One of the biggest criticisms lobbed against Disney films is their whitewashing of history -- it started, perhaps, with Song of the South, and didn't really get better with Pocahontas or The Princess and the Frog. Critics point out that relations between two tension-charged groups -- the Native Americans and the English settlers in the former, and whites and blacks in the latter -- were not as simple or positive as they're portrayed in the animated films; defenders retort that that they're children's films and, as such, can't possibly address the complexities of racial dynamics in 90 minutes nor should they.
Both sides are right: Disney isn't creating a documentary or a historical film; they're producing a fairy-tale film. (Whether Pocahontas -- a real historical figure -- has a fairy-tale story and whether Disney should have set a film in 1920s Louisiana are entirely different questions.) And the defenders are right, too: even if Disney had a moral obligation to accurately represent history, it'd be almost impossible to do in a 90-minute film.
So the question then becomes -- and I love discussing it with my students -- what should Disney do? How can they not sidestep sensitive issues but still do them justice?
And this is where Frozen II comes in: the basic gist of the plot (and I think this is mostly apparent from the trailer), there's a conflict between the Arendellians and the native people in the film, the Northundra (who, I think, are modeled after the Sami tribe, the native people of Norway/Scandinavia). The story of the conflict is initially filtered through Elsa and Anna's father, who doesn't know what happened because he was outside the forest and knocked unconscious. But the elemental spirits of the forest basically keep people in and "lock" out the outside world.
But here's the significant part: the arc of the film is basically Elsa uncovering the truth of what happened, of why the spirits were angered. And the reason, as Elsa learns, is that Elsa's grandfather betrayed the Northundra, building the dam under the guise of peace and unity, but really doing it to gauge the strength and size of the Northundra tribe. His reason? He was pissed off that they were independent and wanted them to swear allegiance to him. The moment he kills the Northundra leader is the moment the spirits "revolt" for lack of a better term, and there's a more complicated, but beautiful, resolution to the story, one which ends with a message of true peace and unity.
Why is this so important? Well, aside from the fact that Elsa and Anna's grandfather is basically a symbol of some ye olden days Fragile Toxic Masculinity, he represents that colonial, imperialist mindset of "white is right" and that native people should swear fealty to him simply because of the crown he wears. In the film, the Northundra are portrayed relatively flat, but they're kind people who seem intent on harmony and peace. (I'm thinking of Pocahontas, where each group views the other as "savage," and equally at fault, when, in reality, the English settlers bear the majority of the blame and fault.) While there's a bit of a problem in locating that mindset in just one character -- in Pocahontas, it's Ratcliffe; once he's gone, all the English settlers are totally fine with everything; here, it's the grandfather who seems to be the sole prejudiced one -- what's important is that Elsa and Anna's grandfather is portrayed as wrong, and his beliefs are firmly and clearly denounced by both Elsa and Anna. Both sisters understand why their grandfather's actions were unforgivable and also understand what they need to do make things right and restore balance. And, in this case, that means appeasing the Elemental spirits and making reparations by destroying the dam.
Is it a perfect depiction of complex inter-racial relations? Of course not. It is, after all, an animated film with a target demographic of preschoolers and elementary schoolers. And there are lots of unanswered questions, but...
Does it attempt to handle complex issues better than its predecessors did? Yes, I would say so. And, what's more important, is that I think it lays the groundwork for important future discussions. I think it opens the door to have early conversations about imperialism and colonialism and how some people, even people we thought were good and right, did some truly bad things. From there? There are so many places to go.
