Tangled

Goals are more important than we give them credit for, when it comes to popular entertainment. Books, television shows, movies, graphic novels; all of these will sink if the main characters of these stories do not have clear goals that drive action. Obviously, not every protagonist is going to have clear goals, even half-formed ones; sometimes, it's the antagonist's goals that drive a story. But think of how many stories' action can be summed up in one sentence, describing a goal. "I want to go home to my kids." "I want to rule the kingdom." "I want to go back to my aunt and uncle." "I want as much power as I can have."

Now, not every story has unique goals; how many of the ones I just quoted could apply to multiple movies, books, and so on? Something that frustrated me about the new Disney animated feature (their 50th) Tangled is that the main character's goals do not drive the story, leaving her essentially passive. Granted, Rapunzel (which really should have been the film's title) is far less passive than, say, Snow White. (Quick, what's Snow White's goal? The answer is, in the short term, to remain alive, and that's only because the Queen's goal--to be the most beautiful woman in the world--comes with the price of killing the fair maiden.) Rapunzel's goal is not only clear, it's stated in full: she wants to leave the tower where she's been kept for pretty much every day of her life to see floating lanterns that happen to be set into the sky on her birthday for a very specific reason.

So what's wrong with this goal? As I said, it's clear and Rapunzel will do just about anything to achieve it once she realizes that she can be helped to her ends. The problem is that Tangled is a movie driven by the antagonist, Mother Gothiel. This old crone, at the beginning of the film, stumbles upon a magical flower that heals wounds and gives new life to anything as long as you sing a specific lullaby, meaning that the old lady can remain healthy and beautiful. Once the flower is used to save the queen of a nearby kingdom as she gives birth, the power transfers to the baby Rapunzel, who Mother Gothiel kidnaps for her own. So there's no story if Mother Gothiel's goal--to be beautiful forever--isn't achieved. Rapunzel only has the goal of leaving because someone wanted her to stay.

I know, I know. I'm thinking too much about a cartoon, right? Here's the thing. Recently, the head of Disney said, in an interview, that the company is going to put a full marketing push behind Toy Story 3 so it could potentially win the Best Picture Oscar. He asked why a Disney movie hadn't ever won the big prize. And he's right. Why not a Disney movie? Why not, more specifically, a Pixar movie? Oscar bloggers may throw up their hands in disdain and disgust, but there is always the possibility that, yeah, a movie that isn't in live-action isn't as good as a....ergh....cartoon. I loved Toy Story 3 and will be glad to see it presumably get nominated for Best Picture. I doubt it will win--mostly because of the anti-animation bias in the Academy--but why shouldn't Disney try for it? If they want to have their movies taken seriously, I say go for it. But that means I take their movies seriously, too.

We all should, really. I can, of course, just say that Tangled is a well-done animated movie and a fine successor to most other "princess" movies, but what kind of critical analysis does that amount to? There are plenty of things to like about Tangled, but it left me a little cold, and part of that is because of a relatively passive lead character. Speaking of which, you can watch all of the trailers you like, and you'll still be woefully underprepared for what Tangled actually is. Why should it be called Rapunzel, for example? Well, she's the main character. Flynn Rider--a name so silly I was glad to find out it was fake--is a fine, dashing romantic lead for Rapunzel to play off of, but he's not the main character. Flynn is also a much better male lead for the "princess" movies than most of the old-school Disney men, but he's still just playing opposite a girl with a lot of hair.

The voice cast, while feeling a bit more sparse than in recent Disney animated features (of the five main characters, two do not talk), is well-used, especially Broadway veteran Donna Murphy as the villain. Unlike most of the classic Disney villains, Mother Gothiel is more realistic and creepy, specifically because she's the most passive-aggressive villain in a cartoon I've seen. Her song in the film (yes, there are songs, from Alan Menken and Glen Slater, most of which are nice but unmemorable) comes early and is one of two highlights. Part of what makes "Mother Knows Best" so entertaining is Murphy's going-for-it-all performance, but part of it is the snappy wit in the lyrics, calling back memories of Menken's collaborations with the late Howard Ashman.

Mandy Moore, as Rapunzel, is a fine addition to the Disney princesses, but her character's most interesting scene to play is the one she has immediately after leaving her tower, as she vacillates between being exhilarated by the outside world and excoriating herself for being a bad daughter. Zachary Levi, as Flynn, is charming and humorous while also being kind of bland. This is a fault of the character--who starts out as a cunning rogue thief, and guess where he's going to end up by the end of the story--but Levi is as likable as he is on NBC's "Chuck." The other cast members include Ron Perlman (as one of Flynn's fellow thieves), Jeffrey Tambor and Brad Garrett (as a couple of thugs who are randomly given a song to sing midway through the film), and comedian Paul F. Tompkins. All are appropriately cast and entertaining, though as a comedy fan, I'd have loved to hear more from Tompkins, as a lush of a thug.

Disney has said that Tangled is their last princess movie, and with it approaching 100 million dollars after only a week and a half, I'm sure they're trying to figure out how to erase that statement from the public record. Having said that, I'll end this review with a bit of an impassioned defense of their most recent animated feature, The Princess and the Frog. For some reason, The Princess and the Frog has been forgotten or simply ignored by most Disney fans. The movie didn't do as well as Disney had hoped, but it remains one of the most exciting, charming pieces of animation in the past decade, outside of Pixar's work. The voice cast is eminently entertaining (Bruno Campos, in particular, delivers a great performance), the music and songs are as toe-tapping as anything from the Menken-Ashman era, and the hand-drawn animation is eye-popping and colorful. Finally, Tiana, the princess of the film, has a very clear goal: she wants to own a restaurant. Her being turned into a frog is a big accident, but from the beginning of the movie, we know who Tiana is, as she is defined by her goal. Most of the Disney princesses do not have such clear goals (Belle, Jasmine, Snow White, and Sleeping Beauty are among them), and for a movie as entertaining and as clear-headed as The Princess and the Frog to get ignored by audiences and the Disney top brass is disappointing. Tangled, meanwhile, is a good movie, a cute movie, and one that kids will like. But Disney has done, and can still do, better.