Time and time again film producers squeeze every last dollar out of a successful movie by making a sequel, and more often than not, the second addition is a major let down. Frozen II was no different. The film did not have another sing-at-the-top-of-your-lungs anthem like “Let It Go,” the plot was vague and confusing, and it simply wasn’t worth the $14 ticket.
The first film faced criticism on social media for whitewashing the Indigenous Scandinavian people, the Sámi people, when the producer claimed that Kristoff was from this ethnic group. Kristoff is blond and light-skinned, and critics claim he should have a darker complexion and hair colour. The film was also accused of cultural appropriation for including traditional Sámi chanting.
In the second film, there is much more interaction between the people of Arendelle (where Queen Elsa reigns) and the Indigenous people called the Northuldra (based on the Sámi people) who reside around the kingdom. In preparation for Frozen II , Disney producers consulted with the Sámi people for guidance on how to respectively portray the Northuldra culture.
The film does a good job of showing the audience a different culture that’s not primarily western and white. It’s encouraging to see a company as big as Disney put time and effort into showing different cultures.
Even though the representation of the Sámi people was adequately handled, the movie was a let down in all other aspects. The first film captured the hearts of many people around the world by telling an exciting story with catchy music and inspiring characters, so there was a lot of pressure on the producers to carry all of the great qualities from Frozen II into the sequel. It was just too great of a task to take on, but of course, Disney tried anyway.
The major issue with the movie is the plot. At first it’s manageable, and the audience is able to follow along as we watch a flashback from Anna and Elsa’s time with their late parents. Their parents tell them about an enchanted forest far away where the Northuldra people live, and about a disagreement their grandfather had with the people which was never resolved. The plot gets complex when Queen Elsa, Anna, Kristoff, Olaf, and Sven go off to discover the enchanted forest.
At the beginning of their quest they discover that they must find the “truth.” The movie is incredibly vague about what the “truth” actually could be; it’s a concept that when (spoiler alert) they physically and spiritually find the “truth,” the problems Arendelle and the Northuldra peoples faced are instantly solved. Even now, I’m not sure what exactly the “truth” was. It seemed to be simultaneously an idea, a physical thing, and a story from the past, but Disney failed to make that clear in the film.
On top of that, Queen Elsa learns about the four different elements of the enchanted forest (wind, water, fire, and earth) then somehow, through magical visions, discovers the origin of her magic along with discovering the “truth.” The entire concept verges on nonsense.
After much reflection on the film, it seems odd that this plot was approved for a children’s movie. It would be surprising if a child walked away from the movie actually understanding what they had just seen and/or had even followed along with what the films concept of “truth.”
It seems that the producers knew the story they wanted to tell (the hero going on a quest, just like in the first Frozen II ) but threw in concepts, like the “truth,” the enchanted forest, and magical visions without explaining them, leaving us with more questions at the end than we would like.
