Skip to main content

Frozen II Thaws and Melts


Since its’ announcement I was skeptical about Frozen 2. Not only because Disney used to be unique among animation studios in not producing theatrical sequels, but also because the story of Frozen was nicely wrapped up, the character and thematic arcs complete, and the world not quite alluring enough to warrant further exploration. And Frozen was just also such a great singular gem, the best movie from Disney Feature Animation of the 2010s, and a sequel ran the risk of diminishing that a tad, or worse falling into the traps of any number of Disney’s infamous direct-to-video follow-ups. Now having seen the film, the good news is that the former is untrue, that Frozen remains independent of its sequel or not, a remarkable work of animation and a spectacular piece of modern fairy tale storytelling. The bad news is Frozen II wouldn’t entirely be out of place next to The Lion King 2 or Aladdin 3.
No doubt the films’ defining attribute against that association is its animation, which as per recent Disney standards, is exceptionally good. Writer-directors Jennifer Lee and Chris Buck knew it was important to distinguish this film visually from all the winter imagery of its precursor, and so opted for a crisp autumn aesthetic that allows for a lot of terribly pretty scenery and lush visual versatility. The character animation is once more deftly graceful and emotionally expressive, and the film even finds new and exciting ways to showcase the magic of its world that is sorely missing in its story, which is rather aimless and convoluted next to the first movie.
Frozen of course was inspired by Hans Christian Andersens’ The Snow Queen, one of the pantheon of classic western fairy tales that Disney has pillaged over the course of its history; finding value in their simplistic, moralistic natures embedded within fanciful contexts. Each of Disney’s interpretations has stuck to those core tenets of the fairy tales’ ageless appeal. Even Frozen maintained such an incredibly basic plot, through which the film could be subversive, deconstructionist, and modern, without losing its universality and strong moral foundation; to essentially have its cake and eat it too. Frozen II on the other hand, in not having that grounding in a fairy tale source, tries to substitute the absent framework with an attempt at world-building and specific, harsher moral tendons –a strategy it shares with another Disney film of 2019, Maleficent: Mistress of Evil. Its’ plot, which involves Elsa (Idina Menzel) journeying with Anna (Kristen Bell), Kristoff (Jonathan Groff), Olaf the snowman (Josh Gad), and Sven the reindeer beyond the kingdom of Arendelle to trace an ethereal voice that may yield the source of her magic whilst getting caught up in the after-effects of a war between her people and an Indigenous tribe, falters largely for this surplus of material –and that’s not even factoring in Elsa’s parental angst, Olaf’s crisis of complacency, and Kristoff’s entrapment in a subplot recycled from the far better Disney sequel, The Rescuers Down Under.
One of the reasons there’s no real throughline is that Disney seems to be afraid to truly commit to a new arc for Elsa. She has no clear personal goal (any desire to uncover the source of her magic, which is what the film seems to be going for, is not firmly established), and what development she does undergo isn’t very substantive. The film wants you to know she’s going through a lot but refrains from openly addressing much of what that is. What’s more disappointing is that alongside this, the film doubles down on the queer subtext surrounding her character (including one song that’s so metaphorically charged it might be from an episode of Steven Universe), the studio being much more aware of it and how to capitalize on it, yet predictably avoiding genuine representation every opportunity it gets. It’s altogether not a great use of one of the most compelling characters Disney has created.
On top of this is a film trying to comment on colonialism -a bizarre choice considering how disastrous Disney’s last attempt was –in a sins of the father kind of context. Unsurprisingly, the nuances are over-simplified, and the solutions even more so, entangled though they may be in swaths of backstory and magical elements. It’s tied as well to an environmentalism moral the film is very out of its depth in addressing. And the key message of reconciliation is undercut severely by none of the indigenous characters being voiced by native actors, another white saviour aspect taking centre stage, and a strong suggestion that colonizers don’t actually have to sacrifice anything to do right by the colonized.  I don’t feel this was a case of the film being wrongheaded though, as Pocahontas was; rather that it was just incapable of exploring and understanding this topic within the Disney brand, and didn’t think through the implications of its narrative against such a metaphor.
As disheartening as all this and the jumbled way it’s presented is, Frozen II has some worthwhile bright spots. Among the many story choices and themes it throws at you is a nice folkloric bent. The first song of the film, “All is Found” with its prominent woodwinds and almost Celtic lyrics puts me in mind of Song of the Sea. The rest of the songs, all once again by Kristen Anderson-Lopez and Robert Lopez, are generally good too, if not ever quite attaining the memorability of their Frozen counterparts. And there’s more of an effort to give everyone their due. In spite of his lacklustre role in the story, Kristoff gets his own number (“Lost in the Woods”) allowing Groff to showcase the singing skills that went subdued in the earlier movie; Bell has a pretty good song too in “The Next Right Thing”, and Menzel, obviously the MVP of the film, gets the fantastic “Into the Unknown” as well as another “Let It Go” with “Show Yourself” –a sensational piece, if not as thematically powerful as its liberating cousin. And at least this time, the songs are better spread out across the movie.
At the end of the day, Lee and Buck remain true to their characters too. The relationship between Elsa and Anna is still the movies’ emotional backbone, and as empty as her arc may be, Elsa is still thoroughly engaging. I like seeing these characters again, even Olaf -though the film really needs to dial back the focus on him and his comedy (I also don’t care for the insincere moments of meta-humour). But there’s only so much familiarity can do when in a film where the story is confused, it’s ill-equipped to handle its metaphors, the character development is unclear, and the pacing is inconsistent. Thus why Frozen II belongs among the better of the direct-to-video Disney sequels, where “better” isn’t bad, but it certainly isn’t good.

Support me on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/JordanBosch
Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/Jordan_D_Bosch
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Strange History of the American Spoof Movie

Parody movies have been around for a lot longer than we tend to think of them. Even from the earliest days of Hollywood there were movies meant to satirize a particular subject or genre. In the silent era, Buster Keaton was responsible for a few. And in the early sound era, almost as soon as the monster pictures took off did you see comic versions of them -Abbott and Costello hosting a few. But parody movies tended to be subtle for most of cinema history, or parody came in conjunction with another goal of the comedy. It really wasn’t until the 1980s and 90s that it took off and became popularly understood. And there is perhaps a line to be drawn to the counterculture comedy explosion that began in the 1970s through avenues like  Saturday Night Live , which frequently parodied from even its earliest years popular movies and cultural properties of the time. But that is still a way’s back. To my generation though, ‘parody movie’ is perhaps a less known term than the more blunt ‘s...
Post a Comment
Read more

Notes on the Title Cards of The Lord of the Rings

It might be sacrilege for one who both considers The Lord of the Rings  trilogy to be one of the greatest triumphs of cinema and has been an avid lover of the films since adolescence, to declare that the original theatrical cuts of the films are better than the much beloved extended editions. Easily it’s my most controversial opinion regarding these movies. Don’t get me wrong, I do like the extended editions quite a lot, especially as someone who just enjoys spending time in that universe. They flesh it out more, add extra flavour, and in increasing the length by about an hour really emphasize the epic quality of these films. But I find that the original cuts are generally more cleanly paced, more seamlessly edited, and much more accessible to audiences. All the stuff there is to love about The Lord of the Rings  is there in the original versions, the plethora of new and extended scenes merely add to that for fans. And of those, they fall into three camps for me: 1....
1 comment
Read more

Back to the Feature: New York, New York (1977)

New York, New York  is a two hour forty minute musical movie largely about a toxic relationship and I understand why it was Martin Scorsese’s first big flop. Some have blamed its poor reception on the kind of movie it was, of a style and tone Scorsese wasn’t known for, but I find that hard to believe. Even after only five films, he’d proven himself an extremely versatile director, and Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore  found an audience. Sure this jazz musical love letter to New York City was following up Taxi Driver and its’ far more cynical take on the city, but then it’s also ‘from the director of Taxi Driver ’ which itself was a big hit. Was it a matter of public appetite for musicals, or mere word of mouth and early critical reception that dissuaded viewers? Irrespective of that, I was stunned to discover this movie was the origin of the titular song, which I’d assumed was much older (it’s definitely got the sound of something that might have come out of the Jazz sce...
Post a Comment
Read more