I’m bored and I really enjoy your opinions on Disney, so I thought you might have something interesting to say to get my brain ticking. I came across a post on Frozen and I was like, “Ah, a perfect starting place for dropping you an ask.” I’ve never really been that bothered by Frozen and I don’t know what it is that I’m just not fond about. Maybe it’s that I dislike the characters? Maybe it’s that they didn’t really have any established rules for the way magic worked in that universe and thus had anything they wanted happening? Maybe it’s the twist villain? I don’t know, it’s probably just the characters that they tried to make so cool and girlboss!
Elsa is made out to be this awesome protagonist that is never in the wrong and that grates me. She has flaws, but the film doesn’t act like they’re flaws. She runs away out of fear and shame for not being able to control her powers, but then two seconds later she’s singing “Let It Go” and making giant ice castles and bringing snowmen to life?! And “Let It Go” is super annoying for the fact that Elsa starts off worried and upset (fair enough, she’s just ran away from her home, her kingdom, her sister whom she hasn’t seen in years, she lost control of her powers) but then immediately turns round and is like, “Actually, it’s not my fault and I’m fine as I am and I don’t need any of those responsibilities!” Which would be fine, but she also finishes the film with the same attitude!
Anna, too! Naive and optimistic and perhaps a little too trusting, she never realises that even if Han hadn’t turned out evil, Elsa had every right to be worried over their marriage. She never realises that it’s partly her fault for revealing Elsa’s powers (and she definitely doesn’t apologise). There’s a lot she doesn’t realise, and the only lesson she takes away from it all is that Christoff loves her instead of Han.
Oh my days, I’ve just realised how ridiculously long this has gotten, super sorry! Have a lovely day!
Let’s do this! For fun!
1. They don't need to establish exhaustive rules for how magic works in their world.
Red Riding Hood doesn't explain how the Big Bad Wolf can talk-it just explains that he can. Cinderella doesn't explain how Fairy Godmothers work, or why the spell should only last until midnight—it just explains that she casts one, and it does only last until midnight. Beauty & the Beast does not explain how, after The Beast has died, the "breaking of the curse" could bring him back to life. After Belle confesses her love, he should just go from dead beast to dead human, for all the explanation they give.
Beauty & the Beast also famously refuses to explain (explicitly) why all of the household were cursed, along with the castle and the Prince. But what it does explain is, "there's a curse, it was put in place because of a defect in the Prince's character, and there's a time limit on it's ability to be removed, which can only happen if the defect in his character is overcome."
The whole point of having magic in the story is just as a tool...to create a plot. You don't have to explain everything; you just have to explain what will affect the characters. So, Frozen says, very plainly in the beginning: "you can either be born with magical powers or cursed with them in this world, and trolls are the experts on how magical powers work. The way Elsa's specific magical powers work is, they're beautiful, but powerful, and they're tied to her emotions. Therefore, if her negative emotions control her, her negative emotions control those powers. Also, if you're struck with magical powers in the head, the effects can be removed with memory alteration. If you're struck with magical powers in the heart, the effects can only be removed by an act of True Love.
Also, here's an explanation of what counts as 'True Love." They actually do way more explaining than the average fairy tale. And they set you up really nicely to receive that explanation by having the opening scene be a song that describes Ice Magic as “beautiful/powerful/dangerous/cold/ice has a magic can't be controlled.” Etc.
If you were wondering what limits there are on Elsa's powers, and whether or not she can just make anything out of ice, and how it's possible for her to bring inanimate snow to life
—well, you're focusing on the wrong things for this kind of story.
It's not that important for a fairy tale like this one. In a superhero story, limitations on powers would be important. Because the point of a superhero story is, "how am I going to take selfless responsibility for what I'm able to do?" And if you don't know the boundaries on "what I'm able to do," then you can't communicate that point clearly. That's why we need to know that Superman can see through just about everything, but not lead. That's why you need to know that Elastigirl can't stretch in the cold. You can't know how to take responsibility for your abilities if you don't know what they are and are not.
But Elsa? The point of Elsa having powers is not as a metaphor for her unique skills. That's what it would be in a superhero movie.
Like, in superhero movies, Spidey's ability to stick to walls is supposed to be a reference to like, your ability to...l don't know, draw really well. How is Spidey going to use his ability to stick to walls for the good of others = how are you going to use your ability to draw for the good of others, because it's something special and unique to you, you have something to offer, are you going to use it selflessly, etc.
But for Elsa, that's not what it's about. Her powers are just a metaphor for how what's going on inside of her effects everyone around her, relationally. And it's still relatable. But not in a "skills" way. Just like all of us non-superpowered people: "if you let fear control you, you'll hurt everyone around you. But if you let love cast out fear, you'll love and be loved."
That's what's so good about this movie. When you look at it like that, you realize the powers aren’t the point.
Elsa isolates because she thinks that'll keep her from hurting everyone (fear controls her) but actually, by isolating, she's still hurting everyone-nobody in the kingdom gets to see their beloved ruler, and her sister is hurt, relationally, and feels unloved and shut-out, enough to trust the first scoundrel she meets-etc. See how the powers just make the story interesting, but they're not the point of the story? If Elsa's powers were replaced by "frantic outbursts of human temper" the story could be told in a lot of the same ways. But that's a post for another time.
So I don't think you disliked it because of the powers not being "established." "Whatever they wanted to have happen" did not happen, in the story. They laid out the rules that were relevant—“if fear controls you, it'll lead to great danger/but an act of true love can thaw a frozen heart."—and then they followed those rules in an interesting and consistent way.
2. The "twist" villain worked perfectly for the story.
A good villain is supposed to be the opposite of whatever your story's message is. Frozen's is, "Self-Sacrificial Love Casts Out Fear." Elsa is afraid she'll hurt everyone around her, and afraid that makes her unloveable-so she's a control freak over her circumstances. Anna is also afraid she's unloveable-simply because she's shut out and unknown-so she's always trying to control who she keeps in her life. Hans is both "unknown" and "controlling." He's "unknown" in two ways—1, nobody sees him in the shadows of his brothers in his own kingdom, and 2, nobody in Arendelle "knows" his true nature, especially not Anna. But the difference is, where our heroes don't like being unknown, Hans does, and uses it to his advantage, because he's also "controlling." But unlike our heroes, who learn that "control" is not the way to love, Hans is willing to do anything to stay in control. Which is, always, rooted in fear, too. Hans is just afraid he'll never get a throne. So. You see that he foils the two main characters perfectly.
But the main point of Hans is that he's not self-sacrificial, he's self-serving, which is the opposite of what the story claims "True Love" is.
Why's the "twist" part important? Because he uses the main characters' fears as a weapon to serve himself, and he couldn't have done that, for these two particular characters, by being anything but a liar. Anna is afraid she won't ever be loved, so he pretends to love her to get something for himself. Elsa is afraid she'll hurt everyone, so Hans pretends to be protecting everyone from her. And honestly, that's another core of the movie-love that is self-sacrificial, true love, can't be separated from truth. Anna can't really "truly love" Elsa in a way that HELPS Elsa feel loved if she doesn't know Elsa's flaws. Elsa can't "truly love" Anna if she's refusing to know Anna by always shutting her out. And Hans comes along and doesn't let himself be "truly known." Perfect.
So, the movie says "Self-Sacrificial Love Casts Out Fear" and Hans, the villain, says, "Self-Service Uses Fear As a Weapon."
So I don't think you disliked the "twist" villain. Because it wasn't just an empty "shock-jock, look how edgy we are, to make the Prince the bad guy" move. It was the right move, for this story and these characters.
3. I think your definition of "so cool" and "girlboss" might be different from what l understand those terms to mean, because none of the characters fit those descriptions.
Anna (as we understand her throughout the story) is introduced like this:
And she's constantly dropping stuff and getting into awkward social situations-and she basically makes zero correct decisions, for the entire adventure. Tries to fight wolves like a girlboss-and instead accidentally knocks her guide out of the sleigh and has to be thrown to safety while she ruins his livelihood. Tries to climb a cliff with zero experience-looks ridiculous and falls. Tries to talk her sister into lifting a curse and insists that she knows best because her sister would never hurt her-gets crippled, because her sister absolutely does hurt her, and totally fails. Tries to marry a handsome prince-really bad judgement of character, totally duped, basically would've died without help from the weakest and most mentally-confused character in the movie, Olaf. The only "girlboss" moment you could argue she had was punching Hans in the face at the end of the movie, and I would argue that that one moment, in the face of all her failures and humiliation throughout the movie, and in the face of him as a vile villain? That moment is okay.
Also, the whole way they pace that moment is still in-character for Anna. It's still like she's not doing the "dignified" thing. She delivers her little one liner, "the only frozen heart around here is you," and then turns around to walk away with her nose in the air, like she's
"above it all." Which frames the moment where she turns around and punches him like a joke. It frames that moment like it's a satisfying, but still "not decorous, not dignified," thing to do. It would've been "cool" and poorly received if Anna, the character who's always jumping into doing the emotional, awkward thing, had suddenly become the bigger person and risen above her hurt in that moment.
So instead, she punches him. And whatever. He deserved it, blah blah blah. The point is, even that moment isn’t supposed to be strictly “cool” or “girlboss.” It’s just supposed to be “in-character funny.”
See, usually a "girlboss" character knows exactly what the best thing to do is in a situation, and does it well. Or, she gets knocked down, but consistently gets back up and hits harder. Anna does not do any of those things. She keeps trying when she fails, yeah-but it's not because of an inner strength, it's because of an inner weakness. She keeps pushing because she's desperate, and insecure, not because she's awesome and never-say-die. Eventually, after Elsa strikes her and Hans betrays her, Anna does give up. She tells the snowman "we won't (come back.)" after Elsa strikes her. She tells Olaf she doesn't know what love is. It's not until she learns that lesson that anything she tries to do works—and she gives herself up to do it. And that's finally a moment of strength from her, not weakness. As for "cool"-gimme a break.
There's nothing "cool" about Anna. Anna's not good at anything except, at the very end, self-sacrificially standing in front of a sword and getting one punch in on a villain who's already disarmed, defeated and probably slightly concussed anyway. She's not supposed to be "cool" or "girlboss." She's supposed to be "Desperate to Love and Be Loved." And that's what she is, perfectly. "Desperate" is not a characteristic that fits the definition "girlboss" or "cool."
But maybe you just meant "Elsa is so cool and a girlboss." Okay, well, again, depends on what you mean by that. If you mean "having superpowers are cool" okay, well, are they? Is that what the movie is telling you? Because powers basically ruin all of Elsa's childhood and life until the last 3 minutes of the movie. You could be like "come on, she can make snow and ice monsters, glitter gowns, and an entire palace just by dancing. They totally tried to make her 'cool." That's like saying Simba's ability to eat bugs and belch and fight with Nala is "cool." She does all those things at her "Character in the WRONG" moment, in the story, just like Simba living in the Hakuna Matata jungle. Therefore the movie is not trying to tell you that Elsa is cool, it's trying to tell you that Elsa is wrong, but you can understand why she's wrong. You can understand why she feels triumphant for a moment-and then the movie shows you that triumph is misplaced.
I mean, she's taken out by her own falling chandelier. Every time she's confronted with a problem, she runs away. When she gets into "battles of wits," she says the wrong thing, or the shy, shut-down thing, not a girlboss one-liner that shuts the other person up. Elsa's not cool either. She doesn't have the answers, she doesn't save the day-she gets saved.
Both of these characters are desperate, open wounds-—they're needy and they're in the wrong, each in their own way, for the majority of the movie. They're weak, and they have to learn to find strength in love, for most of their story. There's nothing "girlboss" or "cool" about them.
I think maybe what some people make the mistake of is noticing the Frozen mania, and the fact that the two main characters are girls and one of them has superpowers and they other doesn't get with a Prince, and then they get the impression, from that, that the characters are "cool girlbosses." But like...that's like saying Dory from the first Finding Hemo movie is a girlboss. She's so totally not. She's a wreck. A funny, appealing, sometimes-relatable-human wreck. And a good character, but the hype doesn't change who she is, as a character. And who she is, like Anna and Elsa, is just a good character.
4. Elsa does not finish Let it Go with an "I'm Fine As I Am" attitude, and she doesn't finish the movie that way, either.
She finishes "Let it Go" with an "I'm fine up here, isolated from everyone," attitude. And then the movie very quickly proves her wrong by having Anna show up and reveal to her that no, actually, she is not fine up there, because the person she cares about most can still find her and be hurt by her, and the whole kingdom is still reeling from the problems she ran away from.
At the end of the movie the only thing I can guess you got the impression that she's "fine as she is" from was the fact that she's using her powers again.
But like. Elsa's whole problem was never her powers. She wasn't supposed to learn to stop using them. She was supposed to learn to stop living in fear. Instead, she was supposed to lean on love-love that sacrifices for her, flaws and dangerousness and all-and stop trying to control her image and what everyone knows about her.
Because in trying to control what everyone knows about her, she was controlling whether or not they loved her or treated her like a monster. And even running away and singing Let It Go was still an effort to control everything-by not being around people who could treat her like a monster or be hurt by her. Instead, accepting that she might hurt people because she can't always control everything, and trusting that they'll still love and forgive her, was her character arc.
She lives by faith in sacrificial love by the end, not by fear. That's the arc. She does that perfectly.
It was never, "I'm fine as I am." Because the point was never "there's* something wrong with me." It was, "I don't need to fear a lack of control, because true love covers what I can't control." That's all.
4. Anna does communicate to the audience that she's sorry and willing to understand the reasons behind Elsa's secrets.
The lesson Anna takes away from all of this is not "which guy loves me." It's "what is love?" And you know she's learned that because she demonstrates it. If Anna had died-frozen forever-or been cut down by Hans' sword, you realize that Elsa would never have been able to repay that gesture, right? But Anna still made that choice.
Even though it meant Elsa would never repay her. And the point is — excuse me, I know this is long enough, but I feel like you're missing out on something wonderful here—
Anna could have left Elsa to be killed and ridden off into the sunset with Kristoff.
They make it very clear that that is her goal when she stumbles onto the ice, free from the room Hans trapped her in. Elsa is no longer her motivation. She isn't looking for Elsa. She's not trying to get that love she's looked for, from Elsa, in that moment. She's trying to get it from Kristoff, not just for her emotional need-but for the "breaking of the curse" that's killing her in the moment. That whole scene where she realizes he loves her-truly loves her, because he fits the description Olaf gives-is in there to communicate to the audience that he could save her. He could give her what she needs.
And the reason that's important is that it proves that this is character development: when she chooses not to go to Kristoff, and to go to Elsa instead.
Because it's her, choosing to turn away from the person who could give her something (even if it is "love") and to turn toward the person who can't give her something (Elsa.) Who has repeatedly failed to give her something, for their entire lives.
Anna at the beginning of the movie would've run to Kristoff. That was the whole point of Hans, when it comes to Anna-he represents someone who can fulfill a need in Anna. But when Anna turns away from Kristoff and runs to save Elsa instead, Anna is demonstrating what she's learned —that love isn't about her own needs. It's putting someone else's needs before yours. She stands between Hans and Elsa, with the full expectation that she's not going to get anything out of it, not even a guarantee of E/sa's love in return. And her own needs will NOT get met if she puts Elsa's first.
And that's what she does. Whereas, at the beginning of the film, Anna would not have done that. Because that's not what she thinks love is. She hasn’t realized that yet.
She thinks love means closeness. And that does come with love. But that's not love. Love is, like Olaf says, putting someone else's needs before yours. But the whole movie, Anna is not working to put Elsa's needs before her own. She's working to change Elsa's mind, now that she knows the truth, so that she and Elsa can be "close again." She's climbing that mountain and arguing with Elsa, because she thinks that all that stood in their way before was this secret that's been uncovered. And sure, Anna has always been willing to “be there for” Elsa, but you have to see that Anna wanted that to come with Elsa being there for her, in return.
Which would be nice. But it's not true love. True love is being there for someone even when they refuse to be there for you. Because that's putting their needs before yours.
Thanks for the super long ask! That was fun! I hope you enjoyed reading as much as l enjoyed writing-I think sometimes we judge Frozen by the mania that followed, not the good quality that actually caused the mania, and deserved the mania, though. Anyway 😂
Guards! Take them away! Back to the theater with you! Watch the movie again!
