Let's Talk About the Ending of Frozen

[unbeliever64]

Love Is An Open Door was a totally fun duet song he and Anna had. I liked how they vibed so well and had so much fun chemistry together. And they DID talk about stuff together and had things in common and what not. It did feel like they were legitimately getting to know each other through the fun date they had. Sure it was just a first date, but an AWESOME first date that sometimes does happen when the two of you just click. And even throughout the rest of the film he was acting all legit cool and noble and Good Guy Hans. Bob namedrops PUA, but even then you can tell when a guy is being sincere and when a guy is just using canned lines. So when the axe is dropped and he's all "Muhahaha foolish girl! I never loved you!, I just wasn't feeling it. Seriously, all the dude was missing was a mustache to twirl...THAT'S probably why people found it so 'unpredictable'. Gaston's descent into villiany adds up and feels real when you take everything we've seen and known about him into account. Hans's didn't. They avoided one cliche only to run smack into another one.

*THIS*. Very much this. I loved the movie, don't get me wrong. But there's all the difference in the world between a twist that is hinted at ahead of time (even in an extremely subtle way -- see "Sixth Sense"), and a completely out-of-nowhere character reversal.

We're not just seeing the Prince through Anna's eyes -- as Bob (and Dubya) says, we see him in action absent either princess, and he is *ALWAYS* the picture-perfect Good Guy. Having him flip on a dime and turn evil WITHOUT FORESHADOWING is just "Diabolus ex machina".

This might have been fixed by just a single line of dialogue. When Anna first meets the Prince and he says he's the youngest of bazillions of kids, he might have smirked and dropped a self-deprecating line about "yeah, no way *I* will ever be king". Just something so we know he's thinking about that possibility.

Without even any noticeable-after-the-fact foreshadowing, the twist just left me... cold.

Any thoughts on this, Moviebob?

 

[Trishbot]

I loved the movie, don't get me wrong. But there's all the difference in the world between a twist that is hinted at ahead of time (even in an extremely subtle way -- see "Sixth Sense"), and a completely out-of-nowhere character reversal.

We're not just seeing the Prince through Anna's eyes -- as Bob (and Dubya) says, we see him in action absent either princess, and he is *ALWAYS* the picture-perfect Good Guy. Having him flip on a dime and turn evil WITHOUT FORESHADOWING is just "Diabolus ex machina".

This might have been fixed by just a single line of dialogue. When Anna first meets the Prince and he says he's the youngest of bazillions of kids, he might have smirked and dropped a self-deprecating line about "yeah, no way *I* will ever be king". Just something so we know he's thinking about that possibility.

Without even any noticeable-after-the-fact foreshadowing, the twist just left me... cold.

Any thoughts on this, Moviebob?

I'll tell you my thoughts, at least...

Rewatching the movie, they DO foreshadow his heel-turn... a lot... but in very, surprisingly mature and subtle ways.

Yes, they openly state he's furthest brother in line to the throne. He's the ONLY one from his family and kingdom to show up at the coronation. He shares nothing truly personal about himself to Anna whatsoever. The major lyrics in his song are all about "I've found my own place" (not PERSON). Every time he's acting good, he's got eyes watching him. Unlike Anna (who was actively looking to escape her life from the prison-like castle and sees Hans as her ticket out), Hans has no reason to impulsively ask her to marry him. When he seeks to defend Anna compared to Elsa, his best defense is she's "ordinary". The majority of their "bonding" dialogue is just Anna speaking her wacky mind and him just saying he agrees (without expressing an opinion of his own). He does nothing to challenge her, question her, or follow-up anything she says (such as "why do you feel this way" or "why did you do that"... stuff that Kristoff makes a point of asking as they go on their journey together).

And, ultimately, when they are alone for the first time, no eyes watching, no hope of salvation coming, all his plans coming to fruition, he drops the act. As Anna says later, he truly had a frozen heart and bore no love in it.

What I truly love about the "twist" is, well, the realism (taken to an extreme) that, well, a nice guy can and will say the "right things" to a girl if he wants something from her. He'll agree. He'll be pleasant. He'll be charming. It's the "first date". He won't be honest. He won't be sincere. He'll put on his best behavior because he wants her convinced he truly is "Prince Charming", when in reality he's just looking to use her. Anna didn't question it; she bought into the lovesick fantasy long before she even MET him, and he recognized and capitalized on it like a pro.

That's a more masterful and scarily real villain than any "obviously evil", cloaked-in-black, mustache-twirling villain like Ursala, Captain Hook, Jafar, Hades, Maleficent, or Clayton ever were.

He's a charming prince in a Disney movie. He can sing. He can dance. He's rich. He's got brothers. He's shown as competent and brave... it's the "ideal" fantasy that girls buy into, and the perfect formula to turn on its head and manipulate.

Edit: Oh, someone pointed this part out. For a split-second, during the attack on Elsa, Hans glances up at the chandelier and tries to make an "accident" happen by guiding the bolt to knock it down onto her. It's very subtle, but you can see it if you're looking for it:

 

[unbeliever64]

Rewatching the movie, they DO foreshadow his heel-turn... a lot... but in very, surprisingly mature and subtle ways.

Yes, they openly state he's furthest brother in line to the throne. He's the ONLY one from his family and kingdom to show up at the coronation. He shares nothing truly personal about himself to Anna whatsoever. The major lyrics in his song are all about "I've found my own place" (not PERSON). Every time he's acting good, he's got eyes watching him. Unlike Anna (who was actively looking to escape her life from the prison-like castle and sees Hans as her ticket out), Hans has no reason to impulsively ask her to marry him. When he seeks to defend Anna compared to Elsa, his best defense is she's "ordinary". The majority of their "bonding" dialogue is just Anna speaking her wacky mind and him just saying he agrees (without expressing an opinion of his own). He does nothing to challenge her, question her, or follow-up anything she says (such as "why do you feel this way" or "why did you do that"... stuff that Kristoff makes a point of asking as they go on their journey together).

Dammit, now you're making me question myself. I'm gonna have to go see this one again...

If the foreshadowing really IS there, then I'm down to "Dammit, I *LIKED* the Prince", and "That's not how Disney princess cartoons are supposed to work!". Which isn't nearly as valid criticism as I thought I had...

 

[Lex Darko]

They foreshadowed Hans being evil. But they do it in a way that has never been done in a Disney movie so you don't see it coming. Most Disney villains wear dark colors speak in manner that conveys the intent to deceive; he does none of that save for one scene in the whole movie.

In the whole movie he only looks, speaks, and behaves like the villain and that's when he's admitting he's the villain.

Even after that scene everything he does "appears" heroic even confronting Elsa. That was just a well played twist.

On some people thinking Elsa may become a LGBT icon I can understand why some people could see her that way. But I don't think it has solid basis. She was never ashamed of what made her different. She was afraid that what made her different would kill people. There's a difference in being afraid of what people will think of you because you're not the same and being afraid of what makes you different accidentally murdering the first person to touch you.

 

[filmguy450]

While I liked the film, I found "Tangled" to be far more enjoyable, and "Brave" to do a lot more for the 'Disney Princess Movie Mold Revised' than this; although "Frozen" has better songs, save for one, with 'Let It Go' being the absolute standout.

First off, the opening with the ice farmers is never paid off. Why open with a song about their hardwork and spend a few minutes with them just for us to never see them again? Is there an ice farmer village and way of life? Do the live in huts or igloos or regular old houses in the various towns? No one knows because this was pointless. There had to be a more economical way to introduce Kristoff as a boy then that. It sets us for a different sort of thing (the vibe from that opening is pretty different than from the rest of the film) and isn't paid off. Thanks for wasting my time already movie!

Admittedly, that's a minor issue that you can't realize until the movie is almost over, and it barley detracts from anything else. The biggest flaw is the super short running time. We are definitely missing some scenes or some such. Unfortunately, the biggest issue with that is Elsa's characterization-

Once she runs away to the mountain, she's there for at absolutely most, a few hours before fully embracing her powers. With all the years of suppression, it's unbelievable (I realize it's odd to complain about unbelievabity in a movie with a talking snowman, but this issue seriously took me out of the film). If 'Let It Go' (seriously outstanding song) were set to a partial montage- 2 or 3 days of her alone on the mountain in a cave or something, during the first, slower part of the song. Then a day or 2 of her using her abilities in increasingly bigger ways (showing growing confidence) as the song builds and gets faster. Finally, culminating the same way it does in the film, the creation of ice castle.

Her character could have been fully realized with something like this, but as is, she feels like maybe the movie was going to go in X direction but then decided to go Y, and they hastily rewrote it.

Finally, the one song I loathed was the trolls' 'Fixer-Upper' song. It felt like pandering and it wasn't that catchy.

Yes, the third act twists caught me off guard (mostly), but I think you overlooked alot of the flaws in the film because of the surprising amount of non-Disney things that do happen in the film.

@Ishal- your argument is terrible, because according to the logic you used during it, any company/ corp./ inc./ brand that wants to grow shouldn't. That is reductive and counterintuitive as society and politics change, so too should these brands as to reflect what they know their audiences want (I am not meaning a Poochie kind of thing with that).

 

[MB202]

Yeah, Frozen was amazing... I could talk about it forever! Or at least as long as I'm obsessed with it... OH, and that Mickey Mouse short at the beginning was awesome, too, wasn't it?

 

[Dragonbums]

I think the technical side of the Movie was underappreciated. The tech created almost photorealistic snow, amazing Ice Effects with multiple shaders, and the stormy sea scene had probably more polygons than any animation scene before (which is why they didn'T show more than a few seconds of it).

Just my two cents.

It's quite easy to overlook that kind of stuff nowadays when EVERY movie pushes CGI effects to the max. To the point where the general audience is unphased by it. Even more so by the audience that have no fucking clue about the time and effort it takes to make these things (i.e not art major people.)

It doesn't help them one bit that it looks like a Tangeled clone in art style.

 

[Trishbot]

First off, the opening with the ice farmers is never paid off. Why open with a song about their hardwork and spend a few minutes with them just for us to never see them again? Is there an ice farmer village and way of life? Do the live in huts or igloos or regular old houses in the various towns? No one knows because this was pointless. There had to be a more economical way to introduce Kristoff as a boy then that. It sets us for a different sort of thing (the vibe from that opening is pretty different than from the rest of the film) and isn't paid off. Thanks for wasting my time already movie!

The opening serves several purposes, in fact. It is in the spirit of openings such as The Little Mermaid (the sailors sing about the mysterious sea... none of them really show up again), Pocahontas (The Beating Drum establishes their way of life, and we barely see them again), Aladdin (that merchant sings about the setting and never shows up again), Hunchback of Notre Dame (the jester delights some kids and segues into the movie proper, with the kids never showing up again), etc., with the point of the opening being to establish the tone of the movie and the setting of the movie. Like the sailors singing about the mysteries of the ocean, the (other) sailors in Pocahontas singing about the mysteries of the new world, Belle singing about what's beyond her village, we have the ice cutters singing about the perils, mysteries, and benefits of living in a world filled with cold and ice...

It serves THREE key purposes:
1) Apart from establishing the tone of the movie, it's a great place to show Kristoff's origins... and that scene shows what Kristoff will grow up doing. It shows, through the adults, the hard work and sacrifice he'll grow into living out. We don't see it in the movie, but the opening makes it clear that this is what Kristoff is doing for a living once we meet him as an adult and we now know how he does it and how much of a struggle it is, establishing his work ethic, his resilience, and how he finds fun even in grueling labor. We don't see the other ice workers again because the movie "fast-forwards" about 15 years, meaning they might all just be retired or even dead. It seems like Kristoff is one of the sole ice merchants in the kingdom at that point.

2) It establishes the setting of the movie. Like the merchant's song in Aladdin, it establishes the beauty and perils of this Nordic world. It very quickly establishes that, unlike Lion King, Little Mermaid, Aladdin, or other Disney movies, this is a kingdom of ice and rock, built on the fjords, beautiful yet tough. It's the most easy and accessible way to very, very quickly bring people into the movie and immerse them, as a teaser of things to come once the eternal winter hits... which ties into...

3) The lyrics. The song the ice cutters sing is FILLED with meaning, and they practically set up the whole premise of the movie, which describes both the kingdom, the properties of ice, and the entire character arc for Anna and Elsa:

"Born of cold and winter air
And mountain rain combining
This icy force both foul and fair
Has a frozen heart worth mining

So cut through the heart, cold and clear
Strike for love and strike for fear
See the beauty, sharp and sheer
Split the ice apart
And break the frozen heart

Hyup! Ho! Watch your step! Let it go!
Hyup! Ho! Watch your step! Let it go!

Beautiful!
Powerful!
Dangerous!
Cold!

Ice has a magic, can't be controlled
Stronger than one, stronger than ten
Stronger than a hundred men! Hyup!

Born of cold and winter air
And mountain rain combining
This icy force both foul and fair
Has a frozen heart worth mining

Cut through the heart, cold and clear
Strike for love and strike for fear
There's beauty and there's danger here
Split the ice apart
Beware the frozen heart."

That's basically a giant foreshadowing of Elsa and Anna's entire story arc, with strong references to Elsa's nature (even the "let it go" part was entirely intentional). It's a brilliant way to tie in the themes of the movie, establish the setting of the movie, and introduce one of the lead characters (and his reindeer) in a concise and effective manner.

 

[Trishbot]

It doesn't help them one bit that it looks like a Tangeled clone in art style.

I never understood that complaint. "Frozen" shares a visual style with Tangled for sure, but plenty of Disney movies have done that. Like, a ton of them. I don't get why it's a problem just now all of a sudden (and the fact that Rapunzel and Flynn show up in the movie actually makes the art style seem like a cohesive whole).

And I think the claims they look like a "clone" are overblown:

 

[BehattedWanderer]

I loved the twist and the True Love gesture, and did quite like that the knee-jerk reaction of true love happening instantly when you don't know someone being the incorrect (and even presented dangerously!) reaction. That was pretty great. And, while "Let It Go" is a pretty awesome piece, the rest of the songs are a little lackluster. I mean, other than that one, it's hard to remember them. We're not talking "I'll make a man out of you" or "I can go the distance" here.

Did love the credits, too. The "views expressed do not necessarily represent" bit was exceptionally funny this time around, which is something I don't think has ever been said.

 

[DjinnFor]

Are people really so uncomfortable about sexuality that any character not proven to be straight MUST be because the character was meant to be homosexual? She didn't have a love interest because she didn't. She's 18! She has an entire off-screen "happily ever after" to potentially meet a love interest.

I don't think people would be jumping to that conclusion (metaphorical or otherwise) if it were "only" that she has no onscreen romantic interest. But when coupled with the fact that her story is cast as a coming-out narrative - she's been (literally) in a closet most of her life because of a "difference" she was born with, can't control and fears will make her ostracized, she flees her home/hometown, with the safety of distance can finally cut loose and experiment with said "difference," and by doing so becomes her true-self and concludes that her "difference" is not only okay but kind of awesome and joyous... in that context, it paints a plausible (if by no means definitive) picture IMO.

Just don't apply that line of thinking to the introductory timeskip or your head will explode with all the grimdark fridge horror. For instance:

-Anna and Elsa playing as kids
-Elsa damaging Anna's brain (and leaving a permanent mark)
-Troll king wiping Anna's memory
-Parents discouraging Elsa and shutting her away in her room

Makes you a little perturbed when you put all that into the context of homosexuality.

 

[Shjade]

Just curious: did anyone else think the Hans twist, while generally effective, was unnecessarily cruel in execution?

To clarify, when Hans has his big villain reveal moment, I found myself wondering why he was being such a jerk. Not the betrayal part - that made sense - but why he was being intentionally hurtful to boot. It was actually a little distracting; I started wondering about why the writers did things the way they did rather than just pay attention to the rest of the movie.

Why do it that way? What does it add to have him do the whole "nobody loves you anyway" thing rather than a more pragmatic "just business" type approach that his opportunistic plot suggests would be his M.O.? The only thing I can come up with is that they felt they had to make it as obvious as possible that he's A Bad Person doing A Bad Thing for the younger members of the audience, which makes sense, but I dunno. It was just sorta...puzzling.

And one other little thing that bothered me in an otherwise pretty good movie: did it seem like Elsa figured out how to rein in the cold a smidge fast at the end there? I get that she's all emotionally locked down throughout the movie and has her eyes opened to love being the answer, okay, sure, I buy that...but when you've spent the majority of your life sealing that off, you don't just "remember" how to love immediately. Give her some time to thaw out, so to speak. I dunno. Just seemed like they were rushing things.

Edit: addendum, regarding the Elsa sexuality offshoot discussion. That possibility never occurred to me during the movie or afterward until reading the idea here, but I did spend some time reflecting on how masculine Elsa is set up to be, just in terms of emotional upbringing and development. All that effort spent hiding her feelings and not wanting to hurt people, can't control her own strength, don't let people in, etc. I was mulling it over while thinking about the recent Big Picture bit re: pink isn't the problem, effeminate villains, masculine heroes, etc. Reconsidering, though, that bit in Let It Go "Don't let them know -- well, now they know," yeah, that does have sort of an out of the closet sound to it, I suppose. But then, it's supposed to: it's a pretty broad "be who you are" anthem. Sexuality's just a red letter issue at the moment, so of course that's where the conversation would lean.

 

[Darken12]

I absolutely loathe Disney for the conservative, traditional, harmful messages it sends. And then along came Frozen, a Disney movie I actually liked and that made me slightly respect Disney a bit for having the courage to do the Hans subversion and resisting the urge to pair off Elsa with a dude. I wish they would have left Kristoff as just a friend (after all, the whole "he can break the curse with his love!" plot in the ending could have also worked with Friendship Love, given that the movie was already going to incorporate Familial Love to the conception of True love), but I can't expect too much from Disney.

Part of me hopes this is the beginning of an era of progress, responsibility and self-awareness when it comes to the production of media for children, but experience tells me conservativism and tradition are not evils so easily defeated.

 

[Ryan Hughes]

Long post here sorry. There has been some interesting discussion here, but I want to take up two points where I disagree with Bob.

1) Elsa is a very interesting character, thus I think it is a disservice to define her "Let it Go" sequence as merely sexual in nature. Do not get me wrong, it is a legitimate interpretation, but the sequence struck me as more genuinely and deeply cathartic and even philosophical. Now, these things certainly can relate to a person's sexuality, but we are all -as human beings- so much more than our sexuality. In the end, defining this in merely, only sexual terms may support the current issue of defining LGBT persons entirely by their own sexuality, rather than including their philosophy, spirituality, aesthetics, education, etc to give a much more complete picture of them as people. Case in point: James Baldwin, one of my favorite writers, who was a homosexual, but whose efforts in the civil rights movement and fantastic work in Literature and philosophy would be lost if we just focused on his sexuality. Elsa is this way as well; I feel she rejects Hans not because of sexuality -real or super-imposed by the audience- but because of sheer common sense and intellect.

Where I disagree with Bob is the raising of the issue of authorial intent into the discussion. I could get into a Roland Bathes-style rejection of the very concept of authorial intent, but I won't. Suffice it to say that every person has the right to see, interpret, and feel works of art as they wish, and authorial intent become moot in the face of a strong catharsis that this film could provide someone who sees it. And these differences in interpretation make for some very fun discussions, like we are having here.

2) While there may be -as some here have pointed out- a few minor hints as to Hans' true character, totaling a few frames at most, the real foreshadowing for Hans comes not from Hans himself, but from Anna. The very first scene of the film ends with Elsa begging Anna to slow down and be more careful, to which Anna ignores, resulting in a disaster that is the impetus for the entire story. Why on earth would we -myself included- think that this pattern of behavior in Anna would change just because time passed? Still within the opening Musical semi-montage, Anna talks to a painting of Joan of Arc, essentially the embodiment of recklessness, beauty, and the tragically ephemeral. Showing some sympathy with her saying: "Hang in there, Joan." So, that is two hints to Anna's -and by extension, Hans'- true nature in the first few minutes of the film.

The biggest hint though comes during Anna and Hans' declaration of love:
Anna: "We even finish each others. . .
Hans: ". . Sandwiches"
Anna: "That is what I was going to say!"

At first, I thought this was a bit of whimsy. But, at the end I realized something: Anna was lying. They have not made any sandwiches, now have they? She was going to say "sentences," but lied to facilitate the ongoing romantic mood. Anna is not a perfect princess, but a child so desperate for affection that she would lie to someone she sees as her prince charming. Her flaws as a person lead to the events of the film, but her beautiful, intense philos for her sister is what -in the end- resolves the issues of the film, and saves Elsa, Arendell and even herself. This makes her a great character, equal with her sister; flawed, but with a passion and drive that steamrolls through her mistakes and makes the audience love her none-the-less.

Also, the reveal of Hans' intentions is not a plot twist. It is a Character Twist. This is an important distinction: because mere "plot twists" often ruin characters by twisting them in extension, while twists of character tend to make the plot itself malleable. This -to me at least- is the proof positive that character is always more important than mere plot events.

So, anyway. I loved Bob's review and analysis, but I thought it was very important to bring up those two points were I disagreed.

 

[nadesico33]

Elsa going out into the wilderness, and building her Ice Palace has all the effect of a repressed person, finding themselves alone, screaming their frustration at the world, and then going back inside. "Let It Go" is supposed to be about her finding herself after years of, at least partially, self-imposed depression and repression. But what happens? She's been caged, metaphorically, most of her life, its all she know. She finally gets out, tastes freedom for the first time, and lets loose. She builds that Ice Palace, and then mentally, unconsciously says to her "I can't take this." and shuts the doors, putting her into a new cage. She just chose this one herself. Her interactions up until the final act amount to "This is my house, go away and leave me alone." Elsa still continues to try and shut everyone out for fear of hurting someone.

Also, the trolls, the lead troll simply says "An act of true love." Its everyone else that immediately assumes that it means the good old smoochie smoochie.

 

[Shjade]

The biggest hint though comes during Anna and Hans' declaration of love:
Anna: "We even finish each others. . .
Hans: ". . Sandwiches"
Anna: "That is what I was going to say!"

At first, I thought this was a bit of whimsy. But, at the end I realized something: Anna was lying. They have not made any sandwiches, now have they? She was going to say "sentences," but lied to facilitate the ongoing romantic mood. Anna is not a perfect princess, but a child so desperate for affection that she would lie to someone she sees as her prince charming. Her flaws as a person lead to the events of the film, but her beautiful, intense philos for her sister is what -in the end- resolves the issues of the film, and saves Elsa, Arendell and even herself. This makes her a great character, equal with her sister; flawed, but with a passion and drive that steamrolls through her mistakes and makes the audience love her none-the-less.

You have that backwards: Hans starts it, Anna says sandwiches, Hans claims that's what he was going to say. Which is even more damning, really.

The song title/theme itself is the big giveaway though. Sure, from Anna's perspective, love is an open door when she's been shut in all this time, but what's the problem with leaving your door open? Anybody can just walk right in.

To Hans, love is indeed an open door. That is, it's an opportunity - one door closes, another door opens.

That song's probably the most harshly cynical part of the whole movie re: what love is.

 

[Ryan Hughes]

You have that backwards: Hans starts it, Anna says sandwiches, Hans claims that's what he was going to say. Which is even more damning, really.

The song title/theme itself is the big giveaway though. Sure, from Anna's perspective, love is an open door when she's been shut in all this time, but what's the problem with leaving your door open? Anybody can just walk right in.

To Hans, love is indeed an open door. That is, it's an opportunity - one door closes, another door opens.

That song's probably the most harshly cynical part of the whole movie re: what love is.

Ah, you may very well be right, I am obviously just going from memory here. You are right though that may be more damning on the part of Hans' character. It really just goes to show the level of craft in the script. Even with some really good movies to go in academy awards season, I would actually be disappointed if this script does not get the recognition it deserves.

 

[Callate]

I finally got to see the movie. Yes, it's very good, and I appreciate the efforts to subvert the usual narrative. But I think the "twist" with Hans is somewhat weak because he's portrayed up to that point as utterly good. I don't mean that we should be having the camera linger for extra moments on him for no reason, or casting him in shadows, or having him mysteriously narrow his brow at some untoward moment, but... For pity's sake. Leading the expedition to look for Anna? Turning the palace into a soup kitchen on his own authority? Ordering people not to harm Elsa, despite effectively having regency and a fairly straight shot to the throne if she dies- and nearly everyone being in agreement at that point that her death might be for the best? I mean, he didn't even have to order her shot on sight- he just had to stand in the way and let nature take its course. He even had his "don't become the monster they think you are" moment; villains get to give out legitimate moral lessons in the heat of the moment, now?

I think the story might have been stronger (and, again, I'm not saying it wasn't strong) if either they had made him less of a paragon from the beginning or accepted that he could become either a schmuck or at least unacceptable as a love interest without necessitating him becoming an out-and-out villain. As it stands, the twist seems to come entirely out of left field, incongruous with everything we've been told and shown before.

As far as the "Elsa as a lesbian" thing goes- honestly, I find it kind of pathetic, grasping-at-straws, filling up empty spaces with wish fulfillment and agenda. The heart of the movie being in sorority rather than heterosexual meet-cute happily-ever-after ought to be enough of a progressive step without saddling the movie with subtext that just isn't there.

And, no; it isn't there. Shunning all human contact is not akin to preferring your own sex, nor is loving yourself after being taught self-loathing through isolation an experience unique to the LGBT community. Almost any teenager could relate, and I genuinely think trying to shoehorn it into that niche is downright wrong-headed.

 

[thetoddo]

More than a few critics and commentators have wondered/suggested that perhaps we're meant to "read" Elsa as being a lesbian, with her powers acting as an unsubtle metaphor for the same the way it does in the X-Men movies - she was, after all, born this way.

God I hope this wasn't the intended message cause if you take as fact that Elsa's Ice powers are a metaphor for homosexuality then the entire opening scene with the sisters "playing" gets really REALLY creepy.

I think there's enough there to have a conversation, but Disney's never going to confirm it.

 

[Azahul]

I finally got to see the movie. Yes, it's very good, and I appreciate the efforts to subvert the usual narrative. But I think the "twist" with Hans is somewhat weak because he's portrayed up to that point as utterly good. I don't mean that we should be having the camera linger for extra moments on him for no reason, or casting him in shadows, or having him mysteriously narrow his brow at some untoward moment, but... For pity's sake. Leading the expedition to look for Anna? Turning the palace into a soup kitchen on his own authority? Ordering people not to harm Elsa, despite effectively having regency and a fairly straight shot to the throne if she dies- and nearly everyone being in agreement at that point that her death might be for the best? I mean, he didn't even have to order her shot on sight- he just had to stand in the way and let nature take its course. He even had his "don't become the monster they think you are" moment; villains get to give out legitimate moral lessons in the heat of the moment, now?

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 think the story might have been stronger (and, again, I'm not saying it wasn't strong) if either they had made him less of a paragon from the beginning or accepted that he could become either a schmuck or at least unacceptable as a love interest without necessitating him becoming an out-and-out villain. As it stands, the twist seems to come entirely out of left field, incongruous with everything we've been told and shown before.

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.

As far as the "Elsa as a lesbian" thing goes- honestly, I find it kind of pathetic, grasping-at-straws, filling up empty spaces with wish fulfillment and agenda. The heart of the movie being in sorority rather than heterosexual meet-cute happily-ever-after ought to be enough of a progressive step without saddling the movie with subtext that just isn't there.

And, no; it isn't there. Shunning all human contact is not akin to preferring your own sex, nor is loving yourself after being taught self-loathing through isolation an experience unique to the LGBT community. Almost any teenager could relate, and I genuinely think trying to shoehorn it into that niche is downright wrong-headed.

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.