Are we? We are told she is selfish.
We are SHOWN she is evil.
Like child abduction? Like lying? Like imprisonment?
Sure. Just not that evil.
Or like destruction of a (presumably) endangered kind of flower because of of an oligarch. Or betraying your two friends and abandoning them to die or rot in jail just to keep their shares of the loot, or the armed forces of said oligarch destroying an invaluable dam that may have been vital to the whole region just because he wanted some trinket back.
But, of course, when the people doing that are good looking, then it’s all cool.
Remember also, the witch was using the flower to maintain her youthful good looks. The queen wanted the flower so she wouldn’t die. Not really morally equal.
Lots of folks are squicked out by testing cosmetics on animals. More are accepting when the testing is done to develop cancer medications or insulin for diabetics or treatments for whatever.
Further, the witch was a kidnapper who didn’t love Rapunzel one iota. She was using her for her hair. If it had been a donkey who had the power of youth she would have sung to a donkey. A plant, she would have sung to a plant. A dog turd - she would have sung to a dog turd and she cared no more for Rapunzel than she would that turd - a tool to be used to maintain her youthful looks.
Now, the hero was a bit of a douche as well; however, he does redeem himself at the end when he, you know, dies to save Rapunzel.
The witch in Tangled was actually pretty good-looking. Would you feel differently about her if she wasn’t?
{standing ovation}
Dude, you’re the one taking a cartoon fairy tale seriously.
It didn’t take place in our society did it. Yet you seem to want to judge it by our rules. Well actually, your rules. You seem to OK with many of the things that most others disagree with. Maybe you should think about that.
Yeah, that’s what I was thinking. The witch was trying to extend a life that presumably she’d already lived to the fullest. The queen was young and about to become a mother.
Besides, even if we argue that the witch had just as much right to the flower as the queen did, everything she did after that showed her to be a selfish and awful person. She tries to keep Rapunzel happy simply because it’s easier if the girl stays in the tower of her own accord. Maybe she took some pleasure in bringing the girl up the way she did, much like someone could take pride in rearing a horse or a dog.
I actually felt that the original witch can be interpreted in a much more sympathetic light. She’s old and alone - she jumps at the chance to have a daughter of her own, and she sincerely wants to keep the girl for herself, protected from the outside world. Not that this is a legitimate reason for keeping her locked up, but I find it more understandable than a witch who steals a kid just because she wants to extend her youth.
In most versions of the story Rapunzel’s parents also agree to give her to the witch after the witch catches them stealing from her garden. While demanding a child in exchange for a plant seems pretty extreme, similar things happen in other fairy tales. It’s very close to the beginning of “Beauty and the Beast”, in which Beauty’s father gives her to the Beast as repayment for the stolen rose, and the Beast is the hero of that story.
The Disney version keeps the “pregnant woman needs special plant, but the witch doesn’t want to give it to her” element, but made Rapunzel’s mother more sympathetic (she’ll die without the flower, it isn’t just a craving) and the witch less sympathetic (her right to the flower is questionable, as it’s not something she cultivated on her own property).