In life, we all get to a point where we have to give something up for the better of the world or ourselves. The directions we take are determined by our circumstances, do we want to return to the way things were, or do we take an opportunity to change? Sometimes the latter is the best option, but other times it isn't if we put some thought into it.
I'm of course referring to what occurs in film and on television. I've had this feeling for the longest time, but I never had many examples to refer to until now. So let's get into it. Firstly, let me better explain what I mean by these sacrifices. A character is forced into a role they didn't want, whether it was because of an act of malice, by total accident or whatever. They spend a majority of the film or show trying to undo what happened to them, but then, something happens that make them do a total 180.
I can't confirm where this truly began, or if it happened here first, but this is popular enough to serve as a key example. This act of self-sacrifice can be traced back to 2001's Shrek, itself intended to act as a subversion or commentary on fairy tales, and commercialism, with the crux of it being that the big stupid ugly ogre is the hero, while the brave prince is a phony, also evil, and through true love's first kiss, Princess Fiona would take the form of the other end. This was through a curse that transforms her into an ogre at night, and because Shrek demonstrated he loved her and vice versa, she would become an ogre, fair trade.
I bring Shrek up because it feels like most other movies try to follow that kind of arc, or just take the basic principle, not helping that the examples I bring up happened to come after Shrek. First example, Brother Bear. Kenai became a bear after killing one in cold blood, then by the end of it he never regains his humanity in spite of finishing his arc. You may say the impact, if there would be one, wouldn't be as strong if Kenai regained his humanity, well what impact does him remaining a bear have? It's like a level above purgatory, frankly.
Second example, Monsters Vs. Aliens. Susan's entire arc really rubs me the wrong way. I get it, her old normal life wasn't that great, and it took a lot of adjusting to get into the role of Ginormica. But what really taints her arc is that rather than applying what she has learned as Ginormica, you know, more confidence, bravery, the like, she decides, fuck it, she will remain where she was as if that's meant to reflect any growth, it just felt so... off. It's like they had each character resign to their fate rather than have the desire to take what they've learned and apply it to their old lives.
Of course no one would ever be the same after going through journeys like Brother Bear or Monsters Vs. Aliens, but there's a fine line between leaving the journey, and keeping it going. If there is any meaning behind those, I don't see it. I do however, see a reason why these things went the way they did. They turned out the way they did for the sake of having the means to push the films further.
It's like this. Brother Bear got a sequel. Monsters Vs. Aliens got an animated series. If either Kenai or Susan returned to normal by the end of their respective movies, now how the hell could there be a sequel in any form? Lose the characters, lose a key component, and thus, lose any chance at making some extra cash, and remember, it's Disney, they've been dishing out sequels for years, and DreamWorks had every intent of also getting money for their stuff.
In other words, Shrek may've inspired other movie makers to try and capitalize on what made Shrek good in subtle ways, while ensuring they could get as much as they could out of their movies.
It's a bit like dysfunctional families, what started as a simple subversion turned into the norm for a lot of movies. But hey, repetitive outcomes aren't always the end of the world as long as the stories justify them, like Pinocchio. It's like this, what if Pinocchio opted to remain a puppet, foregoing his own struggles- oh wait the live-action remake of Pinocchio kinda implied that.
Oh what if in The Jungle Book Mowgli never returned to the Man Village- yeah live-action remake.
Or what about what if Beauty and the Beast, Beast never became human again? He had resigned himself to his curse in spite of finding love, and yes, he does let Beauty go, but that's a sign of genuine love on his part to her, and yes he gets brought back to normal by the end of it. He grew as a character, and met the terms of the curse laid before him. If he remained a beast, then it would ruin the whole point of the story, otherwise you'd just have the Beast languish in his castle in loneliness, which he would die of.
The Emperor's New Groove, Kuzco turned into a llama per the plot of Yzma, Kuzco, initially a selfish ruler, grew humble overtime, and he got to return to normal and mend the wounds he had caused. More of a demonstration of how one can grow in spite of doing wrong, of course what good would still being a llama do? Then again it never stopped the movie from getting a sequel and series adaptation.
Brave, in spite of what people feel about that film. What if Queen Elinor remained a bear for the rest of her life? The kingdom would be in chaos or some shit, and Merida would never, ever, develop as a character, at least any more than the film would've allowed.
Referring back to Brother Bear and Monsters Vs. Aliens, I reaffirm that them returning to normal would be of no consequence. They would take what they have learned and apply it, Kenai learning to think his actions through and be a better person, Susan becoming more confident and able to tackle her dull life head on.
Those may seem like expected conclusions, but... what makes what actually happened any better? The points in favor of those seem minor by comparison. The only thing in favor of Kenai remaining a bear is to remain a companion to Koda, that's it. I have a crazy idea to how Brother Bear could've turned out, but it's gonna derail this post. The things in favor of Susan remaining Ginormica... are little to none, just appreciating the new company? Typical. Liking what the size gave her? Who says they have to feel big both mentally and physically? In fact, it seems like Susan has hardly developed, too afraid to return to her old life, so she sticks with the new one she was forced to take.
Otherwise why have her be eager to marry that man? If she was forced into it then I could kinda understand. If there's a greater meaning behind it, please tell me.
So to sum up, I can forgive characters turning back on their development, at least implacably, but there has to be something to back it up, give it greater meaning, and of course make sense. A radical shift in a character's personality can justify a predictable conclusion, but either Shrek wound up giving filmmakers the wrong idea, or they want desperately to milk a movie for however much it's worth.
No comments:
Post a Comment