Frozen II - a review

Anna and Elsa are on an adventure again. Elsa hears the voice of a secret siren calling her to the frozen north. What she and her sister find there will shake the foundations of their kingdom.

Frozen (2013) was an accident! Originally the plan was to go all out on Hans Christian Anderson’s original story and have Elsa be the villain of the piece (a snow queen with a loveless frozen heart). But then, of course, the songwriters came up with the most miraculous power ballad since Bonnie Tyler.

It is a very good/well crafted song. No matter whether you like it or not.

This brought the whole original story of Frozen tumbling down. How can a woman who sings such a wonderful song be all bad? So, things were changed around. Elsa became a ‘goodie’ and the story became about love between sisters.

As a result this meant that the movie had to put strong independent women on the forefront.

Suddenly Frozen had the potential to become more than just a fairytale. All the chess pieces were in place to make this a movie that heralded women. Even though I doubt even Disney foresaw the impact this movie would have on little girls.

The success of Frozen proved this ‘gamble’. There’s a market for female-lead movies that don’t involve courtship or a male dominance. Soon other moviestudios followed (Wonder Woman (2017)  for example).

I said ‘gamble’ because, as always in movies, trends come and go. In the blaxploitation-era there were numerous examples of strong independent women carrying a movie. The same goes for The long kiss goodnight (1996), Salt (2010), I would even argue How to marry a millionaire (1953). Every once in a while a movie comes out that treats the female leads as normal human beings instead of ‘hysterical-'panties-in-a-bunch'-“men-please-protect-me!”-breeding-machines’. What changed, however, is that nowadays with the internet people ‘take’ these movies and highlight the female themes within them. The hope being, of course, that THIS will be the movie that will change the world! What I’m trying to say here is that movies like Frozen -throughout movie history- came out all the time. However, we now have the platform to use this cultural object as an example to (maybe) change the world.

So, basically, due to the fact that the song ‘Let it go’ was so great Frozen became a movie about gender equality.

Frozen II: bound to happen

Disney is a lot of things but it isn’t stupid. So of course they were going to follow up on the massive success of Frozen with Frozen II. And, of course, this time around the message of gender equality and strong role-models is hammered home.

Plus some extra power ballads. A bit too many for my taste.

It’s this ‘sticking to the formula’ that makes Frozen II a bit lesser than the first outing. Everything is done absolutely right. But, because of that there is no surprise. There are the power ballads (plus a fun 80s parody song), the love between sisters, Elsa being awesome, Olaf being cute. We’ve seen it all before in the first movie; there’s no shocking new addition to the tale of two sisters.

In all seriousness I doubt the online petition of ‘Get Elsa a girlfriend’ would’ve changed my mind
because even a lesbian queen would fit perfectly in the formula Disney is using here.

Also, why should a strong, independent woman automatically be a lesbian?

It is because of this that the movie falls down flat in the second act. Once we’ve had the happy reintroductions and the adventure has begun the movie focuses on relationships.

True, there’s a nice action scene of Elsa ‘playing with fire’. But overall the whole second act is rather boring. Because each and every interaction confirms what the audience already knows. Yes, Anna loves Christoph and vice versa. Yes, Elsa loves Anna, and vice versa. Yes, Olaf loves everybody, and vice versa.

Combine this with the fact that the ‘two feuding fronts’ that are introduced in the second act don’t actually fight, or even hate, each other and the ‘problem’, to me, is evident. Frozen II is relying too much on rehashing that which the audience already knows. But is, at the same time, to afraid to really put in something new.

Unless, of course, it involves (the original thematic of) making Elsa and Anna even more amazing.

This, to me, feels like a miss. I would’ve wanted more ambiguity. In Star Wars II (or V) (1980) the good guys got their *sses handed to them. In any horror-sequel the action is upped, the character-stories lessened. In The Godfather Part: II (1974) extensive flashbacks were introduced and Michael kills his own (bleeding) brother. In a sequel it is hardly ever wise to do the same thing over again. If you want your movie to be remembered you need to shake things up. Frozen II doesn’t do that. It plays it safe.

Frozen II: still endearing

But still Frozen II manages to melt even this cold old heart of mine. Why? Because the movie is so darn endearing.

After Frozen I fell in love with the characters (except for those trolls, I don’t trust trolls). So I would watch anything with them in it. The songs are very good (the new power ballad has been stuck in my head for over a week now). And this movie has even more Olaf – which is always a good thing.

If I had to pinpoint a highlight it is Anna’s song near the end. Anna never really got to get to the forefront of Frozen and for this little moment she does. In fact I want the next Frozen-movie to be all about her.

Still, Frozen II is, in basis, a rehash of the first movie. The people behind it were to afraid to change things around. I can’t blame Disney. I understand. And yet, even as a lesser movie, Frozen II is still a wonderful movie to watch time and again.

Fun fact to end with: Uptil, now I haven't found a single cover of ‘Into the unknown’ that is better than the one in the movie or the credits. Shame on you internet. I know you can do better! The Jacob Sutherland version is almost perfect. If not for that (overtaking) distracting piano. And why (oh why) has nobody used the current voice technology to have Freddie Mercury sing the song?

Fairytales a reality?

This isn´t going to be an Anti-Trump article.

I always try to stay as politics free on this blog as possible.

Even though I sometimes can’t help myself. I just can’t lie, I don’t like the man.

However, this article does concern the current American President Donald J. Trump in relation with current developments in new-media.

The point I’m making is this: Deep fakes have evolved. Nowadays we have 3D technology, Deep fake technology and voice technology. Basically I could (from my home computer) create a video of a person saying and doing whatever I want.

What I’m saying here is that I expect that this year (2020) a doctored video will come out of President Trump doing some dastardly thing.

Intermezzo As always Deep fakes started in porn. Every technological or cultural ‘step forwards’ throughout history has had one thing in common: People began experimenting with it with the 'Oom Pah Pah'-angle in mind. Be it paintings, sculptures, songs, books from the printing press, photographs, cinema or even videotapes. Heck, even the discovery of electricity soon had people trying out this new ‘power’ as a means of sexual exploration. The point I’m making, however, is that the ‘porn angle’ of Deep fakes should be understood as a ‘sign’. If people use it for porn and sex it’s probably something that’ll make an impact somewhere else down the line. Just remember, as popular belief likes us to think: The printing press caused the Reformation!

Now the point with Deep fakes is that you have to use your common sense.

If you see actor Nicolas Cage’s face on a baby common sense dictates that that isn’t possible.

President Trump, however, is famous for three things. (1) He is utterly unpredictable. You never know what he is going to do. Everything is possible. (2) He lies all the time even though there are irrefutable facts telling differently. And (3) every news-item he doesn’t like is ‘fake news’.

Basically, I think, this year the story of the boy who cried wolf is going to become a reality. And the American President will find himself in his very own dark (Disney) fairytale.

President Donald J. Trump is going to be confronted with a fake (Deep fake) video of him doing some dastardly thing. He will state that it is ‘fake news’ (nobody will believe him). He will lie to make things even more convoluted (nobody will believe him). He will do something unpredictable to take the spotlight away (which will make people believe the video even more).

Is this going to hurt the President’s re-election? No, not at all. His voters are committed. They’d vote for him no matter what.

But just think about the possible scenarios required for a video that would cause his voters NOT to vote for him. Trust me when I tell you that those scenarios quickly become hilarious (and highly insane).

Just imagine the worst video you can possible imagine (it’s a party game) that might make a little old lady in Pasadena say: “Maybe, I won’t vote for him this time around.”

That’s going to be the fun part about the 2020 elections. I think ´fake news´ is actually going to bite the POTUS in the behind.