Disney’s most recent movie musical Frozenhas finally come out on DVD! The film seemed to capture audiences in a way no Disney film (or really any film) has in quite a while. This led to it garnering twice the box office of its older sister Tangled. But is the film really all that it’s cracked up to be? I was planning on writing a harsh criticism of it, but it made $400 million, and who am I to criticize a film that made more money than I will likely make in my entire life. Indeed, as one of the highest grossing animated films ever, it can be considered nothing but a success. What did it do that was so exceptional?
1) It made the audience not care about gaping plot holes.
Where does Elsa’s power over snow and ice come from? What are the adorable yet disturbing rock-troll things and why do they know anything about magic? Why would you keep a daughter locked up in the castle because her sister is magical? How could good parents be so terrible to their children? (There’s not even an evil step mother in this one to be . . . evil. It’s just the parents.) Why is Elsa the only person with magical powers? What are her powers even? They start out similar to Frozone in The Incredibles, but before too long she’s building castles and cursing the land with eternal winters like the White Witch of Narnia. Why is she better at controlling her magic as a child than as an adult?
The questions go on and on (these covering just the first third of the film), but how much do they actually affect the movie: a big, juicy bagel; nil, nothing, naught. Despite a plot that you could sift flour through, everyone loved it. So again, who am I to say it has a bad plot. Unlike every other movie ever made, the plot just seems to not matter. Michael Bay has spent billions of dollars and never figured out how to make a movie good without a plot; what Frozen did then was very special.
2) It made the audience not care that they were singing the whole time.
Les Miserables (one of my favourite movie musicals behind the HSM trilogy) got a lot of flak for never giving the audience a break from song. Besides the arbitrary spoken line here and there, the entire movie was one long song. Frozen was similarly submerged in song, but unlike Les Miserables, Frozen was not a sung script, which meant that in the sea of “Snowmen,” “Fixer Uppers,” and “Adele Dazeems,” there were barely any islands of dialogue left (which contributed to the lack of plot discussed above).
But (again) something about the film made this not matter; something about the semi-catchy soundtrack made it bearable, even enjoyable, for an hour and a half. Even the thrice Academy Award winning soundtrack ofThe Lord of the Rings grows tiresome as it plays constantly through each movie (although, to be fair, The Lord of the Ringssoundtrack must entertain for nearly ten hours,Frozen a piddling hour and half in comparison).
3) It made the audience not care the story-telling was subpar.
Throughout history people have been telling stories (how do I know this? Simple: a flux capacitor and 1.21 gigawatts of power), and motion pictures are just another medium through which to tell a story. When I, as an audience member, attend a film, I go to be told a story. When I, as a film critique, attend a film, I am judging it on if the story is worth telling and how well it is told. As established in point one, Frozen didn’t have a great story, but on top of that, it was told poorly. Case in Point: Compare the exposition of Frozen to that of Pixar’s animated film Up. Both comprise the first twelve minutes of the film (11:37 and 11:48 respectively to be precise), neither relies heavily on dialogue, both provide a history of one character (Anna and Mr. Fredrickson), and both are charming yet feature profound tragedy; but Up excels far beyond Frozen in storytelling.
The exposition of Up reveals the moti-vations that drive the rest of the movie. It establishes not just Mr. Fredrickson’s character now, but also how he’s changed through his life. It gives you a clear sense of how the Fredrickson’s lived their life, from occupations to pastimes to passions. It gives a perfect summary of a couple’s life together. And as it does all this, it remains very relatable; plus, it never feels expository. It shows two lives pan out together as a beautiful, cohesive story that doesn’t require explanation. In short, the exposition of Upisn’t an exposition at all, it’s a story.
The exposition of Frozen leaves you confused. It begins with ice-cutting, which makes very little sense, both as a business and to the story. It never explains anyone’s motivations (which means the directors are playing catch-up the rest of the film). The death of the parents is somehow not tragic (maybe because they locked their kids in a castle for their entire childhood, which, if you recall, is what the villain of Tangled did). You get very little sense of life in the castle and you cannot relate to it at all. And nothing flows naturally. Because most of the dialogue exists only to explain the background, all of it sounds contrived, especially the song lyrics. You get lost in both expositions, but for very different reasons.
None of this matters, though, becauseFrozen still made $100 million more than Up.
There is no doubt Frozen is exceptional for overcoming its many and staggering weaknesses, but how did it do this? Maybe if I were a better critic I could answer that question. It may have been because of the charming supporting characters (can it get any better than Olaf? I submit that it cannot). It may have been because it was the first unpredictable Disney plot. It may have been because the themes can be interpreted however you want. It may have been because the songs were catchy and relatable. It may have been because of the wickedly talented, one and only, Adele Dazeem. It may have been because it didn’t get caught up worrying about story and storytelling, it just entertained. Probably it was a mixture of all of these and other reasons. Whatever it was, I don’t really care anymore, this article is too long and I kind of what to go watch Frozen right now.
BOTTOM LINE: I’m going to watch it again.
1) It made the audience not care about gaping plot holes.
Where does Elsa’s power over snow and ice come from? What are the adorable yet disturbing rock-troll things and why do they know anything about magic? Why would you keep a daughter locked up in the castle because her sister is magical? How could good parents be so terrible to their children? (There’s not even an evil step mother in this one to be . . . evil. It’s just the parents.) Why is Elsa the only person with magical powers? What are her powers even? They start out similar to Frozone in The Incredibles, but before too long she’s building castles and cursing the land with eternal winters like the White Witch of Narnia. Why is she better at controlling her magic as a child than as an adult?
The questions go on and on (these covering just the first third of the film), but how much do they actually affect the movie: a big, juicy bagel; nil, nothing, naught. Despite a plot that you could sift flour through, everyone loved it. So again, who am I to say it has a bad plot. Unlike every other movie ever made, the plot just seems to not matter. Michael Bay has spent billions of dollars and never figured out how to make a movie good without a plot; what Frozen did then was very special.
2) It made the audience not care that they were singing the whole time.
Les Miserables (one of my favourite movie musicals behind the HSM trilogy) got a lot of flak for never giving the audience a break from song. Besides the arbitrary spoken line here and there, the entire movie was one long song. Frozen was similarly submerged in song, but unlike Les Miserables, Frozen was not a sung script, which meant that in the sea of “Snowmen,” “Fixer Uppers,” and “Adele Dazeems,” there were barely any islands of dialogue left (which contributed to the lack of plot discussed above).
But (again) something about the film made this not matter; something about the semi-catchy soundtrack made it bearable, even enjoyable, for an hour and a half. Even the thrice Academy Award winning soundtrack ofThe Lord of the Rings grows tiresome as it plays constantly through each movie (although, to be fair, The Lord of the Ringssoundtrack must entertain for nearly ten hours,Frozen a piddling hour and half in comparison).
3) It made the audience not care the story-telling was subpar.
Throughout history people have been telling stories (how do I know this? Simple: a flux capacitor and 1.21 gigawatts of power), and motion pictures are just another medium through which to tell a story. When I, as an audience member, attend a film, I go to be told a story. When I, as a film critique, attend a film, I am judging it on if the story is worth telling and how well it is told. As established in point one, Frozen didn’t have a great story, but on top of that, it was told poorly. Case in Point: Compare the exposition of Frozen to that of Pixar’s animated film Up. Both comprise the first twelve minutes of the film (11:37 and 11:48 respectively to be precise), neither relies heavily on dialogue, both provide a history of one character (Anna and Mr. Fredrickson), and both are charming yet feature profound tragedy; but Up excels far beyond Frozen in storytelling.
The exposition of Up reveals the moti-vations that drive the rest of the movie. It establishes not just Mr. Fredrickson’s character now, but also how he’s changed through his life. It gives you a clear sense of how the Fredrickson’s lived their life, from occupations to pastimes to passions. It gives a perfect summary of a couple’s life together. And as it does all this, it remains very relatable; plus, it never feels expository. It shows two lives pan out together as a beautiful, cohesive story that doesn’t require explanation. In short, the exposition of Upisn’t an exposition at all, it’s a story.
The exposition of Frozen leaves you confused. It begins with ice-cutting, which makes very little sense, both as a business and to the story. It never explains anyone’s motivations (which means the directors are playing catch-up the rest of the film). The death of the parents is somehow not tragic (maybe because they locked their kids in a castle for their entire childhood, which, if you recall, is what the villain of Tangled did). You get very little sense of life in the castle and you cannot relate to it at all. And nothing flows naturally. Because most of the dialogue exists only to explain the background, all of it sounds contrived, especially the song lyrics. You get lost in both expositions, but for very different reasons.
None of this matters, though, becauseFrozen still made $100 million more than Up.
There is no doubt Frozen is exceptional for overcoming its many and staggering weaknesses, but how did it do this? Maybe if I were a better critic I could answer that question. It may have been because of the charming supporting characters (can it get any better than Olaf? I submit that it cannot). It may have been because it was the first unpredictable Disney plot. It may have been because the themes can be interpreted however you want. It may have been because the songs were catchy and relatable. It may have been because of the wickedly talented, one and only, Adele Dazeem. It may have been because it didn’t get caught up worrying about story and storytelling, it just entertained. Probably it was a mixture of all of these and other reasons. Whatever it was, I don’t really care anymore, this article is too long and I kind of what to go watch Frozen right now.
BOTTOM LINE: I’m going to watch it again.