I enjoyed the film despite some of its obvious (to me) imperfections. I came to enjoy it even more, because it was something I could share with my younger sister, who promptly became a big fan: filling her music playlist and bedroom with some of the Frozen merchandise and sharing with me trivia she'd learned about the story, the development of the film, the symbolism behind song lyrics and certain objects in the film (such as gloves and doors which were intentionally used in the story to suggest emotional barriers between certain characters etc.)
The film is a coming-of-age story about two sisters who are princesses of a small Norse kingdom. It has a lot of music, and its basically what western culture has come to know as a 'Disney Princess Movie' with a minor twist in the trope at the very end.
For Debbers, the story is beyond reproach so when I shared my criticisms of the film, she was quick to defend them. I didn't share my criticisms of the film in depth, and because they are minor I hadn't planned on sharing them here until I read a certain review.
The film has recently received notice in the mormon-blogger community because it has been seen as an allegory for rebellion of young people. Also it is seen as promoting acceptance of homosexual behavior. Some see it as part of an adjenda by Hollywood to brainwash children, others see it as a result of our culture's increasing acceptance of homosexuality.
Most of the criticism is aimed at one of the characters: Elsa of Arendalle-The older of the two princesses-and a song she sings at a pivitol point in her character development called 'Let It Go'.
(If you'd like to read the analysis in depth, I'd encourage you to consult the original source, but be warned it may change the way you interpret the meaning of the lyrics in the film.)
To me the interpretation is a bit far-fetched. Embracing people who are different is hardly a new topic in children's media, neither is rebellion an uncommon topic in coming of age stories. So what makes Frozen different?
I came to the conclusion, that because the issues involved with the moral implications of homosexuality that we face today, we are thinking of the issue more often and thus are more likely to see it in media around us.
(I want to be clear, this movie is no 'Fern Gully'. There is no reference to homosexuality, and the 'rebellion' involves an emotionally unstable individual who is trying to not kill people...no bleeding trees neither.)
Something else occurred to me though, with all of this criticism. None of them saw what was REALLY wrong with it.
As I said earlier, I thought they were obvious to people and relatively minor...hardly worth bringing up...really...
But maybe not. Maybe I was the only one not blinded by musings on homosexuality, or enamored with the story itself to see what the story was really about (and who the bad guys really were)
I'll start with the lesbian woman and the war-anthem first:
Elsa: She's compassionate, wise, selfless, talented, and professional. For me it was hard not to identify with her and the journey she is going through.
BUT SHE HARDLY EVER TALKS!! I'm serious-after her encounter with the Trolls Elsa is consumed with fear and isolates herself to the point where she can't even carry out conversations through a door.
Elsa does have one song she sings solo, but it's a song about herself and doesn't give insight into her worldview or how she feels about her family or the relationships she's had to sacrifice. It's not like the elsa-voice-actor can't talk too, cuz she was in a whole movie where all she did was talk an NOT sing at all.
This choice was unfortunate and limited Elsa as a character. But the filmakers get away with it by swiftly changing the POV from Elsa to her sister Anna after the beginning of the movie.
(In other words, Anna-the girl with the false childhood memories-does most of the talking/expressing in the movie.)
'Let It Go': This song has so much praise, and so much criticism...many people seem to miss that
IT'S A FEW NOTES OFF FROM BEING A 'DEFYING GRAVITY' RIP OFF!!!
(Elsaba...)
Anna: People are so busy criticizing Elsa's character arc, they forget that most of the story is about Anna's journey.
Anna learns how to discern love from flattery, and how important it is to demonstrate unconditional love.
However, Anna is also awkward and gullible. I feel Disney was using her to make a point about girls taking 'Disney Princess' stories to heart too much. I keep thinking 'This is how Disney Co. sees girls who idolize their own franchise.
Anna never realizes what her sister did to protect her. She never regains memory and she is not told of her childhood accident, even though she spends the majority of the movie with the only human being outside of her immediate family who saw it happen and even has a musical number with the beings who healed her from it.
(LAME!)
Just as Elsa's lack of verbal expression limits her range as a character, this knowledge deficit limits Anna's ability to grow as a character, negatively impacting the emotional range of the story.
Kristoff: This one is hard, because I consider him to be my favorite character in the film. He's down-to-earth, level-headed, rugged, brave, and loyal. But when Anna is injured by ice, he ADMITS that he remembers her previous ice injury and subsequent healing.
YET HE TELLS HER NOTHING ABOUT IT!!!
Maybe he's really, really stupid. Or maybe he was instructed to not tell anyone about it. We're never shown. But in the end, it makes him look like he's keeping information that might be helpful to Anna out of pride.
('I know something you don't know na-na-na')
On a side note, I've learned that Kristoff is not of norse ancestry (or at least, not a full blooded norse-man) he is part of the indigenous people's in northern europe called the Sami. Some people have called bluff on the fact that Kristoff appears white, and while many of the Sami people today do appear white, many fewer would have had the pale skin/blond hair combination during the time period that this movie is meant to takes place.
The story gets away with not explaining Kristoff's family history and cultural heritage by suggesting (rather late in the story) that he is an orphan...
(Really dude? Who gave you the reindeer?)
This brings out another issue...
Race and face: This gripe has less to do with the story itself, then the Disney producers and the designers who created it. This story is loosely connected with a story called 'The Ice Queen' which was written by Hans Christian Anderson, and the story was meant to take place in Northern Europe. Of course, most of the inhabitants of northern europe during the time that this story takes place are pale skinned (not everyone, but the majority of people). It follows, that most of the characters Frozen will be pale skinned also (except for perhaps the Sami people, as previously mentioned).
My gripe is why did they choose yet-another-story-about-white-people when they know people are hungering for a story about POC?
(It's not like there aren't African fairy-tales...I've read some of them and they're really good.)
The answer is apparently, 'We've been planing this one for a long time' and 'POC are harder to design and animate'.
(I think what they mean is; 'We, the animators, are afraid of designing faces for women who are not conventionally attractive. If a woman doesn't have pale skin (with freckles), freakishly huge eyes and a button nose, people will say she's ugly. And we can't have an ugly disney princess).
I know, some people are always going to hate on the way POC are represented: An arabic group didn't like the way Jasmine looked, a native american group doesn't like Pocahantas' age (and lets not get started on Tiana...). Everyone wants to (culturally) feel like they 'own' an powerful icon like a disney princess. But we don't, Disney does.
Hans:
Hans is a beautiful character. I loved him from the beginning. If the story actually focused on him as a main character, he might even kick Kristoff of my 'Favorite Frozen Character' podium.
The first Disney Prince who is also a Disney Villain is a delightful title to have.
The scene where his true motivations are revealed was my favorite part of the story. However, I'm not convinced his identity as villain was well thought out.
Several of the fan-pages point to 'Evidence' of Hans' true motivations early in the story. For instance, he saves Elsa's life from an archer whilst also trying to kill her by re-directing the arrow at a chandelier on the ceiling.
Um...I saw that happening in the movie...it occurred over a split second, and he seemed to carry it out reflexively. He would have had to think--and act--very, very fast in order to have 'stop-a-murder-to-cause-a-murder' as his design. How would it have implicated himself had he failed to stop the arrow? He could be seen as equally at fault in either scenario.
If indeed Hans had this grand-albiet fluid- design that involved a split second decision like this...then he is a brilliant, brilliant man and I admire his vicious, diabolical cunning!
But as evil plots go, it doesn't make a lot of sense and would have required more explanation.
I later learned that this character was developed as a villain by default...
Originally Frozen was meant to be the first 'Disney Princess Movie' where a Disney Princess is also a Disney Villainess.
(That's right,it's Elsa!)
Elsa's status as villain was changed after her War-anthem, 'Let It Go' was written.
Instead of being evil and a force of destruction, Elsa becomes a creator and a protector.
But SOMEONE has to be the bad guy! And why not make it a 'nice guy' with alterior motives?
Instead of a princess, why not a prince?
And so, no matter what tragic backstory the author's of this programmed have designed as Hans' 'Reason for being evil'
The real reason he is evil, is because nobody else wanted the job.
The Trolls:
The trolls never told Anna her backstory either, which is extremely lame. But the fact that their existence and purpose is taken for granted by the plot is even more lame.
From what I've read on Norse mythology, Trolls weren't exactly a force of good, but in this film it's taken for granted that they are benevolent magical entities who just happen to have power over the minds of human beings.
Even though they give the king of arrendale advice that screws up the lives of both of his daughters for many many years, and quite possibly...
kidnap a young boy
And then they use a song and dance sequence to coerce a gullible young woman to...
marry a man she just met
(Charming people, really...)
And also conspire to
'get [her] fiance out of the way'
I don't buy it. It's another instance in which the story was poorly written because the characters weren't well developed.
Unless you, like me, see beyond what is on the screen to the true substance of the story. It's obvious that the Trolls have alterior motives. They altered Hans brain and memory, just as they did Anna's, to make him think of killing the two sisters and taking the crown for himself. This is consistent with their designs of making Anna Kristoff's wife by braking her engagement engagement to the man who tried to kill her.
That makes sense, doesn't it?
Does it at least make as much sense as homosexuality and a rebellion from social norms?
I mean, it didn't happen in the film, but you can tell it's definitely a subtext...if you look closely and read through the lines.
...and squint
(The squinting helps)
Or maybe, as my parents keep telling me, 'OK, Mormonhippie, this is a movie. It's not meant for analyzing, it's meant for fun.'
Conclusion:
'Let It Go' is about repressed homosexuality in the same way 'A Whole New World' is about breaking a man breaking a girl's virginity (which means, NOT AT ALL! PERVERT!!!)
No comments:
Post a Comment