But even before he concocts his story about Anna (which is also one of the most unintentionally laughable parts of the movie- they completed their wedding vows without any sort of officiant, and people just accept that?) Anna leaves him in charge of Arendelle. It was already announced before the party- by Anna, no less- that they were engaged; it's barely more of a stretch for him to say that they were secretly wed before she went off in search of her sister than the lie he ultimately weaves. There's no sense that I gathered that there's any sort of line of succession with a greater claim than he has, having been given stewardship of the kingdom. At the very least, going on a life-threatening expedition is an order of magnitude more effort than was going into going to a party and courting Anna.Azahul said:At this point in time, Anna is missing. Hans needs one of the sisters alive, because they are his only claim to the throne. Everyone knows that Anna left without marrying him, it's not until she comes back that he gets the chance to spin a lie saying that they said their wedding vows. And on his own, he has even less claim to the thrown than a whole raft of the other noblemen. Until he can marry Anna, he needs everyone to think he cares for both her and her sister. Hence leading the expedition, giving orders that Elsa is not to be harmed (if word got back to Anna that her fiance had ordered her sister killed, I can't imagine his odds would be improved), and talking Elsa down. He does take a chance to try and stage an accident with the chandelier, in a way where he could not possibly be blamed (and would even be lauded for his actions even if Elsa died). There is a very clear reason for everything good he does. He isn't part of the royal family yet, and he can't drop the facade until he is.
I understand what you mean; I just think it could have been handled in a way that still would have been completely surprising without seeming so "out of left field". I mean, I had suspicions anyway, partly because of all the buzz that was going on about third-act twists; but even keeping an eye out with that in mind, I still didn't personally find the threads that led to that conclusion.
And that's fine; Your Mileage May Vary, as they say. It's really the only thing that bothered me (and my wife) in an otherwise exemplary and remarkable movie.I dunno. The twist caught me, but I was thinking for a lot of the movie that Hans was getting a damned good deal out of this given his twelve older brothers. Odds were that without this kind of marriage, he'd have lived his entire life off the generosity of an older sibling (which, it's also established, he doesn't always get on with). Once the movie was over, I was pretty comfortable with the twist and how it'd been set up.
The "Elsa is homosexual" reading just seems incredibly shallow to me, to the point that if the idea had first been put forth by anti-gay "homosexual agenda" paranoids, the same people would laugh. The tiny and trivial things that make up that case aren't compelling at all, and it irks me somewhat that I've seen a few people sling "well you just assume she's straight because of your heteronormative presumptions" rhetoric at others who doubt it. One could as easily make the case that Elsa must be straight because her creation of Olaf suggests the need for a male presence in her life, or that his creation represents her secret desire for motherhood, or the casting of Idina Menzel in a role so parallel to the one she played in "Wicked", where she played a heterosexual character, must mean this character is heterosexual too.I can see an easy enough way to make a reading of homosexuality and coming out story out of it. It's not my preferred reading, like you (and MovieBob, from the sound of it) I think the more general metaphor for being a teenager works in a far superior way. I am entirely comfortable with people using Elsa as a metaphor for the homosexual experience of being forced into a closet though.
Anyway, I saw the film myself a day or two ago. Really enjoyed it, and my approval of it has only been growing the more I think about it. That third act is just fantastic, my inner feminist spent the whole thing grinning the biggest grin imaginable.
(I'm not saying any of the above is the case. I'm just saying the arguments are no more compelling.)
I don't have any problem with anyone seeing parallels with a closeted gay character, or someone feeling that the way Elsa is presented suggests sympathy to someone in that plight; I'm just annoyed that some people would want to make that claim to the exclusion of a wider and more inclusive kind of sympathy. That, and a vague suspicion that a broad press for such an interpretation might make some higher-ups say "That's it, we're matching every female character with a male counterpart from here on out." I'm firmly of the belief that when exterior agendas start curtailing the ability of writers to make their own narrative choices, we all lose.
(And yeah, my inner feminist loves Elsa and Anna too.)