A Critical Response to Critical Hit's Frozen Review

So, there's this youtube channel out there called Critical Hit, they critique movies. Makes sense, right? They caught quite a few people's attention with their first video, an in-depth review of Disney's Frozen, which I'll post below:

(WARNING, this review, and the response to it placed below, contain major spoilers for the film Froze, and Wreck-It Ralph, so it's probably best to watch those before watching this and reading my stuff below... also you should see those because they're both really great movies, but that's besides the point)

So, I watched the above review, which you'll note is quite critical of possibly my favorite film of 2013, and had prepared my self to strongly disagree, but to still better understand the merits of why people wouldn't like this film. (And I will note here that you are totally allowed to not like Frozen, or even to think it's over-rated, this is America, you've got a constitutional right to be wrong... I'm kidding... kinda) What I watched, though, was what I thought to be a bizarre and frustrating collection of complaints, that occasionally had me baffled on exactly they wanted, since most of their critiques seem to be based around a premise of "We didn't really like this film, but if they made the movie in such and such away, we would have liked it."
   
 I have a problem with this because it's basically the same thing as seeing West Side Story and thinking "I don't like musicals too much, except for Blues Brothers, it should have been like Blues Brothers... and also a Sci-Fi action film" You can't take apart a movie and want it to be something it's not and then degrade it for not being the thing you want it to be. That doesn't make sense. I mean, I like to occasionally imagine a different way of making the story of the Star Wars prequels, with different concepts and stuff more inclined to my tastes. But I don't dislike the prequels because they aren't the stories I would write, I (mostly) dislike the Prequels because they're kinda lousy. 
  
  Anyway, Since Frozen comes out on Blu-Ray and DVD today, I decided to take the time to post a bit of an outline where I refute the points made in Critical Hits' video And I want to give credit to these guys before I start bashing their points, they composed this thing very well, made some well structured arguments. Their arguments were WRONG, but they were still very well argued. :)

Brace yourselves folks, this is a long one.

Point about Too many characters, not enough development: There are too many characters in this film, and none of them are properly developed, instead using montage or exposition to give us information. (about the 00:35 Mark of the video above)

Rebuttal: Really, their are only five major characters Anna, Kristoff, Elsa, Hans, and Olaf. Of those, Anna, Kristoff and Elsa are the main focus, while Hans and Olaf are a tad bit more minor. There are also various supporting characters like the Duke of Wesselton, The Trolls, the butler, but most films have a surprisingly large supporting cast. (I recently tried to write a script with a few major characters as possible. At this point, as I work on the outline of the second draft, there are five major character, with another three or for supporting characters, and various other speaking roles filling out the ranks. You can't really make a film with only two guys... well, you can, actually, but that's pretty much your film, just two guys talking) 

A lot of these characters have specific things they're supposed to accomplish in the story, and don't need to accomplish much more than what they do, the filmmakers still find time to give us some depth to these guys, but really, Hans's point is to be secretly evil, as I point out later, his schemes forward the plot, the fact that we get even a little personality or characterization from him is a nice bonus, but he develops about as much as he needs too, then doesn't overstay his welcome. 

I also don't think their was too much in terms of exposition in this film, there's always some, but exposition is that necessary evil of story-telling, and I don't recall it being in anyway overbearing. And by the way, in a musical, developing things through montages is totally acceptable.

Point about Anna and Elsa's non-existent relationship: Anna and Elsa's relationship is the backbone of the film, but the two barely interact, and by the time they're adults, it seems like their relationship is dead, so when they are able to melt the ice, their's no payoff. (01:07 mark)

Rebuttal: Well, this IS sorta the whole entire point of the entire movie, is it not? I mean, at least of Anna's journey. Anna is dealing with the fact that she feels her sister abandoned her and, as I point out later on, a lot of Anna's story is tied to her lacking the companionship and personal connection to Elsa that she once had. So yes, the two are distant, that's why when they reconnect at the end, it IS a payoff, their bond is still strong despite their damaged relationship. I'll also point out that in the few direct interactions the two have for the rest of the film, they do act with a sort of warm affection, even if it's distant and professional seeming affection, we get a sense, like when Anna and Elsa first interact at the Coronation Ball, that the two are generally fond of each other. The two characters have various reasons for being cautious in their interactions with each other, but I still thought they had a sincere fondness for each other as well.

Point about Elsa: Elsa was not really much of a character as much as a plot point, and should have been the main character because her internal struggle is more relatable than Anna’s external struggle (02:16ish Mark)

Rebuttal: I don’t think that because Elsa isn't a good guy or a bad guy that she simply boils down to a plot point and not a character. I actually think that it’s to this film’s benefit that instead of some evil villain being thrown at them right out of the gate, most of the drama is driven simply by people with various conflicting interests, we learn later that Hans IS actually a straight up villain, but it’s still nice that in the conflict between the two sisters, there’s no real bad guy. 

I agree that Elsa is an awesome character, and that she could probably carry the film, but I have two issues with this

A: I like Anna and Elsa sharing the lead more than I think I would like it featuring either of them as the main character. Seriously, walking out of the theater after seeing it... y'know, the first time... I was quite fond of the fact that by having the focus be divided between the two sisters, we got an interesting dynamic, with Anna we got a fun, spunky goofball princess that we all enjoyed hanging out with, and with Elsa, we got a character with a bit more pathos. If we had tried to meld the two into a singular character, I felt we would have lost a it of both those extremes.

2: I completely dispute the dissertation that all of Anna’s struggles are internal. Seriously, I know I keep saying I'll deal with this later, but Anna's internal conflict deals with the theme of the film, which is discussed further down in more detail.

Point on the Forced relationships: Anna has two romantic relationships in this film, one with Hans and one with Kristoff. They existed only to set up the subversion at the end, and were generally forced seeming (03:22 or so Mark)

Rebuttal: I'd argue that the first relationship, with Anna and Hans, feels forced naturally, but that’s because both characters NEED the relationship, Anna due to emotional, personal reasons, and Hans for more nefarious ones. The Kristoff relationship, I thought, was actually very well handled, and also served to give Anna’s dramatic choice at the end more weight. It wasn't simply that Anna loved her sister, it’s that Anna loved her sister enough to sacrifice her desires and her very hope of survival just to save her sister, which made Anna, like, at least twenty eight times more heroic.

Point on the end twist: The twist seemed to really hammer the point of the movie home a little too much, also may have over complicated the story of the two sisters. (Made at roughly the same time as the above point)

Rebuttal: I disagree that it over complicates things, because I think the point of the movie is about exactly what love means, and I'd argue that twist helps make that point.It also ties into Anna's internal conflicts on her understanding the nature of love, so I'd say it has something to do with the sister's relationship too.

Point on Cutting Hans out: Hans serves no more than to set up the subversion and for his Kingdom conquering plot, therefore, he should have been removed, since he takes up valuable screen time (04:14 Mark, give or take)

Rebuttal: Hans moves the plot forward, while remaining completely consistent with his personal goals. His desire to wed either Elsa or Anna and his subsequent engagement to Anna is directly connected to the following three plot points:

1. His engagement to Anna is what causes Elsa’s outburst, leading to her self-imposed exile and starting the main story.

2. His engagement with Anna serves as a point of dispute in Anna and Kristoff’s relationship, adding to their conversation and really, ironically helps them form a bond as they discuss their differing opinions on her whirlwind engagement

3. His desire for the throne sets most of the finale into place, leading directly into the conflict of Anna choosing to save Elsa over her own survival and desire. He not only causes Anna to realize that he wasn't the one for her, which leads (with assistance from Olaf) her to realize that Kristoff probably was, BUT…

his plot to take the kingdom also involves murdering Elsa, which sets Anna up with the conflicting scenario of having to save herself or Elsa that is the climax of the film.

So while neither Hans or his Kingdom stealing plan were the point of the story, both served their purpose and moved forward pieces of the actual story.

Point on Olaf: He’s introduced too late and there isn't enough room for him in the story. He also exists to serve as a link between Anna and Elsa’s past and their present, but he plays no real role in the finale. (04:35 or 04:37 marks, somewhere around there)

Rebuttal: Olaf is, frankly, a masterwork of Disney sidekicks. (I’ll point out that they call him a solid side character and then immediately follow up with the fact that he doesn't have enough time to properly establish himself as a side character, evidently, he did fine since they even admitted he was solid enough not thirty seconds earlier) Olaf is not really a complicated character, and doesn't overstay his welcome, hes in the film just often enough to make an impression and fulfill his role in the plot, but not so often that he overshadows the other characters. His role in the finale is important, actually, seeing as how I argue that the climax of this film includes the understanding of the actual meaning of "true love" I would of course point out that it is Olaf who educates Anna on what that means, which allows Anna to perform said act to save her sister, which leads to their reconciliation and reunited-ness (and, yes, I know, that's not a word, shut up)

Point about Sven and Kristoff: Their complaint is basically that this causes Kristoff to be split across two characters when they really should have been focused more on just Kristoff to help better set up the subversion at the end. (05:16 mark, as I read it)

Rebuttal: First of all, I’m really starting to notice their hang-up on the idea that the subversion of the “Act of True Love” bit is THE essential piece to the film. Look, I'm completely in agreement that a film should be built with it's ending in mind, but I also totally get going down some rabbit trails to have some fun, as long as they're subservient to the larger goals of the film. Meanwhile, I don’t really think Sven distracts enough from ANYTHING to make an issue out of. He really only serves as Kristoff’s pet, whom Kristoff has the habit of talking to and talking for, I think this is a fun character facet of Kristoff's and gives him some more depth, but I admit I’m biased because I do the exact same thing with my dog. so… there ya go.

Point about Duke of Wesselton: He’s essentially a joke character and his desire to exploit trade or whatnot is unnecessary, there’s already conflict in the film, we don’t need shady political agendas too. (05:48 Mark, as far as I can tell)

Rebuttal: On the one hand, of all the characters in this film, I’m least likely to care too much about criticisms about this guy, I like him well enough, but if you were convinced that the movie would be better without him, then, uh sure. Okay. whatever. I like Alan Tudyk, but whatever.On the other hand... I will argue that he’s sort of necessary to maintain the whole charade of Hans being a good guy for those of us who have seen a few Disney films. We’re all expecting some sort of external force to act on what otherwise is simple a relationship drama and accelerate things towards the climax, like Gaston in Beauty and the Beast, and since the Hans reveal is towards the end, he makes a decent enough Red Herring. (For the record, the jokey-ness also helps since once Hans is revealed to be the bad guy, it doesn't feel like he fizzled out or any plot threads were left hanging, he was simply a joke, so of course no one cared and he was just sent on away on a ship in a joke like manner. Also, they argue they don't need more conflict in this movie, that's funny because stories are almost entirely MADE out of conflict and contrast and all that fun stuff, and while you can actually have too much conflict, I don't think this film crosses that line)

Point about the world of the story: Stories locations should be more constricted to help the story feel more alive and real.The locations are too scattered and we don’t get enough time to see Characters properly exist and interact with their environment. (06:14 mark on the dot... I think)

Rebuttal: It’s an adventure movie, they have to traverse SOMETHING besides, there are really only four locations in the film, other than the brief stop at the general store (and spa!)

1. Castle and town

2.Elsa’s Ice Palace

3.Troll grotto

4.The wilderness or Mountain Range or whatever you want to call the part they mainly just walk through.

And I think constricting the story to specific locations and focusing on the realness can work and when that is pulled off it can be completely engrossing.... but it's not the only way to tell a story,

Point about changing the action so everything takes place in the town, and Elsa constructs the ice fortress inside the castle: The action is too spread out and the environments feel empty, focusing the plot in a more contained location would benefit the story and the feeling of realness. (06:39 mark, sorta, as this is really sort of a companion to the previous point)

Rebuttal: I admit, I really do not get the complaint here. Other Disney movies have pulled off this same thing, Hercules is all over Greece, Wreck-it Ralph has at least as many locations as Frozen, if not MORE, I don’t think it’s too much. I suppose I just fail to see how this is a problem, I also think the environments feel real enough and solid enough, I just really don’t get this one. Seriously, I don’t get how they’re defined by their locations, I just really don’t get the complaints here. 

The characters matter. the locations are sets, places for those characters to perform their part in the story, sometimes a location can inform the plot a little bit, but the culture of Arendelle isn't really part of this story much. And it doesn't have to be for it to be a good story

Also, the idea posited by them is a tad odd, they want an entire film of Anna trying to break into a castle that’s roughly twelve feet away? I guess you could play it as a labyrinth kinda film, or as a sorta heist, but I think that would make the film feel quite claustrophobic. I don’t really think what they’re asking for here is what needed to happen… like at all.

Point about informed characters: We aren't allowed to feel certain things about the characters, like Anna and Elsa’s sisterhood, we are simply informed about them (07:00 mark... no, really, I double checked)

Rebuttal: The entire point of the opening is their relationship as sisters, and then as estranged sisters… I don’t know how they mean this. Maybe that too often we’re told the importance of the relationship of the two as opposed to simply understanding it? I disagree. Anna and Elsa are really only in a handful of scenes together, and as I mentioned earlier, each time they interact about how I expect they should. if you say that they should have been in more scenes together, then sure, I can go with that, but I do think they “feel’ like sisters. They're also really hung up on the location thing still... I don't get it guys... I just don't They're in a castle. made of ice. that we watched Elsa build. right in front of our faces. I don't know what else we need here.

Point about theme: Frozen lacks a clear theme, or if it has a clear theme, it’s about the definition of true love, which isn't apparent until towards the end, as Anna’s goal is never love. (07:30 mark precisely)

Rebuttal: WRONG-O! Well, actually, I mean, sorta right... but still slightly wrong. Frozen’ theme can be boiled to Love and what that actually means. and for the record, Anna’s goal from the beginning is love through a personal connection with her sister. She thinks that for whatever reason, Elsa has shut her out and doesn't really care about her any more, so her entire journey is informed by her desire to reconcile with Elsa. And also most of the characters can be tied into theme about love:

Anna: Desires companionship, slowly changes her perspective to realize that Love means something more.

Elsa: Desires to keep the people she cares about safe, so she sacrifices her own feelings to keep them safe.

Kristoff: When the time comes, he is able to sacrifice his own feelings for Anna in order to ensure her safety (actually not too different from Elsa, in that manner)

Hans: Uses Love as a tool to get the power he craves.

Olaf: Serves as a reminder of the sisterly love that binds Anna and Elsa, also considers himself a love expert

 

The Duke of Weasel Town: Loves money. (Okay, that one's a joke, but not even Tangled has every character motivated by the theme of "Dreams" Sure the dudes that Flynn betrayed wanted to be rich, but that's not so much a "dream" per se, that's more what I like to call "character motivation")

Ta-da! And Anna’s inner emotional growth and conflict that I mentioned earlier? It’s actually her changing her definition of love. At the beginning she thinks love, simply means accessibility and companionship, and that’s cut off from her with Elsa, symbolized by a closed door. Later, she thinks she finds “love” again with Hans, hence the song, “Love is an Open Door”, but at the end, through the efforts of her journey, and Kristoff’s display of love (and Olaf’s explanation of said display, because Anna is not always the best a reading situations, and she was admittedly mostly unconscious) Anna comes to realize that Love means putting someone else first.

Point on the “convenient” plots: ( The discussion of which begins just after the 08:32 mark)

Point on Anna’s memories being taken away, then given back three musical numbers later: Keeping Elsa’s powers concealed is pointless, as Anna discovers them not too long, (screen time wise) after they were concealed in the first place, so why bother? There’s no mystery or shock surrounding their concealment or revelation, so If Anna is our main character, why do we need to know what she doesn't? In fact, why not just start from the coronation where Elsa’s powers are revealed to everyone? (somewhere near the 08:42 mark)

Rebuttal: Because for the story to make sense, we need to know both Anna’s and Elsa’s motivations. Anna doesn't remember, so she doesn't understand why Elsa has shut her out. If the film were trying to take Anna’s side exclusively and paint Elsa as a kind of Bad guy, then sure, not letting us know about Elsa’s power until the revelation at the party would work as we would be in Anna's corner a hundred percent as we felt her be slighted by her sister. 

However, I think it’s to the film’s credit that we get a more nuanced view of the entire conflict. We understand Elsa’s motivation every bit as well as we understand Anna’s motivation. Starting with the coronation would also require a crap ton of exposition, first we’d have to have Anna explain to someone what it was like not having her sister as a constant companion anymore, something I think is done in the film very simply by SHOWING us that the two used to share a bedroom… then they didn't, simple, more visual, and better. We would then, after Elsa’s reveal of her powers, need further explanation on what had happened and why Anna couldn't know. Basically, the opening twenty minutes or so would be exposition-palooza, which has got to be the lamest palooza ever.

I also think a further explanation of convenience is needed as I don't know what they mean in this situation, like it's convenient that Anna doesn't know so that she can force Elsa's hand into revealing her powers at the coronation, something she probably would have not done if she had known about the powers. This isn't really convenient for any of the characters as far as I can tell. 

It might be convenient for the writers, but that's because when writing stories, you're always want to be able to kill two birds with one stone, which in this case would be setting up the rift between the two sisters and eventually causing Elsa's flight into the mountains.

Point of Elsa’s running off: Elsa’s flight into the wild is only meant to spur the plot onward. This is illogical, because how does Elsa expect to survive in the wild, she’ll need some form of food, and Ice ovens don’t really work. (Approximately the 09:30 mark)

Rebuttal: Yes, because when extremely frightened and when under accusation of being a monster, I think everyone’s favorite past-time is standing there and calmly figuring out the most reasonable course of action. Seriously, though, I figure Elsa probably didn't think that far ahead beyond getting the heck out of there before she killed someone or was killed herself, and I’m sure, whenever she sat down and thought about it later, she figured that she could either live off some sort of vegetarian diet, or at least arrange for some sort of bartering system to trade with any local farmers or merchants. It’s important to remember that Elsa didn't know, at least at this point, that she covered the entirety of Arendelle in Winter

Point on Anna, Kristoff, and the troll song: The Troll song is a convenient way to push Anna and Kristoff together, We should already be feeling a developing relationship, since they’re on a stereotypical “Quest that brings them together” adventure (09:47 mark or somewhere nearby)

Rebuttal: Frankly, this may be subjective, but I’m pretty sure I WAS already feeling the relationship here, I mean, it’s mostly from Kristoff’s side as Anna still considers herself engaged to Hans, but there was definitely something there that wasn't there before. (you see what I did there? You did? oh, well, good for you)

Also, the Trolls are egged on a lot, (and I admit I don’t care for them too much one way or the other) but the song’s entire point was to be a goofy fun song. Mission accomplished as far as I’m concerned.

Point on Audience knowledge and Trolls: The entire Troll sequence is unnecessary since we as the audience already know that they can’t help them. It would have been better for them to head to some sort of healer in the village. (10:27 mark, sorta)

Rebuttal: Just because the audience knows something, doesn't mean our characters do, As far as Kristoff is concerned, the Trolls are their best chance, he knows they've healed someone in a similar situation before, so he figures that they should be able to help with this. It must be noted that he probably have enough information on the situation he witnessed to know that it wouldn't work, because of he did, he probably would have been able to piece together that it was Anna who they saved the first time round. The scene serves as a way to show Anna and Kristoff bonding, and is where they discover the cure for Anna’s condition, an Act of True Love, this is important for the climax and is a previously unknown piece of information, by the way. I don’t even want to talk about why inventing a new character like a town healer at that stage is… whatever

Point on Music and stylistic choice: Most of the music was unrelated to the style and culture of the film, feeling more poppy, should have been more like Pocahontas, which had music that better reflected the world of the movie. (pretty much the 10:14 mark)

Rebuttal: This argument is mostly a matter of taste in music, but I will throw out a couple things: First, it’s Broadway, not pop, and while that might be a point of contention I must also confess that... (And I’ll be in trouble for this) Pocahontas was kind of a lousy movie, okay? I mean, not...not really, I guess in the grand scheme of movies, it's pretty decent, but I seriously would rank it at the bottom of the Disney Renaissance era of films. (Which, for those unfamiliar with that era, is generally thought to have begun with The Little Mermaid and to have ended with Tarzan)

My point is that I suppose if all you wanted out of the music was that it stylistically matched the culture of the setting, then I guess you could call this a failure for the most part, but I, for one, just wanted good music… which is what we got. Really this is a discussion of taste, but I’d argue that it was really rather cool that we got what we got, m mixture of the big showstopping musical pieces, the fun catchy tunes, and the more cultural music. I LOVE the opening choral piece, LOVE IT. Seriously, it's amazing. But I also think that “Do You Want To Build A Snowman”, “For the First Time in Forever”, and “Let It Go” are all pretty much perfect. 

Also, I’ll add that while Pocahontas and Hunchback of Notre Dame had music that reflected the world around them, movies like Hercules had stylistically dissonant soundtracks and other films like Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, and Aladdin would often have one or two songs that were more Broadway showstopper than any sort of cultural reflection.

Also, Tarzan was pretty much just Phil Collins music. Jungle-ish Phil Collins music, sure. But basically for the rest of my life I shall picture Edgar Rice Burroughs wandering through the streets in the early 1900s singing “Invisible Touch”

Point about the music starting points: The music starts too suddenly and it’s too jarring. (12:09 mark kinda)

Rebuttal: Sure, I didn't think so at all, but sure, I’ll let you have this one.

Point about Dialogue: The Dialogue in this movie is bland and straightforward, and characters too often reveal their struggles through dialogue when actions speak better. (13:04 mark is where it begins)

Rebuttal: I don’t disagree with your argument, entirely, I mean, I place much more worth in dialogue than you seem too, but I get that it shouldn't be bland and actions can speak much louder than words...but I don’t feel this movie has those failings. I didn't think the dialogue up there with Whedon, Moffat, or Sorkin, but I usually found it pretty clever with some nice characterization. I also felt that characters did usually act quite a bit through actions. I mean, watch as they head towards the trolls how Kristoff tries to comfort Anna when she mentions being cold, he starts to put his arm around her,but decides against it out of respect for her and Hans, and instead leads her towards a nice geyser of hot air. Another great bit is when Hans is told he can’t come in with Anna to see Elsa. How does he show his disappointment and boredom? By glumly sitting down next to Olaf and joining with him to count the seconds until Anna will be back. It's a nice, clever moment that displays the feelings of both Olaf's wide-eyed enthusiasm and Kristoff's gruff boredom simultaneously.

And a note on the examples you gave with the songs, I should point out that I think Songs get a bit more leeway than normal dialogue since they usually function more like soliloquies and allow the speaker (or, in this case, singer) to speak their heart and mind freely.

And my final points:

I have an issue with their assertion that since they didn't like the film, that it was a fundamentally bad movie  I respect that someone can not like this film, I mean, people have tastes and tastes are different as people are. I have a friend who is totally on board for Superhero movies or Fantasy stories, but can't really stand much of Science fiction outside of Star Wars. This I compare with taste in food, you may go to the finest Italian restaurant in all of Italy, but if you can't stand Italian food, you aren't going to like it. It doesn't mean the food is bad. 

Most of all though, I have a huge issue with their assertion that everyone phoned it in because who cares about girls and everyone are giant sexists. That’s like walking into a house, not liking the layout at all, and complaining that the building is actually structurally unsound because the architect is a jerk.

   Little girls and little boys deserve quality stories. This is something I steadily agree with, heck, to quote C.S. Lewis “A children's story that can only be enjoyed by children is not a good children's story in the slightest.” Kids deserve good fiction, and I, personally, think Frozen is worthy of that designation. Same with Tangled, Wreck-It Ralph, Winnie The Pooh, Most of the Disney Renaissance and Golden age films and most everything PIXAR has ever done.
So if we're going to take stories apart and see what makes them tick, what do you do with something that parents and kids alike LOVE, as it seems like they do with this film? A film like that should probably be studied thoroughly so when writing you own stories, you can replicate it, not out of theft of ideas, but out of learning how it functioned and replicating the process. 

Thanks Critical Hit for the mostly respectful tone you took as you critiqued this film, and thanks for giving me a solid, well, thought argument to debate, I haven't done anything like this for awhile. (and it will probably be awhile before I do it again) But seriously everyone, you are allowed to not like Frozen, or any movie, that's fine, that's taste, but complaining that Elsa didn't think through her running off into the mountains? you should probably… y’know.... 

Let it go.