The Complicated Feminism of "Frozen"

I watched Disney’s Frozen on a plane today – it was on one of those shared teleprompter-like screens that, nowadays, you’ll only find on domestic flights. This lack of individual screen permitted me to watch the gaggle of college girls sing along to the movie in front of me. They knew every word, which should have felt to me no different from the nights my own college roommates would put on the sing-along version of “Mamma Mia” and bop around the dorm room to find some cheer during finals week. But with Frozen, I kept in mind their enthusiasm for this movie as a backdrop to the fact that, while watching, I couldn’t make up my mind about whether or not this movie had a feminist stance. 

I’ll give you the rundown of the story, fittingly based on dour fairy-teller Hans Christian Andersen’s “The Snow Queen,” so that we can make sense of it together. Sisters Elsa and Anna are princesses, and when they are kids Elsa is cursed with a variation of the Midas touch – what she touches turns to ice. As a child Elsa has trouble controlling her power and accidentally strikes Anna with ice, injuring her. As a result, their parents decide it is best to keep Elsa’s power a secret, encasing her hands in gloves, shutting her away in the castle, and isolating her from her sister. Not surprisingly, this turns her into a closed-off, protective, literally frigid older sister.

As young adults on Elsa’s coronation day, Anna—the compulsive, spontaneous, evidently modern one—meets Prince Hans and gets engaged to him (on the same day, omg what?). Elsa finds out, and in her anger, accidentally freezes the ballroom and the rest of the town, which the townspeople interpret to mean that she’s dangerous. She runs away in exile to her own icy castle, where she sings a song about being free. Anna hunts after her with the help of loner mountain man Kristoff. A series of things happen as various parties try to lure Elsa back to the castle to end the eternal winter, during the last of which Elsa again strikes Anna with ice, freezing her heart. In keeping with fairy tale lore, only “an act of true love can thaw a frozen heart,” so Anna races to kiss Hans to break the spell, only to find that Hans is just using her to get to the throne. When he tries to kill Elsa, Anna jumps in front of the sword, though, which is the actual act of true love that revives her back to her full warmth. Yay, and they all live happily ever after.

So, what’s complicated about that? The thing is, many of the story elements could be subversively feminist, or not. So, let’s make a list:

Wait, I think this is feminist:

-       The Prince and Princess theme feels like a comment on exhausted tropes; for example, when Hans turns out to be a bad guy, we’re relieved and turn to root even more for the imperfect, clumsy, good-hearted Kristoff. We’re equally excited to see Anna, who’s not the helpless princess type, take matters into her own hands. She leads the effort to find Elsa, and Kristoff is an often self-interested, begrudged helper. Yay strong female characters!

-       Elsa’s self-imposed exile in her icy castle could be seen as a liberating break from patriarchal/feudal oppression

-       When Prince Hans reveals himself to be evil, the story is counteracting the countless romantic comedies and Disney movies that place a female character’s worth and self-worth entirely in the male lead’s heroism

-       There’s a song about both Anna and Kristoff being “fixer-uppers,” which proclaims that we all have flaws that can align in true love.  No more having to be perfect for a man!

-       “True love” turns out to be familial and not romantic, with romantic happiness a serendipitous side effect

Or is it?

-       Elsa can only feel free in isolation, because being at ease in society and/or having connections with people while also cherishing her gift is impossible, because that gift is damaging to the patriarchal status quo

-       For every time Anna saves Kristoff, there’s a time he saves her as well (or at least tries to). But this could also be advocating reciprocity, equal respect and contribution to a relationship, regardless of gender. Ahhh I don’t know! 

-       When Hans reveals himself to be evil, Anna is made to seem weak and a fool for falling so quickly, and can only redeem herself by kissing another dude. Oh no, bye strong female character!

-       Kristoff is the more obvious fixer-upper, according to his family’s song, but the part about Anna that needs fixing is that she compulsively decided to marry another man after one day. So she needs to change for a man anyway?

-       The fact that Hollywood still feels the need to write female protagonists into the world of princes and princesses frustrates me to no end! What is it about this ideal, this fascination with princesses?

-       There’s still a need to include Anna and Kristoff’s love at the end, as if we wouldn’t be satisfied with just the sisterly love story.

So I’m stuck; each point for feminism has a problematic (maybe postfeminist?) counterpoint. Maybe all this doesn’t matter and we should just be happy that Frozen passes the Bechdel test. But I’d like to think that a higher standard for our movies, especially our kids’ movies, is warranted. I also can’t help wondering if the girls in front of me loved the movie just for its music, or if they perhaps appreciated its complexity. Sound off in the comments if you think this film is progressive, transgressive, regressive, or if you don’t care!  

What it means for Hollywood if Argo wins

UPDATE (2/25): And it did win! Hollywood is really in love with itself.

In a moment of pre-Oscar jitters, I thought it apt to discuss what I think Hollywood means if it chooses Argo as Best Picture tonight. Yes, there are eight other films in the running, four of which I've seen, so I can't be a decisive predictor of the outcome. Lincoln will probably sweep, and Beasts of the Southern Wild and Silver Linings Playbook will probably be overlooked somehow, but if Argo wins, it sends a particularly strong signal to Hollywood and the movie-making corners of the world. Here's why:

Remember in 2010 when the conventional, Academy-schmoozing The King's Speech beat out the more progressive, innovative films like The Social Network, Black Swan and The Kids Are All Right for the top prize? It was because the Academy responsible for doling out the award, with an average voter age of 62, loves that kind of sappy underdog story about the bravery and selflessness of the world's elite. Especially when it's got those grand cinematic contents like the threat of war and a man overcoming obstacles for the good of others.

If Argo wins, it means that Hollywood has similarly patted itself on the back.

The true hero of Ben Affleck's hostage thriller is Hollywood itself. Affleck's character Tony Mendez, despite working for the CIA, owes more to the movie-making business for his mission's success than his own moves. He uses the finely tuned motion picture system that will support and promote even a "bullshit fake movie" modeled after Star Wars to get his hostages out of Iran, so we can argue that this vision of Hollywood is quite self-congratulatory. Especially since this "based on a true" story is now a movie.

You could argue that Argo is not self-congratulatory with regards to its production system, but rather aware of its self-indulgence, because the entire operation relies on Hollywood's ability to produce bad films, and on its disregard for politics--why the hell would anyone in their right mind enter a pre-revolutionary territory to make a silly scifi movie? This can be a meta-commentary on Hollywood's selfish moneymaking interests at the expense of political sensitivity and awareness.

I think, however, that the thriller form of Argo sends the message that Hollywood advocates for its own importance over politics. The opening sets the tone as a political thriller with a prelude that gives a quick history of the Shah and the coup situation in Tehran in 1979--so we start off feeling as though we will get a film steeped in negotiations and political tension. But this is not the case; instead, the story focuses on using a movie cover to relieve six foreign service workers from the Canadian Embassy instead of the 60 more that were held hostage, under real danger, in the embassy itself. It only cuts back periodically to the embassy and its hostages, while it uses a lot of screen time following Mendez as he sets up the operation in L.A., and then follows him to Tehran. The film is surely a thrilling nail biter as we watch him carry it out, and we even get a car/airplane chase at the end--a typical action wowzer that reminds us again that this is a Hollywood thriller. Of course we worry for those six Americans, but I can't help but feel as though the whole thing is indicative of the fact that Hollywood champions the paradoxically apolitical and yet nationalist stories that make itself look good. In other words, Hollywood's version of history tends to honor Hollywood over history itself. It uses its own version of events, with a layer of aesthetics and storytelling, which actually presents a version of itself more than any true, active involvement in what really happened. The same thing goes for Zero Dark Thirty, a highly contested runner for Best Picture this year, which presents the events in a compelling way but refuses to take political sides.

Finally, it's interesting to note that America doesn't take credit for their CIA involvement in the operation, giving the spotlight over to Canada. But yet the light shines on Hollywood, both within the diegesis of Argo's America of 1980 and the production system that created the 2012 film.  So, while political imperialism may have been quieted in this instance, cultural imperialism still stands. Simply put, the movies rule.

So if Argo wins, the Academy is applauding its own production system once again (which it essentially does every year), but this time with particular self-importance.