I Need a Hero: Female Role models in Disney and Pixar Films

1

I Need a Hero

Female Role models in Disney and Pixar Films

Loekie Suijkerbuijk 10368671 Dr. Tarja Laine Dr. Maryn Wilkinson MA Film Studies – Professional track University of Amsterdam 26th June 2017

2

Abstract

This thesis researches the female protagonists in Brave, Inside Out and Frozen and analyzes whether the characters possess the qualities of a role model. Disney and Pixar get a lot of critique for creating films that are not feminist. However, when looking at the last five years, their films do portray strong female characters. Despite the critique, the films can portray female role models, showing qualities the spectator idolizes. The thesis discusses the role of the spectator, looking at the level of identification and how the film helps with the creating of identification. By focusing on the female spectator, it will become apparent that despite feminist critique, these films can have a positive influence on the female spectator. The thesis will state that the role model should embody three key character strengths: bravery, perseverance, and wisdom & knowledge. With help of these strengths, the films will be analyzed in depth, showing how these character strengths make the characters of the films role models. The thesis will bring to light how successful role models are constructed, so that the future of film may continue along this path. Hopefully this will lead to more films with strong female protagonists who could also be considered role models.

Key concepts: role model – spectator – identification – Disney – Pixar – animation films – bravery – perseverance – knowledge – wisdom

3

Index

What’s in a Name, That Which We Call a Role Model……….9

Role Model………9

Spectatorship & Identification………..11

Strength……….14

Born to be Brave………17

The Definitions……….17

Bravery in Brave………...18

Bravery in Inside Out………20

Bravery in Frozen……….23

Conclusion……….25

Nevertheless, She Persisted………27

The Definitions………..27

Perseverance in Brave………...28

Perseverance in Inside Out………....30

Perseverance in Frozen………..33

Conclusion……….35

All the Wiser………..36

The Definitions………..36

Wisdom and Knowledge in Brave……….37

Wisdom and Knowledge in Inside Out………..39

Wisdom and Knowledge in Frozen………...41

Conclusion………...43

Conclusion………..45

4

Introduction

Women and girls in cinema have been the object of research for quite some time. The feminist film theory has left hardly any stone unturned, and yet new information about the topics is being published every day. It must come to no surprise that I have also decided to try and say something new in this discussion. So like many others before me, I have tried to give new perspective to these women and girls in cinema that have so much written about them already.

To narrow the topic a little, I will only look at female characters in Disney and Pixar films. Disney and Pixar have been leading companies regarding family oriented children’s movies for decades. Over the years, both companies have had a lot of backlash regarding the lack of female characters in their films and regarding the role of these female characters in their films. Pixar, for example, has made seventeen films of which only three have a female lead character. Disney has far more movies and an entire brand of Disney princess films starring female characters, each of which has been heavily attacked due to the portrayal of these women.

As leading companies, I believe they have a responsibility towards the audience and the society to represent the society’s men and women properly. Kids all over the world get to see these films, and I remember when I was a little girl that I felt the tough, strong women were lacking (with the exception of Mulan (1998), which I then proceeded to watch a million times). Fortunately, both companies have been developing towards a better representation of gender in their films, making films with stronger female characters for girls to identify with. Because I am an optimist, I would like to focus on the fact that Disney and Pixar have managed to make films with strong female protagonists, and focus on what makes them such strong characters. This is why I would like to research the aspect of the role model in the films of Disney and Pixar, so that hopefully this trend can be continued and girls have characters to look up to.

When looking at popular films by Disney and Pixar, it is easy to state that these girls are considered role models; many news articles I found about these films said so. However none of these articles bothered to state what it is that makes these characters role models, and to whom. Apparently, everyone already knew what a role model is, and to simply state a character is one, is enough proof that they are a role model. It didn’t seem required to identify or explain the definition in any of the articles. When I dove into the research articles, I hoped I would find more elaboration on the definition of role models in popular cinema, however I was again left disappointed, as the discussion of the role model has been lacking in film studies (though not entirely absent). So here is where my part comes in. I will combine the discussion about the role model and use this to look at three films by Disney and Pixar (the choice of these films I will elaborate on later): Brave (2012) by Mark Andrews and Brenda Chapman, Frozen (2013) by Chris Buck and Jennifer Lee, and Inside Out (2015) by Pete Docter and Ronnie Del Carmen. I will then lay this next to the theory about spectatorship, because no role model is complete without its spectator to whom they are the role model. With all these answers combined I will

5

answer the following research question: How do Pixar and Disney films Brave, Inside Out and Frozen illustrate the female role model? With this I hope to demonstrate the importance of the female role model in films and illustrate how successful role models are constructed, so that the future of film may have more female role models for girls to identify with and be inspired by.

In these films I will look at the female protagonists only, which means that for Brave, Merida will be the main focus, for Inside Out Joy and Sadness, and for Frozen Elsa and Anna shall be the main focus. For Inside Out, I have excluded Riley because I would like to focus on the relationship between Joy and Sadness, and all Riley’s actions are explained through her personified emotions; her actions are a mere conclusion of what is going on inside her head.

In order to look at female role models in relation to these animation films, I will first have to define what a role model is. For this, I will first give a definition of the concept of ‘role model’ through other literature as defined by research fields such as sociology, philosophy and media studies. I will define several character traits these role models should embody. These strengths, or virtues, shall be my starting point and chapters, and from there I will look at each of the films and characters to see how this character traits translates to the individual characters. The three strengths that shall function as chapters are: bravery, perseverance, and wisdom and knowledge.

To sum up, first I will look at the definition of the role model. Then I shall illustrate the discourse of the spectator in relation to identification. To follow up, I will look at character strengths and illustrate why the above mentioned three are most important. After that has been established, the chapters on the character strengths will each illustrate the importance of the strength and how that strength functions within each of the films. Then a connection between these strengths, the role model and the spectator will be made. Lastly, I will bring all this back together in the conclusion, while giving an answer to the research question.

6

Method

The films will be analyzed in depth, with specific focus on key scenes. Key concepts will be introduced by various authors, coming from different fields of study. By looking at articles from social studies, psychology, philosophy and film studies, the understanding of the characters in de films and of the spectators viewing the film will be covered. First will be illustrated the various definitions of a role model. Then, an insight will be given into the discussions about the spectator, comparing this to identification to explain to whom the role model is a role model. To follow up, the importance of character strength will be illustrated, as it will show why these strengths are required for a role model. In every chapter, there will first be a clear description of the concepts, before analyzing each of the films individually. Within the films, the focus will be on the narrative and the character developments, mise-en-scene and cinematography. To specify, for mise-en-scene this means the focus on clothing, colors and setting, while the cinematography will have its emphasis on camera angles. Last, the concepts will be used to help with the analysis and work towards forming a conclusion.

7

Corpus

For my selection of films, I decided to look at Disney and Pixar films, mainly because they are the lead players in the field of animation and children’s films. Firstly, I wanted to focus on films with a strong female lead. For Pixar, this meant fourteen of their seventeen films were unusable. Disney on the other hand has a lot of films featuring a strong female lead, leaving plenty of films to choose from. Secondly, I wanted to exclude prequels or sequels, since characters would have already been established in earlier films, making it hard to focus on a single film. This excluded another Pixar film, but for Disney, I still had plenty left. Thirdly, I focused on films of the last five years, to make the discussion relevant. My fourth and final criterion is that I wanted to focus on films where the story was mainly about the relationship between women. This led to the following three films: Brave (2012) by Mark Andrews and Brenda Chapman, Frozen (2013) by Chris Buck and Jennifer Lee, and Inside Out (2015) by Pete Docter and Ronnie Del Carmen. Where Brave focuses on the mother-daughter relationship, Frozen focuses on the relationship between sisters and Inside Out shows the relationship between friends. All three show a different relationship between women, and although the films also feature men, they are not the primary focus and the films emphasize on the female relationship.

Brave tells the story of Merida, a teenager who feels trapped in her life as a princess. Her mother is teaching her all the ropes of being a proper queen, but Merida would much rather like to fire arrows and fight with swords. When Elinor, the queen, states that she has found three suitors who are willing to fight for Merida’s hand, it becomes clear how out of touch they are with each other. So when Merida stumbles upon a witch who says she can change Merida’s mother, Merida takes the opportunity with both hands. However, her mother changes into a bear, something Merida did not foresee. Now Merida has to work out how to reverse the spell before the second sunrise, or her mother will stay a bear forever. The film focuses on the mother-daughter relationship and shows the importance of communication and the understanding of the other. Whilst Elinor is a bear, she and Merida need to learn to work together in order to reverse the spell, and a new bond between the two characters arises because of this.

Inside Out tells the story of Riley, an eleven-year-old girl who has to move to a new city and leave all her friends behind. The film focuses on Riley’s emotions: personified characters with names matching the emotion they portray. Joy and Sadness work at headquarters, but due to an accident end up in Riley’s memory, making Riley unable to feel these emotions. The other three emotions (Fear, Disgust and Anger) have to manage Riley while Joy and Sadness try to work their way back into headquarters. In Riley’s memory, Joy and Sadness come across multiple obstacles they need to overcome in order to get back, and these obstacles teach them about themselves. Joy finds out Riley cannot always be happy and the other emotions are just as valuable, and Sadness learns she can be of importance to Riley. The film shows the importance of balance between the emotions and the value of each of them, and how these emotions work together to make sure Riley is being taken care of. Frozen tells the story of two princess sisters, Elsa and Anna, who live together with their parents

8

in a castle. When Elsa accidentally hurts Anna with her secret magic powers to freeze things, her parents encourage Elsa to hide these powers away. Then, their parents die at a tragic sea accident, leaving Elsa and Anna behind. Elsa’s powers however keep growing and she cannot control them, leading to a public outburst on her coronation day. She flies away to the mountains to live in solitude, but doesn’t realize she has cast an eternal winter upon the kingdom. Anna embarks on a journey to find Elsa and bring her back, but things don’t go as smoothly. The film focuses on the relationship between Anna and Elsa and the importance of sisterly love. In the end, Elsa learns to accept and express love, while Anna learns the importance of understanding love.

9

What’s in a Name, That Which We Call a Role Model?

Theoretical framework

Here I will illustrate the field of study for three different topics: the role model, the spectator, and character strengths. I will show different points of views by several authors regarding the three topics, hoping to give an insight into the concepts I will be using throughout this thesis.

Role Model

To define a role model, it is important to also look at social studies. Flaxman et al state that there needs to be a clear distinction between role modeling and mentoring. They make clear that there is no personal contact required to be someone’s role model, as opposed to a mentor, who needs to be in someone’s close surroundings to guide and have close personal contact. With this distinction, we can already say that a role model doesn’t have to be someone in the close personal sphere. Flaxman continues to state that a role model is an example for others (Flaxman 15, 16). According to them, an example is someone who is worthy of imitation or identification, leading to the mentee evaluating their own beliefs, behavior, attitude and values. Problematic here is that Flaxman at al. state that the mentor is required for the mentee to evaluate their own aspects (15). I would like to reject that aspect by stating that a role model can accomplish these things without the interference of a mentor.

Ingall, instead of comparing the role model to the mentor, looks at role models next to the hero. Ingall defines four moral prototypes, of which one of them is the role model (Ingall 182). This already puts the role model in the ‘moral’ category, and again states a form of righteousness, but without leaning towards perfection. Moral can suggest a character or person to make the right choices in the end, but leaves room for trial and error. Ingall compares the role model to different kinds of heroes, starting with the classical hero: someone with high transcendence and who is a symbol. She follows up with the new hero: an important figure in history representing minorities (183). The last two steps are on a smaller scale, with the quiet hero: someone who can be a local person doing something important for the community. Last on the list is the role model: “an individual who inspires through personal contact and observability, can inspire for ‘good or ill’, and can personify behaviors that build self-esteem, most rooted in relationship. The role model, like a mirror, helps the beholder to see the self” (gtd. in MacCallum and Beltman 8). Ingall refers more to the inspiring qualities of the role model, makes clear that inspiration can be different for different people with stating that it can be good or ill, but also states that inspiration comes through personal contact. I will reject the theory that it has to go through personal contact, using Flaxmans statement that personal contact is not necessary, therefore validating fictional characters as possible role models.

McInerney and McInerney in their article have made a more practical scheme stating what features someone should possess in order to be a successful role model. As opposed to the other authors mentioned above, McInerney and McInerney have provided a list that does not include the spectator,

10

but solely looks at the text to define a role model. They do state that it is still up to the individual to consider the person as a role model. Their seven features are: attractiveness, social power, status, competence, nurturance, interaction and similarity (McInerney and McInerney, 123). They do not state that one person needs to hold all these features in order to be a role model, but state that a person is more likely to be a role model when embodying these features. However, there is one feature that seems to contradict the others. When also taking into account Ingall’s view on inspiration and moral, it seems contradictory to state ‘similarity’ with the other features, saying the viewer has to already embody most of these features themselves. But with similarity, McInerney and McInerney seem to be focusing not on the features, but rather on characteristics such as age and gender. The feature does touch upon the role of the spectator, because it illustrates it is important for the spectator to identify with the role model on certain aspects for them to be considered a role model.

To go more into depth on the reception of a role model, I want to discuss to whom these characters can be considered role models. Feilitzen and Linné have already written in 1975 that children tend to seek role models in television and film and can be influenced by what they see (Feilitzen and Linné, 51). The text may seem outdated, but still indicates the effect media can have on children. In her article about female role models in sport, Gill Lines states that the female heroine in sports is created for the male gaze. She states that women are being sexualized in what they do, rather than being praised for their performance. Women that are perceived as “sex goddesses” get more recognition and bigger sponsorship deals, simply because of their appearance. (Lines 291). For (young) people, the image of the sport star appears to be far more important than their actual athletic accomplishments (295). But would that then also mean that the only women these people idolize, are the heroes created for the male gaze? Since athletic abilities seem to come second to physical appearance, it seems the sport stars people idolize are also the pretty ones. And if physical appearance comes before athletic ability in a contest measuring this athletic ability, what does that mean for film?

In film, there is also the case of idealizing. Duck states in his research that, especially with a younger audience, it is unclear if the viewers of films/television series idealize the character or the actor. According to his study, lines get blurred between actor and character, making it unclear for the viewers whether they see the character of the actor as a role model (Duck 26). For animated characters, I believe this doesn’t apply. Young viewers cannot confuse the actor and the character, simply because there is no actor visible on screen. The voice, the only part making use of an actor, cannot be seen by the viewers and makes it difficult to confuse a character with the actor. Speizer adds to this discussion by implying that an actor is never the role model, but only the character, because the character “possesses skills and displays techniques which the actor lacks […]” (Speizer 693). This does not take into account the actor outside of the movie, but solely looks at the character/actor within the context of the film. So despite children possibly confusing the two, the character is in fact the role model and not the actor, because of the deeds they do.

11 Spectatorship & Identification

Mulvey’s theory of to-be-looked-at-ness from her essay “Visual pleasure and narrative cinema” brings to light the passive role of women in cinema. She discusses the female character in film and states that the woman on screen can be seen as an erotic object for both the male characters on screen as the male spectators (Mulvey 809). Because the camera movements are part of the reason the female character is brought in such an erotic light, the male character is free from becoming an object (810). To support her claim, she states that because the protagonist is male (she analyses several Hitchcock films), the camera movements follow the male protagonist. When he finally manages to win the female character for himself, this is supported by the camera movements, and therefore, the audience will experience this in a similar way: they will also possess the woman on screen (811). Mulvey defines the “pleasure in looking at another person as an erotic object” as the scopophilic instinct (815). Her theory focuses primarily on the male spectator and demonstrates how they observe the female character, and not so much on the female spectator observing the female character.

But in another article, Mulvey addresses the female spectator and female protagonist. She states that “the ‘grammar’ of the story places the reader, listener or spectator with the hero…” and this goes for the female spectator as much as the male spectator (Mulvey 13). The female spectator is then equally able to be placed with the male protagonist which could easily become second nature (13). Here, she touches upon the idea of identification, and stays with the female spectator.

When looking at identification, Murray Smith and his structure of sympathy comes to mind. He created the structure of sympathy to look at the perception of characters and the experience of the text (Smith 35). For starters, Smith doesn’t use the concept of identification. Instead, he speaks of central and acentral imagining, which he borrowed from Richard Wollheim. These terms describe a level of involvement with the characters on stage, which Smith explains by stating that central imagining is a matter of I imagine while acentral imagining speaks of I imagine that. He elaborates by stating that when saying I image, the person will actively picture themselves doing what they imagine, or “we imply that we represent this event to ourselves, as it were, from the ‘inside’” (36). For acentral imagining, saying I image that does not imply imagining doing something themselves, but rather imagining the event. The difference lies in the application of imagining it for themselves, rather than just imagining it (36). Acentral imagining then, is more about the ways of interaction between the spectator and the characters and about the involvement with the characters from distance (37, 39).

Smith refers to Noel Carroll, who states that in order to understand a situation, it is not necessary to identify with the characters. To understand a character’s motivation in a situation, one only needs to “have a sense of why the protagonists’s response is appropriate or intelligible to the situation” (Carroll 95). Carroll then illustrates by looking at horror films. When there is an on-screen monster, the first response of the spectator is towards the unnatural. But when the spectator starts responding like the character does, the spectator will see the character as someone who is horrified and under attack and

12

take into account the characters emotional response to the monster (95-96).

Smith elaborates his central imagining by using the word empathy. He states that empathy is emotional simulation or mimicry, which then feeds into his structure of sympathy (Smith 39). Smith has three levels of engagement when talking about the structure of sympathy: recognition, alignment and allegiance. Each of these levels describes a kind of narrative system that relates to a character (Smith 39). Recognition is the spectator’s construction of a character, or the way the spectator perceives a set of textual elements. It relates to the way someone would recognize someone else on the street, and is usually realistic (40). Alignment is more about the access of the spectator to the actions and feelings of the characters. When analyzing alignment, Smith uses two interlocking functions: spatial attachment and subjective access. Spatial attachment relates to the amount of characters the narration focuses on and looks at the capacity to focus on either one or multiple characters. Subjective access relates to the level of access to the subjectivity of the characters, which does not have to be the same for each of the characters within a film. One of the forms of alignment Smith explicitly mentions in his article is perceptual alignment, where point-of-view shots or aural observations makes the spectator hear or see whatever the character sees. Allegiance focuses on the characters on a moral and ideological level. It requires the spectator to evaluate morality and ideology in these characters and also focuses on the level of identification to the character. This included attributes such as class, nation, age, gender and ethnicity. The spectator can then construct what Smith calls the moral structures, in which the characters are organized based on their systems of preference. The moral orientation then, is “the narrational process through which more structure is produced” (41). Smith states that neither of the three levels of engagement states that the spectator replicates the traits or experiences the thoughts or emotions of the character (42).

Jackie Stacey in her book looks at the identification that takes place between the female spectator and the star. She states that these processes she speaks of take place during the actual viewing of a film, and thus can be related to my research, despite it being about stars. She also states that part of the identification takes place in recognition and is partially fantasy, since spectators transform a part of their identity because of the relationship with the star (Stacey 254). She adds that the fantasy aspect of identification takes place in the spectator’s imagination, whereas the practices involve activities that can be perceived by others (255). For her research, she has looked at individual female spectators, leading to a division of this identification into five different categories: devotion, adoration, worship, transcendence, and aspiration and inspiration. For the first three, Stacey admits to a lack of identification due to the absence of the identity of the spectator. But nevertheless, they still focus on the relationship between the spectator and the star on screen, hence the relevance of them (265). The other categories focus more on the relation between the spectator and the star and focuses on the transformation of the self (266).

Devotion is described by Stacey as a form of attachment to the star. It is being compared to devotion for male stars, where devotion for a female star by a female is being disregarded as being weird

13

or immature. The respondents themselves even stated that it sometimes was because of their age and they felt it was like a crush, which according to the respondent, can only happen when you’re young. Stacey points out that these responses imply a homoerotic connotation, but that they remain implicit (256).

Adoration continues with these feelings described with devotion, but brings it even further. Stacey describes it as a continuation of the feelings of devotion into adulthood, and explains, with the help of a respondent, the love towards a star (257-258). The adoration is almost romantic or is described with language associated with romance (260). Cinema can bring an intimacy to the spectator and create a sense of meeting the star (261). It is in this category that Stacey sees a more avid version of homoeroticism because the respondent clearly stated her heterosexuality as defense (262). The homoeroticism is more like a bond between the spectator and the star, and not so much that of simple desire towards the star (265).

Worship implies that the spectator turns the star into a God-like figure. The love has turned into religious love and makes the star unattainable. A form of otherness is created to draw a line between the spectator and the star, who is a form of perfection. With worship however, there is no sign from the spectator to become anything like the star, because it is only a declaration of appreciation from the spectator to the star. There is no implication of closing the gap between the two, and there is a focus on the ideal, not on the self (264).

Transcendence focuses on the pleasure women take in imagining themselves as the film star in cinemas. This can be the taking on of the role and the identity of the star/character on screen (266). This is more in line with immersion and takes into account the quality of film to lose oneself in a film and the escapist nature of film. What is most important about transcendence, is that it is not so much the star, but rather the character they are playing that the spectator can imagine themselves as (268). Transcendence also focuses more on the differences between the spectator and character: “[p]rocesses of spectatorial identification are articulated in relation to both similarity and difference between self and ideal” (270-271). Some respondents imagined themselves as the character because of the similarities, while others did so because of the differences (271, 273). It does however again lead to little change regarding the spectator. There is merely a comparison and fantasy, but no actual change has happened, since the fantasy is temporary (276).

Aspiration and inspiration involve more of the spectator’s identity. The star’s identity is inspiration for the transformation of the spectator. As with transcendence, identification again takes place in how the spectator and the character are different, but now lead to a change in the spectator to become more like the star. This desire to become like the star can happen on multiple levels. For example, stars offer ideals of feminine appearance (277). In this category, Stacey compares the star to the role model. According to her role models construct the ideals of feminine attractiveness and establish the ideals of feminine appearance (278).

14

feminism, and she elaborates by stating that “a woman’s self is formed by her observation of and practical engagement with the world. Identity is used to refer to a woman’s conscious sense of who she is” (Weedon 112). She goes on to elaborate that a lot of the previous discussions regarding feminism have been about the female body. Women are seen as different, and mostly inferior, which worked its way into disciplines such as literature and art (112). Weedon explains the second-wave of feminism as where women broke free of the oppression of society with the body as an important element of this (113).

Identification for the main characters of the film by the spectator has different levels, as already established earlier. For each of the films, there can be looked at Smith’s structure of sympathy regarding the female spectator. Especially with allegiance, this is an important factor. For starters, all of these films have a female protagonist (or protagonists), so the allegiance is easier for female spectators since they have gender in common. When looking at ethnicity, the characters of both Brave and Frozen are completely white. However Inside Out has the emotions, which seem to fit no specific ethnicity, which is illustrated by the various races of the voice actors. The spectator is free to project any ethnicity onto the characters or ignore the concept of ethnicity entirely and view them as emotions only. And the same can be said about the age of the emotions. Although they seem to be adults, their emotional development matches that of Riley, who is eleven years old. This again gives the spectator the space to identify with them, regardless of the age. Brave and Frozen share the age of the main characters: all of them are teenagers. They are still children, making them accessible for a younger audience to identify with. However, they also have a hint of maturity in them, making them open to Stacey’s idea of worship, since their maturity is accessible but also a form of otherness. As for the teenage female spectator, the character is their own age, making devotion or admiration possible. These are the biggest attributes for allegiance, but many others can be formulated to help girls form allegiance with the charac ters. More important are the moral and ideological levels, which I will get into for each of the films specifically, that create allegiance for the female spectator in each of the films.

Strength

When looking at role models, character strength is what makes each of the female characters strong role models. The strengths they show give them a moral compass and sets them apart from other characters: it is what makes them role models.

Strength can be defined both physically and mentally, but the thesis shall only focus on mental strengths, also known as character strengths or virtues. Especially the character strength can be defined in very broad terms, making it hard to give one definition of the word. Merriam-Webster has no less than 9 definitions for the word strength, the most applicable one being: “one regarded as embodying or affording force or firmness”. This definition doesn’t specify physical or mental strength, with it confirming the broad definition of the term.

15

a very important role in this. They illustrate that one is more likely to grow in a category they already have talent for, and one will also grow faster in categories one has talent for (Clifton, Harter 127). What they add is that today’s society however mostly focuses on what someone can’t do, looking down upon people who lack a certain talent instead of acknowledging that someone who is able to do a specific task has a talent. They also make clear that a strength is something someone can be ‘naturally’ good at. They even go so far as to state that it has been proven that strength comes from the person within. But this doesn’t seem to involve strengths such as bravery or perseverance, but more skills that can actively be developed, learned and taught (129).

They explain that strengths cannot be simply stimulated by outside factors making the individua l develop this particular strength. Rather, they say that the individual is the decision maker, and they have choices and preferences (129). It is up to the individual to choose what strength to develop and what to neglect, despite stimulation from outside. This does not mean that other people do not have an influence on individuals. It is possible to positively reinforce someone or to help them discover new strengths (129-130).

Clifton and Harter use the words strength and talent interchangeably. They see the strength as something to be developed and something the individual has a natural ability for. If we go back to Peterson and Seligman, they make a clear difference in the two. One of their main arguments for not using talents and abilities is because they feel they seem “more innate, more immutable, and less voluntary than strengths and virtues” (Peterson and Seligman 20). However, they state that the line is somewhat blurred and can possibly shift throughout time as more research for character traits is done (20).

Steen et al. also state that character strengths are developmental (Steen et al. 8). They however compare strengths of adolescents and adults, thereby explaining that the strengths they’re looking at are developed during youth. Their entire research is looking at character strengths and seeing if adolescents perceive certain strengths differently from adults. They conclude that the adolescents were very aware of these strengths, but not so much on how to balance them and make ethical decisions (13).

Peterson and Seligman have dedicated a book on character strengths and virtues. They are leading in their research for character strengths, and their six categories are being used often in modern research. They have created six categories of character strengths: wisdom & knowledge, courage, humanity, justice, temperance and transcendence (Peterson and Seligman 29, 30). Each of these categories consist of several character strengths that according to them make up the entire spectrum of positive character strengths. It is with the help of these categories Steen at al. also did their research. Since their categories are also based on virtues, each of the strengths has a positive nature. Note that each of these categories also have subcategories, which makes for a very detailed description of each of the strengths. I will use Peterson and Seligman’s categories as pillars for my chapters, but I won’t be sticking to their categories entirely. Out of the six, I have decided to pick two that will become chapter topics: courage and wisdom & knowledge. I have added perseverance as a chapter, because I feel this is

16

a very important strength a role model should embody. All other categories will directly or indirectly be mentioned in the other chapters. They are of equal importance, but can be categorized under one of the other topics.

One very important thing to note is that the strengths Peterson and Seligman talk about are about adults. Steen et al. discuss that adolescents recognize the strengths, but are still unable to make ethical decisions (Steen et al. 13). This means that since Riley has not yet hit puberty (which jokingly is a button on the improved operating board), her strengths have not fully developed yet. When comparing Joy’s or Sadness’ actions to that of Merida, Anna or Elsa would be unfair, since they are much older and have developed further. But that doesn’t take away that the understanding of the workings of the emotions is an important development for Riley and the emotions into the understanding of themselves. When looking solely at Joy and Sadness, their emotional development has made big steps throughout the film, and it can definitely be stated that the emotional intelligence is one of Riley’s/Joy’s/Sadness’s strengths. This shall be elaborated on in the chapter ‘wisdom and knowledge’.

17

Born to be Brave

Bravery is one of the character strengths that the characters from Brave, Inside Out, and Frozen possess in order to be a good role model. This chapter shall focus on the different ways in which a character can be brave. All films show a different way to be brave, and this illustrates the differences in bravery among role models. But how does bravery function in each of these films? And how does the film bring bravery to the spectator? First, this chapter will define bravery, as the word has many definitions that slightly vary. With the help of several authors who looked at bravery in different time periods, it will become clear which definition applies to this research. Once the definition is established, the aforementioned films will be closely analyzed, in order to see how bravery functions in each of them. Finally, the theme of bravery will be looked at in relation to the spectator. I shall argue that bravery comes in many different forms, and each of the characters demonstrates one of these different forms of bravery. I will also argue that the bravery each of the characters portray, is illustrated also in the mise-en-scene and cinematography of the film, adding to the bravery the spectator experiences.

The Definitions

Bravery and courage have the same definition according to the Oxford English Dictionary and Merriam-Webster. The words are therefore interchangeable. For centuries, people have been trying to define bravery and courage, even going back to Socrates, Laches and Nicias, who attempted to create a wholesome definition on a philosophical level. This led to the definition: “He is a man of courage who does not run away, but remains at his post and fights against the enemy” (gtd. in Miller 35). Although this is not the definition the philosophers all agree on, it is what has ended up the most common definition.

Merriam-Webster defines bravery, or courage, as “the quality or state of having or showing mental or moral strength to face danger, fear, or difficulty” (Merriam-Webster). This implies the possibility that bravery can be expressed whenever someone is experiencing fear, so they can overcome this fear by showing bravery. Evans and White address the aspect of fear or danger, and give their own definition of bravery, which is very much in line with this statement, saying that courage is the “approaching of an object or situation by a person who nevertheless fears that object or situation” (Evans and White 419). But they have a problem with this definition, for it means that one could not be brave if they are not afraid. They point out that in film, bravery doesn’t necessarily mean the character experiences fear, but the audience can experience their actions as brave if they would be scared in a similar situation (419). So they came up with three dimensions of courage: the fear of the person, the perceived fear and salient features of the situation, such as the risks involved (420).

Miller continues with his definition of courage, and states that courage can be found throughout all genres, and that therefore we have given the brave physical attributes by which we can recognize them. He states that the brave man is never fat, nor is he short (Miller 186). Although films such as How

18

to Train Your Dragon (2010) and Up (2009) have been challenging these expectations, still it is made abundantly clear that the main character lacks the physical strength to become a warrior or to complete his journey, and he has to compensate by being smart. When looking at the films from the corpus, all characters fit the description of having a fit body and good physique. Even though Miller states that female courage does not have a shape or size, the characters seem to fit in perfectly with the male definition (189).

Miller also states there are two kinds of courage: moral courage and physical courage. Where physical courage comes from the person within, moral courage is grounded in social (dis)approval and ‘duty’ (Miller 254). This makes clear that people may not be voluntarily brave, but rather, feel forced into this position. Note that characters may not actually be forced into a position, but rather, feel obliged to act because of this duty. Miller’s point focuses more on motivations for bravery than it discusses the definition of bravery, but it will show a distinction between characters later on in the chapter.

Bravery in Brave

The most obvious case when looking at bravery is Brave, since the title already implies the main character is going to be brave. Merida already shows signs of the strength at the very beginning when she has her day off and decides to climb a mountain. And although this isn’t the highlight of her bravery, it does imply that the bravery she discovers later in the film, was already inside of her. In this scene, she is brave because she decides to do something most people consider scary and unsafe. This means Merida might not see herself as doing a brave act, but the audience does see her as brave, since it is something they probably won’t be doing themselves.

More obvious signs of bravery with Merida are when she takes her mother, who has been turned into a bear, and starts her search for the witch. The mother in bear-form behaves like herself most of the time, but sometimes turns into a bear completely and starts attacking Merida. Merida doesn’t leave her mother, but tries to bring her back. Later on in the film, they are back in the castle, her father sees Merida with the bear. She stands up to her father, a known bear hunter, and protects her mother from him. On the surface, Merida seems brave because she can fight with a bow and arrow and isn’t afraid of bears, but a deeper layer reveals that Merida is brave enough to admit she was wrong to turn her mother into a bear and had the courage to fix her mistake at all cost.

Merida could be seen as both physically brave and morally brave. Not only does she fix what she has done wrong, namely turning her mother into a bear, but the mother is also the queen. If the mother, Elinor, were to stay a bear, the country would be without a queen, and therefore what Merida does, is of national importance. However, not a single moment in the film implies that Merida thinks of the bigger picture in this sense. Everything Merida does is led by her own emotions. She is afraid to lose her mother, which is why she decides to undo the spell, and this had nothing to do with the national relevance. She in no way felt morally obliged to do this for the nation. Rather, she handled from fear. She was scared the spell would permanently turn her mother into a bear, and she was afraid to she lose

19

her mother. This fear drove her to be brave and spend two days with a bear, which occasionally got aggressive and attacked her. Her bravery pushed her to physical extremes, and even though the fear drove her to the fixing of her mistakes, it was Merida herself who admitted her faults. The latter may not be driven by fear, but shows a great sense of bravery.

Merida’s physique is very un-princess-like. She has huge messy hair and prefers comfort of clothing over fashion. Merida’s physical skills show that she perfectly fits into the description of a courageous man. However, she is still wearing a dress that looks thick and heavy and not at all convenient for physical labor. One scene in particular focuses on the clothing of Merida. Elinor is preparing her for the meeting with her suitors by making her look like a princess. She needs to wear a corset, her hair is tucked away, and she is wearing an elegant dress. Elinor is happy with the look, but Merida responds that it’s too tight and she can’t breathe and walk because of this. Her dress literally prevents her from moving the way she wants to. Elinor is the one pulling the corset, preventing her from breathing properly, and Elinor is also the one who, according to Merida, has too tight a grip on her. Merida feels restricted by Elinor’s demands, like she cannot breathe. When Merida decides to fight for her own hand, something that would give her her freedom, she literally bursts out of her clothes to give her space to breathe and move. Her freedom is symbolized here by the freedom to move.

The film mostly takes the perspective of Merida. There are hardly any scenes in which Merida is not featured, which means that the spectator knows what Merida knows. On several occasions, though, this does not seem to apply. However this is merely to give the audience a sense of what is going on in the castle while Merida is on her adventures, or for comic relief. The rest of the film focuses on Merida’s perspective. This is made particularly clear in the first scene in which Merida sees her mother as a bear. Merida has just brought her mother back up to her room, after feeding her the cake with the potion. Elinor falls out of bed as a human, but gets up as a bear. The camera is a point-of-view shot from Merida’s perspective, who slowly sees the bear rise above her. The camera cuts to show the facial expressions of Merida and cuts back to the bear, which continues to grow and now towers over her. Because of the lower angle of the camera and the cuts between Merida and the bear, the spe ctator can easily recognize and understand Merida’s fear. And this is but one of the many examples of how the film uses Merida’s perspective.

The spectator can also easily access the bravery Merida expresses throughout the film. Firstly, the film often uses light/darkness to set the mood. When Merida and her bear mother go back to the witch’s cottage, Merida feels defeated because the witch isn’t there and can’t turn her mother back into a human. The night is dark, it is raining and Merida and her mother have to sleep outside. The morning that follows is lighter, but still gray and drippy, which emphasizes Merida’s mood and the soberness of the situation. However, when the situation is getting better, the sun starts shining and upbeat music is accompanying the scene to accentuate Merida’s happier mood. The hope Merida has gets translated to the audience through these elements, added with the shots of the characters and their positive moods. The switching in moods is parallel to the bravery Merida shows in admitting she was wrong, because it

20

is in the scenes with a much sunlight and many bright shots that Merida is working towards a better outcome.

The same techniques are being used when the final battle takes place. The scene is set in the middle of the night, and while there are torches, they appear threatening and harming, because they are used against Elinor in bear form. It is raining again, but the rain stops when Merida is nearing the fight, showing that the situation is changing for the better. Her bravery is at a peak here, because she throws herself into a battlefield where she has to fight her father. Again the camera takes her point of view, showing Mor’du at its biggest and scariest, whilst Merida is ready to fight him. Mor’du was a human, but also turned into a bear because he wanted all the power. He has completely transitioned though, having no humanity left in him. The low angle of the camera makes the spectator very aware of the threat he poses. However Merida decides to fight, therefore showing her bravery once again. Because of the point-of-view shots and the bond created with Merida throughout the film, the spectator can completely follow Merida’s bravery. This situation is not something many spectators will find themselves in, and the scary situation combined with dark mise-en-scene and camerawork all add to the fear. These elements can make someone run away, but the fact that Merida stays standing and fights, gives the audience a good taste of her bravery.

This last scene also perfectly illustrates why Merida can be considered a good role model. Merida is showing her character strength by standing up to her father, despite consequences. She is also fighting a bear and at the same time trying to save her mother from attackers. The danger of the situation has been stressed excessively, and yet she still voluntarily rode to the field to fight for her mother. Merida clearly shows she is doing what is right, and with it, she can inspire people to do the same. She also stands up for her mother by saving her mother from her father. Her mother is unable to defend herself, as she is a bear, so Merida has to protect her from her father and the other warriors to prevent from anything happening to her. She is standing up for other people, showing hero-like qualities according to Ingall’s model, making her the perfect example of a good role model.

Bravery in Inside Out

For Inside Out bravery also has multiple layers. Joy and Sadness can be considered brave for taking the journey through Riley’s memories and making it back safely, fighting their way through all the obstacles. But Joy also learns to accept that Riley cannot be happy all the time and she, as the control over Riley’s happy emotions, needs to let the other emotions lead Riley from time to time. Bravery in this film is portrayed through acceptance.

Joy and Sadness take a physical journey through different parts of Riley’s memory, and some of them are dangerous, making the element of fear very explicit. Joy is very moral: everything she does is for Riley, because Riley needs to be happy. Sadness on the other hand, doesn’t seem motivated at all to get back. Joy even drags her by her feet, because Sadness just doesn’t want to move on. Sadness does care for Riley, but since Joy has always treated her as inferior, Sadness might not know her own value.

21

This may lead to her not having the moral courage, simply because she doesn’t think she is important enough for Riley. Sadness isn’t afraid to stay in Riley’s memory, yet she does stick with Joy to get back to headquarters. So again, it becomes clear that a character can portray bravery without fear and even with resisting being brave. Sadness does manage to get out of Riley’s memory and actively participates in getting out, coming up with smart ideas to get back to headquarters.

When looking at the physical appearance of the characters, the focus lies on the colors of the clothes. Joy and Sadness only have one outfit, but there is still much to be said about them. For starters, most of the emotions wear clothes matching their color: Sadness is a blue character and wears a blue sweater, Disgust is green and wears a green dress, etc. But Joy is yellow and wears a green dress, which is surprising. Could this be a reference to disgust? Add to that the fact that Joy isn’t entirely yellow, but has blue hair. But when examining the other emotions closer, it becomes clear they all have colors of other emotions in them: Disgust has a purple scarf, shoes and lipstick, Anger’s fire is yellow, etc. This means that the result of the journey that Joy and Sadness took, could already be physically seen and their bravery of acceptance was already shown in their clothes.

Inside Out follows the narrative of multiple characters, and because a big part of the film takes place inside Riley’s memory, many memories or flashbacks are being used. These flashbacks are technically all Riley’s, but Joy and Sadness also recall memories, giving the spectator not only a vision of what happened in Riley’s past, but also perspective. Sadness’s flashbacks are, as expected, all sad, while Joy’s memories are always happy. What the film then manages to illustrate is that Joy and Sadness can recall the same memory differently, to show that multiple emotions can take place during one occasion. This gives an insight into the narrative the film takes on: mostly, it’s third-person with focus on Joy (not taking into account that it all takes place inside Riley’s head, which technically means the film shows Riley’s internal struggles making it a first-person narrative. Instead, it can be argued that Joy and Sadness’s journey is a separate storyline because of their personification. Therefore the film focuses on three different characters, none of whom are used as a point-of-view continuously throughout the film, making it a third-person narrative). This gives more depth to multiple characters, and offers identification with several characters because of the varying perspectives. This would fit into Murray’s description of spatial attachment, simply making more characters accessible for alignment. Because of the subjective access through flashbacks, the spectator still gets a good insight into the three leading characters Riley, Joy and Sadness.

However, there is an unequal division between the characters. Joy’s perspective is dominant over that of Sadness, meaning that when Joy and Sadness are separated, the spectator only gets to see what Joy is up to. Nevertheless, it still takes on Sadness’s perspective consistently throughout the film, giving clear insight to her perspective. The film offers restricted narration and focuses on both characters if Joy and Sadness are partaking in something together. The spectator will definitely be familiar with the emotions of joy and sadness, making the characters very accessible for Stacey’s theory of transcendence; their actions are understandable because of the emotion behind them. And since the film

22

explicitly mentions the emotion that drives the character, their actions are made very understandable and clear. On top of that, these characters are more than just the emotion they are named after, and are fully developed characters with varying emotions (and one dominant emotion), making them much more than just a single emotion. This gives the characters the opportunity to be idolized as characters and they can therefore be adored by the spectator for who they are.

To illustrate the bravery of the characters in this film, similar techniques are being used as for Brave. For example, when Joy and Sadness get sucked into the memory shoot and they end up in Riley’s memory, there is a sequence of fasts shots switching between point-of-view shots and close-ups to show the facial expressions of Joy and Sadness. On top of that, the point-of-view shots are very fast, dark and accompanied by the screaming of the character, making the situation all the more scary. When Joy and Sadness come out the other end, the world is bright again, despite the horror of the situation. It demonstrates the hope of Joy, who decides to look for options wherever she goes. The film also plays with perception like Brave does by letting Joy and Sadness walk through rows and rows of enormous storage cabinets, making the characters look small and intimidated.

An example of Joy’s bravery is when she manages to get back to headquarters. She collects a bottomless bag full of imaginary boyfriends, then proceeding to create a ladder with herself on top. She then throws herself and the imaginary boyfriends over Lost Memories with a very real possibility of falling down. This doesn’t stop her, as she is determined to get back to headquarters. She succeeds, managing to grab Sadness on the way and arrives safely at headquarters.

Sadness’ bravery gets illustrated by the growth of the character throughout the film. In the beginning, she is pictured as annoying, and isn’t even allowed to participate in the everyday routine. But her developments throughout the film slowly show her value, so that the audience learns to appreciate her in the same rate Joy does. This doesn’t mean that the spectator experiences Sadness only through Joy, because the audience gets to see the value of Sadness before Joy realizes it. This way, the growth of the character can be observed whilst Joy is still neglecting to see it. Sadness keeps bringing in good ideas that Joy either rejects, or pretends she came up with herself. But the spectator slowly begins to see the value of Sadness through these ideas. And because the spectator understands the leading emotion of Sadness, and her being seen as less important to Joy, the character becomes relatable or identifiable. So when Sadness finally gets her moment to shine by making Riley better, it is exactly the validation the spectator hopes for, because it shows the development on a personal level, but also on a level of friendship between the two characters. It also shows their ethical relationship, as it demonstrates that they have learned to fully trust each other and figured out that they are stronger together and need each other.

Sadness can be seen as a role model because she goes through a development. First, she is shy and doesn’t speak up, but she develops into a character that does share her ideas and gets them out of trouble. With this, she can be an example to the spectator. Her actions get rewarded with good results, illustrating that everyone’s ideas are of equal value. Joy can be seen as a role model because she doesn’t

23

run away from scary situations. She tackles them head on, and continues the journey all so that Riley can be taken care of. Her actions are selfless and could inspire other people to overcome scary situations. They show the qualities of a role model when looking at Ingall’s and Stacey’s definition, because of this inspiration to others. Because they develop and overcome the situations, the spectator can aspire to be like them.

Bravery in Frozen

Frozen demonstrates different kinds of bravery as well. Firstly, we have Anna, who decides to travel up a dangerous mountain in the winter on her own to get her sister back. She takes a physical journey to find Elsa which can already be seen as an act of bravery. For a character that hasn’t been outside the castle since the accident when they were kids it is an even more dangerous task, because she knows little of the world she’s just entered. Further in the story, Anna is dying but still goes back outside into the blizzard and in a last effort to save Elsa. She then shows a true act of bravery by stepping between Elsa and Hans’s sword. Not only was the act dangerous with no possible good outcome for Anna, it was also completely selfless, showing that her bravery came from a place of love. Her bravery can therefore be seen as an expression of this love.

Elsa’s flight into the mountains after creating an eternal winter in the kingdom could be seen as bravery, however, her actions are rather the opposite, for it appears she’s running away from all her problems. She cannot control her powers and instead of learning to do so, she decides to hide out in the mountains, similar to when she hid in her room when she was still in the castle. It isn’t until Anna has been turned into ice and stood between her and Hans, that Elsa shows clear emotions. Her mantra throughout the film has been: “conceal, don’t feel”. After seeing Anna turn into ice, she starts crying and accepting her feelings of love towards her sister, whom she has been ignoring since they were kids. For her, bravery can be seen in love as well, as she is learning to express it.

Anna’s bravery for her quest is both an expression of physical and moral bravery. The main argument Anna gives Elsa for returning home is that Elsa has cast an eternal winter upon their kingdom, which affects many inhabitants of the kingdom. But Anna personally wants her sister back, and believes she can get through to her and get her to defrost the kingdom. Meanwhile, the people in the kingdom have a more violent approach and want to capture Elsa. So she is also doing it for her sister, which doesn’t fit into any of Miller’s categories of moral or physical bravery. It again demonstrates the impact of love on bravery in Frozen, just like in the scene where Anna saves Elsa’s life by jumping in front of a sword.

Elsa’s journey for bravery is a little more complicated. She fights off the men that attack her, but all of Elsa’s actions consist of avoiding confrontation and fleeing whenever she could be brave. Her act of bravery, as mentioned above, lies in her acceptance of love and kindness. This is definitely bravery coming from within. Though her love might not have been part of moral bravery, the impact was big enough to return the entire kingdom to its original state. This makes her bravery of national relevance,

24 although it wasn’t her original motivation.

When looking at the physical appearance of Anna and Elsa, several conclusions can be drawn. On coronation day, Elsa is visibly uncomfortable in her dress, wanting to wear her gloves to protect the powers from coming out. When she flees to the mountains, she creates a beautiful sparkly dress for herself made from ice in a blue color, which makes her more comfortable. Elsa has white hair that is tied up at first, but she takes it down in a braid when she feels liberated from the kingdom. Everything about her appearance is cold and either related to blue or ice. Anna, on the other hand, has everything related to fire. Her hair is red, and her dress is green and blue with a purple cape to keep her warm. Anna can also be seen in relation to fire several times, such as when she is fighting off the wolves and throwing burning luggage at them, or when Hans tells her that he lied to her whilst putting out all the fires in the room. Anna’s clothing also has hints of hearts in them. Her clip which attaches her cape are two hearts and the top shape of her dress is also a heart. This shows that Anna and Elsa represent opposites by relating them to ice and fire. And this is partially illustrated by their outfits. But both symbols may be opposite, they are also both strengths for them. It can also be brought back to Elsa being rational and Anna being emotional. Elsa’s personality is very cold, since she does everything from a rational point of view, again referring to the “conceal, don’t feel”. Anna on the other hand, gets engaged to Hans, whom she has just met the same day and is led more by her emotions rather than her rationality. Her fire can be translated to the love she expresses throughout the film. The movie illustrates that both is required; a balance between emotion and rationality must be found.

When looking at spectatorship, Frozen also plays with spatial attachment and subjective access, for it focuses on two characters, but more on Anna than on Elsa. For the bigger part of the film, the two characters are in different places or rooms, therefore they develop separately and the narrative can easily focus on one of the two perspectives, since the other one is not present. Either one of them is almost always in the scene, meaning the spectator knows what the audience knows. There are small scenes added that do not include the protagonists to create suspense, such as the duke of Wesselton, who appears to have evil plans to take over the kingdom, but overall, the narrative of the adventures of Anna and Elsa are leading. Anna gets more screen time, but Elsa is made just as accessible and allegiance can be equal for both characters.

Like with the other films, the motivations of Elsa and Anna are made very clear. They express their feelings, and despite sometimes making a decision that doesn’t work out for the best, the characters are portrayed in such a way that it becomes clear why they did it. These ‘flaws’ also make them more humanlike, and less Godlike, which might seem to cancel out the possibility to worship the characters, but this is merely to balance it slightly. Anna and Elsa are princess and queen, portrayed as very strong, independent women and especially Anna seems to be naturally good at everything she does. To add flaws to the character makes them slightly less perfect, and therefore more accessible for identification. And since they still are the strong independent women, they can, despite their flaws, easily be characters the spectator aspires to be like.

25

To demonstrate the bravery of the two characters, the film uses light and dark like in the other films as well. When Anna and Kristoff are being attacked by wolves, it is the middle of the night and everything around them is dark. The situation is scary, but Anna doesn’t for a second decide to let Kristoff do all the work and helps fight off the wolves herself. Anna then proceeds to throw burning objects at the wolves, literally using the light of the fire to fight off the dark. To escape the wolves, they jump over a cliff, and the other side is lit by the moonlight reflecting off of the snow, bringing them into the light again. Anna’s bravery has saved them, and through the dark the fear is created, whilst the light brings the savior and demonstrates that it has gotten better. Again, the scary scene is emphasized with dark colors, and again the hope and courage is illustrated with light.

For Elsa though, they have used a different technique. Elsa is often seen locked inside rooms and in closed spaces to show that she is trapped. This could refer to her powers, which she is not allowed to let free, but this could also refer to the entrapment of her emotions. Throughout the film, Elsa keeps mentioning ‘conceal, don’t feel’, referring to her not showing her emotions. This also translates to her castle in the mountains; despite Elsa saying she has found her place, she is still locked inside a building. It is a bigger room she is portrayed in, showing a growth in her freedom, but she is still captured inside. It isn’t until the very end that Elsa is shown outside in the courtyard after she’s discovered that love is the answer to thawing the kingdom (technically, she is also outside in the blizzard, but because of the blizzard there is snow everywhere making it unable to see far ahead, ergo, she is still trapped in her surroundings). The spectator gets to see Elsa liberated at last, and her bravery to overcome these emotional and internal struggles is portrayed by having Elsa be locked in rooms and finally showing her outside at last. Elsa’s bravery was portrayed in her accepting love and learning to express it, so the entrapment in rooms and finally the freedom of these rooms emphasizes this bravery. The spectator can finally see her as free and liberated, so the film is giving the message of love being the answer to save oneself and others as long as you are brave enough to express it. It emphasizes the importance of expressing this love, because of the positive outcome, reinforces others to be brave enough to express it as well. The underlying message can then be that the expression of love will set you free. Anna can be considered a role model because she is showing bravery to help her sister. Throughout the film, Anna consistently tries to do right by Elsa, and Anna therefore acts mostly selflessly because of this. She shows great character strength with bravery, as she fights her way through the obstacles. Her bravery can inspire spectators to also show their bravery when someone they love needs help. Elsa can also be considered a role model as she develops her bravery and ends up overcoming her fears. She illustrates that it is okay to allow yourself to feel and to show love to other people, possibly inspiring the spectators to also show their love.

Conclusion

As illustrated above, the characters share some similarity regarding bravery, but also big differences. Brave shows the typical bravery by fighting with a sword, but also the importance of standing up to

26

support the people that might not be able to stand up for themselves. Inside Out demonstrates that bravery can lead to acceptance by showing that each of the emotions has its own values, and all of them are of equal importance. The film also shows bravery because Joy faces the obstacles head on, and Sadness becomes more confident and starts speaking her mind. Frozen focuses on the importance of showing love, and then demonstrates how this love can help achieve bravery. It becomes clear that a role model is not a concept set in stone. The different elements of bravery the characters portray all show a strong role model, but in completely different form. Nevertheless, the bravery is what makes them these strong role models, as they all show a form of strength and moral righteousness. Their good can inspire the spectator, making the characters examples to the spectator. Not all characters immediately showed bravery, but they progressed as the film continued. The emphasis is not on being able to be brave from the start, but rather on being able to learn and make better choices in the future. All characters managed to be brave at one point or another, succeeding in developing, illustrating that they can all be seen as role models.