Frozen: Elsa's Salvation, Part 1

Finally, the posts I've been meaning to write since I first had the idea of starting this blog. I started by trying to get it all into one post, but given that I'm doing an almost scene-by-scene analysis of what each moment among Elsa's story represents, it was getting a bit too long even for my tastes. So I'm breaking it up into three different parts. In this first part, I'll be introducing my thoughts on her and talking about the movie's prologue, including "Frozen Heart," some thoughts on their parents, and "Do You Want to Build a Snowman." So, here we go!

Elsa's character resonated with me profoundly, not only because she was a princess unlike any that Disney has made before, but because she had a much deeper emotional conflict than I feel any other Disney main character has. In fact, she seemed to struggle with a lot of problems that myself and many people I love have struggled with in dealing with mental illness: she could never let herself just be happy, she was always plagued by guilt, she always assumed that the worst would happen, she never had any faith in herself, and in general, she let her life be ruled by fear. How is it possible that someone could find hope and healing after living a life of so much pain? 

The answer, in the movie and in life, is that we need a savior; someone wielding the infinite power of love, which conquers all. Elsa's savior was her younger sister, and my savior is my eldest spiritual brother. I'm not saying that Anna herself represents my Savior, because she's just as human as the rest of us and makes plenty of mistakes, including with Elsa. But the relationship that Elsa has with Anna, particularly in the second half of the movie, is all about the offer of Anna's love as a way to overcome Elsa's fear, guilt, darkness and pain. And Elsa's character arc is about what she goes through before she finally accepts that love; why she initially rejected it, what she went through before realizing how much she needed it, and how she was able to be saved through it. All of these things I find very symbolic of the path towards our own salvation, and the only way by which we are able to achieve it. Even if you're not a Christian, I invite you to stick around, because I think that the message of love conquering all and saving us from our torment is one that applies to everyone. I believe that Christ is the unfailing source of love I need to be saved in my own life, but if you don't believe in Him, I think by believing that someone else in your life can be that source (even if it has to be yourself) you'll get the message I'm trying to put across. 

Before we get started, I want to address Elsa's cryokinesis. First of all, while Elsa is more powerful than almost any superhero you can think of, this isn't a movie about her extraordinary abilities. The magical elements of the story are really just a way to facilitate the story of Elsa and Anna's relationship, in a dramatic fashion. I used to wonder what her abilities represented in our own lives, given that magic isn't real and all, but I've come to realize that that part doesn't really matter. It's just a quality that we have that could be a blessing or curse; something that could bring us either happiness or fear, depending on what we do with it. Something that we struggle to control and harness to use for good. It could be something as general as our minds, our bodies, or our emotions. It's not really important that Elsa had magic power over ice and snow, what's important is that she had an attribute that created both pain and goodness in her life, and the lives of those around her, depending how she controlled and viewed it, and herself because of it. This is something useful about having magic in your story. In a way, it's a placeholder in the message, that we can easily replace with our own personal real-world challenges, which makes the message easier to apply to a greater number of people.


Alright then! Let's go to the beginning then, shall we?

Born of cold and winter air 

And mountain rain combining, 

This icey force both foul and fair

Has a frozen heart worth mining.

You may be saying "What? That song has nothing to do with Elsa!" Well, in a literal sense, no it doesn't. But it's such obvious foreshadowing that I'm not sure if it's even allowed to still be considered foreshadowing. It's a brilliant song (I'm particularly fond of it because it's the only one I can sing along to), and I like how well the lyrics summarize the complexity of Elsa's character. Like I said, the problem with past Disney movies is that the characters seem to always be so... black and white. They were good or bad, this or that. Sure, the heroes had flaws, but generally they were always pointed the right way. But Elsa, during the whole movie, had so many desires and temptations pulling at her, and there are times when it's really not so clear what the "right" thing is for her. Her character, like the ice our men are mining, really had potential for both foulness and fairness in it, which makes her a) a lot more realistic, and b) a lot more interesting, because you get to see her struggle, and how one side of her overcomes the other. Not to say that she was ever really tempted by evil, but  you can't say that she was always pointed in the right direction, partially because sometimes it was so unclear what that direction was. But any way you look at it, she did cause a lot of pain and suffering, no matter how often she wanted to do the right thing. She had so much fear, and as we all know thanks to Yoda, fear leads you down a path that inevitably ends in suffering. She let herself slip down that path far too often. As usual, the diversity in her character was represented through her cryokinesis: while she was able to create beautiful things with her powers, it also caused a whole lot of problems. Like, I dunno, almost causing her entire kingdom to freeze to death. You can really see the difference in the two snowmen, Olaf and Marshmallow, she made while in two very different emotional states. That's one of the things I like about characters with supernatural abilities: you get to see the struggle the they have in their minds and emotions represented by what they do with their powers. It's one of those cases where seeing something in a way that's impossible in our real world actually makes it easier to understand.

I could go through this song pretty much line by line to talk about how it relates to later events in the movie, (I particularly like "strike for love and strike for fear," because the movie is full of actions taken out of both, and the battle between those two feelings really defines Elsa's character, and I'd go so far as to say the movie in general) but the other one I really want to hit on is the phrase "Beware the Frozen Heart." This, again, is one of the themes that Disney did take from the movie's inspiration, but of course, Disney looked at it a different way. In the original story, Kai's heart is the one that's frozen, and as a result, he can't feel love. In the movie, the one who's heart was literally frozen was Anna's, but in her case, it was really just more of a magical illness. The one who I feel like really has a "Frozen Heart" in a metaphorical sense is Elsa, and like the miners were singing, that heart was worth trying to uncover, or "mine," to Anna. Elsa was the one who was cold to those closest to her, and even if she didn't want to be, that was still the choice she made. In fact, the only reason Anna's heart gets frozen to begin with was because Elsa's heart was so frozen in fear. I like to equate having a frozen heart to be hardhearted, because Elsa continually rejected the love of the only person who could save her. And rejecting your savior is exactly what the scriptural definition of hardheartedness is.

This of course brings us to the beginning of Elsa and Anna's story. They used to be heartwarmingly close, but then the accident happens, the Trolls advise the family about Elsa's future, and we get the heartbreaking "Do You Want to Build a Snowman?" sequence. Now, before I go further, I want to talk about Elsa's parents. I honestly don't think there's much blame to be placed on them. The Troll Elder did prophesy that a lack of control over her powers would cause people to turn on her, violently. What parent wouldn't take whatever steps seemed prudent to prevent that? Reducing the staff and closing the gates was always meant to be a temporary thing, just until Elsa could have total control over when she did and didn't use her powers. It makes sense: if someone wandering by happened to see her accidentally use her powers destructively, who knows what rumors they might spread? I'm not even sure that the parents were telling her to never use her powers again, but just to only reveal them once she was confident in her control over them, to prove to people she wasn't a threat. "Conceal it, don't feel it," because letting her powers be controlled by emotions seems like exactly what would cause something to go wrong. And through the whole process, they were always very supportive and encouraging of her.

You can totally see the resemblance,

 especially with their mother.

Now, I'm not necessarily arguing that their course of action was the right way to go about it, because obviously, it didn't work too well. The trolls said that fear would be her enemy, and while it's logical that learning to have total control over it would be what would prove to her that she didn't need to be afraid, that's just not the way Elsa worked. Learning to control our emotions and actions takes time and includes plenty of setbacks, but I don't think she ever realized that; she seemed a little perfectionist to me. So, when she did have a stumble or two, it immediately resulted in more guilt and more worry for her. After all, the safety of her family and basically her entire future depended on her getting this down, and that's a lot of pressure to place on a little girl. She fell into her depressed mental state, and while for some people, the way to fix that would be to solve the problem that was making her depressed, for her, the worry and the guilt became completely debilitating. She couldn't allow herself to love anyone, because she was convinced that letting anyone close to her was inherently dangerous, but that only made the whole thing worse. 

You may say "Yeah, and that's the parent's fault, because they're the ones who cut off her human contact!" And it's a valid point, especially where Anna is concerned. I'm not trying to argue that the parents were perfect, but you have to remember that Anna was their child too; one they had almost lost to a magical mishap. Wanting to protect her as well until Elsa had control over herself is a natural response, especially when it was only ever supposed to be a temporary thing. But either way, I'm just about convinced that even if they hadn't put in place Elsa's sanctions, she would have shut herself off anyway. After all, once the parents were gone, she still refused to be close to Anna. In fact, even well before the parents passed away, Elsa closed herself off to them too. In the end, it was a downward spiral that no one intended. They took Elsa away from people temporarily until she could control herself in order to protect everyone, and they tried to encourage her and strengthen her, but Elsa was guilt-ridden and fearful when she kept having trouble with it (again, like anyone would), so she shut herself off, which only ensured she could never feel anything but the depression and the fear, which meant that she had even less control over herself, which only made her even more convinced that she had to be completely alone. There was no way she could win.

But Anna has no idea what's going on this whole time. On one hand, it's hard to imagine how anyone could keep alive a relationship under those conditions. But on the other hand, I wonder how often she stopped to think that maybe Elsa was going through something that Anna couldn't imagine; that their separation hurt Elsa as much as it did Anna, and there really was an understandable reason why Elsa so consistently removed herself. Again, I'm not trying to blame Anna, because it was a terribly difficult situation, and she was given pretty much nothing to work with. But why jump straight to the assumption that Elsa shut her out because she didn't love her? While it's an easy assumption to jump to, I also think that there was plenty of clues that Elsa was dealing with something really horrible. None of us can know what other people are going through. Empathy, or at least trying to be empathetic, certainly would not have gone astray in this situation.

Either way, what we see during "Do You Want to Build a Snowman?" is their relationship falling apart, not really because of anyone's fault, but just because life can become messy, and everyone makes mistakes. It's tragic, but it's also realistic. There are so many things that can get in the way of love, and we so often let them, even without meaning too. 

That's one of the reasons that, if you think about it, Frozen could be considered a really depressing movie, which is actually how I felt about it in the days following when I first saw it. After all, to make a movie about how things get better, you have make things really, really awful first. Elsa grew up locked in her room, terrified of herself and consumed by worry and guilt. Anna grew up thinking that her sister didn't love her. Both of them had to endure a very potent feeling of loneliness. And of course, the movie is about how they overcame those feelings and mended their relationship, but there's no way to make up the time that they lost. While the movie was designed so that hopefully, you walk away feeling uplifted by the happy ending, in the end, it's your decision wether to focus on the bright, happy future or the very painful past. Which is interesting, because that's similar to the choice that Elsa herself had to make during the movie, and one of things I really like about it is that it shows what will follow from choosing one or the other.

There is one last key moment from this sequence I'd like to touch on, and that's the last verse of "Do You Want to Build a Snowman," after their parents pass away. While Anna makes plenty of mistakes both before and after this scene, this is a moment when she remembers what really matters (tragedies have a sad way bringing that into focus, as it turns out). She knocks on Elsa's door one more time, singing "I'm right out here for you, just let me in." Love is interesting in that it can't force it's way into your life; you have to make the choice to accept it. This is touched on repeatedly throughout the movie, but I really love the imagery of this scene, with the girls separated by the door. It reminds me of a picture that has our Savior knocking on a locked door. A key component of His offer to us is that He is able and willing to bear our burdens for us, but we have to make the choice to let Him. If Elsa had opened the door at that moment, she might have been able to receive the healing that it took another 3 years and the near loss of her sister and kingdom to gain. But seriously, I know that I keep that door closed way too often. I think we all do, from time to time, usually without realizing what the consequences might be. Remembering that this was a moment of escape from her pain that Elsa lets slip by would be good for us in those circumstances; we don't have to make the same mistake.

Well, that will bring us to where the story really begins, on the day of Elsa's Coronation. My next post will take us from "For the First Time in Forever," through "Let it Go," and to "For the First Time in Forever (Reprise)" As always, let me know your thoughts on what I've said so far! 

09/2/2014 EDIT: I do realize that the door scene has a bit more to it than what I wrote about initially. Sometimes, when I see some sort of spiritual symbolism, I jump straight to that and forget to do a more rounded analysis of the moment in question. Please allow me to do so now, with some added thoughts on the parent's death and the effect that it had.

One of the real tragedies of this family's story is that the parents died before they could see their children through the problem that had such a significant impact on their lives. I like to imagine that the parents had a long term plan for how they would guide their daughters, and that they were nearing a turning point in that plan: one that would remove the secrecy between the sisters, hopefully giving Elsa and Anna a little more room to rebuild their relationship. Again, I don't think that they ever told Elsa to completely ignore Anna all the time, even as a child. But the instruction to hide her power at all costs was enough to make Elsa too afraid to take any risk, which basically had the same result. But that was when they were both children, when they needed that sort of strict protection. At the time of their death, Elsa was 18, and Anna was 15; 10 years since the accident, and Anna was on the verge of adulthood. Having both grown up, I think even their parents would have soon realized that they could trust their children a lot more than they could 10 years ago. There's certainly an argument to be made that they should have made that turning point even sooner, but I can see where they would be overprotective; partly by nature of just being parents, but partially because of the amount of danger behind the situation. 

Of course, I don't really have any basis for that line of thought, it's mostly just theorizing and wishful thinking. But I think that whatever their plan was for Elsa, even if it wasn’t the best plan, it was far more detrimental to her that they weren’t able to see it through to it’s completion. Then, at least, she could have had some sort of closure; an end to that chapter in her life, and the beginning a new one. As it was, she was left in a kind of limbo, a plan missing a critical component with no end in sight. Her chances of success in that plan were lower than ever, but it was all she had left to hold on to. All in all, it was an incredibly difficult place for anyone to try and move on from.

And their death came at a very bad time in more ways than one (not that there’s ever really a good time to lose your parents at a young age). When the sisters were children, the parents could be the source of love and nurture to both of them, even if Anna and Elsa were separated; it certainly wasn't ideal, but it wasn't like Anna and Elsa had absolutely no one in their lives. They both had parents who loved them dearly, which is more than a lot of children could say. But Anna and Elsa had reached the point in their lives where they needed more than that. When you suddenly yank the parents out of the sister's lives, not only are they left without the only meaningful relationship they had, they're left alone at what should be a critical time of growth, with no one to guide them.

Which brings us to the last verse of “Do You Want to Build a Snowman?” We can imagine that the funeral was a few weeks after they last saw their parents: some time to communicate with their destination to confirm they never arrived, some time to hope they somehow survived, and then some time to plan the ceremony. Either way, it hasn't been too long, in the grand scheme of things. Their parents instruction to Elsa, to hide her powers, was still fresh in her mind. I can almost imagine Elsa thinking that it would be a betrayal to her parents to throw off what they had asked her for, so soon after they passed away. In which case, the most obvious reason that she didn’t open the door was that Anna would notice that there was a small snowstorm in her room. 

Which is understandable, even if I believe it was the wrong choice. But while that moment was very symbolic, it was by no means her only chance to “open the door” to Anna. Even if she had taken some time to recover from the initial shock of grief and get a reasonable grip on her powers again, and THEN went to Anna, things would have still turned out very much for the better. Or even if she wrote Anna a letter and stuck it under her door, or done something to reach out to her sister, their lives may have taken a very different, much less painful course. But over the course of the next three years, she obviously refused to take any sort of meaningful steps to bridge the gap between her and her sister.

Again, there are multiple ways of looking at this. One is the ever popular theory that everything was her parent’s fault. She was living by her parent’s rules, just like she had all her life, and that’s why she never went to Anna. Which, again, is certainly a valid theory. But I still disagree with it. With all due respect to her parents, they were dead. Elsa was holding on to rules created under very different circumstances, in a very different time of her life, instead of living according to what was actually happening in the present. After all, how could Elsa know for sure that her parents wouldn’t have wanted her to go to Anna, considering that she didn’t have them anymore? I think they always recognized that there was a delicate balance between keeping Elsa away from people for safety reasons and ensuring that Elsa still had love and support. They could offer that in their time, so they didn’t want to risk Anna’s safety. But with them gone and both of their daughters grown up, I honestly think that they would have wanted Anna and Elsa to support one another; I think they would agree that the situation had changed enough that the benefits of them them being together outweighed the risks.. But even if I’m wrong, that doesn’t matter. Her parents did what they thought was best in their time, but now Elsa had a responsibility to start doing what she thought was best, for herself and for Anna. 

Although, I suppose that’s exactly the problem. What she thought was best was exactly what she did. Stay as far away as she could from Anna, for Anna’s safety. Which is admirable, in its own way, but also too much of an all or nothing approach. She could have at least told Anna why she had to stay away. Even if she still refused to be in Anna's presence, I think what ate Anna up more than anything was not even knowing why. Couldn't Elsa at least ease that burden? Of course, the obvious argument against that from Elsa’s perspective is that there’s no keeping Anna away from a problem that she thinks she can fix; if Anna knew what Elsa’s problem was, she would refuse to accept that as a reason stay away from her sister, which would (in Elsa’s mind) be way too dangerous for her. The only way to keep Anna away was to give her no hope that anything would, or could, change.

The way I look at it is that, as I said before, Elsa had chosen on her own that she needed to live in physical and emotional isolation. And I believe she would have reached that choice even if her parents had done things differently. She wasn’t lacking love for others, but she refused to accept love from others- we need both. We also need to support love with faith and hope, and I think Elsa had given up on those virtues. I think that was her real problem, not her parent’s restrictive rules. The most we can expect from others is for them to do what they think is best, so long as those decisions are born out of love. But that doesn’t mean they’ll get it right every time; I can promise you that no matter how much someone else on this earth loves you, they will still let you down. That’s where our responsibility to exercise our own agency comes in, even (or perhaps especially) if the choices we need to make simply are to never give up hope, never give up faith, and never give up on the love of those who would do anything for you, regardless of their mistakes. That, in my opinion, is where Elsa fell sort. 

Not that I’m trying to be too hard on her. The last thing I’m trying to say is that Elsa just needed to grow a spine and learn a bit of self control. In fact, I have to try really hard to not be personally offended when someone does say something like that, because that’s not how people with depression and despair work. Elsa’s pain was real, it was deep, it was present in every moment of her life, every breath she took. There are many people who suffer from similar pains, and trivializing them by saying that they just “lack willpower” can show a very pointed lack of empathy and understand. What I’m saying is that there was always hope for Elsa, there was always faith to be found, and there was always someone who loved her. She just needed to believe in those virtues. I make it sound so simple, and perhaps it is, but sometimes making those choices can be the hardest thing in the world. And in most, if not all cases, we will need a lot of help.

Which brings me to the last question: why was Anna able to help Elsa when their parents weren’t? Didn’t they love her? Yes, they did. I’m convinced that they loved both their daughters with all their hearts. But as I’ve said, someone to love her wasn’t the only thing she needed. This is a case where I don’t think there’s a straightforward answer, because it gets into too many “what if’s” and “maybe then’s.” We can never know what might have happened, although I’m convinced that even if they had done things differently during Elsa’s childhood, it would have brought up different challenges that we couldn’t anticipate; there was no easy answer that could make everything better. I am also convinced that there was a path to her healing that didn’t involve her parent’s deaths. All we know for sure is that Elsa hadn’t gone through the change that she needed to by the time that they passed away, and so she was very, very blessed to have Anna there when she needed someone the most. Had her parents survived, she still would have had to go through some sort of refiner’s fire, but I still think she would have made it down the path to healing- that path just would have taken many different turns. We could spend all day thinking of what could have been different and what might have been better, but if we did that, then we would completely miss the point: that there was always a path to salvation, and that she did find it in the end.

EMERGENCY POST: Once Upon a Time Finale Reveal

Alright, sorry, but Once Upon a Time has forced my blogger hand. If you have not seen the finale of Once Upon a Time Season 3, or are worried about spoilers, stop reading now.

If you HAVE seen it, you know why I'm writing about this. From the depths of the Dark One's vault of magic too dark or unpredictable even for him, comes a young woman who removes her gloves and summons a blast of icy magic. Never ones for subtlety, Once Upon a Time tweeted this the same day:

Let's cut to the chase here. I know that they clearly just brought Elsa, Snow Queen of Arendelle, to Storybrooke. But I'm going to be stubborn and refuse to accept that as fact until I hear her name uttered on screen. Here's why: Once Upon a Time has been a show that has taken classic fairy tales and created their own interpretation of them. While they have used characters that Disney created (such as Grumpy and the rest of the dwarves, Malificent, Ursula, Jimminy Cricket, etc.) their formula has still basically been reimagining and combining the classic fairy tales we've grown up with. But Frozen does NOT fit this category; Frozen's story and characters did not exist until last November, no matter how inspired by Hans Christian Andersen they were. Now, if they were doing the Snow Queen, I'd be all for that. And there's still technically (if not realistically) a chance that our blonde woman sporting a long, over-the-shoulder braid and blue dress/cape combination will be "the Snow Queen," and not "Elsa, the Snow Queen."

But even as I type that, I realize how ridiculous it is. That hashtag literally says "Frozen," as in the proper noun, as in the movie millions have fallen in love with over the last few months. There's no way this Snow Queen will be associated with young, unassuming children named Kai and Gerda, as apposed to her younger sister, Princess Anna. There's no way the name "Elsa" won't be a part of the teaser trailers for Season Four. Even if I'm not going to accept it until I see it, I'm still going to prepare myself for what it will all mean. 

First thing that it will mean: they had better find a good actress for her. This may be wrong, but I'm very particular about if I feel like the person they have portraying a character "fits the part," in appearance as well as acting style. This is especially true if it's a character I care about. If they choose someone who I feel isn't quite right for Elsa, I'll just be annoyed every time I see her. But if you wonder about the casting for Elsa, you also have to wonder about how Anna and the other characters will be involved in all of this, and how that casting will be handled.

Secondly, while I'm going to spend the rest of this post talking about what this all means for Frozen, I have to remember that this is still Once Upon a Time. Emma and her family are still going to be the main characters. We still have Regina's (who you just have to feel terrible for) romantic life to sort out, and Rumplestiltskin (who I'm currently furious at) will keep up to his tricks. Again, you have to assume to he and Elsa have some kind of history, if Elsa was found in his vault, which will be interesting to explore. But anyway, how prominently Elsa and the rest of the Arendellians will be featured is still yet to be seen. However, consider the last two times they teased the arrival of a new character at a finale: both Peter Pan and the Wicked Witch of the West became very crucial to the plot of the show. Granted, they were both unrepentant enemies, and they were killed off as soon as their story was over. I'd like to think that wouldn't dare hurt Elsa, but we know what these people are capable of. But even if she isn't killed off, she could be in the same situation where she's really important for a dozen or so episodes, and then she leaves the show entirely, hopefully to go live in peace with her family back in Arendelle. OR, she could become a Captian Hook, and slowly gain even more prominence on the show as time goes on, staying on as a main character. That possibility is much less likely in my mind, but if this is going to happen anyway, all I can do is hope that they do it right. And if they DO do it correctly, then I wouldn't necessarily mind her sticking around Storybrooke. I think worst case scenario is doing what they did with Ariel, and making a big deal about her joining the show and then only giving her a handful of episodes. But either way, this isn't becoming a show about Elsa by any means. Her role will still be secondary to the rest of the characters we've been dealing with for three seasons now.

But speaking of, what educated guesses can we make about her role in the show? Well her rather unflattering entrance and ominous music seems to imply a villainous tone. Now, Elsa from the movie is not a villain, but she does have a dark side, and that dark side gets a lot of people in a lot of trouble. I've read a bit about what the Once creators were saying about Elsa, and they thought that her qualities were similar to some of the villains they've created, especially Regina and Rumple. The difference of course being that Elsa was never really cruel towards the people she hurt, it was always a misunderstanding or mistake, with the possible exception of the Duke's guards, and even then it's hard to blame her because where self-defense ends and vengeance begins can be very tricky to see, especially in the moment. But anyway, I digress. The fact that Elsa was locked away in Rumpelstiltskin's vault in the first place implies that she's had an interesting past up to this point, and where she falls on the villain/hero spectrum will be interesting to see. 

Although, this brings up one of the most important topics- how closely will this relate to the story told in the movie? Will they recreate Elsa's history, or take the story basically as it was told and then weave their own world into it from there? I certainly hope it's the former, both because I feel that recreating histories in a new light is this show's strong suit, and I want to keep a comfortable distance between their version of Elsa's story, and the original. See, this is why my initial reaction to the news was negative. Almost all the fairy tales they've pulled from so far are centuries old, and a lot of different retellings and interpretations have been done about them in that time, giving a lot of precedent for the kind of adaptation this series has taken to heart. But Frozen is barely half a year old- it has been told exactly ONE way. And again, by almost any definition, it's not a fairy tale. This is entirely new territory for the show, and when you're experimenting with a topic that's loved by many a fan, you really have to tread lightly. There's a good chance that this could end up being a huge mistake, which will reflect badly on both Frozen and Once Upon a Time. I mean, can you even imagine a live-action version of Olaf, Sven, or the Trolls going over well? And by the way, I really, REALLY hope they don't try to pull any of the music in, in any form.

Now given the very hesitant reaction I've expressed so far, you may be thinking "Yeah, but Jeff, you love Once Upon a Time AND Frozen! How are you not excited about them coming together?!" First, let me make something clear: if someone asked me which one I would choose if I could only have one, OUaT would be out the door before they could dot their question mark. It's an enjoyable and creative television show, no doubt, but it's nothing compared to the emotional resonance I've felt with Frozen. My next post about Frozen (which is coming eventually, I promise) will explore that more. But anyway, I bring that up because the worst thing you can do with such a masterpiece as Frozen is exploit it. I know that sounds silly, because Disney's empire is built on the art of exploiting masterpieces. But if they do it right, they can kind of leave their creation on a pedestal and let it be art in it's pure form, and make their enormous gains by selling Olaf dolls to kids on their way out of the theater. When they do it wrong is when they take the art off the pedestal to tinker with it, or add to it, thinking that "Hey, if everyone likes this, we can make that much more money by making MORE of it." That idea is the death toll for a good piece of art (Case in point: Pirates of the Caribbean franchise. First movie was brilliant, but after that, it became such a sad disappointment). Yes, Frozen, Once, and every other Disney show was made to line shareholder pockets, but I think Disney still remembers from time to time that nothing will put them in a better position than sponsoring people who can create a quality, artistic production.

So, I think you can understand my fear. Thus far, the characters of Frozen exist within 102 minutes of almost flawless storytelling. If you create any more material that involves them, at best, you continue that streak. And don't get me wrong, more of what we got in Frozen would be amazing. But you also run the risk of ruining their so-far almost perfect record, and forever marring the franchise and the characters who made it once great, relegating it to the dustheap of ruined stories. This is why I'm terrified of a sequel; yes, there's a lot we could gain if it was done right, but we don't need anything more from Elsa, Anna, and the rest; at least for me, they've accomplished more than many fictional characters could ever dream of. And I think that we have a lot more to lose from continuing their story and taking it downhill then we would have to gain from continuing it and being successful. Because

I can't think of any potential outcome that is worth the risk of lowering the status that this story has earned. All of this is to say, why mess with a good thing?

Now all that said, I don't think that anything they can do in Once Upon a Time would actually count as tinkering with the Frozen that is still resting comfortably on its well-deserved pedestal; not like a sequel would. The main reason is that (and I say this with no disrespect to the writers of Once) I'm basically going to file whatever they're going to do with the characters away with any other piece of fan fiction. I don't have anything against fan fiction; in fact, the line between "fan fiction" and "professional adaptation" is so blurry that you could argue the only difference is how much money and influence the author has. Isn't that exactly what BBC's "Sherlock" is? Or, for that matter, almost every Disney Princess movie? But the point is, whatever the writers have in mind will use Elsa, but it will be their own Elsa, not the Elsa we know and love. I get very particular about what is canonical and non-canonical with my fictional stories, and Season 4 of Once Upon a Time will fall strictly in the latter category where Frozen is concerned. Which means, I don't really have to care about it one way or another.

So, if that's the way I feel about it, then why am I uneasy about what they're doing? Well, even if they're not taking the original Frozen off it's pedestal to tinker with it, it kind of feels like they're putting their own version right next to original, forcing you to compare them even if you don't want to. I mostly feel this way because they've adapted it so quickly- Season 4 will start less than a year after Frozen was released. So even though they're not making any additions to their original story, that fact that Disney is letting authors that are still technically employed by them take another whack at it so soon makes me worry about how far they're willing to go to get more out of the franchise. And that, my friends, is a very slippery slope.

See, I still feel kind of protective of Frozen. I know that's kind of ridiculous, but whenever I feel like someone is being disrespectful of it, I get annoyed. As I'm exploring in this blog, this movie does actually have quite a bit of importance to me. It's almost like a sentimental item that I don't like placing next to something unappealing, just because it ruins the view of my beloved thing. The kind of item that you always make sure to be careful when handling, that you clean immediately if you notice some kind of blemish. Something you like to keep pristine in your sight and mind. That's the sort of attitude I have towards Frozen.

So, basically, I know I don't have to care about it one way or another, but I probably will. Even if you're creating a new, unrelated version of these characters, they are still going to be tied closely in your mind to the originals. So if they mess up their OUaT version of these characters, I'm going to have a messed up version of Elsa in my head right next to amazing original one, and that's going to bother me one way or another. 

But there's no need to fear the worst, right? I'm willing to admit that there is some potential here. Not of what Once can bring Frozen, but what Frozen can bring to Once. Once is always looking for new, interesting characters to explore, and while Elsa may fit the "new" requirement a bit too literally, she's exactly the kind of interesting character that would fit in this world well, if she's done right. In the day or so since I heard the news, I've slowly been able to admit that, all my fears aside, this might be fun. I'm willing to accept a little excitement about this, albeit cautious excitement. But I can't really talk nearly as much about that, because I don't really know exactly what kind of Frozen incorporation would work well in Once Upon a Time. If I did, then that would kind of ruin the surprise, don't you think? I'll leave that weighty responsibility up to the show writers. They took this task upon themselves, so I'll give them a chance to make good on their promise that they'll do justice to Frozen. Now all there is to do is wait until Fall, and see if they will.

EDIT: Alright, several official sources have confirmed that Elsa is definitely the name of the upcoming character. So, we're definitely taking the plunge.

Frozen: Arendelle's Future

So, my post about Elsa is longer and more complicated than even I anticipated, and I'm still making my way through it. So, I'm taking a break to address an interesting question: What are the advantages for having the Snow Queen as your monarch? After all, the events we see in the movie give plenty of disadvantages of having a Queen with the powers that Elsa does: the threat of eternal winters or the fjord being frozen at any time, being blasted by magic or impaled by an icicle, that kind of thing. We know that she gains control of it by the end of the movie, but If I were a citizen of Arendelle, could I really be sure that having Elsa as my ruler would be a good idea? If I were to accept Elsa back, I would want her to prove that her powers have as much potential to benefit the kingdom as they do to hurt it, and that she will only use them in such a way. The only example they show in the movie of such use is free winter recreation and ice sculptures whenever the town wants, which is great and all, but not really as useful as I think I'd be looking for. So, here's a list of things that I think would prove Elsa and cryokenetic powers to be a huge asset to the kingdom:

It will never be too hot. Heat waves can be a serious public health hazard. But, Elsa can create as much ice as she needs to to moderate the tempature to her citizen's liking. It's more powerful air conditioning than we have in modern times, since she can literally cool the great outdoors. 

Doesn't that kind of put Kristoff out of a job though,
despite his new title?

It will never be too cold. This one I'm not entirely sure about, because while we see that Elsa has the ability to dissipate winter storms that she creates, that doesn't neccisarily mean that she can end natural winter storms at will. But, it seems logical enough, especially given the scope of her powers that we see in the movie. Which means that if ever the winter storms become too hazardous for the Arendellians, Elsa can just reign them in a bit. Also, you'll never have to worry about an early or late frost ruining crops. If my assumptions are correct, then Elsa would have next to complete control over the natural climate, which is an advantage that can't be overstated.

No summer droughts. While Elsa can only create/control frozen, and not liquid, water, that's an easy fix with the help of the sun. Create a winter storm in the mountain, build up a lot of snow, then remove the storm and let the sun melt it so it runs downstream. I suppose there's no proof that Elsa can remove a storm without removing the snow it creates, as we only see her removing both at the same time in the movie, but with the ability to create water (even solid water) out of nothing on a massive scale, I'm sure she could figure something out. 

Total military protection. Going back to the song "Frozen Heart," and how everything the ice miners sing about the ice is basically true of Elsa as well, Elsa is easily stronger than 1, 10, or 100 men. In fact, she alone could end any invasion of Arendelle. If they attack by sea, which is basically their only option, she could just freeze and destroy their ships. Even if they somehow did get a land force to within attacking distance, she could freeze out the armies while they're marching. If they ever even get to the point of combat, a handful of Marshmallows could take them down without a problem. The only way Hans beat the first one was because there was a canyon nearby that Marshmallow fell down. Besides that, Elsa's living snowmen are basically invincible, with the exception of melting, and as Elsa controls when the sun does and doesn't shine, that's not really a problem.  

Free unlimited labor. Not that I'm suggesting that she makes hundreds of Olafs so she can force them into slavery, but it's pretty obvious from the movie that her snow creations have a strong loyalty to her. Which means anytime the townspeople need a bit of extra muscle (figuratively speaking), I'm sure Elsa could whip up a few friends who would be happy to volunteer. With that kind of advantage, Arendellian industry would boom: you could let the snowmen do the menial labor jobs, so the towns people could focus on crafts and trades. I suppose the only problem with that is that it wouldn't work as well in the summer; without the protection of winter microclimates like Olaf's, they would melt, and if you have too many snowmen living in town with their own localized winters, that would probably just end up being one big winter. But creating life temporarily, then letting it melt once its job is done, seems a little... cruel. So I imagine she'd have to make some frozen living quarters for them to live whenever she isn't asking them for work, but it would have to be somewhere away from town, otherwise it would ruin the natural summer climate, which we already know Arendellians aren't a fan of. Fortunatley, she already made frozen living quarters, and there's no reason to let her awesome Ice Palace go to waste. She could let her snowmen live there, and then ask them to come into the village in shifts to help out when needed. I'm sure her citizens would appreciate the helping hands.

Tourism. I know that if I heard of a kingdom with an attractive young queen with magical ice powers that she can perform amazing feats and create beautiful works of art with, I would want to see it. I mean, come on, what's not to love?

So, basically, Elsa could single handedly create an unprecendented golden age of peace and prosperity. Although, again, you have to weigh that against the fact that she could (and just about did) also turn Arendelle into an uninhabitable frozen wasteland, so you'd have to have quite a bit of trust in her. But we can see by the end of the movie that she seems to have it all together, and that the townspeople seem to have accepted her, so I certainly think that things look bright for their future.

Just so long as no one lets the power go to their heads, anyway. While the movie ends with a presumed happily ever after, leaving Arendelle with that much power makes me a little wary. Any ruler with that much control over the well-being of her people would have to be very, very careful to keep her pride in check. We can see from "Let it Go" that Elsa has something of a weakness for flamboyancy, vanity, and power. Add that to the fact that she's now the Queen, and you have a situation that's perfect for hubris to grow. But the same is true of her citizens: with a queen who could make their society strong and rich with not much effort on their part, they could also become complacent and power hungry. What I'm afraid of for Arendelle is classic, Book of Mormon style pride cycle. When things go really well for a society, in this case thanks to their magical queen, it becomes that much harder for that society to stay humble and virtuous. And if either Elsa or her citizens fail to remember their humility and virtues, bad things could happen to them really fast. 

But that's kind of dark and depressing note to leave Arendelle on. I'm not really that worried about it though; I think that Elsa learned her lesson well during the course of the movie. She learned that she needs to put love first, and love is how you counter pride and strengthen your virtues. Plus, I think Anna will help keep everyone in check. For all her faults, Anna is gifted with a strong sense of loyalty and virtue, and those are developed a lot during the movie. She's also in a unique position in the social order- she's royalty, but she's not in power. She's not part of the town, nor born to be queen (that's actually a line from one of the removed songs, which I want to talk about eventually as well) which gives her an outside perspective on everyone else. If anyone were to begin going down the wrong path, she would be the first to notice, and she wouldn't hesitate to help set them straight. 

So I personally think that with Elsa and Anna working as a team, Arendelle will be led into a time of prosperity. And everyone really will get their happily ever after.

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.