Frozen: Anna and the Snow Queen

Like I mentioned in the previous post, Elsa was the character who really captured my interest. But, again, this movie isn't about her, it's about her younger sister, Anna, and Anna's relationship with Elsa, the Snow Queen, so I figured she and the rest of the characters deserved a post too. Of course, this movie was inspired by "The Snow Queen," and so I'll also explore a little about Anna's relationship to Gerda, on whom she is (loosely) based, and compare and contrast their adventures, while taking a look at some of the other characters and how Disney structured the movie to make it unlike any they've made before. To kick things off, however, I offer this Honest Trailer, by Screen Junkies:

 

(quick disclaimer: I edited out some content which I considered inappropriate. Keep that in mind if you look it up on YouTube). While I disagree with most of their points, you have to admit, there's quite a bit of truth to it. Plus, I like how even though the whole video is about making fun of the movie, they still admit it's the best one Disney has made in over a decade. And, hey, it's funny. But, back to overanalyzing.

To those of you who have read the source material for the movie, you're one step ahead of me. But I have read the Wikipedia article for Hans Christian Andersen's "The Snow Queen," which was more than enough for me to wonder if Disney took anything from the story besides the fact that there's Snow, and the fact that there's a Queen. But as my sister and I discussed it, we realized there are parallels to be found, and the choices Disney made concerning their adaptation are actually quite interesting. The Snow Queen is about two children named Kai and Gerda, two children who have been best friends since birth. One day, Kai is struck by shards of an evil troll mirror, which shattered and whose pieces blow along the wind. The pieces embed themselves in his eyes, causing him to see only evil, and in his heart, causing him to feel only evil. Soon often, he meets the Snow Queen, a cold, heartless woman who rules over the snowflakes. Because of the mirror shards, he allows her to take him away. But Gerda, being the good friend she is, goes after him. Most of the story consists of the people she meets and the struggles she overcomes on her way to find her friend, but eventually, she finds Kai trapped in the Snow Queen's palace. She melts the mirror shards in his heart with her tears of love, which causes Kai to shed tears as well, dislodging the splinter in his eye. Then they make their way home, found that have grown up, and pleased to see that summer has come. Presumably, they live happily ever after. 

So then comes along Disney. They've been considering a Snow Queen movie since Walt's time, but it's kind of a tricky story to convert to the big screen. They did keep some elements, like Snow, a queen, trolls (although they reversed their moral polarity) and the idea of magical shards being lodged in one's head and heart. But what to do about the characters? The characters from a centuries old piece of children's literature don't actually translate well to being the subject of funny and adventurous 106 minute movie, so Disney had a bit of fixing up to do (see what I did there?). I imagine the process going something like this: first, change Gerda's name to Anna. Sorry, but Gerda doesn't really feel like a Disney Princess name. Then, age her. Disney is kind of notorious for this anyway (as my sister will be quick to tell you concerning Peter Pan). Make her a Princess, obviously. And then mold her personality to fit the story's need. And, voila! We have a protagonist.

To which you might say "Yeah, but after all those changes, she's a completely different character!" To which I respond: What does Disney care? 

But what about the Snow Queen? One of the real stokes of genius Disney had was realizing that they shouldn't just make the Snow Queen another one-dimensional villain. They've been doing that for almost a century now, from the Evil Queen, to Ursula, to... whatever Rapunzel's witch was named (Mother Gothel, I'm told. But I'm almost positive they never actually say her name in the movie). And sure, they've all been great movies, but honestly, the old formula was getting kind of worn out. I like to imagine that they thought to themselves: "What if we changed it? What if we made the villain an actual character; someone sympathetic to the audience? Someone dynamic and interesting? What if the person who causes all the conflict isn't actually evil?" At this point, I would like to bring up another point: what about Kai? Gerda's beloved childhood friend, who, even after something comes between them, Gerda goes on a dangerous adventure to find and bring home? Sound familiar? 

What I'm getting at is that is that Disney rather masterfully combined the villain and victim into one character, and created an even more interesting character dynamic by making her Anna's sister. In the story, Gerda goes on an adventure to save Kai from the Snow Queen. In Frozen, they combined the two characters, so the logical conclusion is that Anna is trying to save Elsa from herself (this perspective is something I'll go into more in the next post. Also, my sister would like me to note that she was the one who introduced this idea to me. Consider yourself credited). 

After all, the Snow Queen still is Anna's antagonist. Correct me if I'm wrong English Majors, but the most basic definition of an antagonist is someone who prevents the protagonist from getting what they want.  What Anna wants during the movie is basically to stop being so lonely, either by reconnecting with her sister or finding true love. Not to mention prevent her kingdom from freezing to death, and later on, prevent herself from freezing to death. But in all cases, Elsa is the reason why Anna can't achieve those goals. Elsa refuses to let Anna be close to her. Elsa is the reason the gates were closed for so long, and then Elsa is the one who vetoes Anna's marriage. And, of course, Elsa is the one who causes the eternal winter and freezes Anna's heart. Really, Elsa can be blamed for pretty much everything that goes wrong for Anna, at least until the scumbag of the Southern Isles reveals his true colors.

But Elsa is most definitely not a villain. As an audience, we want things to turn out well for her just as much as we want things to work out well for Anna. Nothing Elsa did to be antagonistic to Anna she did out of evil. In fact, usually, she's trying to protect Anna. This is what I mean when I say they broke the formula. It's easy to tell an adventurous, magical story about the intense conflict between a good person and an evil person. But what about an adventurous, magical story based on the intense conflict between two sisters who, at the end of the day, love each other dearly? That gets a lot more interesting.

Not to say that evil wasn't present in the story. Disney still kept the traditional "villain" role, but even that one they played around with. Adding the Duke of Weselton was clever, because he was an obviously bad guy that we could point to and boo at. Since we had someone to suit that role, we weren't expecting that he was basically a glorified red herring. Because when did he ever do anything that evil? The only important thing he did was to send his guards after Elsa, which led to her capture. But even that I'm somewhat convinced would have somehow been orchestrated by the real villain without the Duke's presence. We were also given the true love role early on, in the form of the very convincingly charming Hans. After all, "Love is an Open Door" was one of the best romantic sequences I've ever seen (which is why every time I hear it, it makes me want to wring Hans' neck). And this is where Disney rather cleverly played off of what we're used to from them. Because we had those expectations satisfied, we never expected that Hans would abruptly jump from true love to the definition of a lying, homicidal [expletive deleted]. But when we knew, it made total sense. He played into Anna's desires so well she didn't bat an eye. He was the one who used the Duke to do his dirty work, even if the Duke never suspected it, which allowed Hans to play the Hero, so Arendelle would fall right into accepting him. The only thing that really raised some question marks as to his role as Anna's true love was the question of what they would end up doing with Kristoff, and even so, I didn't guess that Hans was going to be the horrible, horrible person he was  As villains go, Hans was brilliant, and, again, it was nice to see that Disney could still surprise us, and prove that their entire empire isn't built on predictability. 

But that said, from a plot perspective, I still think that Hans' betrayal was mostly just a way to create a climax for Anna and Elsa's story. For that matter, that was one of Kristoff's main jobs as well. For Anna to be the real hero of the story, we needed some act of selfless bravery. And sacrificing her own life, and her chance to experience the real actual love she had always dreamed of, to save the person who had cursed her in the first place was a very powerful one. But for that, Elsa had to be put into some kind of immediate peril. So I can see how they realized that they could use someone that the audience never suspected, but who totally makes sense once his treachery is revealed, to get that place of danger quickly, but without feeling like it moved too unrealistically fast. Either way, the struggle in the movie wasn't really between him and Anna. The climax wasn't a question of if she could stop Hans, because that was easy enough to do. The climax was a choice between saving herself and having the life she always wanted (an option that was literally in view in the form of Kristoff), versus giving up everything for the person who had always prevented her from getting what she wanted. It still came down to Anna versus Elsa, in a very literal way. Hans and Kristoff were just a way to facilitate that moment. Of course, both are also rather critical to Anna's character arc, but I'm not quite there yet.

There's not all too much to say about any of the other supporting characters. Olaf, while funny and entertaining, isn't exactly the most complicated character we've encountered. He represents what it's like to just be helpful and supportive as you can; just a classically cheery, uplifting friend. I suppose I should say that his "role" just isn't that creative. Goofy, friendly sidekick; we've all seen it before. It's an important idea, sure, being as much of an optimistic friend as you can to those in need. A lot of moments in life could really use an Olaf. And I know that he is a key part of the plot, especially when he saves Anna's life. But he's also pretty straightforward, so I apologize, but Olaf isn't going to get much of a word count in this post. Let's be real, "In Summer" had absolutely no value to the story, and was really only there for the laughs. In addition to his job of representing the reliably optimistic companion, he also fills the comic relief and mascot. And, yes, merchandising gold mine. There's even less to be said about Sven, as while the friendship and genuine care he shares with Kristoff is quite touching and something I'm not try to discredit, we all know he's there to fill the role of animal companion, which is one mold Disney didn't even try to break (although his dog-like characterization was amusing). Seriously though, what is it with Disney and animal companions? Did the woodland life unionize or something?

The one big thing I have to say about the trolls is: for being love experts who know that you can't marry someone you just met, they did try to orchestrate a marriage between Kristoff and Anna on the spot. Sure, you can say that they didn't know they'd only just met, but I feel like love experts should be prudent enough to ask. Besides that, again, they fill a role: wise magic-users from deep in the wilderness who can facilitate things early in the movie that drive the plot, but can't use their magic to resolve the bigger problems later on. Although, the way they took in Kristoff was touching. And, I know that I'm slow, but I honestly didn't realize that they were Kristoff's "love experts" until they actually appeared again, so that was a nice development for me. I liked "Fixer-Upper," and the way that it went from just being Kristoff's family embarrassing him in front of a pretty girl, to tying back into Anna and Elsa's relationship, and sending the uplifting message that while we all of flaws, showing love to each other is what makes us all better. I do disagree with the line that said "people don't really change," as I believe that change is something that we are able to do, and is in fact the point of repentance. But I have to remind myself that even though I'm interpreting the messages from this movie in a gospel based way, that's not the way the movie was written. What I think they meant was that people's personalities are what they are, but by showing them love, we bring out the positive aspects of their personalities while burying the negative ones, and that is a message I can get behind. From a tradition perspective, it was a little weird, because this was Kristoff and Anna's love song, yet they weren't the ones singing. But again, I commend Disney for trying new things, because it really was a cute scene for them (alright, my sister just reminded me that a couple not singing their own love song is not new ground for Disney; see "Beauty and the Beast," "The Little Mermaid," et cetera. But I stand by the observation, because it still feels like an untraditional love song for Disney- less about the storybook romance, and more about the fun. Plus, this gets into a much larger question my sister brought up: how do you cast Jonathan Groff and forget to give him a real song?).

Speaking of Kristoff though, he's kind of interesting to me in that he's actually not that interesting to me. He's probably right next to Elsa in terms of prominence in the movie, but as I'll explore more in a minute, I feel like he mostly just serves as a tool in Anna's character development. This is one of those moments when I have to step back and remember that this movie wasn't designed to be the fascinating allegory of emotional dynamics that I'm making it out to be: it was designed to be an enjoyable, family-friendly money maker. And having Kristoff's character in there helped. Don't get me wrong, I like Kristoff fine. His gags (talking to/for Sven, treating his sleigh like a car, etc.) were funny. He was a good counterpart to Anna: their personalities bounced off each other quite nicely, allowing for some good chemistry and enjoyable repartee. Even though he's completely anti-social, he was still raised to be a man of good moral fiber by the trolls, and he shows real bravery and selflessness. In fact, he's one the key components behind Anna discovering what True Love is, but again, I'll get to that later. And, like I said before, he was crucial at the climax by giving Anna the option to be saved, so that she could turn it down in favor of saving her sister's life. Not to mention that he was a classic symbol of heroism at several points in the movie, especially during the impressively dramatic climactic scene on the fjord (which, by the way, was quite an astounding piece of filmography. I loved the way that they all struggling through the same blizzard, desperately searching for the things that they had been after the whole movie; the things they thought would save them. For Elsa, it was escape. For Anna, it was someone to love her. For Hans, it was power, and Kristoff, it was the one person he wanted to save. But in the end, all of those searches were turned on their head. I especially liked how the real climax comes the moment after you think that Anna will finally be alright, and then suddenly we lose her; it was a nice twist.) 

Fine, I'll say it: Kristoff, as a hero, is pretty awesome. Which really isn't that much of a surprise, because Disney has been honing the art of creating awesome heroes for years. The problem with Kristoff is that he himself doesn't go through that much development, besides falling in love with Anna. Really, he's too Flynn Rider-esque; the nondescript (yet attractive) man the princess comes across and makes a deal with, and while they're initially at odds, they eventually fall in love. But as my sister pointed out, at least Flynn does go through character development, which is something I don't see in our blonde friend. There's nothing really revolutionary about Kristoff himself, which is why, despite his awesomeness, he doesn't earn much thought from me.

I figure he at least deserves a picture though.

Finally, my take on the character arc of our beloved protagonist, Anna. I still don't think that Anna went through nearly as much development over the story as Elsa, but there certainly is some growth to be noted. Anna's character arc is mostly about her discovering what love really is. In one way, of course, she's a message about the people you choose as the focus of your romantic affection. She starts with her fairytale love definition of meeting eyes with an attractive man who you immediately enjoy being around (a view she probably got from watching every other Disney Princess movie). But then she eventually learns that in the end, love is about what you are willing to selflessly sacrifice for others, regardless of what you expect them to do or be in the end. Teaching that to Anna is really Kristoff's main role in the movie (besides being a handy mountain man, and again, creating Anna's climactic choice). This is apposed to Hans, who gives a rather blunt case study in everything love isn't. In other words, don't make romantic choices based on their face, title, and/or ability to sing an improvised duet with you. Because none of that means anything, really, compared to actual acts of caring and love. This message is so obvious that I don't know why I'm wasting your time by writing it here.

What is, of course, more interesting is the exploration behind Anna's love for her sister, starting from their childhood. During "Do You Want to Build a Snowman?" I can't really tell if she wants Elsa to come out because she wants to actually help Elsa, or just because she wants a playmate. Or maybe it's both, but either way, the longer Elsa refuses to respond (even though we know that there was a legitimate reason for it), the more Anna sort of gives up on that love. You can hardly blame her, as love not perceptively returned is the hardest to give. But at the same time, it's what we're asked to give, and sometimes, it's the most important kind of love. Who knows how many people we have in our lives who are struggling with an unseen ailment that we could never imagine? And what if our love could be a key part of their victory over it? I'll explore that question more in the next post. But anyway, when Elsa's secret is let out and Anna has much more comprehensive understand of what her sister struggles with, it gives her another chance to rekindle the love in their relationship, which leads to her very heartwarming offer during "For the First Time in Forever (reprise)." I really feel like she's being completely charitable during this song, but she is still working under the assumption that she and Elsa will be able to make things better; in other words, she's still goal oriented. Of course, Elsa rejects her yet again, driving home the point with a giant snow monster. 

It's at this point, after everything has been laid on the table, when Anna's understanding of love is really put to the test, because she's now left with the task of loving her sister when there's really no chance of making things better no matter what she does. So, she turns away from Elsa, and goes to the trolls, and then back to Hans, and later Kristoff, all of whom teach her more about what love is and isn't. But she can't escape from Elsa's need for her, just like none of us can escape from our duty to love those who need us, which brings her to the moment once again of seeing her sister alone, broken, and terrified; the same place she's been every other time Anna offered her love and was rejected, apart from the whole imminent decapitation thing. And that moment is when her understanding of true love is really proven. That's when she decides that no matter how many times Elsa rejects her, no matter how much it costs or how little it might do, she would love her sister with everything she had. That choice was what made Anna triumphant, especially since it was only by loving Elsa with no hope of that love bringing about any sort of change that she was actually able to bring about the change that Elsa so desperately needed. 

An Act of True Love

And that is really what set Frozen apart from it's Princess movie predecessors. Sure, there's a heartwarming romance that buds between Anna and Kristoff, and take from that all the warm fuzzies that you will. But the story really comes down to being about familial love. It teaches about how to love your siblings, and in my belief, we are all spiritual siblings. So it's about how to share love amongst those in our lives who need it most, no matter how insignificant the returns may seem. Because in the end, true love will always win out. I'm not saying that to be cheesy; I sincerely believe it's the truth. And I'll explore the deeper meaning of true love that I believe in in my next post.

But to wrap things up, let's be absolutely clear about Frozen's relation to it's origin. The bulk of "The Snow Queen" is about the people and challenges Gerda encounters on the way to the Snow Queen's palace, and from the skimming I did about the subject on Wikipedia, none of that was even remotely used in the movie. The only representation Gerda's adventure had was that Anna did set off on her her own dangerous adventure to save her childhood friend, and she did encounter useful people and animals along the way, and she did make it to the Snow Queen's palace where she did find the person she was looking for. But in Frozen, that was only the first act. Plus, in the original story, when Gerda makes it to the Snow Queen's palace, she actually does leave with her friend to go home. In Frozen, the confrontation at the palace doesn't go over so well. No to mention that, as I stated before, the characters had all been completely changed to suit Disney's needs, and there are no parallels to be found between the actual events of the protagonist's journey. And, of course, the story both before and after Anna's journey to the Snow Queen's palace has no relation to any work by Mr. Andersen that I'm aware of. Let's be honest, the story told here is next to entirely a new creation, more than even "Tangled" was. "Inspired by" means just that; they pulled some ideas here and there, but took those ideas in their own direction.

At least both protagonists ride Reindeers at some point.

I'm not saying that this is a bad thing, though. After all, you can't argue with the results. Disney did go a long ways away from Andersen's tale of good versus evil, but what they were able to create instead was a very potent story of love in the face of conflict, something which affected me in a way that was far more real than any other story Disney has told so far. 

Well, that's all for now. My next post will be more about Elsa's side of the equation, and some deeper looks at the messages and symbolism behind her development. Included in that, I'll finally discuss...

Let it Go.

Frozen: Initial Thoughts

Disney's "Frozen" is the primary reason I'm starting this blog at this time. I was not anticipating it before it came out, like my sister (who is a connoisseur of Disney Animated Classics). In fact, I actually consider Disney to be something of an evil empire (a view that is still at odds with my feelings towards this really incredible movie). But after I watched it, I was emotionally gripped by it, to an arguably unhealthy level. It wasn't immediate; when I got up from my seat, I didn't feel blown away like I did with, say, "Speed Racer." But by that night, I couldn't stop thinking about it. By the next day, it was a significant contributing factor in an emotional slump I was going through. My friend and I talked about it and the moral/religious symbolism during our last conversation before he left for 2 years a religious mission. It is literally a recurring topic of discussion during my therapist visits.

Of course, I assumed that there had to be some reason that this movie was so emotionally compromising in the first place, so I started analyzing the songs and the story, trying to figure out exactly why I was so drawn to it. I soon realized that as great as the rest of the movie is, Elsa is certainly the most emotionally dynamic character, and the one who holds the most fascination for me, so she became the focus of my curiosity. As Anna is the protagonist, and the movie's plot is really about her and her adventure involving the Snow Queen, rather than being about the Snow Queen herself, Elsa's character arc takes something of a back seat. This in understandable, if unfortunate for people like me, as Disney movies are designed to be simple, adventuresome, and comedic. If that's all you're looking for, this movie fits the bill quite nicely. And don't get me wrong, I was laughed at the jokes, was dazzled by animation, and considered the music the best from Disney in the last decade, just like many other critics and viewers. But if you're like me, and you walked away with a feeling that there's more to this movie than an hour and a half of entertainment and some catchy songs, then I think that there's plenty to be thought about. 

Really, this gets into a larger question that I've wondered about for some time: why can fictional stories have such an emotional hold on us? After all, Frozen is hardly the only story I've gone through this kind of intense analysis for. Les Miserables the musical, Princess Mononoke, Avatar: the Last Airbender/Legend of Korra, White Fang by Jack London, the Mistborn Trilogy by Brandon Sanderson; all of those stories, among others, have caused varying amounts of mental and/or emotional fixation for me. More than most stories I hear about from the real world. Sometimes, I worry that there should be guilt associated with this- after all, why am I putting so much thought and emotional energy about a completely fictional story, when there are millions of actual people who are going through terrible suffering and affliction? But really, I think that there's a reason for that. After all, if we fixated on every tragedy that people have experienced, we would be nothing but vessels for despair and anguish. That's not our job- we already have someone who has born those pains for humanity. Really, I think that stories are a way for us to learn more about ourselves, in a simpler and more understandable way than an actual study of ourselves would be able to deliver, After all, the Savior taught in parables, for that very reason- so each person could take away from them what was pertinent to them. Those who heard them and saw nothing in them but a story could just walk away. Those who heard simple but profound truths were edified in a very important way. And those who saw a deeper meaning had an opportunity to investigate and learn more than many may have thought possible.

Not that I'm trying to equate the words of the scriptures to Disney's latest bank account booster. Just to be absolutely clear, I believe that if you're looking for spiritual edification, the words of the prophets should be your primary stop. What I am saying is that I think that lessons and inspiration can from unexpected places, just so long as the spirit can be present (which is one advantage of Disney, they tend to keep it clean and morally straight). And if you find inspiration somewhere, why not pursue it with some more pondering? You may learn nothing, but you also may learn something you never imagined before. Either way, you've practiced putting real thought and consideration into something, which is something I certainly don't consider a waste of time. After all, that's one skill I worry about society losing.

Whether or not Disney intended for me to take this much away really doesn't matter (for more on this, you should listen to the wisdom of John Green) If the lessons are there to be found, I say, find them, and learn from them. Which is what I have done, and what I will be sharing with you through these blog posts. I'd love to hear your interpretations and thoughts about the movie, as I write a few more posts about it and the messages I took from it.