EDITOR’S NOTE: This article includes the gratuitous usage of the word “gypsy”. Before keyboard warrior-ing a history of the Romani people, be so kind as to actually read this article past the 3rd paragraph where we address this.
– Dirk Hortensius, Editor and Armed SJW @ Crude-Mirror.com
What is a “Forbidden Remake”?
With Disney cashing in on live action versions of their “renaissance”-era catalogue, more and more people have discussed on the internet on “what will they needlessly re-hash next?”. However, there are some property’s that in all honesty Disney should probably not remake whether the themes are too heavy, or insensitive to a modern and conscious audience.
One of those Disney renaissance films that some have been floated around is The Hunchback of Notre Dame. Released in 1996, the Victor Hugo-inspired film is considered by many fans to be the darkest of Disney’s animated endeavors in terms of its subject matter – religious persecution, racism, and good old sex, lust, and temptation.
Themes Readdressed
Should Hunchback of Notre Dame be remade, there are several critical themes such a remake would have to address. First and foremost – the original film never seemed to address what the “gypsies” actually were and why the church is so out to get them.
The Gypsies
Historically “Gypsies”, or more accurately “Roma”, were descendants of migrants from India and the middle east who came to europe in the 8th century. They were a people who were often ostracized in medieval societies in a manner like the Jews were at that time. To this day Roma have found difficulty to properly integrate into European society.
The animated film only seems to give a rudimentary idea of what a gypsy is and the only formal information we get is out of Judge Frollo, the one person who wants to wipe out the gypsies the most because he believes they are “heathens” whatever that term means. the original makes no attempt into however, in exploring Romani’s beliefs or customs contradicts with the church.
Even Esmerelda herself doesn’t give much of an idea as to what gypsies are as we never get an idea as to what gypsies are, except beggars and at times mystical thieves (the racist stereotype part). Even their secret lair, the “Court of Miracles”, doesn’t offer much insight as they held all their treasure which the film doesn’t make clear whether their treasure is stolen or simply salvaged from their previous plights.
Given that Disney has taken to capitalizing on the “don’t be prejudiced!” message in their more recent projects, it is impossible for Disney not to cash in on this still pervasive trope. However, when making a movie about prejudice it’s important to understand why prejudice exists in the first place.
The Church
As for the religion angle this is something Disney can’t half-ass the same way they half-assed their efforts in the other recent films. Religion and faith have been something both Hollywood and Disney itself has steered away from over the past decade – and for good reason. They don’t want to force a pro- or anti- Christian message in fear of alienating general audiences so it makes sense to remain neutral. With this story and these characters it simply has to be delved into, showing both the good and the bad faith can have. The only good hearted religious character in the original was the arch deacon who only has small appearances, but are significant in that he persuaded Frollo to spare Quasimoto’s life
The characters themselves have to be deep and 3 dimensional and not stale copy’s of animated selves that has happened in their recent remakes. What needs to address that people are complicated. Frollo always convinces himself he is a “righteous man”, and yet always pursued perverse, violent, and sinful acts. His deviations fell especially on his lustful pursuit of Esmerelda – which I don’t think Disney can ever show, at least not all out.
No way this can be G-rated family friendly entertainment.
He’s Got a Hunch
Another concern is the look of Quasimodo into a live action role. Weather it’s going to be CGI or practical effects pulling of the appearance of a deformed being you can feel sympathy for is a challenge. This has to look ugly so you get why people are deterred, but expressive enough for the audience to connect with. Given that Disney has had the habit of vomiting out bad CGI after bad CGI, I don’t trust Disney’s at all in that regard. Practical makeup makes the most sense but there has to be careful attention paid to the face so the expressions can be shown. Quasimodo can be ugly – but not uncanny.
The Dreamcast
All thoughts laid out I’m not saying we shouldn’t see a live-action interpretation. I’m merely saying if we Should get be a retelling of Victor Hugo’s novel it should not be made by Disney, perhaps this is something that HBO, or Sony should attach themselves to. Not some family friendly cash bait.
The Main Players
Unlike Our other Dreamcasts, I’m not giving a detailed analysis this time. But here are the current actors working I can imagine playing.
Quasimodo – Josh Gad
Frollo – Michael McElhatton
Alternate Picks: Micheal Fassbender, Ben Mendelson, Charles Dance, Jeromy Irons
Ezmerelda – Zendaya
Captain Phoebus – Jonathan Groff
Gypsy Narrator – Sacha Baron Cohen
The one casting choice I believe is spot on. Let’s die on this hill.
Gargoyles – Seth Rogan, Benedict Cumberbatch, and Leslie Jones
I wanted to exclude the gargoyles as they would conflict with this show’s dark sinister tone. But because all of us become shills eventually, hear me out:
Super-Duper website! I am loving it!! Will be back later to read some more. I am taking your feeds also.