[Enjoy this guest post by Sofia Afonasina – Ed.]
Were fairytales always about losing your virginity? Well, yes, I suppose they were. But was it always as blatant as in the second most expensive film of all time, Tangled? And more importantly, does a girl’s journey of self-discovery have to center around losing her virginity?
Well, since Tangled is all about the new, empowered female twist, it needs to address issues of sexuality in a feel-good, comfortable sort of way. We get to feel empowered without actually dealing with the complexity of the actual issues that stand in the way of feminists today. It’s entertaining and it’s comfortable. And Tangled was, above all, comfortable. Even the hair never actually tangles in anything, despite the title of the film! Unfortunately, gender issues are not comfortable, and that is the problematic I would like to address.
As Hans Magnus Enzensberger pointed out already in the 70s, popular media creates something he termed the “consciousness industry”. This consciousness can be summarized as a world view that is reinforced by certain symbols and assumptions. In order to remain dominant, it assimilates, and subsequently neutralizes, all elements that go against the world view it is spreading. This is similar to Don Draper’s “If you don’t like what they are saying about you, change the conversation!” with one major difference. Ignoring an opposing movement is not enough to make it disappear. Hence, the trick that the consciousness industry uses is similar to what populist politicians do – something along the lines of “take the language of the opponent and redefine it in a way that supports your agenda instead”. The logic behind such actions is that, if you fight your opponent directly, this will draw more attention to what they are saying. An open discussion will give the counter-forces a chance to expand their political vocabulary and to come up with more examples and arguments that support their claim. If, on the other hand, you take their main key-words (say female emancipation) and redefine it in a way that supports more accepted beliefs (for example by creating female superheroes, but making sure to sexualize them as much as possible), then you have successfully assimilated your opponent’s arguments and gained some of their voters, or, in the case of the film industry, viewers.
Although what I described so far implies a conscious attempt at undermining an opponent, this sort of assimilation occurs much more often automatically, as an inborn side effect of mass-produced popular culture. And we often let it happen because the resulting stereotypical narratives are familiar and easy to consume. After all, stereotypes aren’t always harmful. Familiar narratives can facilitate communication and create positive role models. But they also work towards maintaining the status quo.
Now, what does this have to do with that sparkly, pimped out fairytale that is Tangled? Well, quite a lot, actually. Tangled, along with many young adult films that have come out recently, has attempted to give us, the gender-sensitive audience, empowered three-dimensional female characters. In fact, Tangled seems to be telling us at every turn that it’s pretty edgy that way, because, look it’s questioning gender roles all over the place! Mostly, it does it by flipping things around. We see a frying pan used as a weapon. Then, we meet a bar full of smelly cut-throats that are armed to the teeth with phallic symbols such as daggers and swords. But soon we discover that the threatening ruffians actually just want to sing and dance and play with unicorn toys like little girls. (Of course, our main male lead has no such crazy fantasies and instead admits that his dream is to have lots of money, which is more manly and hence acceptable for a love-interest.) Towards the end, we have the love-interest narrating how he and Rapunzel got engaged. He jokes that she had to beg him for years before he agreed to be her husband. But just before we can fully let such an unconventional idea sink in, he admits that, no, of course he was the one who proposed. The other way around would just be silly and not romantic at all. Such little details are equally fun and disappointing. Tangled demonstrates an awareness of gender roles and differences, even plays around with the idea of mixing them up, but never dares carry through.
Apart from that, Tangled relies on several typical gender-based tropes in a more non-ironic and non-reflective way. Before I get to the main issue, namely Rapunzel’s character arch, I would like to introduce you to the narcissistic, hypocritical, passive-aggressive, man-hating straw-feminist witch that is Rapunzel’s kidnapper and adoptive mother. She is terrible on all accounts. She uses and manipulates Rapunzel at every turn. She scares the young girl into never leaving the tower because the outside world is full of evil things, mostly evil men. Later, she plants doubt in Rapunzel’s mind about giving Flynn her virginity (ok, it’s some sort of tiara, but come on, we all know what they were really talking about), assuring her that he will leave her as soon as he gets what he wanted. Since the witch is our main villain, Rapunzel’s self-search is defined by her ability to break free from her clutches. And so, Rapunzel’s path towards maturity goes hand in hand with the discovery that men are not all evil after all and that her fear of them was just the result of the witch’s oppression. Don’t get me wrong, I think that’s a great thing to discover, and it’s very important for girls to not view boys as “the other” but instead as fellow human beings, just like themselves. It’s a healthy, positive message. But it’s also Rapunzel’s entire self-search. She doesn’t really learn anything else.
Here is Rapunzel’s life arch: (1) prolonged childhood where she is just an “it”, (2) loss of innocence through a man (not, say, through independent world experience), (3) caretaker. We meet her as a dreamy girl that hangs like a monkey on her freakishly long mane of hair and sings the obligatory “I want something more from my life” Disney princess song. On her way to fulfilling her dream of self-discovery, she finds that she has a new dream, namely Flynn, the thief she has talked into being her guide. From that point on, the fact that she is a long-lost princess takes a back seat to the emerging romance and is hardly ever dealt with. Instead, her ultimate self-discovery ends with her losing her previous magical powers and re-entering society. How? By Flynn violently, and without her consent, chopping off her magic hair! Until then, her long hair had only been a benefit and she never showed any desire to get rid of it. But, the hair symbolizes her wild, innocent, childish side and must be civilized.
During the film, her hair undergoes stages of cultivation, for example by being put in a braid. That is the first time we see the hair be an inconvenience to her instead of a power. By then, she had already started entering society as a normal girl. The next step is to rid her of her innocence and cut off the hair entirely.
In the beginning of the film, Rapunzel’s crazy long hair has the benefit of getting her out of unpleasant situations. With it, she can protect herself and do fun stuff like hang from ceilings and fly over large bodies of water Tarzan-style. At the end, she is robbed of that freedom in the name of becoming more mature.
Basically, her character arch ends with her losing the one thing that defined her throughout the entire film. Instead of learning how to deal with her unusual background and embracing her own wild side, she has to get rid of it and become normal, join a nuclear family, find a guy who cares about her and settle down. Her magical powers do come back in a different form, but only to underline her new role as a caretaker even more: she gets magical healing tears. Instead of being free and powerful, she must now resign herself to taking care of others, like a good mother and wife.
And this is where an otherwise original tale falls back into an old pattern. Even though Rapunzel is a fun and engaging character, her final goal is still family and the most interesting thing she can discover about the world is men and sex.
The intention of this article is not to dismiss Tangled as a film, but to question it as a contribution to gender equality in the media. It can serve as an example of the way an established narrative can assimilate new trends without changing much at its core. Generally, a film advertising itself as having a strong female protagonist is hardly ever feminist below the surface. Choosing to directly address issues of gender runs the risk of trapping the character in an arch that does not go beyond her being female (no matter how strong she is).
On the surface, the story is about a girl learning not to fear the world, thus escaping the limitation on freedom that come with having to guard her femininity (represented by the tower she is trapped in at the beginning of the film). But the symbols and stereotypes used to convey this message rely on a set of assumptions about women and family that come from the past instead of being forward-thinking. Tangled does address problems that girls face today, but offers going back to the norm of earlier times as a solution. Being a girl is not easy in a time when gender roles are becoming more blurry, when women are taking over more and more male roles, but are still expected to be sexy and feminine. In the beginning of Tangled, Rapunzel is a freak of a girl that lives outside of society. This speaks to the confusion of the modern teenager about identity and finding your own place in the world. At the end of the film, Rapunzel finds her place in a norm, not in herself. She has to change what defines her and rebuke everything she believes in in order to fit into the mold of a typical “girl” as opposed to a human being that happens to be female. While Tangled may seem like a step forward for Disney, the story leads our original, quirky and fun female character back to her “rightful” place as the typical Disney princess.
Sofia is a film student living in Austria.
Generally, a film advertising itself as having a strong female protagonist is hardly ever feminist below the surface.
PREACH! It’s so frustrating when a “spunky” female lead is pitched as being awesomely progressive and such, when she ends up doing everything expected of her by traditional societal roles by the time the movie/book/comic is over.
I think what you’re saying specifically about Rapunzel falling back into place applies to most, if not all, of the Disney Princess films.
Also, I think it’s important to note that some of the fudging around with gender stuff was deliberate- the title of the movie, the fact that it’s narrated by a male, and the method of advertising were all executed after precise methods of calculation intended to get more boys interested in it. One could say the movie wasn’t ever really for little girls, anyway.
AWESOME article.
I mean, Gab, you already know I really disliked this movie. The moment I saw the trailer and thought, “Well, she seems like a ‘feisty’ protagonist” I knew what to expect. Throw in Mandy Moore and some lackluster animation and here I am still shocked it made as much money as it did. Let’s tear apart Brave next. :)
But continuing on with your point, this is pretty much what all Disney heroines want. Ariel wants to expand her boundaries by becoming Part of Your (she means ‘his’) World. Belle wants adventure (which she arguably gets in the castle full of enchanted people) but she also wants romance. Let’s not forget that she reads fantasy novels about Prince Charming. Then there are Jasmine, Aurora, and Mulan, stories that start at point A, leave, and then return to point A. The journey is about figuring out how comfortably fit into the world, not radically changing the world so it accepts you as you are.
If no one is up for it, I’ll take on Brave next :D (It won’t be as easy to tear appart, though)
“Generally, a film advertising itself as having a strong female protagonist is hardly ever feminist below the surface. Choosing to directly address issues of gender runs the risk of trapping the character in an arch that does not go beyond her being female (no matter how strong she is).”
That is my impression of Brave. Good job, Pixar. You made a movie about a female protagonist all about mother-daughter relationships and marriage. Just like all your movies about male protagonists… oh, wait.
On the one hand, both main characters are indeed primarily defined by being female. But it’s pretty brave (pun kind of intended, I guess) to make a movie for kids that focuses on a parent-child relationship in the frist place. For example Disney has been cashing in for ages with their orphan/dead-parent formula. Kids want freedom from their parents and they do NOT want adventures where their mom is involved. ugh.
Besides, Brave is hardly about marriage, it’s more about two generations trying to find a compromise about societal roles. And, in the end, there is no marriage. It may seem like a feeble excuse to call the movie feminist. But, considering the reactions Brave had (protagonist considered lesbian for not wanting to marry at 13, for example), it still seems to be a step in the right direction.
Besides, the mother-daughter relationship has the extra benefit of placing the two characters in a world of their own. This way, they aren’t blatantly female on the backdrop of a male environment but instead get to be just people trying to reconcile their desires. The issue of marraige comes up somewhere during the beginning and then just sort of wanes away, makeing room for relationship-development and actual important things like saving the kingdom. And then towards the end they sort of mention it again.
So, I didn’t find Brave too bad, all things considered. But I’m curious to hear a different point of view!
ALSO ALSO ALSO.
Rapunzel is totally a manic-pixie-dreamgirl, at least in this movie.
That’s a great point. Assuming the movie was partially marketed towards boys would explain a lot about it (including its popularity on sites like Imgur – which is not exactly known for representing the female perspective XD).
I always wondered why it was so important to have the male hero want THE EXACT CASTLE that he later gets through his involvement with Rapunzel. (It’s not really a running joke about the irony of life or anything, so why?). The story does seem to be taillored to boys – allowing them to embrace their feminine side (frying pan, unicorns, female protagonist) from safely within the typical hero narrative and with suffiecient manly payoff (girl, castle, money, horse-dog, not dying, etc.)
With her harmless insanity and plot-driving spunk, Rapunzel is definitely a manic pixie dream girl. For example in the scene right after she leaves the tower, we get to witness her basically fall into a state of manic depression. But it’s cute because she is a girl and b****es be crazy. And I’m going to stop preaching now because this could get very angry very fast ;)
Thanks for your comment!
-Sofia
Oh yeah, it’s not even an assumption, they admitted openly they were trying to draw in more little boys. For example: http://www.firstshowing.net/2010/disneys-animated-film-rapunzel-changes-its-title-to-tangled/
I remember being really pissed about that- why can’t little girls have their own movies, eh?
And don’t get me started on race in kids’ movies. ;)
Ah. So only if a princess story is marketed for boys can it be funny and edgy? Why can’t little girls have their own fun movies that are accessible to everyone because little girls are human beings too?
Target groups as an idea kills societal development if you ask me.
Word.
Hey Sofia,
Thank you so much for this interesting and well-written article. I agree with your point about the misleading messaging of current popular media, and I would never dare to disagree with you or Gab in terms of female characters in popular culture. However, please allow me to disagree a little on your reading of the film.
A while back, I wrote my own interpretation of Tangled on OTI, praising it as an example for the depiction of scientific curiosity. From this perspective, Rapunzel’s intent in leaving the tower and starting the adventures that will eventually rob her of her hair become more important to this discussion. Although her quest is triggered by the chance arrival of Flynn, Rapunzel immediately overpowers him and uses him as a tool to achieve her goal of satisfying her curiosity. This new situation is a release for her inquisitiveness, which has accumulated over years of observing stellar patterns in the tower. The witch’s warning of evil men thus becomes a warning about pursuing one’s own scientific curiosity (the phrase ‘Curiosity killed the cat’ comes to mind). Up to this point, Rapunzel’s gender is of no relevance to the story’s framework; although one could, of course, understand the witch’s warning as a comment about women pursuing science, which has traditionally been an insanely male-dominated field of work.
In this frame of mind, and with her hair being the most overt supernatural element of the film, the cutting-off can be understood as a rejection of supernatural beliefs in favor of scientific naturalism, which is the final act of her liberation from the tower of fear and ignorance that she grew up in.
Our respective readings are probably not too different from one another: it seems like we both see the film as a narrative of curiosity, awakening and conformity. Additionally, both strong female and scientifically-oriented characters are things that so little recognized in popular culture that it smacks of intentionality rather than incompetence on part of the producers. In my view, the core thing dividing your and my reading is the interpretation of her adventures as either a forced loss of innocence or a rejection of old belief systems.
I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on this.
Hey Jans!
I’m glad that you directed me to your article – I enjoyed the read very much :) And I agree with your interpretation of How To Train Your Dragon and with your reading of Tangled through the perspective of scientific awakening. I’ve never considered looking at Tangled through this lense and you have given me some new thoughts! So let me pick up my gender lense and see if I can combine the two somehow?
In HTTYD, the main discourse is clear: the old versus the new, tradition versus technology, fear versus knowledge etc. But this is only the framework into wuich meaning can be placed. Hiccup, with his trans-species friendship, manages not only to free his own people, but also the dragons from their tyrannical mother/queen/? (dragons are often the symbol for the “old” and occupy a similar position in HTTYD). In the end, both species learn to live together, but only one species has to kill their own culture (the big dragon mother thing) and to live as second class-citizens with the humans. What I am trying to point out is that the framework of technology versus tradition is very strongly valued in terms of good and bad and can be used to express forward-thinking ideologies while simultaneously supporting hierarchical assumptions about power and world-orders. While in HTTYD the dragons were clearly miserable under tyrannical rule, that detail is in itself already a side-effect of the packaged tradition-versus-technology dualism that we in the West have learned to accept.
I didn’t intend to go into HTTYD much, but I really do like the movie and I hope it helps illustrate what I mean. While one level of interpretation in both films is of the battle of curiosity against conformity, it can be fun to wonder what curiosity and conformity are otherwize connected to withing the worlds of each of these films. With this – admittedly sligthly paranoid – lense, one can discover that HTTYD is filled with collonialist undertones and Tanged with conservative ones.
It is true that Rapunzel is driven by her desire to discover more about the phenomenon behind the lights and her journey is literally as well as metaphoricaly about discovering the way the world works. But it could also be read as a metaphor for her finding her own place in the world. After all, the lanterns are there in her honour and this is made pretty clear from the very beginning of the movie. It seems almost as if she has discovered a pattern to the world (the stars) and the only thing that she needs to do is to fit herself into it somehow (so figure out why the lanterns follow a different set of rules). In this sense, scientific themes are used to underline the importance of order.
The more I think about it, the more I feel like Tangled is a conscious answer of Disney to the challenge of having to change their princesses into less flat and stereotypical characters. And it appears that the answer is “You know you like our princesses the way they are so just give in”. Oh, Disney…
This is completely open to interpretation, of course, but I see one very important difference between the scientific narrative in, say, HTTYD (it’s a good example of a pro-scientific stance so I’ll just keep using it) and in Tangled. While in HTTYD science is used as a way to discover new things and to change society, in Tangled it’s used for the exact opposite – to bring a lost part of society back to where it belongs in the grand scheme of things. A lot of strange dualisms are mixed up in Tangled to structure Rapunzel’s journey. The straw-feminist oppression of the witch (and her tower) is indeed placed in direct opposition to scientific curiosity. But scientific curiosity is, oddly enough equated not with creativity but with order and laws. So, in a rather unusual constellation, we have “science = conformity” and “marginality = oppression”. I hope I’m being clear. Basically, the witch, with her man-hatered and abuse of Rapunzel is keeping the girl from living up to her full potential in the world as it is. So, while I completely agree with the fact that Rapunzel’s journey is driven by curiosity and the scientific method, her conclusions are strangely not empowering. This is a perfect example of a conservative narrative appropriating the language of its opponent. Instead of using science to support a story of free thinking and change, it is used to support the status quo.
I’m curious to know what you think of this interpretation and if you see it differently! Thanks again for giving me some cool new ideas (and for taking animted films seriously :D)
Oh, and I forgot to mention: the hair. Although one could see her losing it as a parallel to her giving up her magical, non-scientific life with the evil witch, it’s important to note that she still has magic afterwards (magic healing tears) and she is not the one who cuts off her own hair. Flynn just chops it off – freeing her, yes, but forcefully and thus, if you want to go that way, underlining his superior position in the world of science, thus granting him the right to make such a decision and to show Rapunzel “the light”.
Great article Sofia, very interesting. I’m sorry to nitpick, but I don’t think that the Giant Dragon at the end of the film is female. I mean, it might be, but nothing I remember from the film points to it being either gender.
Sure, valid point. A lot of the visuals of the big dragon are remeniscent of a queen bee from what we know about swarm behaviour – I sort of went with that and assumed it was deliberate. Besides, I guess in this case the gender matters very little, while the opposition of new civilization(human lifestyle) versus old civilization (big dragon thing)is the focal point of a postcolonial analysis. Whatever the gender of the dragon queen/king/tyrant, we never get to know it or sympathize with it or even vaguely understand it and its only purpose is to be destroyed. And yet, the thing embodies an entire civilizational model that we assume has been around for as long as the dragons.
actually – if one would want to go really far with this – the fact that all of these really different dragon species end up belonging to one umbrella culture is quite orientalist ;)
I’d push the hair/tear thing a bit further to combine the two interpretations. As Sofia says, Rapunzel’s tool changes from her hair, something tied to her that she can use for herself, to her tears, which are best used to care for others. I’d put more emphasis on the interpretation you mention only briefly, the one tied to barriers to entry in science for girls and women. The change of her power from one that could assist her in inquiry to one of service places her back in the traditional role of caregiver instead of knowledge-seeker. One can think of the story as one of the pursuit of knowledge and the rejection of old belief systems, but I think in doing so, we still see the gender role bias, because one can’t ignore the ending- since that’s where the message is either carried out or lost. She pursues knowledge and seeks discovery during most of the movie, but in the end, she loses her hair and means of seeking that knowledge and discovery, she settles down and gets married, and her powers are changed from a self-serving tool to one she can’t get much out of on her own- all following old fashioned modes of operation, not new or innovative ones. And, as Sofia pushed already, she loses that hair at the hands of a man, the same man she ends up marrying.
Stockholm syndrome much? ;)
Oops, this should have been on Jens’s post.
This is really, really interesting. Let me drive the overthinking one bit further, because I have the feeling that these parallels really meet at some far-away point:
Pablo Picasso is said to have stated that every child is a scientist – basically pursuing their curiosity, not giving up until they are satisfied with the explanation. As I alluded to in my article, both HTTYD and Tangled depict the solving of a particular mystery, as well as the investigators’ reactions to the solution. In Rapunzel’s case, it seems like she gives up her inquiries (essentially giving up being curious) and focuses on relationship matters instead. The transformation of her powers from hair to tears, in this interpretation, stands for her change from rational, tool-oriented problem-solving to emotions. In discovering the power of her tears, she reaches a level of emotional maturity that allows her to leave the phase of ‘scientific childishness’ – an ‘adult’ life, with marriage and kids and everything, then seems like the logical conclusion to the story.
In this view, yes, the ending is quite horrible, both from the perspectives of women and of science in popular culture. Her solving the mystery of the lights would be akin to her earning a college degree, and then leaving her field permanently.
Come to think of it, I don’t think we ever see somebody become a scientist in popular culture. While scientists themselves usually feature regularly and prominently, them being scientists is usually a core character feature. It would be nice to have a movie ending with a PhD defense once, instead of in a courtroom or with a wedding.
Well, I DO think the hair bit should be emphasized. It was such a violent moment – I still can’t get over the fact that there was no outraged uproar or news of traumatized kids leaving the cinema. Especially if you decide to stick to the interpretation that the entire movie is about her losing her virginity…then that scene is downright disturbing.
Whatever your interpretation, Flynn is the one who makes the decision, he is the one who either 1)takes away her primary mode of exploration or 2)forces her to accept the new belief system by freeing her from her ties to the witch and to magic, demonstrating that he has the authority to discern right from wrong. Or, you know, he rapes her basically? (Am I over-reacting? The viginity thing was very, very not-subtle during the tiara-fiasco, so I can’t be completely making this up, right? Right?)
No matter how you spin it, the moment when Rapunzel loses her hair is not framed in an empowering way for her character.
OK, well, I will say that I didn’t see the virginity thing when I was watching the film. I saw the same dynamic, certainly with the parent figure vs. the love interest and the concept of trust. Maybe it’s just that I read too many romances but I feel like this dynamic comes up where it’s top specifically about virginity. But you make a strong argument and I can definitely see your reading applying to this film.
I was actually kind of surprised you didn’t discuss the hair-chopping specifically as rape in the article, to be honest.
I left out the hair-cutting/rape thing because I’m still not sure if it’s practically more helpful to narrow down or to broaden the popular conception of rape…So better not overuse the word in case it may contribute to rape being taken less seriously. On the other hand, it makes sense to call it like you see it.
Hey Sofia,
Wow, you kicked off quite the discussion there ;) Also, thank you for pointing out that Tangled is the 2nd most expensive movie – I had no idea, and I am quite amazed about it!
I think you combined our perspectives masterfully. It’s quite interesting to think of the influence of scientific thinking in Tangled as pushing towards conformity. If you think about it, there is already an internal struggle going on in science itself: while rogue scientists (like Newton, Einstein, Darwin) are admired and even necessary for scientific progress, there is, paradoxically, a powerful sense of conformity in the sense that most experiments are variations of those before them, and that one of the main elements of the scientific method is expecting your results beforehand (mostly based on prior experiments conducted by other people).
I wonder what would have happened if Tangled had ended with Rapunzel rejecting Flynn for the sake of new adventures, new explorations and other (male or female) companions. Would audiences have disliked this ending? Would it change the audience’s view of Rapunzel as one of the proper Disney princesses? And would it change your interpretation of the moment her hair is cut? But I realize these are mainly rhetorical questions, leading away from the core of your interpretation.
Thank you for giving me a new perspective about this movie! I am glad you liked my article as well :)
Beste Gruesse nach Oesterreich,
Jens
Tangled was so expensive because it went through many stages of development. I’d been following it for a while. At one point it was supposed to star Kristin Chenoweth and I think it was just called Rapunzel.
As you can see from the picture, almost all the Disney princesses get Happily Ever After married in their first movie. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Disneyland_2012-02-14_Princess_and_Princesses_a.jpg
The exceptions are Jasmine (where it’s not really about her anyway as she’s not the protagonist), Mulan, and Pocahontas. Mulan is interesting because she gets to make the choice between returning home and serving as an advisor to the emperor and chooses to return home. Shang eventually comes after her with an implied HEA but really she just invites him to stay for dinner. In movie 2, they get into arguments but eventually get their HEA marriage. And in Pocahontas she doesn’t get the guy but the decision is more or less taken away from her. In Pocahontas 2, she gets to make the decision, but has found a different guy. I’m not sure where I’m going with this but it’s making me wonder why Mulan and Pocahontas aren’t in that picture.
Well, actually (heh), the end of the first Aladdin movie, until you see the sequels, is easily interpreted as a HEA- they’re singing to each other and canoodling on Carpet. But they do get married in the third movie.
Well, science can be viewed as either a way to access an unquestionable set of rules that govern our existance whether we like it or not, or as a chance to think creatively and to combine what we know in the hopes of discovering new opportunities. I mean, in the whole abortion debate, we have had statements about how the female body can’t get pregnant from rape. Those were misguided attempts to appropriate the narrative of science (without any actual science -.-). So it really depends on how you look at it. If human agency and free-thinking is a high value, you will look at science as a way for human beings to realize their creative potential. If you, on the other hand, believe very little in the power of human creativity and prefer to find morality in a set of undeiable rules that are superior to humans, then you will make movies such as Tangled :P
Although, as you said, science is limited by conformity to a certian extent (you can’t make up the spaghetti monster and expect everyone to accept the theory as valid unless there is something we already know that supports the existence of the spaghetti monster), many often forget that what drives scientific inquiry is that a lot IS possible that we don’t yet know and although there are physical laws we can’t escape, we have human creativity to decide how to manipulate them.
Oh and, Österreich grüßt zurück! :D
And also, with scientific inquiry, comes the dominance of certain paradigms through which that inquiry is conducted. How phenomena and data are observed and interpreted is done within the confines set by those paradigms, as well. Method, interpretation, range, they’re all constructed and reinforced by human actors, and in a very post-modern take, the end of the discussion is that there’s no such thing as objective science. So how those new opportunities unfold and what we do with them will depend on the paradigms that are the most prevalent at the time.
I am not sure if I agree. I am not really fluent in the philosophy of science, but it seems to me that there is such a thing as objective science, removed from subjective paradigms and interpretation. Although this would be a separate discussion entirely.
I agree that the motivations and interpretations of science vary across the centuries (as do, of course, the available research methods), but the very basic process of analytical observation and hypothesis testing (as displayed by Rapunzel and Hiccup) should be independent of motivation, time or even species.
As always, I will be happy to be proven wrong.
In terms of our discussion, the conflict between streamlining with prior knowledge and furthering science by being progressive/radical is ingrained in the scientific method itself, even before talking about one’s view on humanity or misguided political attempts at interpreting scientific results, like in the case of this pregnancy statement Sofia mentioned.
Hey Sofia,
Great article! I enjoyed watching the film Tangled, because of the silly simplistic story it had to tell. However, as a gender studies student the film is quite a disappointment. Tangled exagerates and repeats a lot more than it challenges. Watching films like Tangled is both an easy and frustrating thing to do. No real thinking is required of its audience, actually the lesss you think the better. I think you have hit the nail on the head with your article. Tangled pretends to respond to or reflect on socially constructed gender roles and normative expectations, but it doesnt. In judging the poltical and or social significance of a film or paper I have realized that it is important to identify where the creators went the extra mile. How are audiences provided with new food-for-thought? What can audiences learn? What is being presented that we have not seen before? Simply stating that different forms of negative discriminatio exists is not enough anymore. Rather, I would like my fellow humans to at least attempt to present an alternative way of being or relating; instead of seeing helpless poor victims of society suffer, or – in the case of Tangled – surrender all of themselves to society in order to survive (phsycially and or mentally).
So, thank you! Keep writing :)
One of my major problems with the film was that it seemed like it was made for a very young audience. Other than “Mother Knows Best” I feel like an adult taking a child to see the movie would be very bored.
I wonder how we can work our last major discussion of Tangled into this gendered reading.
http://www.overthinkingit.com/2012/09/21/rapunzel-tangled-universal-health-care/
Also, simply because it hasn’t come up yet… Really? The magical blonde loses her power and becomes a brunette?
I’m sure ‘big’ ‘pharma’ is discriminatory in some way. Thanks for remembering there’s a third Tangled article out there, even if it’s not especially relevant.
I mean, I argue that focusing medicine on anti-aging/life prolonging stuff is bad, but then there is the issue of cosmetics focused on this issue that certainly has a gender skew.
I think it would interesting to look at how gender plays a role in all our readings of what might happen after the story. Does Rapunzel become a heroine of sorts because of her abilities as a healer? Or is she instead oppressed and forced to devote all her energy to keeping everyone not just healthy but young and at the peak of health (as Gothel appears to be). What about the possibility of the healing dynasty?
And now I will just repost old comments. Forgive me for this but it’s to make a point, I promise.
We can’t forget that this is a story about an older, childless woman who takes a child from another family to raise as her own. I haven’t worked it out yet but perhaps it is not only about reclaiming her magic but taking a part of the dominant society to use as her instrument in furthering her own traditions. That is, Mother Gothel teaches Rapunzel the song/traditional healing wisdom. Unfortunately, Gothel doesn’t seem to have read Audre Lorde.
I would argue that Tangled (which, full disclosure, I saw in theaters and disliked immensely) tells a different story. An older, independent woman, the basic “witch” type, has knowledge of traditional healing. But the authority figures (royalty, knights who go searching the land, and whatever doctor I presume they consulted) do not and so they cut the flower (destroying it) in their attempts to heal the queen instead of preserving its healing powers.
I see this as a story about the apparent selfishness of a traditional, subaltern group (I know it’s just Gothel, but taking it as an allegory let’s say she represents a small community). When the established dominant power grows desperate THEN they are willing to acknowledge the traditions of this group and the “legends” of the flower. But in trying it use it for their own purposes, they end up destroying it. Again, it’s only one flower but you can assume this is the equivalent of using up all of a natural resource.
Well, if we must combine the two, I’m sure there is room in the female-body-used-for-political-narrative corner of feminist theory.
That said, the mere idea of a girl holding the “cure” within her body adds a new dimension to the idea of “resources”. If we are looking at Tangled as a tale of healthcare, we can’t leave out the fact that we are also talking about instrumentalizing a human being.
In a way, it’s a life for a life. Whose life matters more, hers or the people she saves? Who is going to make that decision? Are we really going to be so utilitarian as to say that if she can save more lives than one by sacrificing her own, then the balance is worth it?
By ” ‘big pharma’ is discriminatory in some way,” are you saying this to mean along gender lines, then? Because boy-oh-boy, can I rant to you about how discriminatory the health care system in the U.S. is. We aren’t as cool as you peeps over across the Pond with your National Healthcare Service.
Because, sssshh, don’t tell people on a certain side of the political spectrum in this country, but guess what? The Affordable Care Act wasn’t remotely universal health care!
Although, still, when our Supreme Court ruled it to be kosher, I loved this meme that was going around:
http://img.myconfinedspace.com/wp-content/uploads/tdomf-2/436891/Oprah-Healthcare-700×522.jpg
/end useless dribble
Don’t worry, the NHS is a mess in lots of ways, but it’s a mess founded on brilliant key principles, which is the big difference. Also Nye Bevan. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aneurin_Bevan
A really thin reading putting health care issues into this is the fact that Flynn, a male, decides the fate of Rapunzel, a woman, by chopping off her hair without her permission. And remember those hearings about birth control that were a bunch of crusty old white dudes that didn’t even allow women to testify, let alone make any decisions? Yeah, there’s that.
But in terms of universal health care via her tears. I have nothing new to add. :(
On an unrelated note, here’s how Joss Whedon reads Die Hard.
“Die Hard was a game-changing movie because he’s a sensitive husband who feels like he’s blowing it, cares about his wife, just wants to like say I love you. He’s not a cop on the edge, he’s not Dirty Harry. He loves this woman, has a life, he has children, and that and Speed were really the two game changers in terms of being past the cowboy phase of superhero cops. But over the course of the movie, the way John McClane saves his wife is to destroy her workplace. Her boss gets killed. The way he finally saves her life is by taking off the watch that she got for being good at her job. And then we end the movie with her giving up her name. Like he deconstructs everything about her. The watch is particularly egregious.”
http://www.wired.com/underwire/2012/05/joss-whedon/all/
Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but Flynn’s narrative bookends both ends of the movie, doesn’t it? Now, I know we like Flynn because hey it’s Zachary Levi and they surveyed female Disney employees to develop his looks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ZmBPVIYaE7Q
But putting that aside, I feel like we should really question him as an unreliable narrator. Darn it, do we need another article about Tangled?
Wow! I saw this movie two years ago with my wife and daughters and have probably seen it at lest (no exaggeration) thirty times since. This article is really good, but I am horribly obtuse as I didn’t pick up on any of this at the time — though now it seems obvious. But regarding Flynn cutting off her hair, all symbolism aside, he had the choice to allow her to heal him — actually that’s what she wanted — but instead, he sacrifices his life in order to take away her “mother”‘s power over her. I realize that there are few literary instances where the man gives his life for his woman, but perhaps this is the first. . . and maybe in your (our?) zeal to put this episode into a neatly wrapped box that fits our counter-cultural zeitgeist we said “oh, Flynn brutalized her by cutting off her hair” not “wow, he could have lived and found some other girl’s tower to climb but chose death instead in order to free Rapunzel.” I was impressed that Disney allowed him to die like that. And then, of course, terribly disappointed that he sprung back to life. (I think he should have stayed dead. It made his sacrifice much more compelling.)
Wow, this is cool! I remember watching this movie and thinking that they kept all the sex from the Grimm version of the tale (the 1815 one, where Rapunzel gets knocked up), but sublimated into the hair. Hair = sex; hardly an original idea. Glad to see someone else saw this, too.
I think I get what dan says in the comment above. I think it would have been better if she cut off her OWN hair, rather than the guy doing it for her.
I’m sorry, after reading through all of this I just had to leave my own comment. First, in a general reply to the article and thread, I can’t help but wonder if you are just looking for reasons to hate on this film, and possibly (by extension) Disney. Every time I’ve seen this movie, I’ve thought it was a cute film that my wife, my daughter and I all enjoyed. Even now, with this newly created prism that I am attempting to view the movie through, I still cannot see these oversexualized parallels that you are trying to create. But, then again, this is OverthinkingIt.com, and while I strongly disagree, I respect the opinion and the logic/emotion behind it.
Additionally, I’d like to address two specific posts:
@dan — I whole-heartedly agree. I’m with you! I’ve told my wife and daughter both several times after seeing the movie that it would have been the perfect Greek tragedy had he given his life and not had it returned. But alas, Disney caved and refused to tell a perfectly well-told story in favor of upsetting children and thin-skinned parents.
@Jessica — For her to cut off her own hair would terribly miss the point. You see, what everyone seems to overlook with the so-called “rape” theory is that, while the “decision” is taken from her to cut the hair, it was first HER decision to forcibly heal him and endure lifelong servitude against HIS wishes. So, yes, ultimately it was his sacrifice that won out, I can’t help but see that as a personality trait (he was a sneaky devil) over some kind of outlandish, sexualized narrative you seem to think is being portrayed here.
My take on the ending: Two people who are at risk of losing their life (either directly through a wound or indirectly through eternal oppression). Both wishing to make the ultimate sacrifice to save the other. Both can’t win, and the loss of her hair was — let’s face it — a both obvious and necessary ending, so how much more fitting and beautiful could the ending have been than that last so-called “violent” act to free her from her bonds, dubiously referred to earlier as her “tool of self-service”? Yes, her hair was a symbol of freedom — for about five seconds, until you realized that it was the very thing keeping her locked in the tower in the first place! Or lest we forget that in our interpretations?
This is a fun site. Keep up the good work. Again, though I may disagree, I sure can appreciate the vigor and passion behind the interpretations.