Frozen - Hans
29 August 2015 11:15 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
igenlodeApparently my sympathy for the devil instincts are still alive and kicking, since my immediate reaction to finally watching "Frozen" was "Prince Hans simply doesn't make sense" :-p
I could swallow Hans as a weak opportunist who suddenly realises that this is his big chance (the heir to the throne is dying after their hasty engagement and the Queen has exiled herself, leaving him as effective regent). But that's not what we're told. We're asked to believe that he has somehow been scheming for this all along and that everything he has done has been with this specific aim in view, which is inconsistent with what we see in the rest of the film.
After all, it's Anna who runs into him -- he doesn't set out to court her. He doesn't even know who she is, and yet he's clearly attracted to her from the start. (Again, this might make sense as opportunism -- he's susceptible to a pretty face, and then delighted to find out that the girl on whom he has made such a good impression is actually a highly-desirable marriage partner -- but as an evil scheme it's hopeless.)
And if, as he later claims, he wanted Elsa dead from the start (since he hasn't a hope of marrying her), then he has no need to insist during their expedition on the North Mountain that she should not be harmed, never mind taking active steps to save her life... let alone trying to save her from damning herself by using her powers for murder, which is an act of no benefit to anyone save Elsa herself. He doesn't need to impress Anna at this point (who in all probability is already dead in any case): all he has to do is allow events to take their natural course and let the sorceress queen get lynched by her outraged subjects.
Indeed, he doesn't need to send out an expedition to rescue Anna at all, since he is already Regent and can only benefit from her death -- nor go on it himself ("I have to look after the people!"), thus compounding the irresponsible error that first Elsa and then Anna have made in running out on their kingdom. If he is a cynical schemer, he has the perfect excuse to send out his minions to ensure that neither of the heirs to Arendelle come back -- he doesn't need to endanger his own life to save Anna, let alone Elsa. None of these actions make any sense if reinterpreted in retrospect: if Hans's apparent motives are not genuine, then the script is cheating.
And as a villain, he's a very bad one-- as in, very bad at it.
He doesn't even need to refuse to kiss Anna: if he knows that he is not her true love then he can simply kiss her in full view of the Court and act devastated when the 'superstition' mysteriously fails to work and she dies anyway. He could sit by her side and watch her die in absolute safety, thus winning sympathy (and making sure that she really does die -- he can even give matters a little extra push if necessary).
The whole 'revealing his evil plans' scene makes no sense at all, and frankly feels like a retcon inserted for some reason -- I'm reminded, inevitably, of Erik-fans' attempts to 'monster' Raoul's actions in order to make their desired hero look better in comparison, where said actions are very obviously being gratuitously and implausibly twisted in support of a plot interpretation that isn't upheld by the facts. If Hans is a villain, why does he act clean against his own supposed interests for three-quarters of the film? This isn't a clever twist -- it's total lack of plot development.
Again, I'm reminded of Andrew Lloyd Webber suddenly having Raoul start acting like a stereotypical badfic villain and Christine suddenly declare a passionate attachment to the Phantom in "Love Never Dies" with no reason given: Hans could have been given foreshadowing as an out-and-out villain, he could have been given credible motives as a conflicted opportunist, or he could even have been a tragically misguided hero who doesn't realise that the reason why his kiss fails to save Anna is that she has fallen in love with someone else, and rushes out to avenge her by killing Elsa. Just giving him a radical character change in the final scenes and announcing that all his charming and indeed admirable behaviour has been a rather incompetent lie doesn't cut the mustard where writing a plausible villain is concerned.
Indeed, it leaves the viewer with the impression that the script had written itself into a hole and didn't know how to get itself out again.
I can see why little girls adore the film, with its theme of loyalty between sisters and message that 'true love' doesn't have to involve romance (though I for one was frankly anticipating this revelation to come at the point where Olaf sacrifices himself by lighting a roaring fire for Anna and telling her that she is worth melting for: I assumed that was going to be the big twist! Why doesn't a snowman's devotion count?) But the message I'm getting is that the writers simply didn't care enough to make Prince Hans a credible human being... which is bad enough in a minor character, but disastrous in one whose flaws are made to be pivotal to the climax of the film :-(
Also, it instantly enlists me on Hans' side :-p
no subject
Date: 2015-08-31 05:19 am (UTC)If he had minions. Which he doesn't.
That's actually kind of interesting, because it's pretty unique for a Disney villain. And on one level that's probably why: if he had minions, the audience would know he was a villain.
But it also ties into his whole motivation for villainy: He wants power, and doesn't have any. Hans starts out with no support base whatever, and accumulates power over the course of the movie by persuading people that giving it to him would be a good idea. He's not just trying to impress Anna; he's trying to impress everybody. At least until he's got a firm enough grip on power that they can't take it off him again.
He goes after Anna personally because he's got no minions to do it for him, but also because he's building a legend. If he brings her back alive, his approval rating goes up; if she dies out in the snow somewhere, well, at least he tried.
On the other hand, he can't stand by and let Elsa get killed in front of him, because that's not what the kind of guy he wants people to think he is would do. That kind of guy would bring Elsa back alive and insist she be given a fair hearing -- and if the fair hearing never happens because a fatal accident befalls her when nobody's looking, well, at least he tried. (Also, are they still thinking at that point that they need her to bring summer back? I can't remember.)
I do think that the "Oh Anna" scene is a misstep; it would definitely have been smarter for him to wait lovingly by her side while she perished, for all the reasons you say. It would even fit the narrative he's constucting: he couldn't save her, but at least he tried.
(I wonder if there's an extra-textual reason why he needed to not kiss Anna -- there might be rules saying the princess can't kiss the villain in a Disney film, or something -- but in that case the writers shouldn't have put him in a position where kissing Anna was the obvious thing to do.)
no subject
Date: 2015-08-31 07:19 pm (UTC)At that point in the story he has all the power and he risks losing it... either by putting himself in unnecessary danger (he nearly dies -- an expensive method of grandstanding to impress the crowd!) or by actually finding and rescuing Anna. Although arguably that last would give him an incentive to make sure that he was the one on the spot when any 'rescue' took place, with the potential to engineer a tragic accident...
Saving Elsa, on the other hand, isn't going to score him any Brownie points with Anna's people. The men he's leading are not well-disposed towards Elsa at this point: she is an evil sorceress, she has fled the kingdom, and if Anna dies it is going to be Elsa's fault -- either directly (it was only Anna who was convinced that Elsa wouldn't hurt her in a confrontation!) or indirectly by causing her to rush off into dangerous conditions and get killed.
The rescue expedition has every potential to be a lynch mob -- which is why Hans finds it necessary to try to insist in the first place that Elsa is not their enemy. If he wants to create a legend, he would need to please his future subjects: instead, he seems to be going against public sentiment repeatedly with actions that please only Anna. Indeed, allowing the men of Weaseltown to sneak in -- against his direct orders -- and try to kill off Elsa would have made a wonderful plot to justify having the witch-queen killed on the spot in order to save their lives (if Hans had known anything about what they were up to, which is nowhere suggested for a minute!) Under those circumstances I imagine he would have been acclaimed as the hero who saved the kingdom after Anna's tragically deluded claims (if she ever turned up alive) put everyone at risk.
And he really doesn't need to worry about whether Elsa has blood on her hands or not for anyone's sake save Anna's own -- it's all to his advantage at that moment to keep his mouth shut and let her damn herself, even if he wants to appear as the epitome of temperance and mercy by not actually executing her on the spot.
Being soft on Elsa isn't going to raise his approval ratings or impress anyone: nobody other than Anna knows her or cares about her. What he appears to be trying to do is to be "the kind of guy" that Anna wants to think he is, as opposed to the kind that wins power ... which makes sense while we assume that he cares more about Anna thinks of him than he does about Arendelle, but doesn't fit in retrospect as part of a deep-laid scheme :-(
Basically, to me it comes across as sloppy writing: either the aim was to deceive the audience rather than having an in-story rationale (which is cheating -- you need to give clues that make sense after the big reveal), or they panicked and re-purposed the character in the laziest possible way at a late stage in the script without thinking through what had already been written (which is incompetent in the extreme). And plots that cheat annoy me :-p
The obvious way to bring summer back is by killing Elsa: end the magician's power, end the spell. I don't remember anyone actually suggesting this in the film, though...
It's an interesting (and entirely possible) suggestion that there may be a studio rule in Disney pictures that the princess can only kiss her True Love... can you think of any exceptions? I can't, off-hand.
no subject
Date: 2015-08-31 10:55 pm (UTC)You might be right that the crowd would have been in favour of something happening to Elsa, though. At this point I think I'm going to have to concede that it's been too long since I've seen the movie, and I'm not sufficiently sure of my position to keep arguing it.
(I do want to point out, though, that twice now you've said that preventing Elsa from murdering someone was of benefit to nobody but Elsa and maybe Anna. It seems to me that at the very least it would have been of some benefit to the person who didn't get murdered...)
no subject
Date: 2015-09-01 12:03 am (UTC)Although ironically there is, but it's someone he doesn't know about; it would be neater for the two lots of 'bad guys' to tie up together, but that would presumably be a massive giveaway. I'd have thought that as Prince Hans of the Southern Isles he'd have at least a couple of personal attendants, if not a native ship's crew to rely on... but as the very-much-youngest son, presumably the thinking is that he has arrived in a purely personal capacity as an adventurer aboard a foreign ship rather than as the representative of the Southern Isles to Arendelle (which is what I initially assumed; I mean, if a Prince arrives among all the other delegations of notables from foreign countries, you naturally conclude that he has been sent in an official ship to represent his parents' interests!)
If Hans is an evil schemer, than the putative murder victims are just unfortunate collateral from his point of view: he can simply let it be assumed that there was no way he could have saved them from Elsa's powers (no-one else showed any signs of inspiration, after all) and act helpless and outraged afterwards. (From the Disney morality point of view, I'm afraid the men are 'villains' and hence fair game :-p)
I've only seen the film the once and haven't made a study of the script, etc., so these are just the outraged reactions I remember having while the film was actually running -- it's possible that there were things I've missed. (But I've subsequently had a look on the Net and found that there were a lot of people complaining that there was simply no foreshadowing of any kind for Hans' actions -- so if I'm missing it, I'm far from being the only one.)