The Fault in our Stars has become an instant sensation in the world. When the book was released in 2012, fans raved about John Green's newest book. The book is a love story between two teenagers who both have cancer. I had never read a John Green book before but had heard plenty of good things so I bought this book on amazon and couldn't wait to read the book. Reading the book brings back good memories but the book itself was not very enjoyable for me, mostly because I had expected it to be this amazing book and it was far from it. The book was a cliche and full of silly dialogue and obnoxious characters. When I finished reading my first thought was, why do people like this book? And then I confirmed, it is overrated. The book was a teenie-bopper Hollywood chick-flick and was a huge let down in my opinion.So now you may be either hating me now for my outspoken dislike of this book or wondering what this has to do with Disney. Well, Eric's comment saying that Frozen was the Twilight of Disney movies rubbed me the wrong way during recording and got me thinking...if I don't think the film is the Twilight of Disney movies than what is it? Eric's observation wasn't out of the blue. It made sense. Frozen does seem reminiscent of a typical sort of movie/story made these days. And then it hit me. Frozen isn't the Twilight of Disney movies but the Fault in our Stars of Disney movies.
Here is my reasoning behind this thought. Both Disney and John Green are celebrated, and overrated at times, for the work they have put forth into the world. Both have made a big difference in the world - Walt Disney on film and culture and John Green on entertainment, education and culture. Both are creators and while they attack fiction in a different way, they both do their craft well and have a huge following. This is the reason why I was let down by Frozen and the Fault in our Stars - the Disney company and John Green could have done better. Now to look at Disney's Frozen and Green's The Fault in our Stars. Both works are insanely popular to a point of being overrated, both works are widely talked about via social media, and both mask a poor story with a powerful idea/theme. The Fault in our Star's powerful theme/idea is the love story. Green often says in interviews that he wanted to write a cancer book that wasn't the typical cancer book and I can sympathize with that cause there are pretty terrible *cough* Nicholas Sparks *cough* books out there that deal with cancer and I can admit that Green did a better job than what we are used to. But these two things mask the poor dialogue and forced plot. In Frozen, what masks the poor quality, which I will get into further down, is the sisterly love ending of the film.
If the creators took out the ending of this film with the sisterly love being the love that melts Anna's frozen heart, no one would be talking about this film and hyping it up the way it has been. It could have ended with Anna kissing Kristoff but the simple fact that it wasn't romantic love and it was sisterly love changed the entire film. It was Disney surprising their viewers and telling people that men aren't always the people to solve a woman's problems. I will admit, I loved the ending because of the surprise. However, a good ending doesn't make a film good. The film needs to be good all around in which Frozen was not. That isn't too say I didn't enjoy the film but there was a lot wrong with it that people easily overlook because of the excellent ending. The movie wasn't very solid.
As I stated in my previous Frozen corner post, I believe that Frozen did what Brave tried but failed to do. Both films had an agenda - to address the critics that say Disney can't make a movie that in genuinely good without having a love story tied in. Frozen got people because what was seemingly a typical Disney story became a sisterly love story that surprised even the critics. Yet the Disneyfication is still there which people always hate on yet didn't seem to comment on so much this time around. They were blinded by the ending, once again. Disney got the last word and people fell for it, including me when I first saw it.
In my opinion, the story of the Snow Queen could have been done SO much better. Disney should have created an original story to attack the critics with. I can't believe I am saying this but Brave does one up Frozen on this count. Brave was original. Sure it borrowed heavily from A LOT of folklore and fairy stories but it was still original.
So let's start with my first point - the story adaption. I already touched on this briefly above. In the original fairy tale by Hans Christian Anderson, the story of the Snow Queen is very magical and exotic. The female lead, Gerda, goes off looking for her friend Kai who was kidnapped by the Snow Queen. On her journey we find that the world around her seems to be a character itself. Gerda often speaks to the rivers and the plants and the trees and this brings a poetic feel to the tale. The story also incorporates an evil mirror which is very haunting and hints back to stories like Beauty and the Beast and Snow White. Why Disney did not include this beautiful imagery is a mystery to me.
Another bit of confusing information is...why did Disney feel the need to change the story from pro-female to....pro-sister female? The story was already pro-female without the Disneyfication. As I said above, why aren't more people commenting on this? In the original story, the boy character is kidnapped and the young girl goes to rescue him all on her own with help only from nature and animals and at one point, a criminal's daughter. I mean, I like Disney's take but I wish they would have just used the original story and instead structure an original story to attack critics with. The Snow Queen would have made an excellent film if adapted properly.
The original story holds on to a very important theme - the theme of innocence. It borrows verses from the Bible which talk about staying young at heart even as we age. This biblical imagery really adds culture to the story. The story also puts heavy emphasis on summer and the idea of summer. So my question is, why did Disney not take advantage of this theme when it is Walt Disney's signature belief in his films? Walt clearly states that he was making films for the child in all of us. Why would Disney remove such a key component to the history of their company? My God, why?! The film, therefore, not only abandons that idea in the story but abandons it in the execution as the character, music, and dialogue clearly show that this movie was made for a target audience - children. Not the child in all of us, just children. And that kids is called, manipulation. I hate to say it but it is true.
The film wanted to tell a good story and I can see that, but like the Fault in our Stars, it takes a poor story and masks it with easily conveyed themes and ideas. The Fault in our Stars was liking watching a Secret Life of the American Teenager rerun (ironic the same actress from that show will be in the film adaptation?) while Frozen was like watching a Dream Works movie...okay, that may be taking it too far...change Dream Works to Don Bluth.
Taking the conflicts that the film sets up, the ending is solid. But again, that is not what makes a good film. Ultimately, the crutch of this film is it's dependence on tropes and the perception from the viewer - both do not dictate a piece's value.
Now we can move on to the music. The very first time I saw this film in the theater I was aware of the sudden shift in musical tone in the movie. It started out epic and then turned into normal pop blah. I enjoyed the soundtrack and listened to it almost everyday at work but knew that it wasn't very good. Then, about a week ago, I came across a post on Tumblr with an audio clip titled "Frozen's Let it Go World of Color Orchestration". I listened to it and was blown away. The audio track was basically Idina Menzel's vocals from Let it Go and the orchestra from Disney Land's Christmas World of Color sequence. The outcome was amazing! I've never been a huge fan of Let it Go. I mean, it got stuck in my head on more than one occasion but it never stood out to me like everyone else claimed. The lyrics were easy and the melody was very soft, not epic like people made it out to be. But the World of Color version is EPIC. Seriously, why wasn't this version in the film? I don't think I can ever listen to the original track again. The World of Color version is too good. I think this version has become my favorite track now where before my favorite was the ethereal choir track titled Vuelie (which was "inspired by indigenous Saami and Norwegian culture, and was written and composed by Norwegian composer Frode Fjellheim. The song is a combination of Saami yoiking and the Danish Christmas hymn "Dejlig er jorden"/"Fairest Lord Jesus", composed by Frode Fjellheim. The original hymn is composed by the Danish composer B.S. Ingemann. It appears to be the only lingering openly-Christian element of the film, as other Christian imagery [such as the crosses on the Bishop's mitre and Elsa's scepter and crucifer and the banner of Joan of Arc] was removed") and first track Frozen Heart. The World of Color version of Let it Go adds power and even had cultural sounds within it that the original version sadly lacks. It holds the power that the first track has before the movie enters into a lackluster following soundtrack.
The music in this film seems to have been written to reflect the modern popular taste just to pull in crowds. It reflects Frozen's agenda and masks a poor musical with poppy, ear worm, fun music. Without any real standout music besides one song and a ethereal score and a could have been that is only used in a night theme park show, this musical becomes blah.
Now let us move on to the villain of this film who is Hans. When I saw this movie, I already knew Hans was bad as I had read a picture book adapted from Frozen to see the ending beforehand. Throughout the entire movie I looked for signs that would show that Hans was bad. About 3/4 of the way in I began to wonder if I had read the picture book wrong. While many may believe that Hans is a fantastic villain, I find that there is a strong disconnect between his motivations and the way he actually acts.
Hans is clever and many would make that argument to defend his case, but his facial expressions and body language should have betrayed him at his greatest need. For example, when he and Arandelle's men journey on the mountain to Elsa's ice castle, we see two instances where the audience should have been able to see some of his true colors and that would have allowed at least some to guess his true allegiance. The first example is when Hans is running up the ice stairs and the snow monster breaks the surface beneath him. Hans almost falls and you see this look of earnest terror on his face as he realizes he will be unable to protect Elsa. His face and body language should have reflected his want to save his own skin. Then, once he recovers himself he actually goes up to Elsa and continues to try and protect her! What? If he was truly bad, why didn't he remain where he was or find safety somewhere while the soldiers did his dirty work? Again, bad choices made by Disney. It is in these moments that our true colors shine through and Disney clearly messed the mark.
Some will say that Hans is an extremely clever villain who knew what he wanted from the beginning and is a good actor. From a film standpoint, the technique Disney used in terms of shadowing and the use of gloves to show he is hiding something was done well. But Disney chose the wrong audience to do this with. If one aspect of a film is intellectual I would expect the entire thing to meet the same standards in which Frozen doesn't. The character design was done poorly and Disney definitely failed in that aspect. They should have paid attention to not only the film hints but also the visual hints in the character facial expressions and body language.
And finally, this movie focused way too much on being politically correct. The sisterly love ending was surprising and well done in terms of what this movie offered. But Disney was focusing so much on political correctness and modern viewer approval that they misjudged in so many other areas. They used stunning visuals to distract people from this failure and poppy music. The characters looked like Rapunzel clones...no I'm not joking. The culture is 95% non-existent in the film...it should have been incorporated in the music, in the story as I explained earlier, and with the objects around them. Notice they removed many Christian elements from the story...again, political correctness at it's finest.
Here are some things they should have done in the movie. They should have tied up the story in a better fashion. The ending, while I liked it, was sloppy. Things that could have tied the story was Kristoff remembering Anna since he saw her when she was taken to the trolls. The movie makes it seem as if he has no idea who she is. She should have said something or he should have had a memory spark that would help him remember her. Another thing that could have tied the movie together would have been bringing the ice men back from the very beginning. Seriously, you can't just put them on there for filler. There should have been some significance and these men should have been more prevalent in Anna's life. Having these men at the end would have also tied things together like ring composition. Also, Olaf should have been a more prevalent connection between the sisters or more fatherly. He is briefly touched on in this movie but it is hard to tell the impact which he has on Elsa when she sees him. And plus, how did she create him without knowing it? How did she create an ice castle? They should have shown her building little ice castles and practicing as a child. Once again, poor storytelling. It makes me mad to think of how much better this film could have been!
Disney needs to realize that a story doesn't depend on love or romance but how well the story is told. The only reason they include the sisterly love is to break their own stereotype. But in the Disney Renaissance era, the company still made good films while sticking to their tradition. Even Princess and the Frog sticks to the Disney theme. Another example of a romance story where a girl does certain things to her lovers will is Romeo and Juliet. Look at the character of Juliet who commits suicide for a man! So why is this a classic? Well, because of the execution of her story - that is what matters! Stories are now less about making a good product and more about representation and having a political agenda to meet the expectations of modern days audiences.
To conclude, this film is a guilty pleasure. That is all there is to it. As I have stated already, I enjoyed the film, enjoyed the ending and enjoyed the music but at the end of the day, did any of this stuff really wow me and challenge me? Nope. Just like the Fault in our Stars, the experience was fun but the end product is a let down.
The film uses masks that hook people to see past the poor story, sub-par music, a terrible villain, stupid dialogue, and the obvious lack of culture. Remove the sugar pop soundtrack and the sisterly love ending and people wouldn't be nearly as excited about this film as they are. The Fault in our Stars uses the mask of Gus being the guy of every girls dreams and lots and lots of pop culture references that don't help the story in the end. These masks hide the reader from the terrible dialogue, poor character development and structure, and create a very "Secret Life of the American Teenager" cheesy story that really depends on petty non-realistic high school situations. It is bad fiction.
Sources:
DisneyWiki: http://disney.wikia.com/wiki/Vuelie
Let It Go World of Color Orchestra: http://thedisneyden.tumblr.com/post/81616804142/gwerner-so-this-is-the-best-version-of-this
My two reviews of The Fault in our Stars:
2012: http://thereader101.blogspot.com/2012/06/reading-fault-in-our-stars-by-john.html
2013: http://thereader101.blogspot.com/2013/06/reading-fault-in-our-stars-by-john-green.html
This post is brought to you from Danielle's Corner. Be sure to give this post a plus if you liked it. Do you agree with Danielle's points? Do you disagree? Why or why not? Let us know in the comments!
No comments:
Post a Comment