Frozen - Hans
Apparently my sympathy for the devil instincts are still alive and kicking, since my immediate reaction to finally watching "Frozen" was "Prince Hans simply doesn't make sense" :-p
I could swallow Hans as a weak opportunist who suddenly realises that this is his big chance (the heir to the throne is dying after their hasty engagement and the Queen has exiled herself, leaving him as effective regent). But that's not what we're told. We're asked to believe that he has somehow been scheming for this all along and that everything he has done has been with this specific aim in view, which is inconsistent with what we see in the rest of the film.
After all, it's Anna who runs into him -- he doesn't set out to court her. He doesn't even know who she is, and yet he's clearly attracted to her from the start. (Again, this might make sense as opportunism -- he's susceptible to a pretty face, and then delighted to find out that the girl on whom he has made such a good impression is actually a highly-desirable marriage partner -- but as an evil scheme it's hopeless.)
And if, as he later claims, he wanted Elsa dead from the start (since he hasn't a hope of marrying her), then he has no need to insist during their expedition on the North Mountain that she should not be harmed, never mind taking active steps to save her life... let alone trying to save her from damning herself by using her powers for murder, which is an act of no benefit to anyone save Elsa herself. He doesn't need to impress Anna at this point (who in all probability is already dead in any case): all he has to do is allow events to take their natural course and let the sorceress queen get lynched by her outraged subjects.
Indeed, he doesn't need to send out an expedition to rescue Anna at all, since he is already Regent and can only benefit from her death -- nor go on it himself ("I have to look after the people!"), thus compounding the irresponsible error that first Elsa and then Anna have made in running out on their kingdom. If he is a cynical schemer, he has the perfect excuse to send out his minions to ensure that neither of the heirs to Arendelle come back -- he doesn't need to endanger his own life to save Anna, let alone Elsa. None of these actions make any sense if reinterpreted in retrospect: if Hans's apparent motives are not genuine, then the script is cheating.
And as a villain, he's a very bad one-- as in, very bad at it.
He doesn't even need to refuse to kiss Anna: if he knows that he is not her true love then he can simply kiss her in full view of the Court and act devastated when the 'superstition' mysteriously fails to work and she dies anyway. He could sit by her side and watch her die in absolute safety, thus winning sympathy (and making sure that she really does die -- he can even give matters a little extra push if necessary).
The whole 'revealing his evil plans' scene makes no sense at all, and frankly feels like a retcon inserted for some reason -- I'm reminded, inevitably, of Erik-fans' attempts to 'monster' Raoul's actions in order to make their desired hero look better in comparison, where said actions are very obviously being gratuitously and implausibly twisted in support of a plot interpretation that isn't upheld by the facts. If Hans is a villain, why does he act clean against his own supposed interests for three-quarters of the film? This isn't a clever twist -- it's total lack of plot development.
Again, I'm reminded of Andrew Lloyd Webber suddenly having Raoul start acting like a stereotypical badfic villain and Christine suddenly declare a passionate attachment to the Phantom in "Love Never Dies" with no reason given: Hans could have been given foreshadowing as an out-and-out villain, he could have been given credible motives as a conflicted opportunist, or he could even have been a tragically misguided hero who doesn't realise that the reason why his kiss fails to save Anna is that she has fallen in love with someone else, and rushes out to avenge her by killing Elsa. Just giving him a radical character change in the final scenes and announcing that all his charming and indeed admirable behaviour has been a rather incompetent lie doesn't cut the mustard where writing a plausible villain is concerned.
Indeed, it leaves the viewer with the impression that the script had written itself into a hole and didn't know how to get itself out again.
I can see why little girls adore the film, with its theme of loyalty between sisters and message that 'true love' doesn't have to involve romance (though I for one was frankly anticipating this revelation to come at the point where Olaf sacrifices himself by lighting a roaring fire for Anna and telling her that she is worth melting for: I assumed that was going to be the big twist! Why doesn't a snowman's devotion count?) But the message I'm getting is that the writers simply didn't care enough to make Prince Hans a credible human being... which is bad enough in a minor character, but disastrous in one whose flaws are made to be pivotal to the climax of the film :-(
Also, it instantly enlists me on Hans' side :-p This entry was originally posted at http://igenlode.dreamwidth.org/66656.html, where there are
comments.