Dear Readers,
So last month I promised a review of How to Train Your
Dragon 2. Hopefully I will
still be able to include that in this post, however, I wanted to widen my scope
a little bit and talk generally about kids movies and movies kids watch. The older I get, and the more I go back
and re-watch the movies that I loved as a kid, and watch the movies that I
never watched as a kid, I begin to think about what movies I might one day show
my kids, and what restrictions I might set on their viewing, and why.
Growing up, there were certain movies that my parents would
not allow my sister and me to watch.
I had never seen Jaws before my first year of college, anything
with vampires or werewolves was strictly prohibited, and witches were almost
universally the bad guys in any movie I watched. Looking back, I view these restrictions in a mixed
light. One the one hand, I do feel
that I missed out on a cultural sense by never having seen Dracula or The
Wolfman. There are certain
social references and inside jokes that I simply do not get because I never
watched those sorts of movies. On
the other hand, I do not have the same phobias that I have seen in my friends
who were exposed to “horror” movies as younger kids. I have no irrational fear of swimming pools or lakes from
watching Jaws to young, no fear of spiders, snakes, clowns, woods, the
dark, or bats. Comparing my
upbringing with those of my friends who do suffer from such phobias, I believe
my parents made some wise decisions in choosing what we were allowed to watch
and what was forbidden.
Where, however, does one draw the line? At the other extreme end of the
spectrum, I know families who did not allow their children to watch Disney
movies because they were to dark, or The Wizard of Oz because it had
witches in it. How much darkness
in a film is appropriate for children?
Rewatching some of my favorite Disney classics, I am struck by how dark
they can get: Jafar, Millificent, Ursula, Scar, and the Evil Queen in Snow
White are all very powerful, evil characters. In their own way, each of these characters also triumphs
over the good characters for a brief period. I was shocked the first time I watched The Princess and
the Frog when one of the characters was depicted being dragged down to hell
by demonic spirits. This in a kids movie?!
Are my more conservative friends right in protecting their children from
ordinary “kids” movies that are filled with darkly disturbing elements?
I guess the answer depends upon how you answer a different
question; what is the purpose of a children’s movie? Are kids movies designed to teach, to instruct, to
entertain, or to amuse? Each of
these is a particular focus of children’s film, and each will answer the
question of how much darkness is appropriate in a children’s movie in a
different way.
If the role of a children’s movie is merely to amuse, then
the content should be as dark as necessary to keep a child’s attention for a
prolonged period, while not making it so dark as to really frighten a
child. Amusement is the easiest
goal to reach in a children’s movie, because the intent is not to stimulate the
child, but to sedate them. Most
cartoons, and the majority of poor quality children’s films fall into this
category. Darkness is generally
useless in this type of film because conflict causes children to think and
question. Children have a basic
concept of fairness, and when a villainous character upsets that balance, it
causes the child to become upset.
Thus, if one believes the purpose of a kids movie is simply to amuse the
children, then the violent the film, the better.
If, on the other hand, the purpose is to entertain, the
question shifts slightly.
Entertainment is build upon interaction and sympathy. Character is critical to a truly
entertaining movie. One of the
easiest ways of creating interaction and sympathy with a character is to put
them into the sort of unfair situation one would avoid in amusement. When a child’s sense of fairness is
offended on behalf of a character, the child begins to feel with that
character. The struggles of the
character and his triumph at the end of the story become much more important to
the child because he shares in the character’s victory. Some darkness is therefore appropriate
if the purpose of a movie is to entertain child.
Thirdly, the purpose of children’s movies could be to
teach. This occurs in two
ways. First is through
deliberately educational programs such as Sesame Street, Kratt’s
Creatures, Reading Rainbow, or Bill Nigh the Science Guy
(yes, I realize I just totally aged myself with those references). Each of these programs sets out to
teach children specific principles about a specific subject such as science,
literature, or math. Children may
enjoy the characters on these shows because they are familiar faces, but they
recognize them for what they are, “adult” guides there to teach them about the
world. More subtle, but still
teaching tools, are movies like The Lion King where concepts like the
ecological system are subtly presented around the frame of a larger story. Many of the best children’s films have
these “teachable moments” in them, but the moments are secondary to a larger
goal.
This larger goal is the fourth view of a children’s movie,
to be instructional. While
instruction and teaching are often associated with each other, they have
entirely different methods and goals.
While teaching is focused on information, instruction is centered on
principles. The law of gravity may
determine whether we walk or float to school, but it is principles that tell us
not to throw a baby out the school window. Generally, the greatest stories are those that demonstrate
the characters living according to a fixed set of principles. Children’s stories are no different,
indeed, the best children’s stories take a specific virtue: honesty, hard work,
compassion, and embody that virtue in a character. As the child begins to sympathize with the character, he
also begins to value the traits that make the character special: the
virtues. Some degree of darkness pivotal
in the instructing film because it provides the character with a struggle and
gains the child’s sympathy, but also because it provides a contrast of vice
with virtue for the child to emulate.
The best children’s movies are those that are instructional
and entertaining. Merely amusing
movies treat children as if they are a different creature that needs to be
sedated instead of treating them like a person who appreciates the nuances of
story and character. A good
children’s movie should be entertaining to both children and adults. An adult should be able to appreciate
the subtlety more deeply than a child, but they should both be appreciating the
same factors of the film; the power of the story, the growth of the characters,
the fear of darkness and the triumph of good.
This is not to say that the fear of darkness and triumph of
good always play out in the same manner in all children’s films. Many of the latest kids movies do not
have the same stark themes of good versus evil that used to be the norm. A lot of newer movies feature the
protagonist’s struggle against circumstances (Finding Nemo), against
their own flaws (Frozen, Kung Fu Panda, Cars), or against a negative
aspect of their society (How to Train Your Dragon, and to a lesser
extent Brave). This seems
to be a part of a societal shift toward a more relativistic view of good and
evil, in which every character is a mixed bag of traits. The best of these movies, however,
features the characters achieving their victories at a cost: In Nemo, the
whole story is overshadowed with Marlin coping with the death of his wife, and
in the first How to Train Your Dragon, both Toothless and Hiccup are
wounded physically and have to learn to rely on each other for support.
Which brings me to How to Train Your Dragon 2. I went into the first movie with very
low expectations, and was pleasantly surprised by the excellence of both the
animation and the story. The
original rates among one of my favorite children’s movies ever. Thus, I went into the second movie with
both trepidation and hope. One of
the most pleasantly surprising facts about the movie was the fact that is was
very different from the first. The
tendency in movie sequels, particularly for children’s movies, is the
temptation to remake the first movie.
The difficulty is what worked in an original movie does not work in a
deliberate attempt at duplication.
Thus, I have never seen a good sequel to a Disney cartoon. Dreamworks tends to do a bit better in
creating films that are in the spirit of the original, but that follow a new
story and new challenges for the characters. This is what How to Train Your Dragon 2 did very
well. The struggle of the first
film was Hiccup learning to stand up to his father and society to create a
positive change. It nwas also a
story about learning to see past difference and trying new things. The friendship between Hiccup and
Toothless was deeply touching, and by working through their individual
troubles.
Instead of trying to recreate the first movie, the new story
took the story along entirely different lines. Instead of fighting prejudice within his own community, it
is an outside threat that confronts Hiccup. Drago, a power hungry warlord with the ability to control
dragons threatens Berk. Hiccup
tries to reason with Drago, as he did with his father in the first movie, but
Drago is a more traditional villain; he is not blinded by prejudice or a
misguided desire, but instead is driven by his desire for power. Although he pretends to want to protect
people from the dragons, he is actually using his sway over the dragons to
control those around him through fear.
Hiccup cannot convince him to change because instead of being merely
misguided, this villain is genuinely evil. In light of this fact, Hiccup and Toothless respond in the
only way possible; when faced with a tyrant who cannot be reasoned with, lovers
of freedom must fight. It was
refreshing to see this; Hiccup first tried to be reasonable, but seeing that
there was no hope for a sane solution, he set aside his love of peace, and
fought courageously to secure the freedom of those for whom he is responsible.
While the presence of a dark and disturbing villain
separated the second movie from the first, it kept the endearing relationships
that made the characters so lovable in the original. Hiccup has grown from the awkward boy in the first movie
into a man struggling to define himself.
His father wants him to take up the leadership of the village of Berk,
but Hiccup sees all the areas where he is not his father, and questions his
ability to lead. When the threat
of Drago is revealed, Hiccup takes it upon himself to reason with the
tyrant. In the process, he reconnects
with his mother, who has been missing for the last twenty years. It turns out that she has been living
with wild dragons, learning their ways.
As Hiccup gets to know his mother, he sees that he has a lot in common
with her, but as the threat of Drago becomes immanent, he also realizes that he
does posses the concern for others that made his father such a great
leader. Through this knowledge,
Hiccup is able to come into his own as a leader, and defeat Drago, who rules
others through fear, not through love.
The catalyst for this change in
Hiccup comes from his parent’s reconnection, they love they have for each
other, and then the tragic loss of his father. As Hiccup sees his mother bring out the gentle side of his
father, Stoick, he sees what truly makes his father a great leader. When Stoick is killed in battle, Hiccup
assumes responsibility for the people of Berk, while discovering a solution to
the problem that is uniquely his own.
Just like in the first movie, this large change in Hiccup’s life comes
at a cost. His victory in the
first movie, over a simple thing like prejudice, cost Hiccup his leg. This new victory, over despicable
tyrant is not bloodless. It costs
Hiccup the second most important person in his life. In most children’s movies, there is victory, but it is rare
to see the cost of those victories portrayed so vividly. This is what makes both How to Train
Your Dragon films so impactful; that nothing is free, that every victory
has a cost, and that often the cost is tragically high. In the end, however, the victory is
worth the cost. The change in the
village of Berk was worth Hiccup losing his leg. The safety of the villagers, Astrid, and Hiccup, and his
mother, was worth Stoic’s self sacrifice.
Was the second movie better or
worse than the first? At this
point, I am not entirely sure. The
first was such a delightful combination of humor, beautiful artistry, and relatable
characters that it was almost perfect.
While the second movie was thoroughly enjoyable, and had a lot of the
same aspects that made the first brilliant, I do now know that it will stand
the test of time the same way the first has. I could be wrong.
My sisters all tell me I am absolutely wrong, that the second one was as
good if not better than the first.
Maybe, in a few months, years, or a few more viewings, I might be able
to nail down more firmly which is the better movie. While How to Train Your Dragon 2 may not have been as
good as the first one, however, it was an excellent children’s movie, and well
worth seeing in theatres.
Well, back to reality!
