with its abysmal animation, boring flat angles, cringe-inducing color palette and lazy character design. The only thing I can recall about this movie is how forgettable this version is and that is why I have to rewatch it thus prolonging the torture of the ring of hell I now occupy.
As par for the course with this unholy shit of a Hunchback version, Phoebus is just boring and nice. This does set him apart from the 1939 version where Phoebus was slut who wanted to bone Esmeralda before Frollo actually killed him. Alas, the only traits of Phoebus that this version has is his looks and his occupation. If you want to get a little more technical, this Phoebus does meet Esmeralda at a party like in the 1923 version but that scene was just get Esmeralda arrested.
Phoebus with La Petition
Phoebus in this version is a combination of Phoebus and Gringoire. It’s a bit like the Disney version but far less subtle. Phoebus basically takes Gringoire’s role from the 1939 version where he makes a pamphlet thing to free her. This only makes sense in the simplification of the story and character as the movie gives no reason or logic as to why a rich soldier would come to this method of political defiance. Was he modern in his thinking? If he is, the movie gives no examples of it like in a line of dialogue or some action. He tries to arrange an appeal and that it till he is shown leaving the print shop with the pamphlet/leaflet thing. They couldn’t even have had a scene of him writing it because the movie needed a scene of Quasimodo shouting “No” awkwardly. Nope becomes from having a plan to having it printed along with a long petition with signatures. How much time took place? No sense in asking for logic now.
Esmeralda meets Phoebus
Basically this version of Phoebus could have been slightly interesting in that it would have been a scholarly Phoebus but the intent of Phoebus was expedience for lazy narrative, nothing more.
