Title: Tangled

Produced by:  Walt Disney

Release date: 2010

So, when I was growing up I was pretty much obsessed with fairy-tales (which nicely foreshadowed my adult addiction to speculative fiction). One of my favorite fairy-tales of all time was Rapunzel. I couldn't really say why, in retrospect, but I loved this story. And when I was a child I really, really wanted Disney to make a movie of this story. So, when I belatedly realized as an adult that this childhood desire had finally come to pass, I immediately tracked down the film. (I say immediately, I was only two years late, after all!)

Tangled is Disney's adaptation of the Rapunzel story. For the first third of the film, I was largely underwhelmed. The film begin with Rapunzel's mother extremely pregnant and deathly ill. The witch, by contrast, apparently has some magical flower that keeps her eternally young and beautiful (a primary goal of most witches ). Well, word of this flower's existence reaches the king (did I mention that, in this version of the story Rapunzel's parents are royalty?) and soldiers march out to collect the flower. It's taken. The Queen lives. Either the King doesn't realize that the flower belongs to the witch, or decides not to compensate her for her loss because, well, he is the King (so maybe all the land, and the flowers, really belong to him. I don't know). The witch has lost her flower, but somehow discerns that its magical healing properties have been transferred to the Queen's fetus, and so steals Rapunzel away from her royal family in the middle of the night. It's only fair, the flower did belong to the witch, after all. And now, apparently, Rapunzel possesses the essence of the flower, so now that essence probably belongs to the witch, too. Unfortunately, the essence now comes in a baby-package and has to be cared for and raised. Longevity has become pretty taxing. I almost feel sorry for the witch.

And I'm confused about this passing of the flower-essence. Is Rapunzel going to keep aging? She certainly turns from a fetus to a baby and to an adolescent, so she looks like she's aging. What happens to the flower essence when Rapunzel dies? Maybe it gets passed onto her kids?

I know, I know, I'm over-thinking it. Anyway, it's not exactly like the original fairy-tale of Rapunzel was a shining example of air-tight story-telling, or logical thought process. This retelling of the Rapunzel story has a lot of bonuses over the fairy-tale that I loved as a child. For one, the reason behind the witch's desire for the child is clear. For another, the reason behind the witch's desire to lock Rapunzel up in a tower is also clearly explained. Rapunzel is essentially a walking, talking fountain of youth here. She's a rare commodity. So of course you'd want to protect her from thieves once you've rightfully stolen her.

If you don't know the opening of the original Rapunzel story, here is the version I knew as a kid: Rapunzel's pregnant mom gets a strong craving for radishes and feels like she will die without them. This is usually played up as an extreme case of odd pregnancy cravings. So, Rapunzel's dad sees a bunch of really good looking radishes in a garden. He thinks of his poor wife (and his own apparent incompetency as a farmer), and he hops the fence into this garden and steals a pile of radishes. But, in addition to being a poor farmer, he's also a poor thief, and he gets busted by the witch (who owns the garden). She says he can have the radishes if he give her his first born child. (because baddies in fairy-tales always want first-born kids, that's why.) He agrees, and takes the radishes home. When Rapunzel is born, the witch shows up, and dad has to explain to mom where those radishes came from all those months before. Then, having secured the first-born child, the witch locks her up in a tower. Why? I have no idea. Given my experience of fairy-tales, I sort of expected the witch to eat her. Maybe she's saving her for later, okay?

Compare the two intros:

Downside to the original: there is no explanation as to why the witch would want this kid, other than the typical fairy-tale assumption that witches are always out to get babies. (get babies and retain their own youth, do fairy-tale witches know something we don't?) It's also not clear why the witch would lock this kid up, since her parents are peasants and probably aren't going to come storming her house with an army demanding the return of their child anytime soon. Disney's version has the original beat here.

Upsides to the original: Simply put, it's funnier. I enjoyed imagining the scene where the desperate father makes a reckless bargain with the witch to satisfy his wife's cravings. It illustrates that parents can make mistakes too, and avoids any gooey reunion between a parent and long-lost daughter. (Oh come on, you knew that was coming in the Disney film. That doesn't count as a spoiler.) In addition, Rapunzel has the distinction of being a fairy-tale heroine who isn't a princess. She's just the daughter of peasants. That's pretty rare.

So, I was a bit upset with Disney for altering Rapunzel's back-story so drastically such that she becomes a princess, and her parents never made the bargain to give her away to the witch. But these complaints are just the bickering of someone who loved the original. If you didn't love it, or don't remember it, these points won't matter.

Points that might affect your enjoyment of the film:

Characters:

The hero, Flynn Ryder, is hilarious. Just as Rapunzel has morphed into a princess from a peasant, the prince from the original story has morphed into a con-artist thief. He's an entertaining character and given some brilliant lines. There is also a pretty funny horse who seems to think he is a dog (seriously, a horse that tracks like a blood-hound with his bum in the air and his nose to the ground, priceless). Rapunzel herself is a bit too sugary sweet, (and is even dressed in a pale pink dress with puffed sleeves) but that's mostly easy to overlook. So the hero and horse-dog held my attention and were good for several laughs throughout the film. The other characters in the film were mainly forgettable, but not annoying.

Plot:

While I gave Disney credit for taking a mostly nonsensical opening to the fairy-tale and updating it so that its actually coherent, this coherence doesn't carry through for the rest of the plot. At one point a bunch of blood-thirsty thieves are all turned into sappy do-gooders based on nothing more that Rapunzel's sugary-sweet presence and a sub-par song. Later in the film, these reformed thieves just happen to show up at the right time to save our hero, though the explanation for why they were able to do this is a bit fuzzy. Wait, actually it's non-existent.

Music:

Like most of Disney's film adaptations of fairy-tales, this is a musical. The music is pretty bad, but probably no worse that most of the other films. So if other Disney musical scores didn't annoy you, this one probably won't either. It seems to me to be less imaginative than some of their other musical efforts, but it's fine.

Visuals:

Rapunzel's hair was awesome in this film. I loved it. It essentially dominates pretty much any scene it's in.

Resolution:

Don't read this if you plan to see the film. Skip to the next paragraph now. . .

Okay, if you are still reading, here's where I got upset again. In line with the original Rapunzel story, the witch in this story is killed. What's odd to me is that she's also raised Rapunzel to think of her as a mother. So, essentially, Rapunzel's mother is killed, and Rapunzel is present to see it. But she gets over this pretty quickly, without really shedding any tears. I suppose finding out that you're a princess helps you deal with things like your dead mom. The film spent a lot of time illustrating the bond between Rapunzel and her 'mom,' so I found this hard to believe. Again, I'm over-thinking it. But I wasn't alone in the crowd of people I watched this with in raising an eyebrow when Rapunzel tears up a bit, and then in the next scene is fine.

Overall, I was amused. I think the thing that put me off the most was the music, and the need to transform Rapunzel into a princess. These factors were mostly offset by the hero and the horse-dog. Yes, I found the resolution a bit odd, the heroine a bit sickly-sweet, and the music a bit bland, but this is a Disney film intended for kids. I think kids would enjoy it, based on the hair, Flynn Ryder and and the horse-dog, if nothing else.

Title: Avatar:The Last Airbender

Distributor: Nickelodeon

Dates Aired: 2005-2008

This was, I think, a brilliant children's TV show. But you may not know how brilliant it is. There are probably two reasons for this: First, unfortunately for the show James Cameron decided to make a move entitled “Avatar” in 2009 which effectively wreaked havoc with any google-search attempt to find the TV show. Now, anyone trying to find the TV show has to know the full title (including the sub-title after the colon) in order to get what they are looking for. Second, and arguably more damning, is the live-action film adaptation of the TV show that came out in 2010 under the title The Last Airbender. This film really did not do the story justice. If your first exposure to the characters, world, and storyline of Avatar came from this film, then no one would blame you for failing to be curious about the TV show.

But really, you should encourage your kids to see this show. Hell, even if you don't have kids, you should check out this show. Let me tell you why:

Avatar: The Last Airbender is set in a world where there are magic wielders known as 'benders'. These benders can control, or bend, one of the four elements: earth, water, fire or air. Each of these elements also represents a group of people, the Earth Kingdom, Water Tribes, Fire Nation and Air Nomads. However, the Avatar (of which there is only one in every generation) can bend all four elements, and also has mystical connections to the spirit realm. The fantasy world is heavily influenced by Eastern religious and philosophical practices, and even the motions carried out by benders were modeled on different styles of martial arts. A lot of thought, care and planning went into creating this world. Each of the four groups of people has unique clothing, hair styles, food preferences, and bending styles, leading to a real sense that we are dealing with four different cultures here. In addition, the religious beliefs and the mythology surrounding the Avatar are well crafted and explained. This is a surprisingly rich fantasy world to find in a children's TV show.

The story centers on Aang, who you may have guessed from the title is the 'last airbender'. The Fire Nation, we are told, started a war against the other nations over a hundred years ago. Their first act of war was to wipe out the Air Nomads because they knew the Avatar was among them (and he is obviously their biggest threat to victory). However, Aang was not captured and instead wound up at the South Pole frozen in a block of ice for a hundred years, only to be discovered by Water Tribe brother and sister, Sokka and Katara. From here, these three children set out to teach Aang how to wield the awesome power and control the daunting responsibility of being the Avatar, while also seeking a way to stop the Fire Nation's slow rise towards world domination.

We see Aang as a twelve-year-old boy who wants to be reckless and have fun, but doesn't want to shoulder the responsibility he has inherited by virtue of his birth. He struggles against his calling, even running away at times. He is not simply a 'little adult' but really is a child asked to take on more than he thinks he can manage. Because he is twelve, Katara is fourteen, and Sokka is only fifteen, this show begins as a bit of an irritant for an adult audience. I won't lie, I found some of Sokka's jokes to be extremely lame and annoying, and at times I was irritated with the children for acting so irresponsibility. I may have even literally yelled at the screen a few times during episodes where the kids are off having fun and playing games. I think I said something to the effect of:

“Hello, guys? There's a WAR going on, remember? How is eating iced mango fruit juice, or going to see a play going to help here? Come on! Focus!”

But, they are children. The show is written for children. And, oddly, throughout the show's three seasons, I came to know and like them all, even Sokka.

The relationship between Sokka and Katara reminded me of my own relationship with my brother. We might poke fun at each other, call each other names, and find ways to gross each other out, but at bottom we love each other. (I know, that's not something siblings are supposed to admit, so if you're reading, Kiddo, just skim over this sentence and pretend I didn't say it!) That same sibling rivalry is found here. Sokka teases Katara mercilessly, raising her to anger as no one else in the ever-expanding group of supporting cast can, but it is always shown that he cares about her, and that she cares about him too. The main characters are real, believable and fully three-dimensional, a rare thing in a children's cartoon show.

Don't get me wrong, I love the Power Puff Girls, Danny Phantom and The Fairly Odd Parents, but there isn't a lot of depth there! Even shows like Teen Titan which show more depth and character development often slide into the easy way to deliver depth: angst-filled depression where every character has this horrible back-story that they must overcome. Sure, it brings depth. But at the cost of copious amounts of black eye-liner.

In fact, surprisingly, all the characters in Avatar are believable, including the enemy. (Unlike, say, Aku from Samurai Jack. What exactly is his motivation other than evil=fun? Not saying I didn't enjoy Samurai Jack, its just refreshing to see an 'evil' character that isn't one-dimensional. Actually, scratch that. Aku makes a valid point; evil is fun.)

Zuko, exiled prince of the fire nation, set with the task of capturing Aang in order to regain his honor, starts the series as a typical 'bad guy'. He's brooding, angry, inflammatory (get it, fire-nation prince? Groan.), and doggedly pursuing Aang with a vengeance. However, over time we begin to see why Zuko is like this. We also learn, especially in the third season, that the members of the Fire Nation are humans. They are not just plain evil for the sake of being evil. In addition, we learn early on that members of the Earth Kingdom and Water Tribes have their flaws. The message is clear. No one is a stereotype. Every culture houses both good and bad people, and every person has their virtues and their faults. This is a pretty sophisticated idea. In fact, I know a fair number of adults who haven't grasped this. (What, enemies are people too?!)

Finally, and perhaps most surprisingly, this show does not treat children like idiots. Often children's shows are so simplistic that you know how the plot will end shortly after the opening credits roll. And your kids know it too. Because, lets face it, kids aren't idiots. Nope, kids are probably the ones teaching most of us how to use the bewildering technology in our homes, like a tiny army of domestic IT specialists. This show respects that fact and kept the surprises coming. Not all the plot-twists were surprising, but enough came out of the blue to keep me guessing.

So I recommend Avatar: The Last Airbender for exhibiting careful world-building with attention to detail, for having deep and realistic character development and for encouraging all its viewers to think instead of just being spoon-fed. Great little gem of a show.

Besides, you have to get caught up on the back-story, because Nickelodeon has just aired the sequel The Legend of Korra this year! It wrapped on June 23^rd with a 2-hour season finale. And once you've realized how awesome Avatar is, get ready to squeal like a Power Puff Girl because the sequel is set in a steampunk world. Squee!!!