Kacze Apacze

To be clear, I use "villain" to mean antagonist, people who oppose the main characters. In this movie, the villains are Goldilocks (plus bears), Death, and Jack Horner respectively. I'm not particular about semantics, villain is a cooler word to say, and they all commit crimes anyways, so whatever. Having said that, Puss in Boots has one of the most impressive uses of villains I've ever seen in a movie, delivering three extremely compelling villains in a two hour window when many longer films struggle to even deliver a single good villain. Not only that, but each villain in Puss in Boots represents a completely different villain archetype, each with a different role to play in the story, and each one executed to perfection for their respective roles. I think everyone who has watched the movie has come away with a favorite villain, and so the intention of this essay is to explore in depth the archetypes that each villain represents, their implementation, and the significance of each fairy tale chosen (yeah, it's important). As an analysis nerd, maybe I can bring to your attention some things about your favorite villain that you had not considered, maybe give you something to think about the next time you get into a friendly debate about who is the best Puss in Boots villain.

Because it's JACK HORNER. HOLY SHIT is it Jack Horner. This is THE Jack Horner essay, I need people to understand how big brained the execution on this narrative behemoth is, this is the ONLY reason this essay exists. Jack Horner is on an entirely different level of writing to the other two, LET ME SELL YOU ON THIS. The team at DreamWorks poured liquid narrative gold into this titan of a villain and this essay does not stop until I fully explain how much narrative genius is on display here, they have worked TOO hard for their work to go unappreciated. You can actually just skip to the Jack Horner section that's where the hot, hot analysis is. We have to talk about 18th century political discourse, galaxy brained narrative framing devices, and Jack's significance to the core themes of the Shrek franchise. I have lost sleep researching Jack Horner, this rabbit hole is DEEP. I'll talk about each villain in depth, but we stan Jack Horner in this house.

1. Goldilocks, the sympathetic villain

Goldilocks and her supporting bear family is the sympathetic villain archetype, villains who oppose the hero's goals but who otherwise have understandable, likable motivations that make an audience want to see them win. The strength of this style of villain is to serve as secondary protagonists: when the audience likes a villain, the audience wants to see them complete an emotional journey just as much as the main hero characters. Sympathetic villains are exceptionally strong when they are working towards the same goals as the heroes, because their motivations are inherently relatable. It's the same motivation that the good guys have, after all.

Goldilocks is one of the more well known fairy tale properties of the three villains and that lends itself well to her villain archetype. The fact that audiences are already familiar with the Goldilocks story, combined with the fact that she gets the most screen time of the three villains, gives the audience a lot of context and backstory to understand Goldilocks as a character, and relate to her more easily. Her supporting bear family is written to be lovably goofy and it's easy to get attached to this lovable family. They fulfill the sympathetic villain archetype by being as lovable as they are.

The recontextualization of the original Goldilocks fairy tale as a found family story is also a very clever choice. The repeated line "too big, too small, just right" is used in the original fairy tale to describe Goldilocks trying beds until she finds one that fits her, but is cleverly reframed in this movie as a metaphor for Goldilocks trying to find a FAMILY that fits her. The bear family that adopted her is "just right" as a permanent family for Goldilocks, yet she must struggle with different ideas of family before she is able to settle on her "just right".

The Goldilocks subplot easily parallels the journey of Puss, Kitty, and Perrito. Goldilocks and our main heroes are all in conflict over the wishing star, but ultimately both parties end up discovering that their needs are met by embracing their respective found families, no wish required. Puss, Kitty, and Perrito all suffer from loneliness and require each other's company to be truly happy, just like Goldilocks needs the company of the bears to be happy. And so, Goldilocks ends the movie not as enemies to Puss' party, but as allies, sitting next to Puss' party, celebrating their similar victories together. A classic and clean execution of a sympathetic villain.

2. Death, the symbolic villain

Death is an example of a symbolic villain, which is a villain designed specifically to symbolically challenge specific traits or beliefs held by the protagonists. Symbolic villains may have personal motivations but their primary narrative significance is the effect they have on the hero, and their job is to highlight the fears and anxieties of the hero and to force the hero to face their fears. To this end, symbolic villains can often have little or no personal motivations, at which point they are also known as force-of-nature villains, villains that function more as a threatening force than as a person with needs and wants. Force of nature villains don't even have to be people, a tornado can fill the role of a force of nature antagonist.

Death is a very obvious choice for this role, one of Puss' primary anxieties is his fear of death, and there's no better symbolic villain to challenge this than "Death, straight up". He qualifies as a force of nature villain in a very direct way by being a literal embodiment of a concept, threatening and unavoidable. The choice of depicting Death as an incarnation of the big bad wolf also has some significance. He doesn't have any narrative ties to the original incarnation of the big bad wolf (or the wolf from Shrek), but the big bad wolf is a well understood cultural shorthand for "fairy tale bad guy". Indeed, that's what Death represents for this movie, he plays the role of a fairy tale bad guy, and his depiction as the big bad wolf hides his true identity until later into the story.

It should be noted that the personal motivations of a symbolic villain barely matters, and that's very true of Death. He has minimal screen time to explain his motivations, because it's not particularly important. More interestingly, what little we know about his motivations are not particularly likable or relatable. Many have made the mistake of understanding Death as a neutral, noble party just doing his job as death, but that's not true of this movie. It's NOT Death's job to kill Puss in Boots, his job is to take Puss' life when Puss dies of normal causes. Death isn't supposed to stab people personally with a knife, he just wanted to kill Puss for fun. It's fine because Death isn't meant to be sympathetic, Death is a dick in this movie, straight up.

Since symbolic villains have everything to do with the hero, they are most effective when they force the hero into action. Death's presence forces Puss into retirement, then it forces him on the journey to find the wishing star, and shows up along the way to pressure him further. He forces Puss into a very sincerely depicted panic attack scene, and that's what symbolic villains do, they push our heroes to reveal things about themselves, their needs and wants and anxieties, so our heroes can then confront those things. The visual execution on his threatening presence also must be commended, since everyone knows how dangerous DreamWorks made him look. I have no notes, he's just cool as fuck.

3. Jack Horner is the unsympathetic villain

Alright we're starting to wade into the Jack Horner waters here, but we'll start with the baby surface level analysis of Jack's villain archetype. Jack is the unsympathetic villain, a particularly monstrous one, who no one likes because he's a dick. His motivations are surprisingly fleshed out more than that of Death since Jack at least explains his backstory, but his motivations are trash because he's trash. The heroes barely interact with him and his motivations add very little to the journey of the heroes. Unsympathetic villains are often like this because their role in the story is to simply be unlikeable, to be such a shitty person that their eventual failure delights the audience with a sense of catharsis. That in and of itself has its own kind of narrative strength, entertainment is still the ultimate goal of any piece of media, after all.

He's reminiscent of classic Disney villains such as Jafar and Scar in a number of ways: he's petty and power hungry despite having minimal backstory reasons to be so, and his depiction is not conventionally attractive (although those are some BROAD shoulders). He's also partially queer-coded in the same way as the classic Disney villains through his very unconventional masculinity: he's temperamentally flamboyant, and he's even got the pink hair to boot. Queer coding in villains is a complicated discussion I'm not qualified to discuss in depth, but it can be surprisingly enjoyable to see joyful unconventional masculinity on screen even if the context is an evil villain. We want to see him scheme, and we want to see him fail; The audience just wants to see him do stuff because he's so fun.

Jack embodies the unsympathetic villain well in his simplicity, all his actions are motivated by petty greed and he approaches every situation with uncomplicated evil. I would ask you, is this really all there is to this incarnation of Jack Horner though? YUP, turns out that's it. However, like the other two villains, Jack Horner is inspired by an existing cultural text that influences the development of his narrative. I have explained the motivations behind the other two, I will do the same for Jack.

THIS is where the fun starts.

4. Welcome to 18th century political discourse

Jack Horner's original text is the least well known property out of the three villain origins. "Little Jack Horner" is an 18th century nursery rhyme that's short enough to be read word for word in the film, and short enough to be included in this essay:

Little Jack Horner

Sat in the corner,

Eating his Christmas pie;

He put in his thumb,

And pulled out a plum,

And said, "What a good boy am I!"

That's the whole thing, some kid eats a plum out of a pie. However, even in its early days the Jack Horner rhyme became (somehow) associated with the themes of greed and opportunism. Let's try to follow the logic: we have some kid, CLEARLY financially privileged enough to receive a pie for Christmas, decides to steal a plum out of the center of the pie, ruining it with his dirty kid fingers before anyone could cut the pie to share, then he has the gall to declare "what a good boy am I"! THIS FUCKER. The pie is the wealth of the common man, or something, and the plum is, like, the fruits of their labor, and this BOURGEOIS child is reveling in his destruction of the economy with his hunger for profit (and plums).

It sounds stupid because it IS stupid, but the association stuck and found use in a surprising amount of historical literature and political writings. I can just rattle off examples from the Wikipedia article: English poet Samuel Bishop uses Jack Horner as a critique of the Civil service bureaucracy, the satirical novel Melincourt (1817) has 5 people sing a song describing how they misuse their trades to fleece the public that compares themselves to Jack Horner, etc, etc, there's like 6 more examples. Also fun is the fact that educators in the 1800's have made attempts to sanitize the Jack Horner rhyme by adding verses that describe Jack Horner totally sharing his pie afterwards because it's the good ethical thing for little boys to do. Jack Horner shows up in war propaganda, it's absolutely wild.

This is the historical context behind the little Jack Horner rhyme, the reason why Jack Horner represents capitalistic greed and cruelty in the movie. I had to look this stuff up after the movie, who even knows about this stuff, but the writers have seriously done their homework to find a nursery rhyme with a historyc this interesting, and it's fascinating to see how they worked to recontextualize this rhyme into a movie villain for Puss in Boots. I say this, because the next layer of Jack Horner's narrative construction is even more interesting.

5. Jack the Anti-Pinocchio

Drew like a dark, fucked up version of Pinocchio, haha. Just a glimpse into my dark reality. A full stare into my twisted perspective would make most go simply insane, lmao.

Jack Horner's screen time is punctuated with references to the story of Pinocchio, who I'm sure we are all familiar with. Jack's intro flashback features Pinocchio and he spends a lot of time with "ethical bug", the very shameless clone of Pinocchio's cricket. On one hand, this is a very clever way to contextualize Jack Horner using a better known media property, but on the other hand, the choice of Pinocchio is very deliberate because Jack Horner is used in this movie specifically as a dark, villainous reflection of Pinocchio. 2022 is truly the year of Pinocchio for bringing us three Pinocchio movies and ending the year on the Anti-Pinnochio: Jack Horner.

Pinocchio is the story of a little puppet boy, naive to the ways of the world, learning how to be a "good boy" through trials and tribulations. He fails to listen to his father and his companion cricket sometimes but he ultimately learns a sense of morality and kindness. Compare and contrast this to the use of "good boy" in the Jack Horner rhyme, where Jack ruins a pie then ironically declares himself a good boy. This is where the parallels start: Jack Horner at multiple points calls himself a "good boy", but he has done nothing good to earn such a title. Everytime he says "good boy" it is not only a reference to his own rhyme, but as an ironic allusion to the story of Pinocchio as well.

Consider the appearance of Pinocchio early on in Jack's introduction scene, where Jack is upstaged by Pinocchio's magic puppet show and becomes jealously possessive of magic. The significance of that scene comes from the fact that Pinocchio's magic body is NOT a net positive advantage for Pinocchio: as a puppet Pinocchio struggles to fit in with human children, but the only advantage to his magic body is his ability to entertain crowds for stage shows, if he offers his only asset up for commercial exploitation. Not only that, but Pinocchio's magic forces his nose to grow when he lies, so it's as much a liability as it is an asset. Jack is jealous of a socially underprivileged child for the ONLY advantage Pinocchio has, planting the seeds of Jack's characterization mere moments after his introduction.

Jack's journey with off brand cricket completes his characterization. We see him abuse his men against the advice of cricket, but we also see that he perfectly understands cricket's advice, he just has no interest in being good. Contrast this with Pinocchio, who also fails to heed cricket's advice, but only because he is naive and fails to understand the nuances of the advice. We also learn how he was overwhelmingly privileged in life but still wishes for magic, the only privilege he's ever been denied, and his intention to hoard it from everyone else. Jack is written with the intention of filling the role of the monstrous, unsympathetic villain, and so it was a very deliberate and intelligent decision to frame him as the moral antithesis of a "good boy", the moral antithesis of Pinocchio. What morality Pinocchio has to learn, Jack disregards completely and declares himself a "good boy" anyways. Each of the three villains in this movie is designed around their respective archetypes, but Jack Horner takes his design prompt and fucking SOARS.

6. The Shrek Cinematic Universe

Let's take a brief detour through the history of the Shrek franchise.

In 1994, Jeffrey Katsenberg was ousted from a chairman role from Walt Disney and went on to co found DreamWorks Studios. The original Shrek movie started development the year after in 1995, as a very loose adaptation of a now very obscure children's picture book of the same name. It is often said that Shrek was written as a cynical parody of the fairy tale films of Disney as a form of revenge from Katsenberg. Disney films at the time were known for being family friendly and moralistically pure and full of beautiful, wholesome heroes on noble quests, and Shrek sought to subvert those expectations deliberately. At release Shrek had become an amalgamation of various fairy tale stories, featuring many parodies of Disney properties such as Pinocchio and Snow White. The humor was crass and irreverent to contrast with the properties of Disney, with a story focused on the uglier, dirtier ogre Shrek learning to become an unconventional hero to a fairytale kingdom.

It turns out the market was indeed craving the kind of off beat fairy tale that Shrek had become, as an alternative to Disney's clean, beautiful properties. Shrek's celebration of unconventional beauty and its clever parodies of classic fairy tales both struck a chord with audiences, and the Shrek franchise has been a DreamWorks classic ever since. The two Puss in boots movies are spin-offs of the Shrek franchise. Both Puss in Boots movies differ from Shrek in the way that they use fairy tales: the fairy tales are still different from their original contexts, but they are much closer to their original meanings rather than fully comedic comedies. The first Puss in Boots was a moderate success while the second Puss in Boots is critically acclaimed and seems to be on track to revive the entire Shrek franchise.

I want to highlight the strategy Puss in Boots: The Last Wish has found for handling its fairy tale properties, and how it contributed to this film's current success. Puss in Boots has figured out the storytelling potential of becoming a sort of cross over film for multiple fairy tale stories, recontextualized for a modern audience, but with more faithfulness and sincerity to the original text than the Shrek franchise before it. It's reminiscent of the very popular Marvel Cinematic Universe, but for even older public domain stories. In a way this is still within the spirit of Shrek, it still makes use of an ensemble cast of reimagined public domain fairy tale stories to construct a new, modern narrative. It even has some parallels to the original Disney properties that led to the creation of Shrek, as Disney also built its brand off the adaptation of the same public domain fairy tales that make guest appearances in Shrek.

This style of storytelling has the unique power of reviving older, forgotten media properties into fresh new narratives, made even more complex by blending multiple stories into a single movie and forcing them to develop new meaning through interacting with one another. This approach does an incredible job of capturing the essence of Shrek: Shrek himself is a lesser known property elevated to the status of a cultural icon through his interactions with an exciting ensemble cast of comedic fairy tale imaginings, and the Shrek franchise is responsible for bringing attention and meaning to even more fairy tales and nursery rhymes, some well known, some not. Might I remind you, Puss in Boots himself was not amongst the most popular fairy tales such as Pinocchio and Cinderella, the properties that were themselves brought to fame by being associated with the Disney brand. Shrek is often praised for its celebration of unconventional beauty, and while this is true for its celebration of literal unconventional beauty features, it's also a celebration of the revival of the unconventional, forgotten stories of the past that have the potential for new life.

I say to you that Jack Horner is the perfect encapsulation of this, the spirit of the Shrek franchise. This excruciatingly simple 6 line nursery rhyme, kept alive throughout centuries through artists extracting a comical amount of political meaning from it, now revived once more by the talented team at DreamWorks. Jack Horner had the least well known origins of the three villains, many people didn't even know the nursery rhyme going into the theater, but the amount of care put into his narrative construction is a monumental testament to the power of narrative reinvention. All this, at a time when the Shrek franchise itself was in decline and required its own reinvention to survive. This, when Puss in Boots 2 required bold new changes after the lukewarm reception to the first Puss in Boots. A daunting task, but if a property as obscure as Jack Horner can be revitalized with such vigor, then so can the Shrek franchise.