Headscratchers / The Hunchback of Notre Dame (Disney)

aka: The Hunchback Of Notre Dame

Reality of the Gargoyles

• The gargoyles: is Quasimodo imagining them, or are they genuinely animate? Frollo's crazy when the waterspout animates, but the scene where Hugo moves for Djali really complicates this one.
  • One theory is that the gargoyles are a combination of Unreliable Narrator and Imaginary Friend, it's all in the hunchback's head.
    • It's assumed that Clopin is telling the story, but he obviously couldn't have known as much as he did since he wasn't there for most of the story. He must have asked Quasimodo for details, and Quasi mentioned the gargoyles doing these sorts of things, since to Quasi they would have been "real". They may not have done any of that at all, and Clopin is only telling the story as he was told.
  • The sequel confirms that the Gargoyles are real magical sapient creatures, and not Quasi's imagination; At the end, the Gargoyles are sad to lose Quasimodo and hope that Madellaine will take care of him. Then Madellaine winks at the Gargoyles and tells them she'll take good care of Quasi, causing the shocked Gargoyles do to a literal Jaw Drop.
  • They're imaginary when Rule of Drama is in effect and real when Rule of Funny is in effect.
  • Historically, gargoyle statues were used in Gothic architecture because they were believed to ward off evil spirits; we see that idea with the one that "came to life" and caused Frollo to fall to his death, but perhaps Victor, Hugo, and Laverne were brought to life by a higher power act as a sort of "guardian angel" for Quasi?
• The film is set in 1482. At one point, Laverne sends a flock of birds into the air, calling out "Fly, my pretties!" in homage to the Wicked Witch sending out the flying monkeys in 1939's classic The Wizard of Oz movie. Also Hugo, at one point, makes machine gun noises while spitting rocks.
  • You know they did stuff like this in Aladdin and everyone just thought it was funny, right?
    • Yes but Aladdin was at its heart, a lighthearted adventure where comedy like that was appropriate and done often. Not only is that type of humor not used very often in Hunchback, it's completely contradictory to the film's tone and feel. Making this moment very bizarre.
    • Not to mention in Aladdin there is the excuse of the Genie being magical and thus able to time travel to the future. The gargoyles (whether on their own or as extensions of Quasi) have no way to do this, unless the theory is correct that they may be animated by angels who, like the Genie, can travel through time.

Quasimodo's Color

• If Quasimodo's mother is Roma, why does he appear white? Did she find Quasi after his (white) parents abandoned him and took him in as her own?
  • Consider also that he probably doesn't see that much sun locked up in the tower all day.
    • Yeah, but he still has red hair.
  • Perhaps the father wasn't Roma.
    • Quasimodo's parents are never mentioned in the book - all we know is that Romani people at one point had Quasimodo in their possession before they stole a normal looking baby and left him in its place. So no, there was never any reason to assume that he was Romani or would look like one.
    • Why steal a baby they don't want?
    • The movie still shows Quasi's parents (and has very, very little to do with the book, seeing as it's an animated family movie).
    • Actually, all we see is a Romani woman looking after him, and two Romani men travelling with her. We assume she is his mother, but nothing confirms this. She says to him "Hush, little one." If she was intended by the writers to be his mother, they easily could have had her say "My child." Frollo is the only one who says that the gypsy woman was Quasi's mother, and it wasn't like she and Frollo knew each other well.
    • Also, nothing confirms either of the men as Quasi's father either. One even says "Shut it up!" (hardly the sort of thing you'd expect a father to say about his child), while the other is more worried about being spotted than comforting the baby.
    • Maybe the woman and man spoke about him the way they did because of the nerve-racking potential of being caught by Frollo and would've spoken more affectionately about him if it weren't in the heat of the moment?
  • Maybe said appearance is, for lack of a gentler way of putting it, his deformity. His parents aren't hunchbacked or squish-faced, but he is. So maybe the light skin and hair is just part of the deal.
    • It's genetically possible for two white parents to have a black child. It's not too implausible for Quasimodo to have recieved red hair, white skin (which is also explained by him remaining mostly indoors) and his physical deformations from an unlucky inheritance of particular genes.
  • There's a theory that Quasimodo's real parents, who were white, probably abandoned him and the Romani woman we saw in the beginning took him in, intending to raise him as her own.
  • Seriously, all this discussion and no one has suggested that Quasi might have been stolen? Sure, he's deformed, but that didn't mean his real family would toss him out indefinitely unless they really were cruel. Romani people back then were said to steal babies for revenge because of how they were treated and how their reputation was slandered by just about everybody.
    • Uh, that was most likely entirely made up like all the other racist stereotypes about them.
    • While it may not be common, it probably does indeed happen from time to time. Heck, in the movie, the criminals of Paris were Romani.
    • But child stealing does happen in the original story, so it is possible that the film makers were influenced by that.
    • At the time when the original story was written, people weren't too concerned about political correctness. Flashforward to the 1990's in America when that was a completely different story. It would have been pretty egregious for Disney to promote offensive stereotypes that late.
    • It's highly unlikely that she would have given her life for a kidnapped child.
    • Especially one that was kidnapped soley to spite society.
    • And no, back in those days someone deformed likely would have been abandoned, if not out of cruelty/believing it to be a monster than because the child wouldn't have been of any use in doing chores/running the farm; only deformed children born into noble families might have had a chance, but even there the deformity would have been seen as a black mark against the family's bloodline. Many even saw such people as a punishment from God for sin/hubris. So only an outcast would have considered adopting and raising him, or a more noble and caring churchman like the Archdeacon who truly believed everyone was a child of God.
  • It could be a combination of two of the things listed here: having a white dad along with staying locked up in the bell tower all day.
  • One could argue that the movie actually does hint at the fact that the Romani woman was Quasimodo's real mother. This might be a bit easy to miss, but the movie clearly mentions that four Romani's were smuggled into Paris. There are only three adults, so the fourth gypsy that was being referred to was Quasimodo. That doesn't necessarily mean that the woman taking care of Quasimodo didn't simply consider herself his mother, and considered him a Romani, but it is worth noting.
  • The stage show explains that Quasimodo is actually Claude Frollo's nephew - Jehan, Claude's brother, fell in love with a Romani woman. So he's half-Romani but passing for white.
  • On a more meta note, the main reason could be just straight up white-washing Quasimodo to look white because having a brown, disabled, physically "deformed" lead would be too radical for Disney, especially seeing as there's already a socially aware woman of colour as the romantic lead. Also, symbolically red hair is typified as a marking of an "Other" and works nicely with his green shirt and both injected natural "earthy" tones into the mostly stone grey and gold palette of the Notre Dame interior.
    • Quasimodo is described as a redhead in the original book, along with the hump on his back and even the large wart nearly concealing one of his eyes. None of this was an invention of Disney.
  • If Quasimodo looked too much like a Romani person, his real heritage would've become clear in-universe too quickly.
  • There's also a likelihood that Quasimodo's father might have been white. The man who is with Quasimodo's mother could have been her (new) lover or a relative.
    • To answer a point, the Roma/Romani IRL do vary as far as skin and hair colors go and, in the movie, at a later point, we do see other Roma with lighter skintones than Esmerelda, so, it's entirely possible that Disney's incarnation of Quasimodo is of Roma/Romani descent.

Molten Metal

• What was such a large cauldron of molten metal doing on the belfry? They would mold and repair the bells somewhere in a special workshop, wouldn't they?
  • Perhaps the bells are repaired on-site? They're pretty freaking huge, and can't be that easy to transport to a separate workshop.
  • According to the book, Quasimodo defended the cathedral with supplies and tools from a wall repair during the day before the evening when Notre-Dame would've otherwise been overrun by the tramps. IT IS noteworthy that Quasimodo did pour lead onto some of the tramps and he DID drop the beam off the edge, which, true to the book, was used as a battering ram.
  • Lead is useless in bellmaking, but it was put to use in cathedrals for roofs and stained-glass windows.

Ending Questions

• At the end of the movie, wouldn't the steps of the church have been destroyed by the molten lead? One would assume that that crap would have been hot enough to melt the stairs away.
  • No way. Those are stone steps. Molten lead has a really low melting point, not even close to that of stone.
• Also, at the end of the film, what happened to all the guards who carried out Frollo's sinister deeds? I know a majority of them probably died during that final battle scene, but what about the ones who survived? Was it like in Germany following the end of WWII and the Holocaust, where many former Nazi leaders were tried for war crimes and hanged or imprisoned for life?
  • I'd say they were most likely arrested and handed over to the King to stand trial.
  • It would have been a shame to waste all those prison wagons.
  • It's doubtful anything was done to them at all. Frollo was a genocidal megalomaniac, but his troops were duly recognized officers of the established authority, carrying out the will of the guy in charge. In short, they were just following orders....
    • They'll redeem themselves with a more "respectfull" individual serving as their leader.

Frollo's Speed

• After Frollo attempts to have Phoebus executed, Phoebus steals a horse, rides to the bridge at least some hundreds meters from the start, gets shot and falls to the river. Immediately after he submerges that spot begins to get showered with arrows by soldiers from directly above. How the hell did they manage to get there in a matter of seconds and even bring the old man Frollo with them? Did they teleport?
  • Really fast horses?
  • Also, don't forget that Frollo is more fit than you'd think. He did manage to chop through stone with a longsword, after all.

Phoebus's Speed

• After Frollo falls to his death, Esmeralda drops Quasimodo, but he is caught by Phoebus. How the hell did Phoebus get into the cathedral? Just as soon as Frollo and the soldiers were able to break the door open, the molten lead falls upon them, causing the soldiers to flee, leaving Frollo as the only one able to get in. At what point was Phoebus even able to get in there?
  • He probably climbed in the same way Frollo did during the fight.
  • Note that in the middle of Frollo stalking Quasi and Esmeralda on the balcony, there's a brief shot of Phoebus down in the square, looking up when someone shouts and draws attention to what's happening on the cathedral. This same scene doesn't seem to show any lead around the building, so presumably enough of it has cooled/flowed away that it's both safe to enter and there's a path somewhere through it—enough to get him to the same hole in the doors Frollo chopped his way through.
  • Or Phoebus ducked around the side of the cathedral and went in through the back door. (It's a wonder no one else considered doing that.)

Why kill him now?

• After Phoebus frees the Miller's family, Frollo sentences him to death, and then has the other guards hold him down and pull out a sword, ready to behead him on the spot. Now wouldn't he take him to the Palace of Justice to torture him first?
  • He likely wanted to make an example out of Phoebus to his men, especially considering one of them would likely be promoted to Phoebus's position once he had been killed.
  • And Frollo is already going quite mad in his obsession. Sure a few weeks ago he may have brought Phoebus to the Palace of Justice. But now that he's so riled up about Esmeralda, he opts to make a public spectacle. And maybe he thought that taking Phoebus back to the city would be an unnecessary delay - thus allowing Esmeralda to escape even further?
  • Not to mention that Frollo expected better from Phoebus, but sees him as much a disappointment as the previous captain. No wonder he wants to execute him personally.
  • It was also Frollo's means of publicity. (how it worked in the 1480's thats is..) Both buring the cottage and Pheobus rescuing the family drew attention from locals. In doing away with Pheobus immediately afterwards, Frollo is saying to everyone "Don't get any ideas people! This man may have saved this family, but he won't be doing the same for you!"

Guard Knowledge

• How did the guards know Esmeralda escaped Notre Dame? They couldn't go in without violating church refuge. Pheobus went in and got harshly dismissed by Quasimodo, so the more loyal guards would have met a similar issue with the Archdecon or other priests. Did they dress as church going peasants to investigate, or did they jump to the coincidently accurate (but for the sake of the public, dangerous!) conclusion exclusively by the "Gypsies don't do well inside stone walls" stereotype?
  • Maybe someone spotted her in the street and reported it? It's not just Frollo and his guards who are prejudiced to the gypsies. Perhaps some concerned parent caught a glimpse of Esmerelda before she disguised herself and ran to tell the guards.
  • Some viewers believe that the Solider bringing Frollo the news is actually God or an angel sent by him to give Frollo one final opportunity to let go of his sins and redeem himself. the form is that of the rounder Thug Solider but the voice doesn’t match. plus the “she’s nowhere in the cathedral, she’s gone” only God would be privy to that kind of information because let’s face it pious or not no canon or archdeacon is going to standby and allow soldiers poke around and turn things upsidedown without so much as a “by your leave”.
  • The guard specifically states that Esmeralda is "nowhere in the cathedral". I always assumed the archdeacon found her missing and, knowing Frollo to be unjust, went to the guards to accuse them of violating Sanctuary and somehow taking her away anyhow. The guards, having not had anything to do with it, would put two and two together—if they don't have her, and we don't have her, then that means...
  • Quasimodo probably only lashed out at Phoebus to avoid interrogation. He literally JUST RELEASED Esmerelda. He doesn't wanna put solders on her trail when he can accuse them of invading sanctuary.
  • And Phoebus specifically said he was LOOKING for Esmeralda. If other solders kept there motive for entering the church under wraps, they probably wouldn't have faced trouble from the clergy.

Hugojali

• What was with Hugo and his interest toward Djali? Did he think Djali was a girl because of the earring? Does he swing that way? Is he just screwing with the goat's mind? It's never explained, and there doesn't seem to be a reason why Hugo does this aside from Rule of Funny.
  • Djali is a goat. Hugo has little horns like a goat. Maybe he thinks he is a goat also? Or that Djali is a... whatever the hell Hugo is.
    • If you want a disturbing thought, combine this with the 'the gargoyles are figments of Quasi's imagination' thing. Apparently Quasimodo is into interspecies slash?
    • Well, being locked in a bell tower all your life and being sexually and religiously oppressed can do weird things to a person...
    • There is pretty-well supported fan-theory that the gargoyles reflected Quasimodo's Id (Hugo), Superego (Victor), and Ego (Laverne). If this is to be believed, then it would not be so hard to believe that Quasimodo's id would be pretty twisted considering he was being raised by a living, breathing, personification of pious sexual repression.
    • Hugo and Laverne work well in their respective roles of Id and Ego, but taking a Sociology class, Victor does not fit the Superego role at all. The Superego is Societies mentality placed into an individuals mind, and helps create the ego with the Id. Victor does not at all act like the Superego: He does not tell Quasimodo that going out of the church would be a terrible idea; he does not have a hatred or a disdain for Gypsies, which was common at the time; he does not tell Quasi that regardless of what Frollo is doing, even if its wrong, he needs to follow his orders because he is Quasi's master; he doesn't do anything a real Superego would do. Yes, he's the most intellectual of the three; no, that doesn't automatically assign him to Superego. Superego =/= Intellect, Superego = Societies Norms, values and laws. Victor does not tell Quasimodo to follow the law, he's just as supportive as Hugo and Laverne in leaving the church, helping and loving a Gypsy, attacking palace guards, and other things that would be social taboos of the time. — Dingo Walley
    • Maybe it's a Shout-Out to the original book, which had Pierre Gringoire, a character who was married to Esmeralda but found himself more in love with her goat.

Pheobus's Refusal

• At one point Frollo bars the miller and his family inside the mill and orders Phoebus to set the place on fire. Phoebus refuses. Why? You or I would never do such a thing, of course — but you and I have the privilege of living in a place and time where setting a place of business afire with the business owner and his family barred inside is generally considered a bad thing. Phoebus does not share this privilege. Phoebus, in fact, lives in a time where such actions were an expected aspect of soldiering. "We know enough if we know we're the King's subjects. If his cause be wrong, our obedience to the King wipes the crime of it out of us" — I was only following orders really was all the excuse you needed. Civilian deaths, rapes, "naked infants spitted upon pikes" were all regrettable but expected side effects of fifteenth-century warfare. So why does Phoebus refuse to set the mill on fire? It's not like he's never done anything like that before.It's also important to remember that in this time, people believed in a microinterventionist God — one who placed every human being in his or her proper station in life. If you were a lord, it was because God had put you there — specifically wanted you to be subject to your overlord and the king, and wanted your subjects to be under you. A commoner was someone God had made a commoner: if you were a peasant, it was because He had placed everyone else in a position of authority over you, and wanted you to be in authority only over your own wife and children. Defying your overlord was tantamount to defying the Almighty. By refusing a direct order from Frollo — whom GOD has placed in authority over him — Phoebus is in effect spitting in God's face.
  • The same church that taught people to stay in their place also taught people that Thou Shalt Not Shed Innocent Blood. It also taught charity to the poor, mercy for sinners, and being personally responsible for the sins you commit. There is nothing contradictory at all for someone raised even in a corrupt church to refuse to burn innocent people alive. For that matter, "enlightened" peoples such as ourselves still commit war crimes, still murder and rape and rob. Is there anything confusing or unlikely about evil people realizing their wickedness and choosing to stop?
  • The same church also reinforced the practice of “Sacred Hospitality” and thus it was considered risking bringing down the wrath of God to refuse someone, the “weary traveler”, of shelter even if that someone is an enemy as they might the Son of God himself in disguise. On top of that as part of said Hospitality the host is required to protect his guest from harm. Like with Notre Dame and other religious sites by reminding Frollo of his right of Sacred Hospitality the miller is quite telling Frollo “this my house, I have the right to decide who’s to be my guest and I WILL protect them even if they’re gypsies”.
    • Frollo’s decision to burn down the miller’s home and the attempted murder of the miller and his family sends a rather chilling message that: anyone who stands up to me, anyone who even helps gyspies no matter how indirectly I will destroy them and kill anyone who tries to help them.
  • It's a Disney movie, don't think too hard about it. But it's not out of character for Phoebus to do that, he's already been established as a nice guy who shows sympathy for people he's really not "supposed to". Like Esmeralda. It's not unheard of for people to rebel against the prevailing mindset of the time, anyway.
    • If no one had ever questioned authority, we'd still be living like they did in the movie. Phoebus recognized the miller's situation as humans suffering at the hands of humans, and had the mindset to feel it was wrong.
    • Also, there's the possibility that Phoebus had a history of this, which could be why he was sent home to work with Frollo instead of staying to participate in the war.
  • Phoebus has also fought in an acctual WAR! Surely he of all people could tell FIGHTING a genuine threat from BEING a genuine threat. Frollo's means of persecuting the public to find ONE gypsy girl is clearly the latter.
  • Finally, it's not like Phoebus was a common soldier. He was a ranking captain of the entire garrison (huge promotion over his novel counterpart). He would have been of at least middle class if not a knight. He DID have authority and station to question orders. If anything is odd, it's the fact that his men so quickly turned on him.
  • Actually, it's sort of a demotion, as in the novel, he's captain of the king's archers which was a Big Deal.
    • But here's the thing; he's their newly-appointed captain. He's recently replaced their old captain and hasn't had time to earn their respect, especially not over Frollo, who we see has been controlling them for at least 20 years. It makes sense that they would side with someone they'd known longer and (presumably) trusted over their new leader who was protesting against something that, as stated above, was simply part of their way of life.
  • As said before, not everyone in those times were stupid sheeps who would blindly follow the social norms, even if that social norm told them it was OK to kill/mistreat certain people. There were some people who were actually decent human beings who thought that the social norm was not OK, so they did their little part in helping the less fortunate. I think Phoebus and Esmeralda both represented that side of humanity. Phoebus for not letting a miller's family die, and Esmeralda for not treating Quasimodo like crap because of his deformities (Phoebus didn't treat him like crap either, but Esmeralda met him first, so she gets first dibs on that.)
    • If you pay attention, in the beginning of this scene, we can hear people muttering "poor miller, he never harmed anyone" and "Frollo's gone mad". Later, when Esmeralda is to be burned alive, people are shouting she is innocent and some are trying to go through the soldiers (Just a note, remember: Frollo was burning the city in his search for HER, some of them could very well say "Thanks, she will die and things will be back to normal"). Phoebus' act of openly defying Frollo could work as a seed to break the fear-induced control Frollo had over the people. After his speech, we see both Parisians and Gypsies fighting together against Frollo and his soldiers. Phoebus and Esmeralda opened people's eyes and gave them courage to stand against what is wrong and speak up against evil people.
• Let us not forget that at the beginning of the film, Clopin, the narrator, said "Frollo longed to purge the world of vice and sin/And he saw corruption everywhere except within". Therefore, Phoebus has his limits on what's right and wrong, and following the orders of a man who is ignorant of his own cruelty is where he draws the line. I mean, does Frollo think that this act of murder will really tell people that the sentence for aiding and abetting gypsies is death? No. What it will tell them is how far he has fallen.

Why not turn yourself in?

• In regards to Esmeralda's character, Frollo goes on an obsessed-driven rampage to find her. She even hears him say "Find the girl. If you have to burn the city to the ground so be it." She knew he was talking about her and that many peoples' homes would be destroyed, so why didn't she turn herself in? It's obviously not an easy choice to hand yourself over to the authorities (especially to Frollo), but all those peoples' homes could have been spared had she been noble enough to reveal herself.
  • You said it yourself - it's not an easy choice, and Esmeralda is still just a young girl. It would take a heroic amount of courage to hand yourself over to someone like that.
    • Chances are, she stayed in the Court of Miracles for a while after the whole Cathedral incident and just heard about it when the rumors spread (remember, the gypsies found were being locked up) so maybe she just learned that it was because of her when she heard that. And even if this isn't the case, did you see her face when she heard that? Esmeralda was clearly feeling bad and scared about it, but turn yourself in to be tortured and raped (and we all know it wouldn't be a "one night" thing either)? Who would do that, especially to a guy who is a sick, sadist psycho?
    • Though Frollo wasn't technically clergy, he was still in a position that forbade marriage, so Esmeralda had to know exactly what his intentions were. Turning yourself over to someone you know is going to rape you, especially as a sixteen-year-old girl...that takes more than nobility, you'd need sainthood for that.
  • She's sixteen? I've never seen any sixteen year old who looks like that!
    • She's explicitly sixteen in the book; however, she is also The Ingenue in the book. According to a magazine article released around the same time as the film, the animators at Disney designed the Esmeralda in this film as being in her mid/late 20s.
    • However powerful Frollo supposedly is, more than a few higher-ups would have a hell of a lot to say if he actually tried to burn the city down. There's simply no way he has the kind of clout that could let him get away with torching Paris so he could find some girl he wanted to bone. Even the king probably couldn't have got away with that and lived. People tend to get pissy when their homes get burnt down, and he'd have a lot of people out for his blood.
    • As has been stated on the main page, it is entirely possible the king is off still fighting the wars Phoebus came back from so he isn't around to stop Frollo. By the time he ever did return, either Frollo could have already cleaned everything up and left no evidence, or made up some story about a peasant rebellion—do you really think the king would doubt this and take the side of peasants and Gypsies who claimed Frollo went mad over a dancing girl? And there don't seem to be any other higher-ups—any other nobles or officials must either be with the king or secluded on their estates until the war is over, and the Archdeacon can't do anything because while he's a church authority, he has no political power.
    • "Burn the city to the ground" was probably hyperbole; he meant "burn as many houses as you have to". The houses burned would be those of gypsies, beggars and thieves, and the higher-ups wouldn't really care if they got pissy.
    • The Court of Miracles was the hiding place of thieves and gypsies, as far as I understand and beggars were probably there, too, if they weren't busy begging because they have no home.
    • Seeing Frollo's actions with the bakery that Phoebus didn't want to burn and they only got out because of his interference and nobody else was as helpful as Phoebus. Presumably Frollo actually killed more than a dozen random families. You could see that a big part of the city was literally burning. It's irksome how the people needed Phoebus to clarify in the climax that when Frollo sets your houses on fire for no real reason he is evil. In reality the city would have gone V for Vendetta-style right before Quasi's lovesong with the senseless references to the future, hanged Frollo like Louis XIV and everything would have been solved.
    • In reality, as anything in History from the Medieval pogroms to the Holocaust shows, people (some people, most people, whatever) would not rise spontaneously against the stablished authority's actions but remain neutral ("If they don't go after me, it's not my business") or even collaborate with it, if anything. Frollo wasn't targetting people at random. He was after an oppressed minority that many Frenchmen of the time disliked, and those who had helped them like the miller's family. Phoebus showed the people gathering in the square that Frollo had gone off-limits by attacking something that was sacred to everybody, not just the Gypsies and their sympathizers, and most importantly, showed them that there was already a lot of people ready to fight against him. From the perspective of a single person, it's a lot easier to join a fighting army (or mob) than to create one yourself.
  • And another thing, turning herself in would not necessarily be the right thing to do either; if Frollo was willing to burn down a whole city to get to one girl, then turning herself in would have been appeasement. People like Frollo should be confronted, rather than given what they want. And who's to say he wouldn't have done something similar to another girl in the future?
    • Truth! AND he's been pretty vocal about his plans to commit genocide on the Romani so even if she did turn herself in, it wouldn't protect her people for very long...
  • Plus turning herself in could make matters worse. If she did present herself to Frollo admiting defeat, he wouldn't buy it. He'd suspect she was up to shrewd dispicable strategy of some sort. He IS accussing her of being a witch! He'd prolong his public torture exclusively as a means to interigate her, or worse! All I know is that the LAST THING Frollo would EVER expect from a gypsy, or anyone he's charging of witchcraft, is a GENUINE NO-STRINGS ATTACHED SURENDER.

Frollo & The Ants

• When Frollo talks to Phoebus at the Palace of Justice regarding the Court of Miracles, how does he slam the block down upside down?
  • It was to emphasize crushing the bugs underneath. They'd clearly gotten along just fine with the block right-side up, so... wham.
    • Indeed; obviously the geometry of having the block right-side up wouldn't have killed as many at a time, or else the bugs wouldn't have gotten there in the first place.
  • You have to think about in symbolism. What was Frollo talking about when he lifted the brick? The gypsies and trying to find their hiding place. The bugs crawling around represented the gypsies in his eyes. All nestled together, minding their own business, feeling perfectly fine. Then he sends the brick down on the bugs, symbolizing how he wants to kill every one of the gypsies just like he killed those bugs. As for him leaving it like that...It's just one brick out of many in that building. Who's going to care?
    • Also speaking of symbolism, consider that if the reason Frollo could lift the block is because the palace's stonework is crumbling, what does that suggest about the state of justice in Paris, or of Frollo's own soul? That and Frollo doesn't care about the state of justice, or what he's planning. He doesn't righten the block back up, because doing so would symbolize that he did care about what he was doing, and wanted to correct his ways.
  • There's also a nice Genius Bonus if you know the real intent behind Victor Hugo writing the novel in the first place. He wrote it so that people would be motivated to preserve architecture, because it is a living remnant of history, and lasts longer than human life. Frollo unroots a piece of the Palace just to make his point - that he doesn't value the historical significance of the building, and therefore it's another reason to dislike him.

Quasimodo and the Archdeacon

• Why didn't the priest raise Quasi himself? If the priest had raised Quasi, then Quasi would have been known as a nice choir boy, and not the "mysterious bell ringer." When Quasi asked about his looks, the priest would have given Quasi a nice explanation involving inner beauty and God, and Quasi wouldn't think of himself as a monster. Quasi would also have known the truth about his mother—or at least, he'd know that she didn't abandon him. And he'd probably have a much nicer name, one that doesn't mean "Half formed."
  • And even if the priest did have to let Frollo raise Quasimodo, to save Frollo's soul or whatever, couldn't the priest at least check on them regularly, to make sure that Frollo was doing a decent job? Couldn't he still have had some kind of friendship with the boy, so Quasi's only company wouldn't be his morbid stepfather Frollo?
  • It seems as though after the opening scene, the archdeacon just forgot Quasimodo exists.
    • As suggested in the Wild Mass Guessing, the archdeacon probably only cared about the reputation of the Notre Dame church, and less so of the plight of the gypsies. By letting Frollo do what he wanted with Quasi, he got rid of having the blood of an infant staining Notre Dame's reputation as well as a free bellringer. He didn't care what Frollo did to Quasi as long as he didn't have to deal with it.
    • Could have had something to do with him already having his hands full, and he probably thought Frollo at LEAST had the decency to not abuse the child.
    • He just caught the guy about to drop the infant into a well! If Frollo didn't have the decency to not murder the kid as a baby, what makes you think he'd have the decency to not abuse the kid?
    • If you listen to the singing/narration in the beginning after the priest tells him not to drop the baby into the well, it is stated that for once in his life Frollo actually was having moral qualms about doing something that bad. The statues at the front of the cathedral further emphasize the immense pressure that Frollo seems to be feeling. All throughout the movie, it is made clear that Frollo does believe in a higher being that deals out judgement. While nearly everything he does in the movie is incredible wrong from the moral standpoint of the viewer, Frollo sees himself as doing what is right and just. The priest knows this, and thus feels that at least Quasimodo will have a chance at life.
  • Perhaps the Archdeacon was afraid if he interfered in Quasi's upbringing, Frollo would drop Quasi (thus losing his chance to redeem his soul) and maybe even bring the might of the Palace of Justice on the cathedral, as indeed happened later. Or even get the king to turn on the church by telling him the Archdeacon was flouting his authority (it's not like the king would care about an abandoned hunchback), thus getting his troops involved too. Better to avoid such difficulties and trust in God to see to Quasi's protection.
  • Apart from the obvious fact that they probably didn't want to deviate from the original story even more than they already did... The Archdeacon also probably has a lot of stuff to do around the church. It's possible that he did stop in and check on Quasi sometimes, but it wasn't mentioned because he got so few chances to actually do so.
  • The Archdeacon was concerned over more than Quasimodo. He also cared for Esmeralda, the people of France, and Frollo himself; by giving Frollo Quasimodo to take care of, he hoped that the child would help change him. He was wrong, obviously, but he was trying to give Frollo a chance at redemption. Presumably the Archdeacon was only partially aware of Frollo's corruption at that point; he would have known he hated gypsies and was willing to kill deformed children, but he didn't know he'd be as abusive and twisted as he was.
  • In the beginning, the Archdeacon sings about how Frollo killed the gypsy woman, and now the eyes of Notre Dame were upon him and would not excuse his murder. Frollo then specifically asks the Archdeacon what to do, to which the latter replies "Care for the child. Raise him as your own." It isn't that the Archdeacon didn't want to take care of Quasi, it's that the whole raise-the-child thing was meant to atone for Frollo's sin of murdering the child's mother. The Archdeacon probably thought that any interference on his part would end up damning Frollo's soul, because at that point it wouldn't be just him raising the child.
  • The Cathedral is the seat of the Archdeacon or Archbishop. Ever since Frollo was killed, the Archdeacon probably did take care of Quasimodo to some extent.
  • Honestly it doesn't make sense. They should've made the Archdeacon die of old age because unless he's a symbol of the failing vigilance of religion (which seems unlikely) — it makes no sense for him to still be alive and be kind enough to keep Quasimodo alive but then also let him be raised in a brutally abusive environment. Unless this is about religious negligence it seems out of place. He might have been afraid of Frollo's power but it's utterly baffling that he would still be around in the same building as Quasimodo and not intervene at all... (although in the books he helps Esmerelda yet also wants to make sexual advances at her so who knows...)
  • Young man raised by the poster boy for religious zealotry and genocidal intolerance still turns out to be a decent human being with a big heart, a kind manner, and a gentle nature. Maybe the Archdeacon did have SOME hand in raising him, because otherwise Quasi would have been just as harsh and cruel as Frollo.
  • ...And what is that meant to imply? That people raised in isolation by cruel and genocidal guardians are destined to turn out cruel and genocidal themselves? Note that Frollo evidently spent as little time as possible in the bell tower with Quasi, meaning the boy had more time to himself, the gargoyles (which some believe to be manifestations of his own psyche), and his view of the people down below. Only in respect to the gypsies does Quasi hold the same viewpoint as Frollo, and even then, it's only a very simple viewpoint - he tells it to Esmeralda so matter-of-factly that you know he's saying it without any evidence or experience to back it up, and once he gets that experience, you can see that he drops it pretty much right away.
  • This is a wilder theory, but one can think that Clopin and the Archdeacon were actually the same person, and that Clopin was using parlor tricks, if not genuine magic, to alter his appearance between the two personas. This explains why he knows so much about Quasi's backstory, and would also tie into the film's themes of everyone having good and evil inside of them, to varying degrees. It would also explain why he wasn't around to look out for or raise Quasi much if at all, since a lot of his time would have been spent in the Court of Miracles. (Or course this doesn't work in the finale when Clopin is one of those in the cages, then we see the Archdeacon inside getting blocked off by Frollo's soldiers; then again, Clopin could have added this to the story to keep from revealing the truth.)

The Archdeacon's Age

• At the beginning of the film, when Quasimodo is a baby, the priest is an older, gray-haired, balding man. Twenty years later, when the rest of the movie takes place, the priest looks exactly the same. Why? Why has he not aged a day in twenty years? Medicine wasn't that good, in those days. Maybe he just went gray at an early age, but why hasn't he lost more hair and gained more wrinkles?
  • If you compare Frollo's visage before and after 20 years, not only his hair got lighter, he's starting to lose hair at the temples - at the beginning he clearly sports a fringe, which has receded later on, and is cut short not to draw attention to the balding. His face also got skinnier, more hollow looking with much more wrinkles.
  • Since people back then aged "faster" (hard life), Frollo was presumably in his forties when the story began. Here's a pic of before◊ and after.
  • Hollywood Old. If he was say, 55 at the start and had gone gray and had a few wrinkles and was 75 at the end he would not look that different.
  • Plus, according to the commentary he did visibly age. You can see more wrinkles.
  • Pretty sure his hair is a much lighter shade of gray, too. At the beginning it was dark grey, whereas in the twenty years later part, it was more white. Which is a good indication that he has aged considerably.

Frollo's Authority

• In the movie, just who exactly gave Judge Frollo so much power that he can literally burn down Paris for the sake of finding a single gypsy woman, with very little to justify it except a vague accusation that she's a witch? Last I checked, 15th century France had a king who would probably have some major questions to ask of anyone ransacking his capital for the sake of a single gypsy.
  • As has been stated on the main page, it is entirely possible the king is off still fighting the wars Phoebus came back from so he isn't around to stop Frollo. By the time he ever did return, either Frollo could have already cleaned everything up and left no evidence, or made up some story about a peasant rebellion—do you really think the king would doubt this and take the side of peasants and Gypsies who claimed Frollo went mad over a dancing girl? And there don't seem to be any other higher-ups—any other nobles or officials must either be with the king or secluded on their estates until the war is over, and the Archdeacon can't do anything due to the separation of Church and State. Also, in the book the king was in hiding during much of the events and thus there really was no one to stop Frollo from doing what he did.
    • Absolutely. And he wasn't actually destroying anything important or of note- it's not like he was burning noblemens' chateaus or historical buildings. He was burning peasants' houses for the most part, and none of the upper class would care. As the above said, a "peasant rebellion" could be an easy excuse.
    • Who said it would just be peasants and gypsies contradicting Frollo? The city guilds, the Church, wealthy merchants, people associated with the university, any aristocrats or gentlemen who happen to be visiting Paris... There would be plenty of important and influential people who could contradict any "peasant rebellion" story Frollo tries to cook up.
  • In addition, this was before bills of rights had been implemented to protect ordinary citizens from the government; the higher-ups could do essentially whatever they wanted to and get away with it. Not to mention the "divine right theory," where rulers would claim that their power was handed down to them directly from God, and anyone who challenged them was not only committing a crime, but also committing a sin.
    • Even if ordinary citizens couldn't do anything (which is dubious; riots and rebellions were a thing in medieval Europe, the same as in any other time and place), Frollo's position wouldn't make him some kind of all-powerful dictator of Paris. There'd be other royal officials, some of equal or higher rank, who'd be able to intervene, or at least pass word to the king that one of his ministers has apparently gone insane and is trying to burn down the city. Divine right theory might justify a king burning down his own capital (although in practice any king who actually tried that would probably be declared insane and bundled off to some out-of-the-way country palace), but it certainly wouldn't justify one of the king's servants burning it down without authorisation.
  • Who says he does have that power? It's very likely that he can't legally do what he's doing and is just taking advantage of the heavily implied fact that nobody in Paris at this point in time has the authority to stop him, as shown by a conspicuous lack of anybody of similar rank attending the Festival of Fools. He probably wouldn't resort to such extreme measures under normal circumstances, if only because he'd know full well that there would be dire consequences for him... but he's not thinking rationally, he's in the grips of a serious mental breakdown and likely isn't considering the punishment he'll almost certainly face.

Quasi's Rope

• Question, how did that rope Quasi swooped down on to save Esmeralda at the end of the movie seemingly lengthen by a hundred feet or so?
  • Rule of Cool.
  • An honest-to-God miracle. Quasi's in a cathedral, the soundtrack's chanting hymns in Latin, and a few minutes later we see a gargoyle (believed to protect buildings from evil) collapse and kill the villain. Minor divine intervention is there at the climax, why not a bit before?
  • When he starts his sweep, the rope is curved just enough to give him a little slack, and the rest of the rope dangles down from behind him and off screen. As he sweeps down, he lets himself slide down the length of the rope so that he can land on the platform. That's why he couldn't use the rope - which he grabbed near the end of his rescue, to return to the point where he'd pushed off. He had to climb up most of the cathedral instead, to make up for lost altitude.

What if she did give in?

• Hypothetically, if Esmeralda were to actually give in to Frollo's offer (eeewwwwwwwwwwww) then wouldn't someone be pretty upset that the city of Paris was almost literally burned to the ground and that thousands of people arrested for treason, just for him to say..."Uh...sorry guys, turns out she's not a witch after all! We're a...just gonna be gone for awhile...so...everyone can go home, now."
  • He could claim that he got her to repent or something. During the many witch trials that happened over the years, an alleged witch could be spared if she admitted to witchcraft and repented. Also, in the time period this story takes place in, certain people (particularly religious leaders) were considered infallible, and no one would dare question their claims.
  • Besides, "literally burned to the ground" and "thousands of people arrested" is still an exaggeration. More like, several fires and dozens of people is more plausible. Finally, remember that people were trying to break through the chain of guards and free Esmeralda, shouting: "She's innocent!" If Frollo suddenly announced that, yes, he's going to "let her go", everybody would think he'd finally come to his senses.
  • It's doubtful Frollo would have let Esmeralda walk free out of Paris at the end of it all. He'd probably make her join a convent, to really sell the "repented sinner" shtick... and where he could still keep an eye on her.
  • After Esmeralda spits in his face, Frollo very publicly says to the crowd that she refused to repent. So if she had said yes, he would have announced that she repented and was going to be spared because of it.
  • See The Crucible where a good portion of the accused confess to being witches so they won't be executed. Frollo is explicitly saying Esmerelda will be pardoned if she takes him up on his offer.

G Rating Frollo

• Other than it being just plain nasty, not to mention totally inappropriate for a Disney film, is there any logical reason that Frollo doesn't just rape Esmeralda instead of burning her at the stake for refusing to sleep with him? Given that his whole obsession with finding her is lust-fueled, and that he has no moral problem with murdering her for turning him down. What's stopping a guy as twisted and perverse as Frollo from forcing himself on her?
  • He believes he'll go to Hell if he does. He blames her for his feelings of lust, believing she cast a spell on him to make him fall in love with her in order to damn him.
    • Yes, but he still hunts her down and tries to get her to sleep with him, just not by direct physical force.
    • In the time at which this was set, it's more than likely that it just wouldn't occur to Frollo that, should he coerce Esmeralda into sex, it would still be rape: a sin. Secondly, at this point in history, it wasn't a reflection on a man if he had sex with a woman outside of wedlock. It was the woman who received the social stigma and abuse. Men weren't expected to remain virgins (unless they were members of the clergy), but women were, until marriage. Thus, it wouldn't be considered a sin on his behalf for Frollo to force Esmeralda into sex; the blame would most likely lie on her.
    • That's especially true for someone of Esmeralda's race and class. It would arguably be considered just lust.
  • It would have made the film a whole lot darker and less child friendly than it already was. There's only so much the film can get away with while still keeping it a G-rated Disney film. Or maybe it just never occurred to Frollo that he could rape her. But to put it out there, he does try to rape Esmeralda in the novel, which is saying something.
  • Frollo's not exactly thinking logically at this point. The fact that his fantasy-Esmeralda is enticing and actively seductive means that, morals aside, what he really wants deep down is for her to choose him. It's not just about sex, it's about domination: he wants control of her will as well as her body, to compensate for what he feels is her hold over him.
    • Not to mention that she stood up to him in front of a large crowd of people and called him a "FOOL". With that into account, Frollo knows her kind ; She's a rebel. He wants to spite her and make an example out of her solely for having the audacity to defy him. Raping her isn't going to get rid of her rebellious spirit, if anything it'll intencify it. He think the only way is to threaten to have her executed (and obviously using his accusations of her alleged witchcraft as a pretext) if she refuses to accept his offer.
  • He is sort of a control-freak, used to be in control, to have his way and all. His feelings of obsession were obviously making him lost and took this feeling of security of him (not that this justifies anything before someone thinks otherwise!) and the only way he would feel in control of the situation was if Esmeralda chose him (not that it would have been much of a choice, coercion and death threat, etc) AND it was the only way he would feel victorious at the end. There is also the possibility that, with the whole Holier Than Thou attitude, Frollo actually thought he was better than that... And the last possibility, is that in some deep (deep, DEEP) part of him, his feelings of obsession for Esmeralda had a tiny bit of genuine love, just enough to stop him from doing so (leading to the thought of making Esmeralda accept him. And even if this doesn't make sense, remember, Frollo has a very twisted point of view).
  • One of the most interesting things about Disney's "The Hunchback of Notre Dame" (and in many ways Pocahontas, etc.) is that it is deconstructing a lot of colonial excuses and images... and talking about white on people-of-color genocides. The whole way Frollo views Esmeralda is very wrapped around race and religious theology. He's dehumanized her to the point where he doesn't think of her as a human being. And in his song about fire, he's feeling overwhelmed with lust but the truth is he's also blaming her and everything he feels for her. This psychology is deeply rooted and it's deeply true to history. It isn't about being a control freak necessarily or to committing less sin. Frollo truly finds her repulsive and his feelings for her repulsive (just as he views gypsies as inhuman bugs to be killed to make the world more pure) but literally what attracts him to her is the things he finds dehumanizing. He wants her because he's dehumanized her. He even sees her putting on a show which is frankly, her fake gypsy-girl act/costume that she uses to con stupid people into giving her money and using her sexuality. He wants her the most because he's objectified her the most and that's also why he wants to kill her. He wants to kill her just as much as he wants to rape her because she is— in his imagination—his impurity, destruction and lack of piety. If he rapes her, he wins because he gets to have her. If she says no to his deal then burning her is also his way of winning because then she is gone and thus "his lustful feelings" will be gone. WHICH PROBABLY ISNT TRUE, he's very likely to do this to another girl but Frollo is in denial about it.
    • The fire scene is actually pretty sexual. A lot of serial killers murder women who remind them of other women who they feel are emotionally withholding or who reject them and their murder acts of the women can be pretty sexual. knives=penetration, ect. this is criminal psychology 101, but even if Frollo isn't raping her the scene with him about to burn her is still strangely sexual and terrifying but to him it's a religious ceremony to cleanse himself of her and thus of his own sin.
  • The song "Hellfire" is all about how Frollo has a twisted lust for Esmerelda that he wishes he didn't have. He wants her and at the same time wishes he doesn't. So he's trying to forget his obsession or fight it, because she's a 'heathen' in his eyes. Perhaps this is idealistic but when he made his offer, maybe he would have had her marry him. That would make his lust for her okay to take action on. That's why he makes her an offer when he's literally about to burn her at the stake.

Frollo and the Stairs

• Just how DID Frollo get to Quasi and Esmeralda so fast? Those stairs are not easy to book it up and they're rather steep too (not to mention narrow). So aside from dramatic purposes, how'd he manage it?
  • Good question. It's Paris, it's before the age of elevators and escalators, everyone is used to doing a lot more walking and climbing a lot of stairs. Even though Frollo's old, he's still in shape. Plus... dramatics.
  • Also keep in mind that Frollo has visited Quasimodo frequently. He's used to climbing those particular stairs.

Disappearing Armor

• When Phoebus gets shot in the back and falls off the bridge into the river, he's in full armor. Moments later, when Esmeralda pulls him out of the water, his armor has vanished. How the hell did Esmeralda remove his armor underwater in less than thirty seconds?
  • Continuity error, probably. Esmeralda either took the armor off because it was weighing Phoebus down, or perhaps Phoebus was trying to take his armor off while he was underwater to get to his wound or in an attempt to swim to the surface without being constrained.
  • In the commentary they mention that they had cut out a segment where Esmeralda actually does take off his breastplate underwater (which is what made him sink like a rock in the first place). Just think of it as a teeny-tiny little time skip right there.
  • Yeah I always assumed more time passed than we were actually shown, and that Phoebus and/or Esmeralda got the armor off him underwater. Esmeralda's good, but she's not that good.

Festival of Frollos

• Why would Frollo the hater of all sins and vices go to the Festival of Fools? They had beer and partying, so why on earth would he show up?
  • As he says to Quasi when the latter asks to go, he's a public official and thus is obliged to attend. He doesn't actually like it.

Laverne's Name

• Two of Quasimodo's Gargoyles, Victor and Hugo, are named after the author of the original novel, Victor (Marie) Hugo. What's the third, female Gargoyle named? Laverne. Why not call her Marie?
  • Because the third one is always named Laverne.
  • If it helps about six bells are named Marie.
  • Most likely a coincidence, but it's worth noting that in Roman mythology, Laverna was the goddess of thieves, cheats, and outcasts.
  • Laverne was the name of the director's wife.

Esmeralda and the Crowd

• Why didn't Esmeralda scold the crowd for having humiliated Quasimodo (you know, when they tied the poor creature and tossed vegetables at him while laughing)? Frollo is guilty of criminal negligence, but he was not the only one to be blamed there...
  • Possibly because she was more concerned about getting to the root of the problem—not only did Frollo refuse to help Quasi, it was his soldiers who started the riot and turned the people against him in the first place. Not to mention, the people were more likely to listen to and support her if she chastised the man they were already inclined to fear and hate than if she called them to account for their own actions. The way she did it, instead of turning the whole mob against her, she showed them someone would dare to stand up to Frollo, and emphasize that what he did/allowed, the torture of Quasi, was wrong. By implication that would make them start questioning their own actions; outright yelling at them would have actually done the opposite.
  • And Esmerelda may have known that it was Frollo's RESPONSIBILITY to intervene in situations that like that. (Which is probably why he had to attend the festival in the first place, despite how much he loathes it.) Both refusing to help poor Quasimodo, AND objecting to her intervention, solely because Quasi is deformed (she didn't know of their pre-existing affiliations yet at this point) demonstrates that he's as unfairly spiteful to the deformed as he is to Gypsies. And how he rigged the justice system to benefit himself in that regard. Both of these are used in her speech ("You mistreat this poor boy the SAME way you mistreat my people! You speak of justice, and yet you are CRUEL to those in need of you're help!")

Frolo's BS

• How exactly was Frollo going to get Esmeralda out of the stake if she HAD agreed to submit to him? The amount of bullshitting he would have had to do would have been epic.
  • Actually no. Remember, people were wrestling at the line of guards, shouting: "She's innocent! Let her go!" If Frollo exclaimed that "The gypsy witch Esmeralda has repented in her sins and humbly accepted the penance imposed upon her!" nobody would have a problem, and people would've probably cheered, thinking: "Thank God, he finally came to his senses". And his guards, of course, don't give a damn about what their master does.
    • Not to mention, this is set in a time when certain people were considered infallible. One did not just question a public official. If he had just let her go, most would have either done the above and gone "cool, he's acting normal again" or said "oh, okay," and gone about their lives.
  • When she spits at him, he announces to the crowd that she "has refused to recant". To the misinformed public, he's offering her a chance to repent for her sins as a witch. If she does, she'll be spared.

Enemy Territory

• Why would Gypsies sneak into Paris? Isn't that just going to the center of where everyone wants to kill you?
  • The same reason that Mexicans escape to the US. They'll still be hunted down and distrusted, but at least it's better than their homeland.
  • Also, note that the Gypsies have their huge hideout there. Possibly they were just going to stop in at the Court of Miracles for a few days, get some help from the Gypsies there, and then go on their way. Not to mention while not everyone in the movie is totally comfortable with Gypsies, Frollo is the only one who's outright racist towards them - even Phoebus, a soldier who should be following Frollo's orders, is uncomfortable with hunting them down.
  • In the 15th century, most of Europe practiced slavery, and the Roma were among the most common victims of it. But slavery was illegal in France. And Paris likely had the largest Romani community, and there is safety in numbers. So a Rom's best chance to avoid being trafficked or returned to a master they escaped from would be in Paris in the Court of Miracles.

Esmeralda's Advantage

• On a more practical view of the situation, why doesn't Esmeralda use Frollo's offer to her advantage in order to escape the execution? She could easily accept, and later knock him out (or even outright kill him - she is shown to have no qualms with violence as long as it's self-defense) and escape. She's used to avoiding guards and using cloak-and-dagger skills (smoke bombs, vanishing tricks, posing as a beggar) to her advantage. It's assumed, that Frollo would want some...privacy, and let's face it, she's a young woman at her physical peak, and he's an old man. Frollo is only able to grab her in the cathedral because she doesn't see it coming, and even then, Esmeralda manages to wrench herself free with some effort. If they would be facing one-on-one, and if Esmeralda would be able to get her hands on some kind of an improvised weapon (candlestick, crucifix, water pitcher to name a few that should be found from almost any room) she would overpower him easily.
  • Pretty sure if she did something like that, that would just add flames the fire. If Frollo is willing to set Paris on fire and kill Esmeralda because he didn't have her, imagine what would happen if he had her for five minutes and then lost her again. Why, the rage that he would have would make an Orc look weak by comparison! Also, Esmeralda doesn't seem like the person who's willing to compromise her principles just to escape. —Dingo Walley
  • Besides, Frollo is much stronger than he looks. He was able to hold his own against Quasimodo, so there's no reason to think he wouldn't be able to overpower Esmeralda. Yes, she managed to get free from his grasp, but he probably wasn't all that intent on holding onto her at the time. If he really wanted to, who's to say he wouldn't be able to do so?
  • There's not just Frollo, but too many guards as well, and she can't handle that many.
  • And in any case, Frollo wouldn't be stupid enough to leave himself defenseless with a woman he's coercing sex from, especially one who's already proven a capable fighter. It's true that he's clearly losing his mind by that point, but he still has a brain.
  • And Esmerelda would be betraying her friends and family if she DID take the chance anyway. Frollo still had Pheobus and the gypsies as prisoners, so he was still gonna have THEM executed. Honor before reason is why she spits in Frollo's face (That and the obvious fact that the idea is just disgusting.)

Hellfire

• What is the reasoning being Frollo's motives in "Hellfire"? So he is confused as to why he is lusting over Esmeralda and then blames God for letting the Devil allow himself to lust. Then, he tells [Whoever he's praying to] to make Esmeralda his or destroy her (Send her to hell). Why is that? Does he think that's just?
  • He's praying to God. It's God's will for the Devil to be stronger than Frollo, meaning He's indirectly responsible, when the Devil's servant bewitched him. So it's only fair if God helps his most ardent and pious disciple out of this predicament, either by destroying the witch (with Frollo's hands) or submitting her to his power, thus thwarting the Devil.
    • Frollo is not thinking very clearly in that scene. What he should have been doing, if he claims to be righteous, would be to repent of his sin (lust). He is right that that he can't 'beat' the devil alone, hence the need for God's help. Rather than seek and submit to God's will, though, Frollo seeks that his own will be done, and we all know how that turned out.

Rope of Fools

• Why did the peasant at the Festival of Fools have a rope? Tied in a lasso? Ready to throw at the guy he was moments ago celebrating? And don't forget all those other ropes used. And why did not one but two guards have tomatoes in their hands readily available? The scene is just confusing to me.
  • Perhaps some mocking and bullying of the King of Fools is perfectly normal. Or there might be some other gypsy or circus act at which the audience traditionally throws produce.
    • Esmeralda seemed fairly shocked and repulsed by the whole thing, as if it had never happened before.
  • Mocking and bullying actually were fairly common in those days for anyone who was outside the norm or had defied authority, not to mention things like hangings and other executions being a festive thing people took their kids to for a day outing. And ropes and lassos might have been part of the costumes or certain acts.

Quasimodo's Strength

• It makes sense how Quasimodo is so STRONG (ringing and maintaining those heavy bells every day), and even can buy him have very fast reflexes (he'd have to learn to go from any one bell to any other he'd need to be at as quickly as possible), but how in the world is he so AGILE? Muscle is heavy, and he's built like a tank, yet he flits about like Mitch Gaylord doing his floor exercises.
  • Well, maybe all that running around to grab the right bell helped increase his agility?
  • It's implied in the movie (and detailed further in the book) that Quasimodo's primary form of recreation is climbing and roof-running. In a sense he's the fictional father of Le Parkour.
  • Look at all the running and sliding he does in "Out There". He has to amuse himself some way.

Quasi Mercy

• Why doesn't Quasimodo let go of the piece of cloth when Frollo's dangling from it? The guy's trying to kill them, pulling him back up can't be a good idea.
  • Frollo is the closest thing he has to family. He probably doesn't want him to die if he can avoid it.
    • Quasimodo was about to kill Frollo before Esmeralda woke up, and that was before Frollo confessed to KILLING HIS MOTHER!!!
    • Brandishing a knife at someone in a fit of fury and rage isn't the same as circumstances happening to allow you to drop them into a pit of molten metal. Plus, there's no reason to assume Quasi would've gone so far as to use the knife - he was just delivering a "The Reason You Suck" Speech.
  • Perhaps Quasimodo figured that Frollo would be so grateful that he didn't drop him that he would be willing to spare him and Esmeralda and allow them to live...but apparently not.
    • Yeah, it's easy to picture Quasi and Frollo climbing back up, and Frollo saying something like "Soooo...sorry 'bout this whole mess. Hey, yeah, I-I know I tried to rape and kill you, and commit genocide against your people, and everything, but that was like the old me; I'm a changed man now. So hey, no hard feelings, right?"
  • Also, there's a trend with many of the Disney Renaissance movies...during the climax, the hero, at one moment or another, has the perfect opportunity to kill the villain, but decides not to, often along the lines of "I'm not a man like you." Afterwards, the villain will attempt to kill the hero, often in the most absurd way possible, resulting in his death, which he inevitably brought upon himself. Its seen in Beauty and the Beast, The Lion King (1994), The Hunchback of Notre Dame, and Tarzan.
    • Very good observation; exceptions include The Little Mermaid, Aladdin, Hercules (where it would have been impossible anyway), and Mulan.
    • There's a specific trope related to this, in fact, Self-Disposing Villain (with some Backstab Backfire in the cases of Gaston and Scar). Although the bit about the hero saying they aren't like the villain is an attempt on their part to avert If You Kill Him, You Will Be Just Like Him! and "Not So Different" Remark.
  • This quote seems appropriate: "Killing is not as easy as the innocent think." Letting Frollo go at that point was not very different from stabbing him, and Quasi didn't have the heart for it.
    • And as this movie has stated lots of times... Quasimodo isn't the monster that Frollo is... he's been stronger than Frollo this whole time, way, way stronger - physically and morally - but has never lifted even a finger to protect himself from Frollo's beatings. He's too kind to kill Frollo, especially once his head cleared a little since when he first attacked Frollo it was because he'd just thought that Esmeralda had died and he'd been out of his mind with grief.
  • And see the climax of Tangled where, even after learning that Gothel kidnapped her and emotionally abused her for years (as well as stabbing her lover right in front of her) all for her hair, Rapunzel still instinctively throws her arms out to save Gothel when she falls out the tower window. Frollo has spent years being Quasi's abuser but also his only father figure. A relationship like that is very complicated, and the feelings towards it even more so - especially after the victim has finally realised that the abuser is an abuser. If Quasi had killed Frollo then and there, he'd alternate between relief and guilt because - abuser or not - he'd have killed his only father.
  • Stockholm Syndrome in a nutshell.

Minister Frollo

• In this particular adaptation, Frollo is a judge; he is not clergy, yes. So why do the Archdeacon and the guard in the Hellfire scene refer to him as "Minister Frollo"?
  • "Minister" in a non-religious context refers to any politician who holds significant public office in a national or regional government. (i.e. Prime Minister).
  • He's the MINISTER of Justice.

Giant Notre Dame

• At the beginning of the film, after the shot comes out of the clouds and we catch a view of all of Paris, we can see an enormous structure in the background. Let's assume that that's Notre Dame. The shot then zooms down into the streets of Paris and the market. At this point, Clopin begins singing, then, in the background, we see Notre Dame, which looks tiny at first against the skyline. How can that big structure be Notre Dame when we zoom into the city and see Notre Dame against the skyline? Haven't the animators heard of dimensions? Also, the first shot where we see the bell towers and the spire poking through the clouds...come on! Notre Dame is big, but it's not THAT freaking big!
  • It's an intentional exaggeration of Notre Dame's size for dramatic effect.
  • And it probably IS that big in the eyes of 15th Century Parisians who've never seen how high modern skyscrapers can get.
  • Cathedrals like Notre Dame were the tallest post-Roman structures until the rise of the first modern Skyscraper and were usually the only stone structures for miles rising above in a sea of smaller wooden buildings. The course of the Seine river wasn’t as heavily altered as it is now (that’s due to 19th century work) and the city itself was surrounded by farm and wetlands in the medieval age so what we’re seeing in the entrance isn’t entirely clouds but also fog.

Esme Passing Out

• After Quasimodo saves Esmeralda and brings her to Notre Dame under Sanctuary, for a brief moment after he pours the molten lead into the streets, he believes she is dead when she is really passed out. Why exactly did she pass out? Was it from smoke inhalation, or something?
  • In the German stage show, she dies from carbon monoxide poisoning so presumably yes from smoke inhalation. It could also be from the heat of the flames. She was only on the pyre for about a minute but that could have been long enough to cause her to pass out. She could have also willingly submitted to passing out as she believed she was going to die.
  • Yes, carbon monoxide poisoning is extremely dangerous and likely the reason for her passing out. During historical witch burnings people would actually direct smoke away from the fire in order to make the woman being burned stay conscious (and thus in pain) longer, because of how quickly it would make someone faint. They didn't do that here, probably because it would have been way too sadistic for a Disney movie, so all that CO-filled smoke is going directly into her lungs. It could also be a natural reaction to panic- some people faint when getting blood drawn, it's not unrealistic to think that Esmeralda would have a similar reaction to literally being put to death. (Keep in mind she's being told during this that she's an unholy demon and she's going to Hell in a setting where nearly everyone is Christian. The fear of that alone would be enough to terrify someone.) Or it could be pain- fire is hot, and was probably burning her feet/legs. The combination of carbon monoxide, primal fear and the heat of the fire could have made her pass out in just a few minutes.

Frollo's Limits

• In the opening scene, we see Frollo and his soldiers arresting a group of Gypsies sneaking into Paris. Later, Frollo and his men go about Paris burning buildings which would be used to harbor gypsies. Then, after Quasimodo leads them to the Court of Miracles, Frollo raids it and arrests all the gypsies present. But then there's the Festival of Fools, a celebration of gypsies, which Frollo attends, and he does nothing to capture any of the gypsies there. So what's the legal status of gypsies in Paris? Why at some points does Frollo go about arresting them, while at other points, he just lets them go on with their lives?
  • He might not have the authority to outright kill them in public. He can have them executed on trumped up charges for whatever crime he invents but he can't outright murder them in public. He tells Phoebus he has been taking care of them "one by one". The Gypsies at the start were illegally trying to enter Paris so he could arrest them. Esmeralda then publicly defied him and that was enough grounds to have her arrested. She claimed Sanctuary in the Church but then she escaped - she is no longer bound by the rules of Sanctuary. Frollo's justification for the witch hunt is that gypsies could be helping Esmeralda - a 'dangerous' criminal. When the gypsies either refuse to tell her whereabouts or simply don't know, he arrests them for allegedly helping her. He's ready to burn the miller's home because Esmeralda may have stayed there. Before Esmeralda defied him, he had no power to commit genocide hence his "one by one" speech. He grudgingly went to the Festival of Fools because he couldn't do anything about it. The gypsies weren't doing anything illegal. But Esmeralda hiding in the Court of Miracles? Aiding and abetting a criminal is a perfect charge to slap on all the gypsies.
  • It's also why he's so keen to find the Court of Miracles. He has no power to execute the gypsies as it is - but the Court of Miracles shelters thieves and other criminals. If he finds that, then he can have them all executed for aiding and abetting criminals.

Gypsy Support

• Why is Esmeralda supporting all of the Gypsies, including the ones at the Court of Miracles? Firstly, she is correct in that not all Gypsies are Criminals, and so we can assume that not all the Gypsies at the Court of Miracles are criminals also. However, within the Court of Miracles, there are Gypsies who steal, lie, and kill on a regular basis. Even Clopin, the Narrator of the Story at the beginning and the "Leader" of the Gypsies in Paris, tries to Hang Quasimodo and Phoebus without a trial or letting them say anything because they simply found the Court! Esmeralda claims she is a fan of real justice, where the innocent are set free and the guilty are punished, but she's willingly siding with people who are criminals, who are guilty of crimes they commit and she doesn't turn them in herself or demand they turn themselves in. Why?
  • First, Clopin wasn't going to hang Quasi and Phoebus for the heck of it. He was sure they were there as spies from Frollo so he was protecting his people, and Frollo also killed gypsies without giving them a fair trial. When you're hated that much just for who you are, you hate back. None of the gypsies has reason to care for the rest of the city, except the people who once helped them. Many people there probably also stole because they hadn't chances at getting jobs because of prejudice and did so in order to survive. Heck, Esmeralda was just dancing and earning fair money and the guards assumed she stole and the woman passing by also said "they will steal us blind". They hadn't many options anyway. Esmeralda is against the extreme prejudice her people suffer and how people stereotype others. Another theme of the movie, besides the obvious "inner beauty" could also be how people have good and evil inside them.
  • And the fact that ethnic groups in real life aren't all black and white (excuse the pun). There are some good and some bad, and unfortunately extremists use the bad as excuses to persecute everyone (there's more to it in real life of course, but that's the basis in this film). Esmerelda sides with the oppressed not because they are angels or impossibly perfect, but because it is their basic human right to not be persecuted for their race. If they weren't persecuted, then they wouldn't have to have a secret hideout that anyone discovering could result in their execution.
  • There's also a nice Persecution Flip, albeit a minor one. The gypsies have been stereotyped and written off as thieves, heathens, criminals etc - so they respond by stereotyping the others as racist persecutors. It all goes to show that stereotyping and demonizing the group for the actions of the individual is going to result in the suffering of innocent people.

Arrow

• There seems to be a continuity issue (and it probably would be just chalked up to Series Continuity Error), but when Phoebus escapes from Frollo's guards, he's struck in the shoulder with an arrow. Now, as he's riding down the bridge, he's struck from behind, yet later when Esmeralda and another gypsy bring him to the Cathedral for hiding and she tends to his wound, he's wounded in the front. Wut?
  • Perhaps the arrow was going to go right through his shoulder, but his armor stopped it in the front. As to how he survived that... It's Disney. Particularly since we only see her sewing the wound on his chest, not the one on his back. The exit wound would have been larger, true, but blood loss from the back could still do him in.
  • Several hours have passed since Esmerelda rescued him from the river and got to the bell tower. Enough time for Frollo to burn large areas of Paris. So she probably had to duck and hide into various places on the way to Notre Dame. This bought her enough time to patch Pheobus' wounds in the back. By the time she got him to the bell tower, the smaller wound in the front is all that was needed attention.
  • What's more, the soldiers blindly fired a whole slew of arrows into the river after Pheobus fell into it, before Frollo ordered a ceasefire. The shot that hit him from the front could've been one of those, whereas the initial hit was just a flesh wound.

Frollo's Motivations

• Why was Frollo trying to hunt down all those gypsies, anyway?
  • Because he's racist, duh. Of course, he wasn't racist in the novel, but that's a whole 'nother can of worms...
  • Because he's the Disney version of Hitler! That's; why! He's EVIL!
  • During The Middle Ages, gypsies were stereotyped as notorious con artists who stole money, kidnapped children (Like Sarousch in the sequel) and had fortune tellings, palm readings etc. That sort of thing was considered witchcraft, which is unholy in Frollo's mind. And he was hardly the only one who hated gypsies in those days. He just happens to be in a position of power where he can actually do something about it. Essentially he believed they were all heathens and criminals.
  • As noted in his song, Frollo ultimately hates everyone so that he can better feel 'superior' to them. He's the kind of man who needs someone to oppress, if it wasn't gypsies it would be some other unpopular underclass.
  • When talking to Phoebus, it's made clear that he thinks Gypsies tempt people into sin — "their heathen ways inflame the people's lowest instincts" — and since he wants to "purge the world of vice and sin", he can't tolerate that. This belief also plays an important part in why he starts losing it after being attracted to Esmeralda — he thinks she's tempting him.
  • And real life racism doesn't necessarily have a justification to it. It's systemical - where people are raised with the beliefs that they are superior to those who are different. Frollo simply hates them at heart because they are different from him - and he uses the stereotypes of conmen, seductresses and witches to justify this irrational hatred.
  • Real life bigotry often also manifests as concern or fear. Frollo doesn't trust the gypsies, and fears they may corrupt the innocent law-abiding citizens of Paris.

Rope Strength

• If Quasi could easily break through the chains at the climax, why couldn't he break free of the ropes at the Festival disaster? Rope is much weaker than chains.
  • It was mental. At the Feast, Quasi was out in the world for the first time he could remember. Everything was new and strange to him, so naturally he was afraid. And when his own master didn't help him, even after he cried out to him, Quasi probably figured it was his fault anyway. He had snuck out to the festival, against his master's explicit orders, and look what happened! Therefore, it didn't cross his mind to attempt to break free of the ropes. In the Cathedral, however, he was fighting for love. If you notice his face right before he breaks the chains, he is RAGING and ready to fight, which is how he summoned up the strength to free himself from the chains.
  • Look at the context. At the festival, Quasi has just had a brief bit of fun outside pretending to be a man in a mask. At the end, he is facing a friend burning at the stake - a friend who helped him and was kind to him based off who he was as a person. He'd gone through too much Character Development to let Esmerelda burn at the stake over something he partially caused.
  • As a more mundane answer, Quasi was restrained much differently by the ropes than he was by the chains. During the festival, his head and back were both tied down to the platform with his hands bound together behind him. At the climax, the chains were primarily there to restrain his hands and arms, but even then, they were still relatively free and at his sides, which gave him a lot more maneuverability.

Horse In Battle

• What's Phoebus's horse doing in the square during the final battle? It's like, he doesn't seem to be there at the beginning of the scene, then the fighting begins, and Phoebus knocks a soldier to the ground, and then his horse randomly appears so Phoebus can tell him to sit on him. Isn't he Phoebus's personal horse? Why would they even have him there?
  • Maybe they gave the horse to another soldier to use and said solider happened to be there, but the horse remembered Phoebus enough to recognize him and his commands. After all, well-bred and well-trained war horses weren't a dime a dozen; why waste one because its owner betrayed you?

Detour

• A couple queries about the Esmeralda and the Court of Miracles...First off, she tells Quasi that if he ever needs a place to go, to come there, yet apparently doesn't bother telling any of the people standing guard to look out for him so they won't mistake him for one of Frollo's cronies. And later, she brings Phoebus to be looked after by Quasi in the cathedral, where she should know Frollo is known to visit often. Why not just bring him to the Court of Miracles?
  • She couldn't be at all certain that the gypsies at the Court of Miracles would take kindly to Phoebus; they would see him as one of 'Frollo's men' who was responsible for their persecution. Just her word that he had done a heel-face turn likely wouldn't be enough to convince them to trust him, they might well suspect him of being a spy and be reluctant to take care of him. Given the friendship she had established with Quasimodo, she relied on him to do her a favor and look after him.
  • It's also possible that she feared the other gypsies might resent her as Frollo was persecuting them to get to her. And again they might not suspect Phoebus's Heel–Face Turn to be genuine, and thus kill him as an attempt to get back at Frollo. Quasimodo was the only one she knew who would definitely help her.
  • And she might not have wanted to risk the possibility of Phoebus turning back heel and revealing the Court of Miracles to Frollo as a deal.
  • Her not telling Clopin and the others to expect Quasi is a bit odd, but perhaps his Extreme Doormat nature and refusal to disobey Frollo even after what happened at the festival made her doubt he'd ever take her up on her offer, so it was more a way to show her kindness and gratitude, not something she thought would ever be tested. Plus she was a bit busy hiding from Frollo and his men and then rescuing Phoebus. Why she didn't tell them after she left Phoebus with Quasi...maybe because she still assumed Quasi himself wouldn't want to go there (out of fear of Frollo, because he didn't want to put her in danger, because he didn't want to move Phoebus, because she had explicitly told him to keep watch over Phoebus till she could come back for him). And she didn't expect Phoebus to wake up and want to come there, because even if she knew about Frollo's visits she didn't expect his Trick-and-Follow Ploy.
  • Or darker still - maybe once the Witch Hunt began she was afraid that if she told the other gypsies that Frollo's adopted son had a map to their hideout, they might turn her in themselves out of fear for their own lives.
  • Or more simply, she intended to be at the Court of Miracles for quite a while. So she assumed that she would be there if Quasi turned up needing help. Which she technically was.
  • Also of note - Esmerelda gives Quasi the map to the court before Frollo started his Witch Hunt. So maybe she had no reason to think he'd be hung as soon as he got there if he did show up.

Quasi's Upbringing

• Who took care of Quasimodo when he was still an infant living in the belfry? Babies require a lot of attention, and unless Frollo spent all of his time up there with him or raised him elsewhere and moved him to the cathedral when he was old enough, neither of which Frollo would do, Quasi would've needed someone up there looking after him in order to have grown up even semi-properly.
  • It's possible that Quasimodo lived with Frollo during his infancy and early childhood and was only moved later. In addition it is very likely that Frollo had some sort of servant looking after the baby. Caring for infants was not the work of men back then, but of nursemaids.
  • And Frollo might have considered finding an appropriate nurse to care for the baby to be part of his atonement for murdering the mother. He's bound to have servants of his own, so one of them might have been given the job.

Creature?

• Why exactly is it that the all-humanizing Esmeralda sees fit to refer to Quasimodo as a "creature" when she steps up to cut him free during the Festival of Fools? Isn't that like the most dehumanizing thing you could call someone you're trying to portray as not a malicious monster?
  • Good question. Perhaps it was a slip of the tongue; she wasn't intentionally trying to call Quasimodo a 'creature'. Remember, she's living in an era where anyone outside what's considered 'normal' is considered not-human/a freak. To them, Quasi was this malformed freak created by Satan/a freak who deserved his deformity, an inhuman monster, and that was the idea for deformed people at the time. Calling them 'creature' was being nice to them. No doubt this would've been ingrained in her mind growing up. So here she is, standing over one such person, in the heat of the moment trying to defend him and out slips 'creature'. It was an honest mistake on her part.
  • She meant it as "a creature of God", just as all them were, she was reminding them that.

How Anyone Knew Of Quasimodo

• Just how close-kept was the secret of Quasimodo's existence? There didn't seem to be anyone in the area who could've witnessed the events at the beginning of the movie, and Frollo's lines about raising Quasi in the belfry implies that he wants to keep him hidden from everyone. Yet years later, Clopin somehow knows the story, is shown telling to some children via puppetry, and recognizes Quasi when he shows up at the Court of Miracles, and several others in the cathedral also seem to know who he is when they see him downstairs spying on Esmeralda.
  • Judging by the fact that most seem to know of him, yet aren't intimately familiar with his appearance, I would guess that enough have seen him from a distance for his existence to be well known. People would have seen him running atop the spires of the cathedral after all, and most of the clergy would know about him.
  • Presumably Frollo didn't want him to go out in public in fear of them finding out why he's in the cathedral in the first place. Think about it: no one knows that Frollo visits him personally. Anyone just knows that he visits the church. But if Quasi was outside he might mention Frollo as his master. Thus people might find out Frollo's sin of murdering the child's mother, or worse - assume he's Frollo's illegitimate son. But of course it'd be impossible to keep him completely secret forever. People in the church might catch a glimpse or hear gossip, thus starting the legend.
  • As to how Clopin knows of him, the puppet show at the start could possibly be taking place after the events of the movie—while initially he simply is telling the tale of "how Quasimodo came to be there (in the bell tower)", the ending where he poses the riddle implies he is about to tell the rest of the movie's plot as the way to illustrate the riddle so his listeners can solve it. (Just telling them about Frollo being guilted into raising Quasi as his son wouldn't do that, because while it might offer pretty good proof of Frollo's monstrous nature, it doesn't help make Quasi look like a man since he's just a baby in it with no agency.) Thus, he already experienced the festival and everything that followed after, so he would know all about who Quasi was, from a combination of Esmeralda's explanations, Quasi talking to him at a later date, and putting this together with rumors about Frollo over the years.

Kick Kill

• How does a single kick to the face kill Quasimodo's mother?
  • She fell backwards, head-first, into the stone. More than likely it fractured her skull and she died from the brain hemorrhage.
    • Yes. A kick to the head that strong coupled with hitting the stone can kill someone easily.
  • Fridge Horror - she was only knocked out by the kick but assumed dead, and thus froze to death there on the steps.
  • Yeah...no. Pay attention to the scene in question; the Archdeacon is shown lifting her in his arms as he tells Frollo to care for Quasi in order to repent. He probably brought her into the church afterward to confirm that she had indeed died.

Talking To Frollo

• Why does the Archdeacon bother trying to reason with Frollo with regards to sparing baby Quasimodo's life, instead of just taking him from him and raising him himself? If Quasi's mother declared sanctuary before Frollo got to her, wouldn't that also extend to cover the baby?
  • The movie makes it clear from the beginning that the Archdeacon knows that Frollo isn't a reasonable man, but given the fact that he straight up murdered a woman and attempted to do the same with her baby, in front of the cathedral no less, he knew that this would definitely be the point of no return for his soul, if nothing else. Therefore, he claims the only way that Frollo would have a remote chance of being forgiven for his actions was to raise the child whose mother he had just killed, and he may have figured that having any part in the upbringing would result in Frollo's soul being damned to hell. Regarding the mother's plea for sanctuary, it may be possible that the Archdeacon was either too late to hear her claim, or he only heard her knocking on the door, because he didn't seem to know about this, and if Frollo heard her pleas, he certainly wouldn't let it impede his authority, so he would most likely deny that her claiming sanctuary ever happened. Thus, even if Quasi had gained sanctuary at that time, it would not have mattered since nobody could vouch for him over the matter.
  • And the reason Quasimodo would need someone else to raise him is because Frollo killed his mother while she was claiming sanctuary on the steps of the cathedral! Raising a baby is a lot of work, and those who worked in the church would have their own duties. The Archdeacon was telling Frollo that he'd caused this mess, and he would have to fix it. He wanted to redeem Frollo's soul as well, which he felt was already stained by the murder.
  • Also if he tried to use force, there was nothing stopping Frollo from killing him as well, cooking up whatever reason he wanted to justify it in his mind - and then throwing the baby down the well anyway.

Frollo's Most Stupid Decision

• After Frollo grabs the gargoyle after letting go of the cape, why doesn't he chop off Esmeralda's head, slash at her wrists, since she's holding Quasimodo up and then leave her to bleed out, or take the extra two feet to get over the railing and push her and Quasimodo off the balcony?
  • It would be pretty difficult to chop off her head, but yes, he absolutely could have slashed at her wrists/arms and forced her to drop Quasi, then attack her- after all, she'd be defenseless, probably injured, already weak from inhaling that much smoke, and upset and afraid. She'd be an easy target, and Frollo could have done whatever he wanted with her right then and there (but let's not think of it too much, because, well, ew.) Maybe he wasn't able to get over the railing or was afraid of losing his balance and falling himself- or he could just be being dramatic.
  • Because in a situation as heated as that, Frollo wasn't using Machiavellian planning skills. He was running on pure adrenaline, hence his Pre-Mortem One-Liner rather than just attacking them.

Clopin's Lack of Interference

• Why, during Quasimodo's humiliation does Clopin do nothing to stop the citizens from pelting him?
  • Remember, Clopin has moments that show him as being a lot darker and more malicious than he might seem. He's aware that Quasi is under the "employ" of Frollo and doesn't hesitate to try and hang him later when he and Phoebus manage to find the Court of Miracles. He also may have done it as a means of humiliating Frollo, hoping that he would step forward to protect Quasimodo, thereby making their connection public.
  • Also note he disappeared right as the torture scene started. Whether because of Frollo or because he guessed what might happen, he hightailed it out of there...which means he didn't actually see what happened, and so couldn't have put a stop to it even if he wanted to.
  • And he's a gypsy. He's used to being persecuted. Sadly a lot of people who have been persecuted will let other suffer to avoid their own suffering. It wasn't until Esmerelda had the courage to defy Frollo that things started to change.

Frollo Teaching the ABC's

• How was the rest of Frollo's alphabet organized?
  • The exercise seems to be testing Quasi's literacy by naming the letter and having him come up with a word that starts with said letter.

Pheobus In War In Musical

• So, in the musical, Phoebus says that he spent four years at the front fighting. Question is, what did he come back from? As far as I can tell, he went off to fight in some military campaign, but which one?
  • As the story take place in 1482, I'd say the succession war for the Burgundian State ("Guerre de Succession de Bourgogne") that lasted from 1477 to 1482, and involved the french king Louis I de Valois against the Holy Roman Emperor Maximilian I of Habsburg.

Quasi's Predecessor

• So who rang the bells of Notre Dame before Quasi lived there? Did anyone? Did the Archdeacon do it himself, or did he have to fire someone else who had been doing it when Frollo ordered for Quasi to be moved there?
  • Maybe a monk was assigned that job. In monasteries the monks would be given jobs like farming or copying books. Ringing the bells was usually done on a rota. It's just that as Quasimodo grew older, ringing the bells would be the way of keeping him safely hidden away from the public.

Clopin Knowing Who Quasi Is

• How does Clopin know Quasimodo's backstory? It's not like he was there when it happened, and it's doubtful Frollo would want the story to get out.
  • While this is pure speculation, he could be telling the story after the events of the movie, after Quasimodo was released and Frollo died.
    • I doubt that. The way Clopin talks about Quasimodo (calling him "the mysterious bellringer", for example) seems to indicate that he's considered something akin to an urban legend, which in turn implies that he's confined to the cathedral. Said confinement was something forced on him by Frollo. Not to mention he was hailed as a hero after Frollo's downfall.
  • Stories like this always leak out somehow. The archdeacon could have told someone who told someone - Frollo killed Quasimodo's mother and was persuaded to raise the child as his own. In the Festival of Fools scene, people clearly know who Quasimodo is, so he's known to the public in some way. Clopin could have embellished a lot of details for the sake of telling a better story.
  • If you think about it, a baby is a lot of work to take care of. Frollo can't have done it all himself. As noted above, he may have found a nurse to do the necessary in the early days. And other people in the church would definitely hear a baby's crying. And I can't see why the Archdeacon would keep quiet about there being a child raised in the cathedral.

Pheobus's Strength

• How did Phoebus manage to catch Quasimodo falling from such a height? Quasi is the same size or bigger than him, which would make him extremely hard to catch at that speed. Also, Phoebus was shot in the shoulder straight through a few days earlier; even if Esmeralda stitched it up somehow, it's still going to be sore, if not still an open wound or infected!
  • As for him managing to catch Quasi, it didn't exactly seem easy for him to do it. He definitely appeared to be a struggling a good deal.
  • As for his shoulder, it's possible that some time had passed in between him getting shot and being taken to the cathedral - Esmeralda didn't have any qualms about leaving him there, even though Quasi is never shown to be knowledgeable about tending to wounds, so it may've already had time to heal enough by that point. She probably realized he was in no condition to keep being moved from place to place like she had to, and so brought him to the only stable place she could thinking of for him to rest until things blew over.
  • Maybe Quasi was able to help him out a bit. He has lots of dexterity and core strength so, once Phoebus caught him, he was able to swing himself around and not sand bag to become a dead weight.

Esmeralda All Right

• On that topic, how on Earth did Esmeralda recover that quickly?! She was unconscious for at least ten minutes from smoke inhalation, so she should at least be coughing, hoarse and have an awful headache- and that's in the best-case scenario. She could also have been having seizures, vomiting, or be dizzy and not-all-there. And smoke is hot, especially when you're strapped to a pyre above roaring flames; she could have pretty bad burns, especially on her legs where they touched the burning hay. Either way, poor Esmeralda was probably in a lot of pain; there's no way she could be running around happily and fully alert in less than a minute after being literally half-dead.
  • Well if you take the entire film as a story by Clopin explaining Quasimodo's origin, you could say that this is dramatic licence on his part.
  • If the fainting wasn't all smoke inhalation, but instead a mix of smoke + fear/adrenaline crash (See above headscratcher about fainting. Almost getting killed than getting swung onto the cathedral is going to be intense and scary) and pain, than she may be able to recover faster. Plus, personality wise, she seems the type to push through things, so may be hiding some pain/other issues.

Frollo's Death

• Two questions here. First, how exactly did Frollo die? Was it from falling several stories down, the molten lead (which could't have been THAT deep), or a mixture of these and other factors? Also what was the reason people were hailing Quasimodo as a hero in the end? He undeniably accomplished many heroic feats, but what is he being recognized for? Standing up for the people, leading to the fall of the corrupt Frollo, or (like before) all of the above?
  • Frollo was quite likely killed by the impact of hitting the ground if the lead was less deep than it appears. If it's as deep as it looked (based on him disappearing into it), it's probably best not thinking about what his death was like being submerged in molten lead.
  • Quasi was hailed as a hero, meanwhile, because he swooped down and saved Esmeralda from what the townspeople knew was being falsely condemned, which is also what distracted the guards and allowed Phoebus and the gypsies to escape, thus sparking the entirety of the rebellion. That's why they were cheering for him.
    • And when Esmerelda was about to be burned, the crowd were calling for her to be spared. So Quasi saved her from a fate they didn't want her to suffer.
  • At that point, Esmerelda had also told the gypsies he helped her escape from the cathedral. So that's why they would cheer for him as well.

Quasimodo On Stage

• Why did Quasimodo remain on the stage when he was chosen for the King of Fools contest? He was obviously very nervous about being at the festival as it was, so why did he allow himself to get put on the spot after the whole "mask" misunderstanding?
  • He probably didn't figure that they would be removing everyone's masks until it had already started, and by then it was too late for him to leave.

Frollo's Successor

• Who's in charge of The Palace of Justice now that Frollo died?
  • Since he seems to be the highest secular authority in Paris at the moment and has the people's support, maybe Phoebus would serve as acting Minister of Justice until the King appoints a replacement.

The Beginning Chase

• How did Quasi's mother manage to escape all those guards at the beginning of the film, and why was Frollo the only one who chased after her?
  • The guards are Busy taking the other gypsies....Sure all they have to do is follow that damn Judge CJ!
  • Maybe they underestimated her because she was a woman, like what happened to Esmerelda, and she pulled some trick to get away from them. Frollo just had the other guards take the rest of the gypsies away while hunted her down.
  • Frollo has a personal bias against the gypsies, while the guards just work for him. So it makes a weird kind of sense that Frollo would personally give chase if a gypsy woman ran from him.

What If She Survived?

• What would have happened if Quasimodo's mother survived after Frollo took Quasi from her?
  • Frollo taking Quasi happened because she didn't survive - caring for him was his way of repenting for causing her death. If she hadn't died, Frollo probably would've given Quasi back to her and taken her to the Palace of Justice with the other gypsies. Or, with no reason to spare his life, he'd have dropped Quasi down the well, and then taken his mother to the Palace of Justice alone. (Or maybe because she claimed sanctuary, she and Quasi would've been taken into the cathedral, but that seems unlikely.)

Crowd 180

• I realize this is kind of the point, but I find it a bit disturbing that the crowd completely 180s from celebrating Quasi to assaulting him just because some of Frollo's goons got them worked up. Esmeralda even said that this wasn't part of the whole "King of Fools" gig, so why were they so easily persuaded to torture Quasi mere seconds after celebrating him?
  • The "King of Fools" celebration really did just boil down to everyone making fun of Quasi's appearance. The tomato-throwing just reminded them of the more sinister side to what they were doing, and they got a little too carried away afterward. That, and it was a very different time. It's just how deformed, grotesque-looking people were seen back then.

Warm In Paris

• Why is the weather so warm? The lyrics to "Topsy Turvy" mention that the Festival of Fools is on January 6th, so you'd think it would be much colder outside.
  • Nope!
  • Everyone back then drove SUVs, obviously. Actually, there was likely a phreato-plinean eruption somewhere in the world that ejected a ton of water vapor into the atmosphere, leading to an unusually warm winter. Climate oddities like that are very nearly always volcanic in origin, even today. In 2022, Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha'apai underwent a VEI 6 eruption that caused slight global warming that was projected to last up to five years. It triggered a rapid shift from a very strong La Niña pattern to an equally strong El Niño pattern. No reason to believe something similar couldn't have happened in 1482.
  • I read that it actually doesn't get that cold in Paris in the winter. On average, January days are around the 40s and 30s. Chilly enough for people to need jackets (I can see a lot of people are already wearing them with this 15th century fashion) but not enough for snow and ice to engulf the city. Granted this is still over 500 years ago, before climate change and global warming was noticed by scientists, so my theory might not have much weight.

Frollo's Motivations Concerning Esmeralda

• I think I'm just really naive, but I don't understand Frollo's motivation. He's confused and conflicted about his attraction to Esmeralda, so he blames it on witchcraft and the Devil and such and such, but...why? Why is he so conflicted? Does he not know what it means to be attracted to someone?
  • He's evil duh!!!
  • He probably knows what it means, but he doesn't want to admit that he's doing it. See, because of his strict religious background, judgemental extremism, and impossible standards of purity, he probably thinks any sexual attraction is wrong, especially so if the object of lust is one of those rotten, vermin gypsies. He's conflicted because he doesn't want to believe or acknowledge his attraction, so he places the blame anywhere else he can. Trying to force Esmerelda to choose him, rather than simply forcing himself on her, is his way of taking the responsibility of his supposedly sinful desires off of himself.
  • Some people can have lust or attraction to someone, while also hating them. And female sexuality has historically been demonized by the Catholic Church, so it's easier for Frollo to blame Esmerelda for casting a spell on him to make him fall in love with her - because that way he's pure saintly Frollo who otherwise wouldn't have such unholy thoughts about a mere woman, especially a heathen(!)
  • Parts of the Bible are highly sex-negative, and throughout history there have been some people who took that super seriously and went through terrible self-hatred over their own sexuality. Frollo is shown to have a very real fear of God in the scene where he spares baby Quasimodo, and his whole ego is built around being "a righteous man", so it's completely understandable that he might have a sexual self-hate problem. (Of course he ignores a lot of other stuff in the Bible, like the whole "Help the poor" thing and the "Thou shalt not kill" thing, but that has plenty of historical basis too. Plenty of people have been super-obsessed with certain parts of their religion while apparently ignoring other parts, without even being fully aware of the contradiction) For reference, in Matthew 5:28 it says "Anyone who so much as looks at a woman with lust in his heart has committed adultury" (thus breaking one of the Ten Commandments). So whenever Frollo looks at Esmerelda and feels attracted to her, heck, whenever he thinks about her and feels attraction, he feels that he's commiting a terrible sin. He is both ashamed of his sin and enraged at Esmerelda for "causing" him to sin. He redirects his self-hate into hatred of Esmerelda and gypsies generally, which is easy because he's already prejudiced against gypsies for their "witchcraft".

Frollo's Freudian Excuse

• How the hell did Frollo first became Evil?
  • He was most likely raised by a very strict church, giving him an extreme view of morality. He also adopted a Never My Fault mentality, blaming any and all impurities or evils he knew of on someone else. He probably chose gypsies to blame most of all because they were a discriminated-against minority who many people feared and mistrusted anyway, he just took it to extremes because he blamed them for "the lower people's faults". In the book, his parents died of the plague, so there's also a possible Freudian Excuse there.
  • In the book he was also driven mad by loneliness and isolation, as well as having a spoiled brother to take care of. You could take that as canon in the movie to further show him as a Foil to Quasi - who remained a good person despite growing up in isolation.
  • Plus some people just seem to have that kind of personality.

Letting Quasi Be Isolated

• While I can understand the Archdeacon ordering Frollo to take care of Quasimodo to make up for killing his mother, why did he go so far as to allow Frollo to practically imprison Quasi in the cathedral? I feel that he really should have known that the social isolation on top of Quasi's deformities would have very negative consequences toward the boy's development, and he could've explained Quasi's story to the citizens of Paris so they wouldn't be so cruel to him, so what good did he think shutting him away from the world would do?
  • There are a few hints throughout the film that Quasi isn't actually as isolated as Frollo intended for him to be, since both Clopin and several churchgoers possess some knowledge of him, and he has some understanding of religion and why he's required to ring the bells - Frollo intended for him to be kept there just to get him out of the way, so it would seem out of character for him to have taught him that. And finally, along with people's unsavory opinions of the disfigured during those times, Quasi himself indicates that he feels more comfortable living in the belltower, away from everything else. He states during "Out There" that he'd happily remain there indefinitely if he had just one chance to experience the world outside, and in the sequel, after he's been praised as a hero by the people of Paris, he still continues to reside there until he gets together with Madelaine.
  • And the Archdeacon isn't a psychologist. He's concerned with Frollo's soul being saved, and his atonement is caring for the baby. Whatever way Frollo went about it, Quasi was raised to the age of twenty reasonably healthily. Frollo goes from wanting to drop the baby down the well to saying "fine, but let him grow up in the church".
  • The archduke isn't Frollo's boss. He can't force him to do anyhing. He gets Frollo to agree to save Quasimodo by scaring him with talk of damnation, but that only goes so far. At some point he got all he could out of that strategy and Frollo couldn't be pushed any further. At some point Frollo figured "Hey, I've done my part" and refused to listen to any more advice on how to be a better person.

Phoebus Traveling

• Phoebus claims to have done battle across four continents. Weren't only three known to Europe when the movie takes place?
  • Yep, so that's probably a goof. Unless Asia and Asia Minor (modern day Middle East) were counted as separate continents then?
  • Likely he counts India as a separate continent, since geologically it kind of is.

Alternate Ending

• What will happen if Frollo successfully killed Esmerelda on the stake, how will the movie end?
  • The rest of the gypsies and Phoebus would likely be executed next. Quasi would be left alive. And Frollo might face some consequences when the King arrives back from the wars.

Fate of Frollo's Horse

• Where did Frollo's horse go now that Frollo is dead?
  • Someone else probably used him. It was the master that committed those crimes, not the horse.
  • Snowball is probably serving the king in some capacity. I'm sure he's fine.

Mother's Grave

• Where did Quasi's mom get buried after she was killed by Frollo?
  • The cynical suggestion is that she was thrown in some unmarked grave or burned. The more optimistic suggestion is that the Archdeacon saw she got a proper burial, although he wouldn't know her name to mark her grave.

Palace of Justice

• the Palace of Justice, the place where Frollo sent those arrested gypsies there appears as an gothic castle in the movie, in real life present day Paris, it's now look like a Baroque building, what happened to the original?
  • Wikipedia says the building underwent reconstruction during the 1800s. If that wasn't the cause of the discrepancy, it is a fictional depiction of the building, so it can look however the filmmakers would like it to.
  • And actually, the original book was written because Victor Hugo wanted to ensure that preservation of architecture was carried out in Paris - which was not in a good state by that time. So it does make sense that the Palace of Justice would look different to how it does now. And the animators spent weeks in Paris studying the architecture, so they would certainly know what the modern Palace looks like.

Why Is Frollo in charge of the city in the first place?

• Wouldn't it make more sense for the Archdeacon (who vastly outranks him) to be in charge?
  • There are a few misconceptions here. First, Frollo is not in charge of the city of Paris, but the French Minister of Justice, responsible for the courts and administration of judiciary in the city. That would make him naturally subordinate to no one else but the King himself, who in the original book is stated to be in hiding. As for the Archdeacon, he heads Notre-Dame, the Roman Catholic Church of Paris and is thus the highest-ranking religious authority in the city. It's a matter of enumerated power and implied power from this troper's perspective:
    • Enumerated Power: This refers to powers specifically granted to an individual to exercise. Many government figures today have their powers outlined in a document to limit or specify what they may or may not do with the authority attached to their office (for the U.S. President, it's the United States Constitution). Frollo has the upper hand here; as the French Minister of Justice, I assume his powers in the movie (his own army, for example) compose of the powers and authority he is exercising in the name of the King (and God, or he so believes). He has actual power over the law and how it is applied city-wide.
    • Implied Power: This refers to powers not explicitly stated to be granted, but by convention or belief by a majority is held by an individual or group of individual. Roman Catholicism was the state religion of France in 1482 (the year the film takes place), and the Archdeacon, as head of Notre-Dame, is the highest religious authority of the city and perhaps the entire country of France. The people would largely see him as someone to be respected and followed, unless he grievously breached that trust and belief that is inherent to his position. He is not in the ruling government of France, but as the aforementioned religious authority, when he speaks, he speaks for God himself, and people listen. In this way, the Archdeacon outranks Frollo.
    • So in the end, neither are in charge of the city, and neither outrank the other. However, notice how Frollo listened to the Archdeacon when he was about to throw baby Quasimodo down the well, and kept the baby. And how initially, he backs off after Esmeralda shelters in his cathedral. Frollo is a devoutly religious Christian, in spite of the wickedness he is ignorant of. So he is among the most likely of people to one: listen to and heed the Archdeacon regardless of whether it denies him what he wants, and two: respect the rights of Notre-Dame as a place of safety for even the gypsies he despises. The only reason he breaks into the cathedral and pushes the Archdeacon aside at the film's climax is because by them his lust and hate for Esmeralda has long destroyed his sanity and sense of reason. Any piety and fear of God (and by extension, the Archdeacon) has been eclipsed by his arrogant self-righteousness.

Why does Frollo never let Quasimodo leave the Cathedral?

• Does he consider him an embarrassment? Or does he just not want him to be happy? Maybe both?
  • By isolating him from any other human interaction, not only does that further his emotional dependence on Frollo, but it leaves Quasimodo with zero frame of reference regarding what a decent human being is like so Frollo can get away with his treatment.
  • Little column A, little column B—remember, the whole "bell tower" thing came about because the Archdeacon told Frollo he had to raise the baby whose mother he just killed. If he let Quasi out and people started talking to him, they might get the wrong idea and think he's Frollo's deformed, illegitimate son—if Frollo tries to brush that idea off, the people might double down ("Denial' the clincher!") or else look closer at where, exactly, Quasimodo came from anyway.

Frollo's glowing eyes

• Why do his eyes glow reddish-orange just before his death? Is it just to be scary?
  • They were probably bloodshot due to smoke and the really bad day he had.

Has Frollo never been horny for anybody before?

Hellfire makes it sound like something like this hasn't happened before, despite him being in his sixties or something.

Miscellaneous

Burning that house down

• Frollo burns a house down after locking the family inside. Why would you design a door so it could be barricaded shut from the outside?
  • If you look, it's a handle on the door which conveniently serves as the barricade support. That said, fridge logic might come into play if one questions exactly what that house is made out of given its ignition speed...
    • Grain is extremely combustible and can explode if ignited in an enclosed area. A windmill is a party-house of combustion with leather, tar and thatch, and in a dry summer would be a live-in bonfire.

Naming the Gargoyles

• Victor Hugo's full name was Victor-Marie Hugo. The two male gargoyles are called Victor and Hugo, after him. The third and female gargoyle is called... Laverne. Huh?
  • Quasimodo named a bunch of the bells "Marie." Doesn't explain specifically where Laverne's name comes from, but it does explain why she's not called Marie, at least.
    • No real explanation attached, but many web sources (imdb, etc) seem to think she was named after one of the "Andrews Sisters." Couldn't find anything confirmed by Disney, though.
    • The reason for the some of bells being named "Marie" is the names given by Quasimodo were the actual names of the bells in Notre Dame de Paris at that time.
  • Laverna was the Roman goddess of con artists and outcasts.
    • And Quasi's an outcast?

The Lead Disappears?

• After Frollo falls into the molten lead, where did all of it go?
  • It should have cooled down relatively quickly with no outside source to heat it, though it does seem to disappear too quickly. Maybe the last scene took place a little while later than we're assuming it does, like maybe midday?
  • That's probably most likely. It looks as if it's just approaching dawn when Esmeralda and Phoebus reunite. It's visibly much brighter in the scene with the little girl. It'd take at least 3-4 hours for things to get that light. I'm assuming some of the citizens cleared some of the mess away in the meantime.

Frollo's point or lackthereof

• Frollo was actually right about the gypsies being a bunch of no-good thieves; the Court of Miracles does give shelter to non-thieves, apparently, but they even themselves say that all the criminals of Paris are there. Worse still, not only are they no better towards Quasimodo than anyone else, they did try to murder Quasimodo and Phoebus for finding them, all the while boasting about how they're a bunch of criminals.
  • He may have had a point but that doesn't excuse him wanting to commit genocide. In medieval times, a criminal could mean anything from a murderer to someone stealing a loaf of bread to feed themselves. And they were prepared to execute Quasimodo and Phoebus because they were known associates of Frollo. It's not like they just decided to execute two random people that wandered into their hideout. They thought it was an ambush or something. Granted they could have waited for an explanation but they have good reason to be cynical about the outside world. Esmeralda was too until her stay in the cathedral.
  • It's ALSO sort of a chicken or the egg situation because people have been prejudiced/trying to commit genocide on the Romani people for a long, long time. And that goes with the whole 'nomadic' thing too, because there's the stereotype of 'gypsies' moving around a lot but also the fact that people persecute them everywhere they go. Which, like duh, eventually leads to thievery and Esmeralda has to make money by playing into their 'exoticized' image of what a 'gypsy' girl is. They're thieves because they have to survive. Esmeralda has to play into what the people like Frollo think of her (and her people) because it's a way to con them and earn enough just to keep eating. She really just feels like an outcast, like everyone else... we even see that Chopin is playing into their 'gypsy' stereotypes, his costume is the part of "fool", hers is the part of "flirtatious gypsy dancer"

Why did they travel through there?

• At the beginning, Quasi's mom is trying to sneak into Frollo-controlled Paris. Where the hell are they running from that a city under the thumb of a psycho with a boner for gypsy genocide is the better option?
  • The Court of Miracles is there. That's probably where they wanted to get to.
  • At the beginning he was just a Judge, twenty years later he is Minister of Justice. He got promoted by the King of France for doing such a stand-up-job of Romani Murder and now he is basically Dictator of Paris.

Archdeacons are useless?

• Where was the Archdeacon in all this? Frollo works in the Palace of Justice, a fair distance away from Notre Dame, but the archdeacon - if he is anything like many Catholic ministers - likely also lives in the cathedral. He at least works there on a regular basis, and had a great deal more opportunity to see Quasimodo than Frollo did. In twenty years he never once talked to Quasimodo? Did he never come up to the bell tower to see this condemned youth and comfort him? In doing so he would have seen what horrible psychological damage Frollo was inflicting, and taken steps to prevent it. Was the archdeacon the true villain?
  • In the original book, Frollo and the Archdeacon were one character, so it's not inconceivable that the Archdeacon played some part in Quasi's upbringing. Quasimodo's chores consisted of helping maintain the cathedral as well as ringing the bells, knowing every minute of the clock, chiming to the prayers and hymns, and if Frollo was his cold and stern 'father', the Archdeacon would be an encouraging tutor who nonetheless had many other duties. Frollo secretly despised Quasimodo and reveled in his own hubris, but as a caretaker, he could be considered 'adequate'. The Archdeacon wanted Frollo to learn humility and kindness by taking care of Quasimodo; by playing too great a part he would stand in the way of his penitence. He could never have predicted the monster Frollo would become.

Shouldn't they just move elsewhere?

• Why do the Gypsies bother living in Paris in the first place? France is a big country, and Frollo's only in charge of a little portion. Surely, instead of having to live a secret life in constant fear of being captured, it would be much easier to simply move to one of the many French cities that aren't under the thumb of a homicidal, Gypsy-hating maniac.
  • It ain't that simple to migrate from place to place, even if one's ethnicity claim no homeland, and back then (in the late 18th century) it really wasn't simple to travel. That said, they probably don't so much live there as they do travel through there.

The Materials for Quasi's Model and Figures

• Where did Quasi get the materials to make his wooden figures and model of Paris? I highly doubt that Quasi would go down within cathedral walls to acquire some tools and even wood. I also doubt that Frollo would give him the tools and materials to keep him distracted whenever the latter's not ringing the bells.

---