The Hunchback of Notre Dame and the "Cinderella"-fication of Disney Romances
I admit I don't like the portrayals of the Esmeralda/Phoebus love story in either of the two Disney films or in the stage musical adaptation of the Disney version. In my opinion, the characters' relationship is just another re-imagining of classic "Cinderella", with the only difference that Esmeralda is a Romani woman whom society despises because of her heritage and Phoebus is a noble-born soldier. She dances. He notices her. They get married. How repetitive can these storylines be? It's a trope in many folk tales that commoners (both men and women) marry into royalty. "Cinderella" still gets official retellings, reinterpretations and remakes every few years. At its heart, it is a story about someone who escapes an abusive household in search for a better life and finds love along the way. However, Cinderella, a merchant's daughter, doesn't marry another merchant. She marries a prince. I simply wonder if the fairy tale is so popular because some people, despite their declared focus on mutual love, companionship and understanding in marriage (and in romantic relationships in general), still look at marriage through the prism of social and economic advancement.
Victor Hugo wrote about a dancer who naively imagined that a cruel and philandering but irresistibly handsome soldier was her knight in shining armour. Yet, many official HOND adaptations openly cater to fans of the Phoesme pairing by including "shippy moments" between the characters, and sometimes even by getting the two together. Hollywood filmmakers (including those at Disney) thought, "Let's make Esmeralda's fantasy a reality!"
In some other adaptations, Esmeralda faces an emotional and social choice between two good-looking men: Captain Phoebus and Esmeralda's husband, Pierre Gringoire (yes, the same statuesque poet who sings his siren song of "Le temps des cathédrales" in the French musical). The Disney film version conveniently fuses the male characters' arcs into one, as in Victor Hugo's novel, Esmeralda saves Pierre's life. However, in the same book, Pierre abandons Esmeralda in an hour of need and takes Djali with him. I don't like how Phoebus de Châteaupers or Pierre Gringoire is written in most official/canon versions because of how often those adaptations play up the knight in shining armour fantasy about Phoebus/Pierre while underestimating how much Quasimodo and Esmeralda have in common.
Are only physically beautiful couples allowed to cross and break social barriers for their love?
The thing is, Aladdin managed to win the heart of a princess, with the help of his "Fairy Godfather" Genie. I'm being intentionally vague here because this plot doesn't apply only to the Disney film and stage adaptations of the folk tale. It also includes tropes similar to those in "Cinderella". In this vein, I've always entertained this idea that in the Disney version of The Hunchback of Notre Dame, Quasimodo could be a "Cinderella" to Esmeralda who in turn could be the princess of the Romani (I actually imagine that Esmeralda is Clopin's much younger sister, and Clopin's the leader of the Court of Miracles) and most certainly her people's most beautiful and famous dancer.
It gives one some food for thought that Disney decided to change the tragic fate of The Little Mermaid and made her dream of belonging in the human world (with a bonus in the form of a human prince eventually returning her love) come true. However, when there's a disfigured bell ringer with exactly the same two dreams, the outcome of the official Disney version of the story is this: "You'll be very lucky if the world outside accepts you. However, no one will ever love you as a partner unless... there's a totally random woman who can understand you share her exact trials in life."
I'm not sold on the romance between Quasimodo and Madellaine. I could sum up their relationship as "Cinderella meets Riquet with the Tuft", as the latter fairy tale is about a beautiful princess who feels inadequate and insecure because she's not as bright and eloquent as her twin sister. Everything changes when she meets hunched Prince Riquet whose wisdom and intelligence are known in the entire kingdom...
By the way, until I started writing this post, I had known only about Charles Perrault's version of "Riquet with the Tuft". As this post by @adarkrainbow shows, there's also an earlier, darker and more pessimistic version written by Catherine Bernard.
Madellaine is an original character created by Disney and she's practically the protagonist of The Hunchback of Notre Dame II. She's our new "Cinderella" or Quasimodo 2.0 (only genderswapped and prettier) because her story arc is exactly the same as the bell ringer's (to find self-worth and love while leaving one's life as an abuse victim behind). I said I'm not a fan of her relationship with Quasimodo because (1) this repetition of storylines bores me, and (2) I don't understand why Disney creatives previously went to great lengths to drastically change the characterisation of Esmeralda compared to the novel and presented her as someone Quasimodo was very clearly romantically interested in, only to then change their minds and practically decide that maybe it would be a better idea if Quasi fell in love with someone who resembled Hugoverse!Esmeralda or female!Jean Valjean more. This is, unfortunately, very inconsistent with the first Disney HOND film.
I admit Esmeralda's naivety and shallowness irritate me in Victor Hugo's novel. I don't find her likeable and compelling there. She's always afraid of Quasimodo, even after all the kindness he showed her. On the other hand, I sympathise with both characters because they end up as tragic victims of a cruel system created by people who would never accept anyone who was different.
I'm disappointed the Disney sequel creators went from a "dark-haired sultry and assertive beauty" character to a "shy and quirky blonde" type. For context, here's an excerpt from a comment I wrote on Reddit a few months ago.
[I]f we look at both Disney HOND films, they're another example of the Veronica-and-Bettyfication of (potential) love interests for the protagonist. (It's a reference to characters from Archie Comics.) In short, the HOND films by Disney are yet another take on the idea that a gentler, meeker and younger/less experienced female character (Madellaine in this case) should be seen as the preferable and safer option for a romantic partner over the female character who looks sultrier and who's more mature and more outspoken and popular (Esmeralda). There's this puritanical implication that the more visually appealing character might potentially destroy the male protagonist's innocence.
I really wanted to see Quasimodo rebel against Frollo's teachings about sexual desire and the position of women in religion and society. To me, Madellaine in the sequel film unfortunately does look like she's just come out of a possible sculpted or painted portrait of a modest saint.
Another thing is that in canon Madellaine has low self-esteem and Quasimodo is disabled. In my opinion, that's a very stereotypical but still popular pairing combo in love stories involving disabled characters. This is why I'm very glad this pairing is canon only in this one HOND sequel. Can't Quasi really be with someone both beautiful and bold?
Potentially, I like this idea of Madellaine passionately kissing Quasimodo, then grabbing him by the collar and taking him to one of the tents in the square for some incredible quality time... 😉 Both sexual innuendo and a nice shout-out to the time when Quasimodo landed in Esmeralda's tent during the Feast of Fools.
However, I think Madellaine and Captain Phoebus are much better as a romantic match. You know, opposites attract.
I have always preferred "Beauty and the Beast" over "Cinderella". I've recently read this LiveJournal essay by aikaterini in which the writer interprets the Beast's final transformation as a metaphor for the prince's own new-found love for himself and a new sense in his life. It made me wonder, "Why are the prince's self-love and true form still symbolised by conventional beauty? Does he really have to be a picture of perfection to be and feel accepted?" In reference to my own Tumblr post from July where I wrote about Esmeralda and Quasimodo as a type of BATB pairing, I can honestly say I support and believe in the "monster paramour" outcome. In truth, I like this idea that someone gorgeous feels genuine romantic love, desire and acceptance for someone who isn't physically attractive by general society's standards. What if the prince had physical deformities and disabilities and was haughty, cruel and bitter because he would initially feel inferior due to his appearance? As a form of punishment for his behaviour, the prince would be transformed into an actually monstrous Beast (like the one in the 1991 Disney film) by the Enchantress. I think in this case, the prince's true form would be that of a hunchback, but at the end of the story, when he becomes human again, he would finally be able to say, "I like myself as I am, with the body I have, flaws and all." He would feel more comfortable in his skin at last. In my opinion, he doesn't even have to be a prince, in the spirit of my desire for "Belle" and her "Beast" to be social equals.
As far as the Disney version goes, Quasimodo and Esmeralda
Image source: The Hunchblog (source)
have always reminded me of these two:
Yes, in my imagination, Quasimodo and Esmeralda also get married in the future.
discoholicmusic
yousharknotpass
origamiaround
kaledo-art
janainaart
stormborns
