Just watched "Tangled". Am I the only one bothered by the plot?

Cafe Society
1

I’m sorry, but the Witch protected and used a magical flower over and over. And to the narrator that’s apparently an awful thing to do.

Then a bunch of soldiers appear, take the flower, and the magical thing is destroyed to heal some aristocrat. And that’s a great thing.

Not one of the mothers of eight who were dying of consumption ir whatever, but some woman considered more worthy than the rest because of her birth.

“She sings to a flower to make herself young. Creepy huh?”. Well, no, not really. It’s not “sacrificing a baby goat to Cthuhlhu” creepy. It’s pretty much the exact opposite of any definition of creepy, to be clear.

And then Rapunzel did grow up loved by her adoptive mother. Sure, overbearing, overprotective love. Insane, even. But the girl wasn’t chained in the dungeon or anything. In fact the whole plot can take place because the woman makes a three day (three!) trip to buy her daughter a birthday present. How is that evil?

Even at the end, when the witch had already won the day, it’s her love for Rapunzel what ends up becoming her undoing. Rapunzel promises to be an obedient daughter if she’s allowed to heal the criminal she’s fallen for, and for that she’s betrayed and killed.

Great moral compass, Disney.

2

She’s evil be cause she abducted a girl, kept her hidden from the world, not even letting her take one step outside, and lied to her about who they both were.

There are too many real world equivalents of that kind of thing happening for it to be dismissed so easily.

3

Well, not the nicest person in the world, admittedly. But she wasn’t evil - evil, witch from Snow White or Sleeping Beauty - clearly deserving to die - evil, is what I’m saying. And it’s still her kindness what destroys her. Not a great lesson for kids.

4

The Witch was very much evil for what she did to Rapunzel, not for using the magical flower.

The morality of keeping it secret is quite complex. I didn’t think the film implied she was evil for that.

It did say she was selfish, but… she was selfish. She was a very selfish person. I’m not even saying keeping it secret is necessarily selfish (which largely depends on the mechanics of the flower, which we didn’t learn in enough detail to decide), but the narrator is omniscient and knew that she had selfish reasons.

5

But isn’t the destruction of it just for one person, whose only claim to it was having been born with a higher social status, is even more selfish?

6

It certainly was, but since the king and queen aren’t central characters we don’t have to worry too much about their morality. I agree that the fact that they aren’t ever taken to task about this in the movie seems to indicate a certain blind spot on the part of the writers (or that they just think nobody will notice). The setup of Tangled is the weakest part of the movie IMO.

You could fanwank it a couple of ways. The people of the country love their monarchs so much they’ll willingly give up a chance at life in order to save the queen (people do get pretty silly about royalty, after all). Or (bigger stretch) they knew any child she subsequently bore would have the, um, flower power ;). Which, by the way, the witch prevented being used on behalf of everyone, by stealing Rapunzel.

Leaving the beginning aside, the witch is definitely morally dodgy. She’s controlling and deceitful. And it’s not kindness that destroys her. Rapunzel tells her that if she gives her this one wish, she won’t struggle or try to escape. The witch calculates she can save herself trouble, because she knows Rapunzel is trustworthy. She bets that she’s the cleverer one and Rapunzel isn’t going to be able to use this opportunity to destroy her. She bets wrong.

I think the movie would have been much better (though vastly different) if they let the guy die at the end. But I can imagine the howls of anguished 8 year olds…

7

The Queen did not know it could be used more than once. If she did, selfishness would have dictated keeping it for her own future use. If it can only be used once, I don’t think it is selfish for her to use it in that situation.

As I said, I’m not claiming the Witch’s actions were necessarily selfish either. It depends on the mechanics of the flower. For one thing, it might have been expected that the flower would not work at all the way the queen used it, yet it did. So we are in the dark as to exactly how it worked.

Arguably the Witch could have protected the flower better by at least spreading a rumor about the way to use it via singing. So if anyone did find it, they wouldn’t destroy it unknowingly.

8

But that still makes little sense to me. It’s even easier and less trouble to just keep her chained. Had she been truly ruthless she would have succeeded. Nice message to the kids.

But it’s hardly heroic, saving one’s own ass is pretty much exactly what the witch was doing. The movie goes out of it’s way to imply that one thing is bad while the other is good. Probably because the witch was just a commoner.
Also, the Stabbington brothers are clearly marked as the “Bad guys”, while their actions actually makes them less despicable than Flynn.

9

I had the same problems as the OP. I guess most Disney movies have a weird, retro pro-monarchy morality, but it is a little eye-brow raising when it plays such a big role setting up the plot.

And I shudder at the consequences of teaching millions of little girls that if they just murder their caring but overbearing and overprotective mothers, they will find they’re really secret magical princesses and can go live in a castle with their real, loving, unjudging to the point of being mute, mothers.

This film will lead to blood, mark my words.

10

As long as we’re reading evil into Disney movies, please enjoy: Mangled: Stay at Home Daughters on the Silver Screen, which objects to some different issues in the movie…

(I haven’t yet seen Tangled myself, I’m just offering this link.)

11

And since we’re ripping on the movie, I was also kinda annoyed that Rupunzels hair wasn’t really necessary to enter the tower. IIRC, that was the entire point of the original fairytale, but over the course of the movie, we see that the tower is easy to climb and has a door.

12

Just how big a bunch of modernist whores do you want the story writers to be? You are applying a filter of modern morality to a tale originating out of a cultural context where many things were judged inherently more or less worthy than others simply by their state of being.

In classic pre-modern fairy tales witches are routinely beheaded, put into barrels spiked with internal nails and rolled down a hill etc., not because of what they did so much, but because they *are *witches. Things are assumed to have an essential nature.

The notion of essential natures is hugely appealing to many , especially young people, and in this case young girls specifically. The entire film was designed to play on the emotions and desires of young girls and women like a xylophone, and to a large extent it succeeded.

Judging the destruction of the flower based on a contemporary moral calculus is useless. The Queen got the flower because she was inherently worthy, the witch was evil because she thwarted this notion.

It was a very sappy movie overall (and I think over rated), but I did enjoy the horse quite a bit.

13

Don’t worry, that is one lesson they’ll learn as they get older.

14

I don’t get the complaints, to a certain extent. The movie does seem to imply that the witch’s selfishness in keeping the flower to herself was deserving of criticism. But the main reason the witch is evil is that she kidnapped someone’s daughter. It doesn’t matter how well she treats Rapunzel. Rapunzel isn’t her daughter!

15

Except none of the stuff we’re complaining about are in the original story. The girl isn’t a princess in the original, and the plant has no healing powers.

16

You can shift the character and setting elements of the plot around all you want. The core conceit of the story remains that some things are inherently good, true, innocent and will be saved, rewarded, etc. and some things are not and they will be punished. Isn’t the book “Wicked” (I have not read it) an investigation of this concept and the lenses we use to view things?

17

Thats the central conceit of many fairy tales, but not Rapunzel. The witch doesn’t get any punishment (and isn’t really evil, so much as over-protective), the prince gets blinded for his efforts, and there isn’t really any indication that Rapunzel is “inherently good”, at least not in the sense of being born as more worthy then any other peasant maiden.

18

No she wasn’t chained in a dungeon. She was a servant in a high tower. That’s a great life.
When the Queen was sick, the witch should have used the power of the plant to heal her.
In that sort of society the aristocrats are, in fact, more important than everyone else. Especially the heirs to the throne. No heir means a civil war breaks out or you get invaded. Bad news for everyone.

19

Quick! Choose one of the two for yourself!

Sure, freedom is better than a gilded cage, but the alternative here was between gilded or rusty.

Supporting an unfair system for fear of the unknown? Tsk, tsk… Now that’s what you get with too many fairy tales…

20

It doesn’t matter if the Rapunzel story includes royalty or not. The story exists in Fairy Tale Space, so a retelling can legitimately call on the rules of Fairy Tale Space for changes.

Also, in Fairy Tale Space the King and Queen ARE The Kingdom at some level. Their health affects the wellbeing of The Kingdom directly and everyone in it indirectly. If they are Good Royalty, The Kingdom will prosper, not from what they do but because of what they are. (If they were Bad Royalty, The Kingdom would suffer.)

Therefore when the Witch withheld the flower in general, it was selfish because it was withholding healing and renewal from whoever else could have used it, but when she withheld it from the Queen she was withholding it from The Kingdom. Likewise, when she withheld Rapunzel from The Kingdom, she was making The Kingdom a lesser place and lessening everyone in it.

Since Rapunzel is Trustworthy, in Fairy Tale Space her words will bind her as thouroughly as chains without the hassle of chaining her up. It would not be easier and less trouble to chain her. Actual chains would be less effective. She’d have been less effective as a housekeeper, might have gotten chafing wounds and infections, and would never have come around to being a good cheerful daughter again, which the Witch had been enjoying. And being both Trustworth and Plucky, she might have found a way to escape if bound only by chains.

Yes, in Fairy Tale Space and modern cartoons characters have essences that are signaled symbolically. This is not rational, not fair, promotes fuzzy, stereotyped thinking, etc. It’s also pretty much unavoidable if you want a large audience.

There is a modern, deserving-young-girl-yearns-for-freedom/purpose theme attached to the story to give it a sense of newness and to allow a modern audience to attach to the main character. Ditto for the deserving young boy. But that’s the only modern things that have been added. Modern thoughts about fair government systems do not apply because the system is magic: a Good King and Queen equals a happy, prosperous Kingdom. A Kingdom with a stolen Princess has been lessened.

I thought it was cool that they kept the number of royalty in the main couple the same, just switching the genders. So that a story with Commoner & Prince became one with Commoner & Princess.