“Frozen” is not a great movie, and it’s not a great musical. It borrows heavily from “Wicked”--the plot, the emancipation anthem, the star--and “Wicked” itself is sort of a lumpy mess.
I see two moments of genius. One, obviously, is “Let It Go,” which is a rewrite of “Defying Gravity.” (And who wouldn’t ask for a bit more of “Defying Gravity” on the big screen?)
The other is the decision to unmask one of the male stars as a trickster, a villain--a genuinely bold stroke for a Disney movie. In the earlier days of Howard Ashman, villains were more clearly flagged as villains, right away. Let’s give credit where credit is due.
Though “Little Mermaid” and “Beauty and the Beast” are both better than “Frozen,” by leaps and bounds, neither seems to lend itself to a big-screen sequel. I think that’s because Howard Ashman didn’t really care about his princes. Eric, the post-Beast reincarnated Prince: Who needs to know what happens to these men? As in a Jane Austen novel, the adventure ends on the last page. Done. Matrimonial bliss. Yada yada yada.
By contrast, the writers of “Frozen” really did invest in both Elsa and Anna; that particular relationship is thorny and ever-changing, and it does seem to include possibilities for further storytelling. (We’ll see. I haven’t viewed the sequel yet.)
One final observation about “Frozen”: The franchise damaged itself with “A Frozen Christmas,” which was hastily yoked to “Coco” several months ago, and which was so dreadful that it eventually led to serious recalculations. “Coco,” mid-career, freed itself from “A Frozen Christmas.” “Frozen Christmas” was never heard from again. (This was like Taylor Swift revising “ME!” so that we might all forget about: “Hey, Kids! Spelling is fun!”)
My husband has a slightly different take on “Frozen,” whose sequel we will watch today, “because our son wants to see it.” My husband’s focus is on the reindeer Sven, and Sven’s possible further wants and new adventures.
Will Sven get the spotlight? Will Elsa and Anna generate new and interesting bits of friction? Stay tuned. And may the cold never bother you.....anyway......
I see two moments of genius. One, obviously, is “Let It Go,” which is a rewrite of “Defying Gravity.” (And who wouldn’t ask for a bit more of “Defying Gravity” on the big screen?)
The other is the decision to unmask one of the male stars as a trickster, a villain--a genuinely bold stroke for a Disney movie. In the earlier days of Howard Ashman, villains were more clearly flagged as villains, right away. Let’s give credit where credit is due.
Though “Little Mermaid” and “Beauty and the Beast” are both better than “Frozen,” by leaps and bounds, neither seems to lend itself to a big-screen sequel. I think that’s because Howard Ashman didn’t really care about his princes. Eric, the post-Beast reincarnated Prince: Who needs to know what happens to these men? As in a Jane Austen novel, the adventure ends on the last page. Done. Matrimonial bliss. Yada yada yada.
By contrast, the writers of “Frozen” really did invest in both Elsa and Anna; that particular relationship is thorny and ever-changing, and it does seem to include possibilities for further storytelling. (We’ll see. I haven’t viewed the sequel yet.)
One final observation about “Frozen”: The franchise damaged itself with “A Frozen Christmas,” which was hastily yoked to “Coco” several months ago, and which was so dreadful that it eventually led to serious recalculations. “Coco,” mid-career, freed itself from “A Frozen Christmas.” “Frozen Christmas” was never heard from again. (This was like Taylor Swift revising “ME!” so that we might all forget about: “Hey, Kids! Spelling is fun!”)
My husband has a slightly different take on “Frozen,” whose sequel we will watch today, “because our son wants to see it.” My husband’s focus is on the reindeer Sven, and Sven’s possible further wants and new adventures.
Will Sven get the spotlight? Will Elsa and Anna generate new and interesting bits of friction? Stay tuned. And may the cold never bother you.....anyway......
Comments
Post a Comment