Answer: You shouldn't, because it is awesome and you will also be awesome if you like it.
Also, I would have accepted "Because Olaf is basically awful."
Actually, the more I think about it, the more I realize that there's a lot to criticize in Frozen. I mean, you can say that you dislike Frozen because you found the plot predictable, or the music was a poor match to the aesthetic, or you thought the women's eyes should REALLY have been smaller than their wrists, or any number of things. Those are all valid criticisms relating to the story itself, its production values, or its character designs - objective criteria that can be evaluated on their own merit and then rewarded with statues of little naked golden men.
What you can't evaluate so objectively is a person's experience watching the film.
I get a little irate every time I see someone comment on the "big gay Frozen" scandal that rocked the internet for about two weeks longer than it really should have. Frozen has a positive message about homosexuality, or it has some gay characters, or it has a ridiculously loud pro-gay radio anthem that's not sung by Lady GaGa, and everyone gets all bent out of shape. Now, I admit that I get bugged over a lot of things, but the thing that bothers me most about "Frozengate" is that this shouldn't even be an issue.
Here's the thing: stories say different things to different people. Frankly, that's the reason I get so fascinated by movies and books and other things. You read a good story, and it'll speak to you in some way. You read that same story ten years later, and you'll get something completely different out of it, depending on where you are in your life at that time. That's why the Bible is full of parables. That's why children tend to take some time learning the Greek myths. That's why people follow Doctor Who like it's a religion and Steven Moffat is the pope/anti-Christ.
So when people condemn Frozen because a lot of people saw a positive gay message in the movie, I sorta flip out. See, how a person reacts to any piece of art is a deeply personal experience. If a group of people have a similar experience, then hooray! They can bond over it. To criticize said group of people because you don't agree with the message they got from a piece of art (or, worse, to criticize the art itself) is a little akin to the exact sort of censorship that smothers imagination.
Two people watch Frozen, and they're likely having two very different experiences. Imagine watching the movie with your friend who is a rabid Disney nerd. They'll freak out over the costumes, the music, and all the pretty princesses. Great. Good. Done. Now watch the same movie again with your other friend, who's studying cinematography. She'll likely pick up on all the camera angles and close-up shots and be really impressed with everything. Again, that's all good. Now pretend that you're watching the movie with a girl friend who's recently had a falling out with her sister...
Changes things, doesn't it?
That's the point. Fiction speaks to us based on where we're at in our lives. So a group of people who have heard all their lives to repress their feelings and hide how they feel are almost certainly going to relate to Elsa and her long white gloves. And there's nothing wrong with that. The same could be said for all those boys who get told not to cry, because that's not what men do. Or the same could be said for... heck, anyone who holds some sort of belief that's not in keeping with majority tradition. They cling to the stuff which speaks to them personally, and that's a perfectly legit reaction to any artistic presentation.
You know who probably would really like Frozen? Cyclops. You know, from the X-Men.
There's one other side of this that really irks me: The most common response I hear from Frozen defenders is to completely deny that any sort of "gay message" is present in the film. The evidence they cite is usually a challenge like, "Ask the children what THEY think." Because Frozen is a cartoon, and cartoons are completely for children, and there are no adults out there who enjoy the movie unless they accidentally stayed awake during the movie while escorting their children to the theater because Frozen is only for the childreniest of children and...
Yeah, that's irrelevant. Let's go ahead and say that Frozen is a cartoon only meant for children (which I don't buy for a second, considering what I know about John Lasseter and Disney animation and all the adult Disney fans I interact with on a daily basis). Child watches the movie, they gravitate to specific characters and ideas. Adult watches the movie, they gravitate to different ideas. Whose experience with the movie is the most "pure"?
They're both consumers of the artistic product. Both are therefore swept up in the artistic process. Both are entitled to their reaction and their opinion, and neither should be devalued for having a different reaction than the other. So the answer to the question is "neither."
Also, I would have accepted "Because Olaf is basically awful." Even though that answer doesn't really match the question. But flip the syllables in "Olaf" and see what you get.
No comments:
Post a Comment