A Point on Frozen and False Feminism
Dani Colman has an article called The Problem with False Feminism, in which she talks about the movie Frozen and why 1) she hated it and 2) it isn’t a “feminist” movie. It’s a long, well-researched article, and Colman makes some valid points. While I don’t agree with all of what she says — particularly when it comes to her description of Anna and Elsa, which feels like victim-blaming to me — I think some of the things she points out are worth thinking about.
There’s one particular point I want to talk about, though. Colman discusses the praise being heaped on Frozen, and responds to it point by point. Toward the end, she gets to the following:
We get to hear the words, “You can’t marry a man you just met!”
Oh, and do we ever. It’s actually one of the few moments in the film I enjoyed: when Anna falls over herself with enthusiasm for her whirlwind engagement to Hans, and Elsa reacts with unfettered horror. We’ve established that Anna is an idiot, but at least the voice of reason is somewhere in the room. We later hear the same words echoed by Kristoff — a lot — and, in a different form, by Hans himself when he reveals his true colours.
It’s a lambasting of the Disney princess tradition, and theoretically a fairly incisive one. You shouldn’t marry a man you just met. It’s unquestionably stupid, and poking fun at the fact that Disney has been not-so-subtly encouraging that approach for decades is a smart move. I mean, come on: how many Disney princesses or leading ladies have fallen in love at first sight with a man they barely know?
Four. That’s how many. Rather than boring you with more tables, I’ll just name them: Snow White, Cinderella, Aurora and Ariel. Disney ladies actually tend towards quite extended courtships, and the men are more likely to fall in love at first sight than the women are…
Fair enough. But there’s another message here, and it isn’t just about falling for a man you just met. It’s about the fact that the charming fellow you just met — the man who flatters you, says all the right things, and makes you feel so amazing — turns out to be flat-out evil.
Welcome to the reality of domestic violence. Unlike most Disney villains, batterers don’t come with their own foreboding soundtrack. They don’t sneer like Scar and Gaston, or twirl their mustaches like Jafar. They’re not openly slimy like Clayton.
They’re charming. They’ve learned how to don that mask, how to flatter and manipulate and say just the right thing. They look completely normal. They deliberately seek out victims they think they can control … and what better target than socially awkward, isolated, hopeful Anna?
It’s no coincidence that “Quick Involvement” is one of the potential characteristics of an abusive relationship. This does not mean everyone who had a whirlwind romance is in an abusive relationship, by the way. Only that this tends to be one aspect of such relationships. It’s one of many tactics and strategies batterers use.
I’ve been talking lately about the power and importance of story. Story is how we relate to and understand the world. Whatever else Disney did or didn’t do in Frozen, they provided a story to help understand how what starts out as a perfect relationship can turn into a nightmare. How someone like Hans can be so cruel behind closed doors, but play the perfect gentleman as soon as he sets foot in public.
Whatever else the movie did or didn’t get right, I’m grateful for that story.
Alex Hurst
April 29, 2014 @ 7:50 pm
This was also the thing I liked most about the movie, and allowed me to forgive (or not even see) the other tropes. I mean, I don’t think Disney could have turned the movie into a soapbox without alienating their viewer base, but between that, and the fact that Anna does choose to protect her sister over the man she “now” loves, it was definitely a step in the right direction.
I was actually surprised how many people were angry with the movie for “betraying” them with Hans in my social circles. 🙂
Alice K.
April 29, 2014 @ 8:40 pm
While I do believe that we should never be content with “good enough” in our media, I had a lot of issues with that article. I do NOT want my female role models to be perfect from the start. I want to see them stumble and grow and have to endure some hard lessons.
Yes, Anna was wrong about whether Elsa would hurt her. THAT’S WHAT I LOVED ABOUT HER. She showed empathy and the benefit of the doubt when others wanted to condemn her. I need to rewatch the scene, but I recall it wasn’t that Elsa attacked Anna on purpose; Anna got in the way when someone else tried to hurt Elsa.
It was a story about a woman who lives up to what the person who loves her most believes, and the article’s suggestion that Anna should’ve been smarter or Elsa stronger from the start infuriates me. A female character with no flaws is NOT the correct response to the damsel in distress. Expecting perfection of a heroine before she’ll be worthy of the label is a whole ‘nother problem.
Kat
April 29, 2014 @ 9:27 pm
Okay, I am a feminist. I belong to a feminist discussion group. And I couldn’t do more than skim-read that article.
Flawless characters do not make for much of a story.
Anna is not “clumsy”, she’s impulsive. That’s how she got hurt by Elsa (she moved too fast for Elsa to keep up). All of her “clumsy”moves are from when she darts ahead without paying attention. That includes leaving Hans in charge and heading into a blizzard without a coat.
Do I think the film is a feminist triumph? Well, no — on that front I’d say it’s not bad, not perfect either. But it doesn’t suck for most of the reasons given in the article either.
Kathryn (@Loerwyn)
April 30, 2014 @ 2:45 am
*Obvious Spoilers*
You know, I would say Frozen is the “most Feminist” Disney has ever been. Whilst Mulan and Brave (even Jane from Tarzan) all laid the path, not to mention lesser known films like Atlantis and Treasure Planet (Captain Amelia <3), and Frozen is them doing what they can. I mean, come on, Idina Menzel (LGBT rights activist, to start)? The Avenue Q writers? Let It Go? This really was a big step forward for Disney. And no, it's not perfect. But, well, again – Disney! Disney don't do perfect. Disney do long-standing problematic.
But… "Anna is an idiot"? Jeez. Way to blow your credibility (not you, Jim). Anna is not an idiot. She is an extremely sheltered, naive young woman who has never had a chance to live. Her beliefs and wants are based on her upbringing (and, clearly, lots of fairy tales) where men come out of nowhere and marry pretty princesses as soon as they meet, yadda yadda yadda. That's why Hans was so sinister. It's not that he was violent (he wasn't until his true colours were revealed, and even then you find he's still not particularly violent towards Anna), it's that he was so convincingly manipulative, that he used all of Anna's unformed, innocent ideas against her, because she has no understanding – bar their parent's death – that people are like that. She's the eternal optimist, basically.
And I think Elsa also stands out as an excellent character. She acts the way everyone thinks she should, and she constantly chafes (and not just due to Anna), and once she realises that she can be herself? BWOOM. Oh my god she becomes a goddess. Just look at her, the way she walks. Aside from the fact she becomes intensely sexually confident (that walk), she sees the good in what she is, and with no limits the things she can do. But Anna is basically the one weak link, because she is terrified she'll hurt her (which isn't an issue during Let It Go, it's her putting that behind her). And… that's basically kinda the story for her – no matter how hard you try not to hurt people, chances are it'll happen. Elsa suddenly came under a lot of stress, and Anna just kept going on at her with her (later proven right) confidence, and Elsa snapped and hurt Anna by accident… just as she hurt her by accident as a child when she tried to stop her getting hurt.
To me it's a film about mistakes, about how it's easy to make them and not so easy to undo them. And yes, it makes mistakes (the whole Fixer Upper song to start, not to mention the Demi Lovato cover of Let It Go), but on the whole – this is the path Disney needs to go down now. This is what Disney can do when they update their sensibilities. Enchanted was an okay turning point, Disney mocking their own past, but I think we need more Frozens.
Just my thoughts.
James McCormick
April 30, 2014 @ 4:40 am
I never like using this as an excuse — but it’s an animated movie for children (that is also pretty entertaining for adults). The plot, and many of the twists, turns, and reversals are pretty simplified.
I wonder why people are surprised when a film that isn’t meant to be the beacon for the feminist movement — isn’t. The film’s core isn’t even really about the romance. It’s about two sisters. Did she miss the whole intro to the film? The whole — Do you want to build a snowman? And the whole quest — when Elsa runs off, it’s her sister who goes out to save her. That’s the story. It’s not about the relationship — that’s a subplot that supplies a twist to propel the Third Act.
SPOILER:
And I gotta say — Did she miss the part where they set up only true love will save her — and it turns out to NOT be the love interest (Either of them! Not good nor bad). The love interest rescuing the girl is Disney’s go-to. And they led you right up to it, and then delivered a ending against expectation (and also right in line with the rest of the story).
It’s a film that arbitrarily kills off the parents in the first 5 minutes of the film in classic Disney style. It’s not a film about how oppressed women are (But it beats the hell outta Beauty and The Beast–Dude’s a dick to Belle, has to be persuaded and changed into something he’s not by his furniture just to get Belle to like him, and she falls for it. At least Gaston’s motives are pure. “Hey, you’re hot. Let’s get together.”)
Really looking too hard into some of this stuff.
Jim C. Hines
April 30, 2014 @ 7:58 am
Anna is not “clumsy”, she’s impulsive.
Very good point.
Jenny Sessions
April 30, 2014 @ 8:10 am
The demonstration of an abusive relationship was something I found extremely valuable about Tangled too.
David M. Perry (@Lollardfish)
April 30, 2014 @ 9:10 am
Great comment, both the impulsive and the need for flawed characters if you want to tell a story.
David M. Perry (@Lollardfish)
April 30, 2014 @ 9:12 am
FWIW, I had a blog post that ended up on Business Insider comparing Frozen’s anthem to Little Mermaid’s anthem (one of my arguments is that the songs tend to stand on their own outside the context of the bigger story). http://www.businessinsider.com/difference-between-frozen-and-little-mermaid-2014-4
My daughter says she likes Elsa because she and Elsa has the same powers. Then she raises her hands in the air and makes freezing powers noises. My daughter is 5 and pretty awesome.
bluestgirl
April 30, 2014 @ 10:55 am
I have been seeing some backlash against Frozen, written by smart people whose values align pretty solidly with mine. And I agree that Frozen isn’t perfect, that we should acknowledge the flaws because if we don’t we’ll never fix them. I think that Disney is listening, and we need to tell them what we want. (And i hate it when people praise Frozen by dismissing every other Disney movie, because I think that there are super awesome things in Mulan, and Tangled, and that Disney movies have been learning and growing over the years and are much better than the Disney Princess Marketing Machine makes them into.)
BUT. I read posts like Ursula Vernon’s response to Frozen (http://ursulav.livejournal.com/1567248.html), where she says things like:
“They never let you be glad to be powerful! You’re supposed to hate it and wish you were normal! Girls aren’t allowed to go “Hot damn, I am the shit! Look at my ice palace!” But they did! She got a musical number about it! Usually only villains get musical numbers where they do awesome magic!…By every law of Disney-esque narrative, she ought to have had a mechanism to sacrifice her powers forever to save her sister and go back to being normal and that should have been the happy ending.”Look, I’m not powerful and scary any more!”
and I think, YES YES THIS. That’s how I felt. That’s how my friends felt. Plenty of Disney princesses have been strong, have had agency, have been awesome women rebelling against society. But Elsa’s power feels new and different.
And I feel like, when people bash the movie for FAILING FEMINISM, it kinda dismisses the experiences of Vernon, and me, and my friends, and a hell of a lot of other women.
(And a nitpicky note–when the Parents decide that Elsa should hide her powers, they close up the castle. So Anna & Elsa have been isolated for a LOT longer than 3 years. And of COURSE Elsa pushes away every attempt from Anna to be close, because she’s been told that anything else will KILL HER SISTER.)
Alana Joli Abbott
April 30, 2014 @ 12:46 pm
While I’m never one to fully jump on the Disney boat, I’m pleased to see that Disney has been failing better in terms of treatment of both women and minority groups in its recent films. Eg.:
1) Failure: An animator admitting in an interview that female protagonists are hard to animate because, regardless of their emotion, they’re never allowed to be ugly. And Anna and Elsa, no matter how much I love them, still have that waifish body type, an almost identical appearance to Rapunzel from Tangled, etc., etc. The visual aspects here are clearly not feminist.
BUT. This is a movie where I get to say to my daughter about Elsa, “And who saves her?” And the answer is, “Her sister.” Not the prince. The person doing the saving, the one who figures out what true love is really about, is the princess.
2) Failure: Calling Kristoff a Sami character and then not giving him any ties to Sami culture or heritage aside from his clothing style, and instead having his family be trolls.
BUT. The composer of the choral vocals at the beginning and end of the film is a Sami composer, who based his part of the score off of traditional Sami music. Sami influence is all over the visuals of the movie and shown as positive, if it’s not always credited. And Kristoff is pretty darn awesome in my opinion: not only an action hero (leaping off the sled over the chasm), but also a voice of reason, a trustworthy and knowledgeable companion, and the first Disney love interest to ask permission before a kiss.
So. There are still failures. But I think it’s clear Disney is trying to improve some of those negative aspects they’ve been perpetuating. They’re failing better, and I’m very glad that, despite their continued missteps in marketing (Merida’s makeover?), there’s evidence that they’re making an effort. It’s going to take awhile, and they may never be perfect, but I think they deserve a little credit for what they’ve done RIGHT in Frozen–as well as hearing from critics. (Because how can you fail better if you don’t see where you failed last time?)
Also, to your point, Jim: Hans reminds me so much of the Princes Charming from Into the Woods, who taught me at a young age that princes “are raised to be charming, not sincere.”
Pam Adams
April 30, 2014 @ 12:56 pm
And of course, Hans didn’t only ‘play the perfect gentleman in public,’ but acted as a nice, effective guy- running the kingdom while Elsa and Anna were away. Again, this reinforces the truth of domestic violence- it’s in the abuser’s interests to be a good guy where others are looking.
Jim C. Hines
April 30, 2014 @ 1:07 pm
I hadn’t seen Ursula’s response. That’s great, thank you!
Terri Wallace
April 30, 2014 @ 1:13 pm
When I got to this part of the post:
“Welcome to the reality of domestic violence. Unlike most Disney villains, batterers don’t come with their own foreboding soundtrack. They don’t sneer like Scar and Gaston, or twirl their mustaches like Jafar. They’re not openly slimy like Clayton.
They’re charming. They’ve learned how to don that mask, how to flatter and manipulate and say just the right thing. They look completely normal. They deliberately seek out victims they think they can control … ”
I was immediately reminded of a book that I wish MORE people would read. (I am in no way affiliated with the book, I just happen to think it is spot on and worth sharing–especially when the information in it can save lives.) The book is “The Gift of Fear” by Gavin de Becker. One of the main points the book brings up is how to spot someone who is controlling and abusive by recognizing Pre-Incident Indicators. While it is true that “They don’t sneer like Scar and Gaston, or twirl their mustaches like Jafar,” quite often there ARE indicators if we slow down and pay attention.
Things like:
FORCE TEAMING. This is when a person implies that he has something in common with his chosen victim, acting as if they have a shared predicament when that isn’t really true. Speaking in “we” terms is a mark of this, i.e. “We don’t need to talk outside… Let’s go in.”
CHARM AND NICENESS. This is being polite and friendly to a chosen victim in order to manipulate him or her by disarming their mistrust.
TOO MANY DETAILS. If a person is lying they will add excessive details to make themselves sound more credible to their chosen victim.
TYPECASTING. An insult is used to get a chosen victim who would otherwise ignore one to engage in conversation to counteract the insult. For example: “Oh, I bet you’re too stuck-up to talk to a guy like me.” The tendency is for the chosen victim to want to prove the insult untrue.
LOAN SHARKING. Giving unsolicited help to the chosen victim and anticipating they’ll feel obliged to extend some reciprocal openness in return.
THE INSOLICITED PROMISE. A promise to do (or not do) something when no such promise is asked for; this usually means that such a promise will be broken. For example: an unsolicited, “I promise I’ll leave you alone after this,” usually means the chosen victim will not be left alone. Similarly, an unsolicited “I promise I won’t hurt you” usually means the person intends to hurt their chosen victim.
DISCOUNTING THE WORD “NO.” Refusing to accept rejection.
I hope I didn’t overstep my bounds by sharing this, but one of the reasons I love reading the posts here is because of the wonderful dialogue that it opens up and the useful information it provides.
Terri Wallace
April 30, 2014 @ 1:14 pm
So true!
Jim C. Hines
April 30, 2014 @ 1:22 pm
Not overstepping at all! You’re not the first one to recommend that particular book, though I haven’t gotten around to reading it yet.
sistercoyote
April 30, 2014 @ 2:10 pm
Add my voice to those recommending it. Like all books, it’s got its imperfections, but it’s definitely a worthy read.
KatG
April 30, 2014 @ 6:40 pm
Cinderella, Aurora, and Snow White were all of course Disney’s mid-20th century versions of cleaned up fairy tales. Cinderella is very capable, but abused, and does go running off with a guy she just met. Snow White, ditto. Aurora is less capable, but she’s been sheltered. She at least gets to interact with the guy a bit.
By the time Disney got back to the romantic princess idea, it was 1985 with The Black Cauldron and the princess was a supporting character who does team up with the main character and get romantic, but not love. Then came Little Mermaid in 1989. Ariel is a different sort of princess — she’s way more aggressive, (spunky) curious and runs her own experiments. She defies her father’s patriarchal authority. Ariel does fall in love with Eric after barely knowing him (although it’s not actually his fault,) but part of her desire is less about Eric and more about exploring the human world that fascinates her. And she does then get to know Eric a few days before they face the big battle. Not ideal, but it was better.
Beauty and the Beast was a mix of really good feminism and awful Stockholm Syndrome stuff, but they were again constrained by the fairy tale. They did make Gaston a handsome man well liked in the village to contrast that good looks don’t necessarily mean nice. (But of course the Beast ends up being cute as a human.) In Aladdin, Jasmine does in fact fall for Aladdin pretty quick, though they do get a few days to know each other, but there were plenty of issues in that movie and in Pocahontas. Pocahontas, however, did offer a princess who was an assured, mature woman and leader, which was a change. Then came Mulan, where Mulan was technically a noblewoman, not a princess, but Disney counts it. Mulan changed the gameplan quite a bit, and Mulan does get to know her love interest.
After Mulan, despite its success, women disappeared as the lead roles in Disney animated films for eleven years, until The Princess and the Frog. (In between, they did live-animated satire Enchanted, where they made fun out of a princess falling for someone she just met, Disney style, but then does really fall in love with a guy she knows like three days.) Tiana in Frog was black, so progress. She was spunky and had career goals, so progress. She does get to know her prince for a few days before falling for him, but not very long. She does not compromise her integrity. Overall, she was a pretty good princess. But the film didn’t do as well as Disney wanted, so they decided the problem with the princess features was that they didn’t have anything for the little boys.
So Tangled was marketed as being about a male thief. The actual film was better than the marketing, but again constrained by the fairy tale. So Rapunzel is abused, sheltered, spunky and curious like Ariel, a little tough with her hair ability, and she does sort of rescue the guy. The best scene is where she strikes a deal with the sentinent horse. But it wasn’t exactly progress.
Frozen made some changes. Gone was the we need a boy to be as or more important to get the boys ethos, although there’s a male main character, and they replaced female characters from the fairy tale with male ones who were featured in the marketing. The princesses dealt with a family situation, instead of a mainly romantic one. They have Anna be a very Disney princess in the spunky, impulsive, sheltered, curious, abused framework. But Elsa is the more assured, mature character dealing with hardship (the abuse of her scared parents, PST, etc.) like Pocahontas and Tiana.
So you can see a kind of progression, mainly in the goals. Snow White, Cinderella and Aurora want love — and also an independent life from their circumstances through that love. Ariel wants love and to explore, gaining an independent life from her circumstances and patriarchal authority. Belle does not want love, she wants education and independence. She does fall for her captor, though, because of the fairy tale. Jasmine also doesn’t want love, though she falls in love. She wants to explore, be independent, and get out from patriarchal authority. Pocahontas wants peace for her people, to be treated as a leader, and is trying to get out from under patriarchal authority, but she also falls in love. Mulan is trying to save her father and also seeks a career and abilities in doing that, and happens to fall in love. Tiana is trying to build a business, is forced on the run and happens to fall in love. Rapunzel does want love, although mainly family love. She wants to explore and find out the answers about her past, and she is forced on the run and happens to fall in love. She marries down socially, since she gets a baseborn thief, not a prince.
One princess in Frozen is desperate for love — but also to get out and explore and be independent and restore her family. She makes a mistake that isn’t really love, just excitement, then happens to fall in love later but no rush. The other has entirely different goals having nothing to do with love, some with family, and does not happen to fall in love.
So it’s kind of interesting, and no, I don’t see Frozen as a super feminist movie — there are a lot of mixed messages in it, positive and negative on a lot of issues. But it does mark a corporate rethink for Disney — the princess movie can exist with a princess (or two) in the lead and doesn’t have to have the hopes for love or the happens to fall in love part in it as the central focus. But the guy characters were still pumped up and made central in marketing, so still some frame shifting to go.
KatG
April 30, 2014 @ 6:41 pm
That ended up being way longer than I intended, sorry about that. Also, The Gift of Fear is a great book.
Sydney
April 30, 2014 @ 10:29 pm
Also, Anna’s “I Want” song was *not* “For the First Time In Forever”, it was “Do You Want To Build a Snowman”.
The article writer got some major parts of the movie wrong, too. Like she thought that Elsa was the only one isolated, not both of them. Several of her points hinged on Anna having a normal childhood with friends, which clearly did not happen.
Alana Joli Abbott
May 1, 2014 @ 1:51 pm
Sydney, thank you. I’ve been thinking about that since reading the article, and I agree. “For the First Time in Forever” seems to me to be a false “I Want” song — one that’s setting up our expectations in order for them to be twisted in the end. I think *Anna* thinks that’s what she wants — but by the end, the choice she makes is based on the first desire, to be close to her sister.
Michi Trota (@GeekMelange)
May 2, 2014 @ 12:24 pm
Yeah… I had similar problems with that article, the very big one being that it’s apparently a bad thing Anna and Elsa were flawed characters who made mistakes. Anna did not seem like an “idiot” to me, she seemed like your average, cheerful, big-hearted girl who’d grown up without much interaction with people aside from probably the few servants left in the household, and her parents. That she’d gulped down the “love at first sight” and “the ONE!” myths, as MANY of us have done, wasn’t surprising at all – which is what made Hans’s exposed villainy all the more meaningful, IMO.
And Elsa – I REALLY had a problem with how the article railed against her running away from her responsibilities. I’ve been that girl who had to be the responsible “little adult” as a child and that kind of pressure weighs down on you. I can’t honestly say that if the opportunity didn’t present itself and I’d screwed up on a scale similar to Elsa’s, that running away isn’t the choice I’d make. People screw up. Elsa screwed up, but what’s important in the narrative is that *she wasn’t unduly punished for it* – she was able to correct her mistake and the world didn’t end. Given how much pressure girls are under *to be perfect*, seeing an example of someone messing up and the world not ending, providing her with the chance to learn and make up for that mistake, is huge.
HelenS
May 2, 2014 @ 4:16 pm
It should be noted that The Gift of Fear is not, alas, without victim-blamey sections. The comment here is a good summing-up, IMO (“DV” is domestic violence): http://captainawkward.com/2012/01/13/question-172-how-do-i-break-up-with-the-guy-who-is-meant-o-al/#comment-6399
D. Moonfire
May 6, 2014 @ 1:32 am
I loved that mistake in Frozen. I do honestly see her as a sheltered woman who was given no training or eduction on politics, but then put in a position of having power. Actually, one of my major complaints is that Elsa *wasn’t* shown as being sheltered in the process of being made queen, despite the fact she was just as sheltered as Anna. Yeah, she was nervous about the ice powers, but I feel they didn’t show her response. I think it would have created a deeper character if they had her nervous not only because of her ice powers but also because she has no clue what she’s doing (you know, except for the running away to have a musical).
I do wish there was at least one person who excercised caution instead of saying saying no. I thought the “you don’t…” was telegraphing the twist with a hammer’s grace.
I’ll admit, I’d like a Disney movie where parents survive. Kind of like hoping to see a movie where Sean Bean doesn’t die. The mobs also turn way too fast.