Okay, okay. Now with less "damn you" included (and The Bells of Notre Dame in
Arabic, as a bonus) =) Thank you for the thoughtful post.
The original is "depraved" because it is proving a point about restrictions on the priesthood and society. So, in a certain sense, Hugo was trying to deconstruct the religious atmosphere of the time. But, at the same time, it also upholds some good aspects of that institution, such as its protection of the troubled members of society. It indeed discussed some very, very flawed characters, who simultaneously had wonderful facets to their personalities. It spoke to a lot of marginalized people. It really broke a lot of ground, by saying "there's problematic things and good things," rather than going with the unilateral approach generally preferred at the time. Not "the church is bad," but "there are some issues with the church."
It also spoke to a great number of philosophical questions, which it uncovered more than a hundred years before they were really "solved;" for example, the idea of fate created by the actions of others. That was a crucial part of the story which was not covered at all in the Disney movie.
So, indeed, I am definitely going to be talking about depth, rather than just "Why did Disney pick it up?!" I have some inherent rancor against Disney, but in this case I am going to try to speak more to the Disneyfication process as a
social, rather than a mercantile, endeavor.
However, I can also appreciate a good piece of art. So, this isn't just going to be a unilateral panning, which sounds like what you were worried about.
It will be precise and vicious--and indeed, most of this is going to be about the characters and their treatment. It's not just "WTF I WANNA WIPE IT OFF THE FACE OF THE EARTH;" more like "Good lord, Disney, why on earth are you doing this to my beloved novel? Why are you doing this to these people? Whyyyyy" Nothing without reason. Nothing without due mastication.
I should add that in me, anger usually ends up being more of a slow burn than an overwhelming rage. That's how I feel it, anyway. I don't know how it comes off.
Also, I may chat into a mic at the beginning, whilst people are tricking in, but in general it's going to be a text box thing (in all probability).
Why I dislike it will indeed be outside of childishness (... it's for kids), a musical (I believe we all know that I love musicals by now), or arbitrarily unfaithful to the source material. A good deal of my nitpicking will indeed be involved with relationship to the source material, but again, it's not just "they changed it and now it sucks." It's "they changed it in certain problematic ways, and here's another way it could have been handled."
As far as the book in popular society goes... yeah, I'm kind of shocked that they seem to have dumped the rest of the novel after the trial of Quasimodo. I prefer the second half to the first
And it definitely has the best death by falling I've ever read. Best pathetic declaration of love (seriously, "Esmeralda, I love you so much! Look at all the places where I cut myself!"). Best Cain speech... it also gets massive points for its "tragic end." An excellent integration of a huge amount of information. Poetry, languages, hermeneutics, alchemy, architecture. Goodness, and the questioning of Quasimodo... that was amazing.
And Gringoire, Clopin, and Jehan, who are the best side characters.
*cough*
I love that novel half to death. It is honestly my favorite thing I have ever read, and I don't expect that to change soon. I can understand why a good many people hate it, however. When I don't feel like crying, I just imagine someone actually sitting down and giving Frollo's 6-page speech in the dungeon, and then I laugh... or I read one of the arguments in Latin about hell and the hanging, the original "x leads to y, y leads to z, and then you GO TO HELL" speech. Or anything else, really, given the correct point of view. The author is so indignant and fussy, the characters are so twisted, the story so convoluted, that I can't help loving it. I love everything I've ever read by Hugo, really. He's just magical.
Even
Hernani, despite its being so terrible. That should mean something :I
While we're on the topic involving rage and gypsies, should I post one of my recent WTF moments here - which will in turn probably cause you to rage, Vector?
Or should I hold off on it until proper rage time.
Sure, go for it if you like =)
Though to admit I don't really understand the Gypsy situation.
Huh, then you may actually enjoy this more than I thought you would. I'm going to be talking about the cultural context the film is situated in more than the film in a vacuum.
Author
Topic: Livestream - Colorful (Read 41988 times)