The original Rapunzel has little voice. Her own story is named for her, but she has next to no agency within it. Her prince doesn’t fair much better; like many princes in fairy tales though he has a bit more control over his destiny he doesn’t appear important enough to earn his own name. “Tangled” changes all of that.
Disney’s latest movie, which has the distinction of being the 50th full-length animated film to come from the House of Mouse, is probably not the first to deepen the characters of the Rapunzel myth’s two leads. But it’s the best I’ve ever encountered.
With “Tangled” I finally feel like I have the Disney of my childhood back. I was by no means alone when I feared for this movie upon hearing that it would be made in CGI instead of hand-crafted drawings. I was worried it would end up gimmicky at worst, or at best, a beloved movie in a new art form that still just seems to have something missing.
I didn’t miss anything during “Tangled.” The lushness that hallmarks the Disney classics is all over this film, from the breathtaking animation that makes me forget it’s not hand-drawn to the rich characters to an engrossing fairy tale story. Most importantly to me after “The Princess and the Frog,” it has a great soundtrack, due to the return of the fantastic Alan Menken.
What I love most about “Tangled,” however, is the development between the two leads. Rapunzel is full of the wide-eyed wonder and enthusiasm one would expect from a girl who’s never stepped foot outside a tower all her life. She acclimatizes to the real world, and the real world lovingly embraces her, with greater speed than one would then expect, but she is a Disney Princess after all. It comes with the territory.
Rapunzel switches places with her leading man for “Tangled;” this time, she’s the princess while he’s from humble backgrounds. But Flynn Ryder manages to distinguish himself in the royal capitol, though in this case by being the notorious thief who swipes the missing princess’s treasured crown.
The two leads share balanced screen time, just as I’d hoped. There is equal draw for girls and boys here; for all of Rapunzel’s cavorting with forest creatures we have Flynn’s swashbuckling (though Rapunzel also wields a mean frying pan). And while I’m not convinced that the name change to “Tangled” wasn’t prompted by corporate marketing strategy, I finally find myself not begrudging it so much.
“Tangled” isn’t just Rapunzel’s movie. She edges out Flynn a bit in character development, but it’s Flynn who provides the narration and thus skews the story as equally his. The movies I love most are the ones with the deepest character development, and “Tangled” does not disappoint.
I’m hesitant to give much away about the plot; anyone familiar with the Brothers Grimm original knows its basic framework, and I don’t want to spoil any of the ways in which Disney once again makes its unique adaptation almost the definitive version of a 200-year-old fairy tale.
“Tangled” may remind me in several places of the Disney films of my childhood, but that might be more my fault for straining to see connections, wanting that nostalgia trip, than of any story rehashing by the studio. Besides, I’ll forgive it any similarities to other Disney movies (which might be more the product of their shared genre) for scenes of delicate beauty like the one of Flynn and Rapunzel floating beside a seaside castle as paper lanterns drift like lazy gliding stars through the night sky.
During the trailers before “Tangled” I found myself appalled at the ever-decreasing quality in kids’ movies. Just because young children aren’t very discerning doesn’t mean there’s no reason not to make movies that will appeal to children but also engage the minds of the parents that must watch along with them. “Tangled” is art everyone can appreciate.
Related Articles:
Tangled: Hand Drawn vs. Computer Animation
“Princess and the Frog” Hints at New Era for Disney
“A Christmas Carol”: Spectacle with Substance