Arrows in the neck

There’s a conversation I have with a friend of mine every time a movie trailer comes on. I call to him in the next room...

Me: Hey man, you’d like this movie.

Friend: Why?

M: Yeah, you’d really like this.

F: You watching the trailer?

M: Yeah, you’d like it.

F: Do you like it?

M: Myeah, not really.

F: Why not?

M: Story doesn't look very good.

F: So why will I like it?

M: Arrows in the neck.

F: Hmm.

M: You love arrows in the neck...

F: Shuddup, man...

It’s like a code. It doesn't matter what the story is or who’s in it, I know this buddy of mine will like a movie if it in some way features what I call ‘arrows in the neck’. It’s that ‘extra-mile’ of violent effects that means every punch, every bullet wound is in slow motion and the filmmakers have gone out of their way to depict five new awesome injuries that normal people would never think about. Like arrows in the neck.

So we have these little conversations and I tease him and its fun. He knows he loves arrows in the neck. I know he loves them. And we both know its power over him is something to be embarrassed about. To him, that special brand of ruthless-clever action trumps almost anything else a film might have to offer him, good or bad. The problem comes when I need a recommendation from him.

You see, this particular bias informs every decision this guy makes when he’s evaluating a movie. He sees everything through an ‘Is there arrows in the neck?’ lens. Worst of all he doesn't know when it’s influencing him or to what degree. And so neither do I. This means that if my 'arrows' aren't the same as his 'arrows', his reviews will do me no good whatsoever.

I realised this issue was bigger than my friends when, in a vague attempt to bond with a work colleague, I asked if he’d seen a particular action movie. It was one of the Marvels, maybe an Ironman, and he said that he’d seen it and really liked it. Immediately, I was thinking: “Wow, maybe I've underestimated this guy. That was a pretty great movie. We could have similar tastes...” I started asking if, like me, he had felt that the villain was much more of a sympathetic character than you’d expect, and that his depth was observable as early as the first big fight scene. The guy looked at me for a second, then smiled and said, “Yeah, It’s so awesome how Ironman just uses all his missiles at once.”

And I knew we were not talking the same language. Sure, we both liked a film. But I had been touched by the intrinsic morality of the narrative and he had been impressed by the explosions. Which brought me to the conclusion that whenever someone tells you they really liked a movie, you must always ask them why. The more insight you get into their system of evaluation, the more useful their information will be to you. Because then you can take their bias into account. And ignore most of what they say.

And yes, that goes for everyone. Everyone has an ‘arrows in the neck’. Mothers, girlfriends, workmates, grandparents, tiny children. They all love a very small selection of things and hate a very small selection of things, not all of them predictable. And if a movie contains even a hint of the things they love and hate, or even reminds them of those things, the balance will be tipped and that person will fall in love/hate with the movie.

My ‘arrows in the neck’ is superpowers. As a writer I like to think I have some degree of control over this bias, because I know more than the average Joe about how a movie can manipulate my emotions, sell me a perspective. But I can still be wooed by a very mediocre film if it contains superpowers. I’m willing to put up with a lot to see superpowers on screen. Superpowers and Keira Knightley.

Then there’s the stuff that I just don’t feel inclined to watch. Like comedies about being drunk. Or movies where ‘strong female role models’ in armour that covers less than half their body surprise all the men around them by showing strong leadership skills. It’s the kind of stuff I can mostly see coming in the trailers, so I know how to avoid it. And that’s an important skill – bad movie avoidance - because who wants to realise ten minutes in that they just ate forty dollars worth of snacks and they’re already bored.

So I guess this whole rant of mine is really just a warning. Trust what people say when they tell you about a movie. But make sure you find out their ‘arrows in the neck’ first. And only trust them as far as those arrows allow. Otherwise you’ll end up watching Keira Knightley run around in straps of leather impressing dudes by putting arrows in people’s necks.

Then again, I didn't mind King Arthur, actually...

My problem with Quentin Tarantino

I am aware of how that sounds. Who cares what I think of Quentin Tarantino, right? 

Sorry-- Mr Tarantino. 

King Tarantino? 

I know a lot people really like this guy’s films, and there’s no doubt he is a good storyteller with dialogue and action chops most directors would kill for. He certainly deserves his status as a master craftsman of film. I just think he’s a bit petty, is all. Or his films are.

By that I mean his films all seem rather mean-spirited. For one thing they are almost all about revenge. For another thing, they are almost all about revenge with no mercy. For another thing they are almost all about getting said revenge by kicking someone when they’re down, even if you’re the good guy. And really that’s the thing that gets me the most. 

Isn’t mercy the thing that separates good guys from bad guys? Having the chance to kick a man when he’s down and not doing that? Punishing him according to the laws our society agrees upon? Knowing you could ‘end him’ but showing mercy because good people are always open to redemption?

Tarantino films seem to operate on the premise that good guys are really just bad guys too, only they’re not quite so bad as the really bad guys. And a lot of what makes Tarantino clever is how he makes us cheer for the good guys regardless of how petty or mean-spirited they are. And we side with them because they are violent, but never quite as mean and violent as the bad guys. Their justice is not so much eye-for-an-eye as it is teeth-skin-and-balls-for-an-eye. 

And maybe it’s just me, but I don’t laugh when someone gets hurt, even if I don’t like that person. Justice is stopping someone from doing evil, not smashing their face in while they’re being read their rights. Justice is not gloating. Gloating is not a positive human trait. It can be disturbing, it can be funny, and people do it in real life all the time - myself included - but it should never be celebrated as an asset, and it should not be the take home message of a fictional story. “It’s ok to gloat if someone hurts you bad enough.” Understanding someone’s need to gloat because they’re human and scared isn’t the same as excusing gloating as if it’s a victim’s right.

And sure, films should inspire audiences, make them feel empowered, like they can achieve things, like they can stand up to Nazis or slave traders or Bill and say “Screw you!” in a really exciting way.. But is it ok for films to make audiences cheer when the good guys fight hard, defy all the odds, and defeat the horrible monster of a bad guy all to sing “Nyeah nyeah-nyuh-nyeah-nyeah” over his corpse?

I don’t like heroes like that. Because they’re not heroes to me. Because I don’t do that. I'm not a sore winner. And a hero in a story needs to be better than me. Because they’re a hero, and I’m just a person. If the hero on screen is more pathetic and juvenile than I am, then why am I watching him? What is he teaching me? That I’ll lower my standards if I’m tortured long enough? That even heroes are ‘only human’ in that negative sort of way? That this is how ‘real life’ is? Well, sure. I can accept that perspective. But I’d argue that movies aren't about real life. Ever. They are a perspective. A representation. An opinion. They’re not about what’s real, they’re about what’s believable. They show us what can be. For better or worse. And they should teach us something. And whether they teach us something good or bad, they should make us want to be better. Otherwise what’s the point? Why do anything that makes the world worse, even just a little?

Maybe you say stories are a distraction. Just entertainment. Well I don’t have time for that. My actual life is too important to spend time away from it unless that time helps me reflect and learn something valuable to take back into the real world with me. Which is exactly what good stories do. Because that’s the point of stories. They’re cavemen explaining what happened to them at the river. They almost got eaten by a crocodile. So don’t go down to the river. That’s a life skill. Humans have flourished because of shared experience. Because of stories. So a story without something to teach us is a waste of our time. In caveman terms it’s actually kind of dangerous.

SIDE NOTE: For those of you who still think stories are ‘just for entertainment’, think of all the people generally considered to be the most influential in the world. The people ‘we all want to be’. The people we watch night after night, read about day after day, the ones who appear in the media more than anyone else. Who are these people? They’re not doctors who fight cancer, they’re not firemen who fight fires. They’re not real heroes. Most of us don't know many real heroes. It's the made up heroes we relate to. Who we feel we know. They’re actors. They’re performers. They’re storytellers. The public may call these people a distraction. But really they see them as an answer, as a relief, as a reward for getting through the parts of their lives they hate. Though they are often ashamed to admit it, the public needs these people in their lives, and you know why? Because they are symbols. Approximations of real heroes. They represent hope.  They teach us things. All by being characters in stories. How can anything that helps make people want to be better be seen as ‘just a distraction?’

Anyway,  our caveman time is precious. Does Quentin waste our time? Many would respond with a resounding no. I’d genuinely like to know why, and I don’t say that to be inflammatory. I understand that what I don’t get out of a Tarantino film, many people may very well get and then some. And I have enjoyed some parts of some of his films. He creates some fun situations, some interesting character exchanges, and some impressive action scenes. I keep watching them to try to find out why I have such an issue with him. Maybe I've missed something. Maybe I need to chill out about this whole ‘stories make us better’ thing. Sure.

But no matter what my academic brain is doing, my caveman brain just can’t get behind characters, behind a film, that ends with a ‘nyeah nyeah’ from the heroes. Unless it’s a film starring very cute children, and they don’t know what they’re saying. Because adults know that pettiness never makes things better. In movies and the real world. And adults want the world to be better. 

Right?

Learning to Let it Go

Let’s start with some context. I love movies and Disney and Pixar and musicals. And I liked Frozen. The characters were endearing. The animation was beautiful, the songs sounded very nice (who doesn't love musicals – you, shush). I'll also say now that Elsa's hair was spectacular. Especially after the make-snow-ver.

There's also hints of female empowerment. I look forward to the day when 'strong female characters' becomes plain old 'female characters'. But as for advancing that cause in this film, I can only give props to Anna. I don't think Elsa is a good role model. Pretty much at all. And my problem with her lies in the lesson she doesn't learn. As exemplified by the song ‘Let it Go’. Let me explain.

Elsa was born with strange and wonderful powers of ice control. Problem is; she can’t actually control them. One day whilst playing with her younger sister Anna, Elsa accidentally hits Anna with a blast of ice while trying to save her from a fall. Instead of helping her, she gets Anna right in the head and the whole family panics.

So mum and dad take Anna to a troll gang who heals her but warns Elsa's power will only grow, and accidents this may happen again. So mum and dad decide to let troll magic block all memories of Elsa’s powers from Anna’s mind and stop Elsa using her powers altogether. Forever. 

Sure.

So now that Anna is isolated from Elsa and Elsa from Anna, the trolls and Elsa’s parents decide Elsa should try to suppress her powers. Ignore them. Shut herself off from the world. Avoid playing with her sister. Avoid learning to control her powers. Avoid facing her fears. Avoid, avoid.

Perfect solution, right?

The song ‘Let it Go’ is about Elsa’s fear, her inner turmoil. It comes at the point in the story when she has realised she can just let go of her fear of disappointing people, of not being perfect. She’s free to just be herself and do what she wants and stop hurting people, not by avoiding her powers like she has done, but by avoiding people.

But what is the cause of this inner turmoil? Fear of her own power and what it can do to the people she loves. A perfectly reasonable fear. She grew up with the powers, used them for fun, then one day accidentally hurt her sister with them and now she's worried about doing it again. Makes sense.

But let us be clear that this is all Elsa is afraid of. She has had no serious childhood trauma, no absent parents (that comes later, poor thing). She hurt someone once and is afraid that it might happen again.

Now,  I’m pretty sure the healthy way to deal with fear is to expose yourself to the thing you’re afraid of, in small amounts, over and over until you understand the source of the fear and learn to control it to a tolerable degree. It's not an absolute science, but Elsa's fear is not absolute either. It is not ingrained and mysterious in its origins or in any way difficult to understand. It is rational. And she knows exactly where it comes from.

Elsa is afraid of something she can control. Her own powers. And we know she can control them because she has controlled them. She just can’t anymore. She played safely for years with Anna without hurting her. Then – oh puberty - she reached an age when her power grew faster than her control and she hurt Anna by accident. Not on purpose. Not with any complacency or malicious intent. Accidentally. So, how did she respond to her first inevitable power accident? She gave up on controlling it. After one mistake.

Which is odd, because Elsa didn't do anything wrong by trying to save her sister. Her good intentions led to an accident, that's all.. Big sisters hurt their little sisters all the time. All big sisters have to learn to be gentle with their younger siblings. Elsa just has to work harder at it.Unfortunately, in this world, making a single mistake means you must have ‘control issues’. So Elsa gets a complex.

“If at first you don’t succeed... hide in a hole and hate yourself,” said no parenting book ever. Yet this is the strategy her parents go with. Like any teen with a developing body/mind, Elsa needs to learn to control the power she possesses. Not avoid using it because of one mistake. That’s Crucible logic. Her parents are dumb for not knowing this.

Even taking Elsa’s powers away would've been better than quarantine. Not as positive symbolically, I agree, but still an option.

But those are really the only ways to go. Either eliminate the power so the potential for misuse disappears, or teach control over the power so that potential misuse of the power disappears. With great power comes great potential for misuse. That’s inevitable. That part’s not going to disappear. Spiderman knew that. So did IronMan. Harry Potter. Elphaba. Aladdin. The Hulk. Simba. Thor. Angel. Willow. Rapunzel. And ALL OF THE X-MEN. The ‘ignore it until it goes away’ has never worked for anyone. It has been used a lot on homosexuality and creativity and underprivileged kids who ‘just wanna dance’ and we all know how that works out in real life and in every movie ever.

When her powers are discovered by the greater populace, and rediscovered by memory-altered Anna (who never really gets to object to the violation of her brain by her own family – which makes you wonder why Tara made such a big deal about it to Willow) Elsa accidentally scares/nearly kills people again because she still can’t control her powers – or her emotions – even though she is an adult now. This makes things a lot worse. And it makes you wonder what she's been doing for ten years. 

Apparently not burning incense or meditating.

So she runs away and people call her a monster. She then freezes the entire kingdom without knowing it (denial metaphor) and starts ruining everyone's lives even more. Imagine if she had've gone off on a learning retreat like this to begin with. She could've worked on her powers in private and ruined no ones lives and frozen no kingdoms at all. But no, she waited and avoided dealing, and now the movie has its title and a kingdom is going to die. Go Elsa.

And then comes 'Let it Go', where Elsa congratulates herself on running away from her problems - in song.

The snow glows white on the mountain tonight
Not a footprint to be seen
A kingdom of isolation
And it looks like I’m the Queen.

The wind is howling like this swirling storm inside
Couldn’t keep it in, heaven knows I tried

Don’t let them in, don’t let them see
Be the good girl you always have to be
Conceal, don’t feel, don’t let them know
Well, now they know

Let it go, let it go
Can’t hold it back anymore
Let it go, let it go
Turn away and slam the door

I don’t care
What they’re going to say
Let the storm rage on,
The cold never bothered me anyway

It’s funny how some distance
Makes everything seem small
And the fears that once controlled me
Can’t get to me at all

It’s time to see what I can do
To test the limits and break through
No right, no wrong, no rules for me
I’m free

Let it go, let it go
I am one with the wind and sky
Let it go, let it go
You’ll never see me cry

Here I stand
And here I'll stay
Let the storm rage on

My power flurries through the air into the ground
My soul is spiralling in frozen fractals all around
And one thought crystallizes like an icy blast
I’m never going back,
The past is in the past

Let it go, let it go
And I'll rise like the break of dawn
Let it go, let it go
That perfect girl is gone

Here I stand
In the light of day
Let the storm rage on,
The cold never bothered me anyway

These couple of lines feel especially odd to me.

I’m never going back,
The past is in the past

Let it go, let it go
That perfect girl is gone

It's Elsa’s inability to control her powers that is bad. Not the powers themselves. Avoiding her control issues is what causes every one of Elsa's problems (her parent's sad death not withstanding). But the story treats it like Elsa is the victim of some kind of prejudice. But how is it prejudice to fear someone who almost killed people with ice spears and is now strangling the kingdom while she dances in an ice palace? I'd be scared of that. Its perfectly fair to fear someone who hurts others and makes no reparations for it. They're called bad guys.

'Let it Go' is a celebration of Elsa's decision to stop worrying about hurting other people. According to the song, 'breaking free' of the need to show consideration for those weaker than yourself is a good thing. So is not taking responsibility for your emotional reactions.  

Let the storm rage on,
The cold never bothered me anyway

Although pithy and a good catch cry, ‘the cold never bothered me anyway’ is also a fairly selfish statement. Because a lot of being a good person is learning to take responsibility for your affect on others. It’s not okay to shrug off your flaws just because they don’t cause you any pain. That’s an important life lesson. And one that every other Disney character has learned. But Elsa hasn't learnt it. And ‘Let it Go’ celebrates the fact that she is now free to be as selfish as she wants. As if doing what you want all the time is the same as 'being your true self'.

Learning to control the way you speak, act, or shoot ice so that you don't hurt others is another important life lesson. Most people start learning it just before puberty. But not Elsa. It’s her powers that are evil, apparently. Like the old saying: “People don’t kill people, guns kill people.” It’s always the guns fault. 

Elsa keeps blaming her powers for people fearing her. But its her emotions that make her powers dangerous. Not the powers themselves. And that can't change until she takes responsibility and learns to control her emotions. But that is never presented as an option.

No right, no wrong, no rules for me
I’m free

'Let it Go' works on the premise that there are really only two options in life. You can either be an uncontrollable emotional (and magical) force, or you can meet people’s expectations of perfection. But, in reality, there’s a whole lot of space in between to be an emotionally-balanced, conscientious person with the personal power to protect yourself and others.

Couldn't keep it in, heaven knows I tried

When was this? When did Elsa try to learn to control her powers? Most heroes go off to Tibet to learn chants or read books,  and some even make themselves a costume and practice over and over until they fix their issues. But Elsa just sat in her room and cried into her gloves.

'Let it Go' is probably comparable in some people's minds to 'Part of Your World' or 'I Just Can't Wait to be King'. But, ignoring the touching music from Robert Lopez, 'Let it Go' is more like "Be Prepared" or "Poor Unfortunate Souls". The whole ‘I’ll do what I want from now on, screw the world, hahaha’ angle is the MO of almost every Disney villain ever. And maybe that’s the point. Elsa is essentially Frozen’s bad guy.

Only she doesn't know it. She blames fear. Fear is the real bad guy. And she apparently has no way of dealing with it. She can't possibly stop almost killing people over and over. She's the victim. Poor Elsa with the powers of Storm and Iceman combined. She'll have to go evil just like they did.

And the only one who can save Elsa is her sister. Is it still girl power if Anna is only able to be strong because her sister is so weak? And besides, if fear is your enemy, who's job is it to conquer the fear? Everyone else's?

When it comes down to it, Elsa is afraid of hurting others because she's afraid of hurting others. It doesn't come from anywhere else or anyone else. Her parents loved her, he sister loved her. The townsfolk presumably had nothing against her until she almost killed them. Who is in the wrong here?

The more I look at ‘Let It Go’ and the story as a whole, the more I see an irresponsible message. Be yourself no matter how much it hurts others. Run away from the pain you've caused, don’t show remorse for your past mistakes, do what you want by isolating yourself so you don't have to answer to anyone. That’s real freedom, that’s real self empowerment. 

Really?

The way the movie finishes, with Anna teaching Elsa not to be afraid of her own powers by showing her non-judgmental, 'true' love (not sure how that worked on a psychological level but it’s a very nice flip-the-love-stereotype ending) doesn't really see Elsa admit to all her mistakes and go into training like she probably should've. Instead she is suddenly very personable and fully able to control her powers. Everything ties up in a nice ending ribbon and everyone is happy. Not because Elsa tried her best to be a better person, but because her sister forgave her for being a bad person.

Its a lovely idea to think Elsa just needed to be loved for who she was to stop being 'evil'. But not being loved wasn't what made her 'evil' in the first place. Guilt was. She made a mistake and kept trying to run away from it. 

Which makes me think Elsa didn't learn her lesson at all. Which means Frozen is teaching us to avoid our anger issues. To throw a tantrum when we make a mistake. To run away when people don't understand that its always the gun's fault. And to celebrate our remorselessness while our community shivers in the wake of our destructive behaviour. 

Seems like an irresponsible message to me.

But the songs and the animation were amazing, so I suppose we can just let it go.