My friend Kathryn recently posted a lengthy essay on her blog about her concerns that Disney’s hit animated movie Frozen contains a subtext that pushes an homosexual ideology that is contrary to the beliefs of many of the religious families who enjoyed it.
In response she has been widely ridiculed and derided, often by people who presumably share her LDS beliefs. Apparently they have convinced themselves that expressing concern about subversive messages in popular entertainment is an inexcusable sin, but that the normalization of sinful behavior is tolerable.
When I saw Frozen, I too noticed that the film could be interpreted as an allegory for homosexual struggle for normalization. And it did concern me.
At the same time, my view is that good art contains archetypes and motifs that can be applied to many different aspects of human experience.
J.R.R. Tolkien was annoyed by the many people who took his fictional stories and said that they were symbolic or allegorical of specific events or political agendas. He explained that his works were not allegorical, but exhibited “applicability” to a wide range of experiences, events, and beliefs.
Frozen can certainly be successfully applied as an allegory for homosexual struggle. The authors may or may not have had that in mind when they wrote it. But Frozen is good enough art to rise above a specific allegorical meaning. It demonstrates broad applicability to many different human experiences. That is why it appeals to so many people. Continue reading