Walking out of Frozen II, one would be forgiven for feeling confused. Reviews commonly settle upon the description of “convoluted” to describe the plot, and public perception of the film seems to have stagnated at “it’s pretty okay.” Compared to the straightforward Frozen, the sequel seems to have both more to say, and a harder time finding the words. However, even in its imperfection Frozen II finds itself making a much more meaningful a statement.
While Frozen’s themes revolve around sisterhood, love, and self-acceptance, Frozen II’s trend more towards belonging, truth, and colonialism. Disney did not explore these themes perfectly. Frozen II’s plot revolves around Elsa’s (Idina Menzel) journey into the Enchanted Forest to discover the truth about herself and her powers. Along the way, she learns of a decades old conflict between her people, the Arendellians, and the indigenous people of this area, the Northuldra. Her search concludes with her learning that her grandfather (Jeremy Sisto), king at the time, intended to hurt Northuldra’s forests and way of life with a dam. When he was challenged by the Northuldra leader (Alan Tudyk), he killed the defenseless man.
The conflict between the Arendellians and the Northuldra is often simplistic, and I cringed when an indigenous Northuldra character said, “We only trust nature. When nature speaks, we listen.” It seemed like a step back to the days of Pocahontas’ “Let the spirits of the Earth guide you,” where the “mystic native” trope stereotypes a real indigenous people. Issues like these make one question the ethics of a monopoly like Disney capitalizing upon stories of colonialism, especially if they are going to muddle the messaging along the way. Mistakes in portraying these cultures are not just ones of ignorance, but also play into the larger issue of reinforcing condescending stereotypes for the purpose of profit. However, perfectly telling a story that reckons with these ideas is not what determines if the movie was “good” or “worth it” in the end. In fact, I don’t think that it is even my place to say either way.
Rather, we should look to those most impacted by Disney’s choices. The Northuldra closely parallel the real indigenous people of Scandinavia and Russia called the Sámi. The first Frozen film was criticized by many Sámi for opening with a title song called “Vuelie,” which was based on the historically outlawed Sámi vocal music called a joik. Although it was composed by Sámi musician Frode Fjellheim, many resented the inclusion of the song as some sort of “ethnic flavor” to what was an overwhelmingly white, Norwegian cast of characters. Of the character Kristoff, who is implied to (maybe?) be Sámi or of Sámi descent, Anne Lajla Utsi, the managing director of the International Sámi Film Institute, stated that it was “not exactly how we would have done it.” Disney seems to have learned from these criticisms: for Frozen II, Disney signed a formal agreement with the Sámi parliaments of Norway, Sweden and Finland, as well as the Sámi Council. They formed an advisory group of artists, historians, and elders to inform the film and help ensure cultural sensitivity. Disney also worked to create a dub of the movie in North Sámi, the most spoken of the Sámi languages, and released it at the same time as the Norwegian version. Careful cultural consideration can be seen in the film’s outfits, which took inspiration from the traditional Sámi gákti, and the Northuldra’s village, which is made up of goahti, a type Sámi hut. The collaboration also facilitated Walt Disney internships and opportunities for some Sámi filmmakers and animators.
Perhaps even more impactful, whether intended by Disney or not, is they way Frozen II mirrors the experiences of real life Sámi people. In the film, the colonizing Arendellians built a dam that hurts the Northulra’s forests and livelihood. Anna ultimately heroically brings the dam down. Conversely, in a turning point in the fight for Sámi rights in the 1970’s and 80’s, a dam and a hydroelectric power plant were planned on the Alta river in Norway. At the time, it was clear that the building of the dam would flood and displace a Sámi village, and disrupt reindeer migration and salmon fishing. However, the Norwegian Supreme Court ruled that the dam had a right to be built, and it still stands today. Frozen II changes how the story ends. Instead of the Northuldra/Sámi being ignored and silenced, their voices are heard and justice wins out. In Anna’s words, “Arendelle has no future until we make this right.”
This effort mattered. The attempt to not only be sensitive to Sámi audiences, but to write a story where their historical oppression was a direct thematic core, mattered. To Sámi audiences, Frozen II was proof of a studio not only listening to their criticism, but acting on it. The result seems to be a film that, regardless of how many suburban moms it confuses with its storyline, has been largely embraced by the Sámi community. Aili Keskitalo, president of the consultative Sámi Parliament in Norway, stated, “I am planning to see the movie again with my whole family, […] my youngest daughter is really looking forward to watching the movie in her language.” Another Sámi reviewer said, “The work they did with the story is to be commended. They did not just throw the Northuldra/Sámi into the storyline. They incorporated my people’s history and struggles directly into the plot. Whether they intended to or not, Frozen 2 [sic] has put forth important messages.”
This is not to say that the movie is perfect. While not a deal-breaker, I still think my criticisms of overly-mystifying the Northuldra and that feeding into the “magical native” trope are valid. In addition, some lament that the film’s portrayal of reparations as lacking. Film critic Inkoo Kang commented that the story’s framing of reparations as a zero-sum game is “both simplistic and possibly counterproductive toward actual justice,” something I won’t argue against. However, it is more important for media to be meaningful than unerroring. Could the way Frozen II tackled it’s compex messages have been better? Yes. Does this mean that the impact of this film matters any less? No.
Movie reviewer “Big Joel” argues that “Frozen 2 asks and attempts to answer a really complicated question: What is the psychological nature of colonialism? What is its impact on the colonized?” The answer he finds in the film is, “Feeling frozen. Being alienated in a motionless, small world where oppressor and oppressed must idly sit next to each other.” Disney, the powerful monopoly that it is, created a movie that tackles the sort of ideas and histories to prompt these sort of analyses. Frozen II is Walt Disney Animation’s largest opening for a film in the company’s history. In the end, is it “right” that such a powerful American company headed by uber wealthy white men profits from stories of colonialism? Maybe not, at least not to the extent that they are. However, that shouldn’t be what we take away from the story of Frozen II. Instead, as stated by Utsi, “[Frozen II] is a good example for every other film [company] in the world who want[s] to be inspired by Indigenous culture. If you want to do it, you have to collaborate.” It is in this collaboration that we find ourselves where we are today, where a Sámi girl has the opportunity to, for the first time ever in Disney’s history, see a princess sing in her language.
Be First to Comment