The Disney movie 'Tangled'

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I saw the movie Tangled, and I do not like WND (nor did I read their article or know about it until now), believing them to be quacky, but I want to point out, I think you are wrong in several points about the movie, though generally correct about WND.

As the father of three little girls (9, 7, 6) we watched the movie a couple of weeks ago. After watching the movie, I talked with my children about some of the areas I believed the movie was wrong.

Here are a few:

1. That the daughter did disobey the mother/abuctor. While the mother/abductor was evil, it did not give Rapunzel the authority to lie nor to disrespect her. Rather, she disobeyed before she knew that the mother was evil and she rebelled only to find out later that she was right (communicating, rebel now and see that it all works out). God has given my children to me and they are commanded to "obey." They are not commanded to go out and try their own things to "prove" me wrong. While I do not believe a child must always obey a parent, they must obey the parent in the Lord. As I tell my children, if I give them a command that disagrees with God, you are obligated to obey God. This movie, on the other hand, had her lie, deceive, and rebel that allowed her to discover her mother was evil. Disney setup a situation that is very unlikely in order to justify rebellious actions. That is the problem and is wrong.

2. Rapunzel trusts in a man who is a thief. The movie clearly makes this thief a "good guy." As well, this man who is a lying thief is who marries the princess for a "happy ever after" ending. I was horrified that girls across the nation will get the idea that a bad guy who you "relate" to is okay to marry and things will be okay. This concept of "love" is horrifically secular.

I can't remember the other areas we talked about with my family. Yet, we all agreed (my children, wife, and I) that this movie celebrated a type of rebellious attitude, was selective in the evil people they displayed and honored/was okay to distrust, and placed this girl into a situation where it was okay to rebel, even though she didn't know it was okay until afterwards.

While I hate WND and generally agree with you on their over sensationalization, I was appalled at the movie.

I am starting a thread to reply to Ruiz's post in another thread in regard to the movie 'Tangled.'

While I see the concerns expressed I disagree on the supposed 'rebellion.' If an 18 year old young women desired to escape from a kidnapper who had imprisoned her for her entire life I would support such an escape. She should never have to remain captive to her abductor. In the movie Rapunzel does not make the final act of 'rebellion' until she recalls that she is not the daughter of the kidnapper.

This cruel abductor was using an innocent child purely for her own gain. I don't believe we can make any excuse for her. Rapunzel was kidnapped, lied to, imprisoned, and misled to benefit a selfish child abuser. In the end she knew that she had to get back to her real mom and dad.

Disney is far from perfect. They have done plenty that I disagree with, but this film, despite a few minor flaws, is not the evil it is portrayed to be.

 

[Ruiz]

I am starting a thread to reply to Ruiz's post in another thread in regard to the movie 'Tangled.'

While I see the concerns expressed I disagree on the supposed 'rebellion.' If an 18 year old young women desired to escape from a kidnapper who had imprisoned her for her entire life I would support such an escape. She should never have to remain captive to her abductor. In the movie Rapunzel does not make the final act of 'rebellion' until she recalls that she is not the daughter of the kidnapper.

This cruel abductor was using an innocent child purely for her own gain. I don't believe we can make any excuse for her. Rapunzel was kidnapped, lied to, imprisoned, and misled to benefit a selfish child abuser. In the end she knew that she had to get back to her real mom and dad.

Disney is far from perfect. They have done plenty that I disagree with, but this film, despite a few minor flaws, is not the evil it is portrayed to be.

CK

Her act of rebellion, leaving and disobeying the "mother", occurred before she knew her mother was the kidnapper. Her discovery did not occur until much later in the movie. In fact, the first hint the girl may have had that she was kidnapped was when the girl saw a picture of the King, Queen, and herself (as a baby) when visiting the city. She left the tower to see the lights; she deceived her "mother" leave in order to operate her plan. Then, she took the opportunity to leave. It was only later did Rapunzel realize that this mother was truly evil. Even as late as when the thief went across the lake in the boat, Rapunzel did not know her mother's evil ways.

Do you agree, that when she lied, deceived, and left the tower that she did not know her "mother" was as evil as it will later appear to her? If she knew, where in the movie does it show that the girl discovered this evil prior to her initial acts of rebellion and deception?

In other words, the movie shows the "ends justifies the means." Her rebellion ended with her realizing she was justified to be rebellious and disobey. This is a horrific and evil and teaches a morality contrary to Biblical principles. The ends does not justify the means.

The situation Disney placed the girl was far from what most kids will experience and brought forth moral questions that are unrealistic for the vase majority of children. This movie is a sort of a "values clarification" movie, a concept that was introduced in the late 80's and early 90's. The fact is, Christians are responsible for their behavior, even their evil behavior towards evil people. This movie makes complete light of evil, lying, and rebellion and shows such actions can be justified by the end results.

 

[Scarlett O.]

I LOVED the movie, Tangled. It was precious!

The only reason that I am responding to this post is to say that if a father sits down and tells his young girls that being in disobedience to an parent/abuctor who confines them to one room for the entirity of their life is sinful - the I have a HUGE problem with that.

The main character had never seen the light of day and was confined to one room from infancy to being 18 years old. THAT's child abuse. If that happened in real life today and the 18 year old left the room and tried to escape - even from a blood mother - I would 100% support that and 100% be in support of sending even the blood mother to prison.

We need to tell our children that they DO NOT have to live in compliance to an abductor or an abusive parent who puts them in a state of constant cruelty.

I also have a problem with relating this fairy tale to real life. In the fairy tale - Rapunzal was beautiful, healthly, mentally sound, and alert/responsive in a normal fashion to the things outside her environmenet.

If this had happened in real life, the 18-year-old girl who had been confined to one room from infancy to being 18 would be more animal than human - COMPLETELY unable to relate to other humans, frightened of them, unable to communicate, and would not look like the character in the cartoon. Real young people like this have been found. And they are horrible to look at. And it is the epitome of abuse.

 

[Ruiz]

I LOVED the movie, Tangled. It was precious!

The only reason that I am responding to this post is to say that if a father sits down and tells his young girls that being in disobedience to an parent/abuctor who confines them to one room for the entirity of their life is sinful - the I have a HUGE problem with that.

The main character had never seen the light of day and was confined to one room from infancy to being 18 years old. THAT's child abuse. If that happened in real life today and the 18 year old left the room and tried to escape - even from a blood mother - I would 100% support that and 100% be in support of sending even the blood mother to prison.

We need to tell our children that they DO NOT have to live in compliance to an abductor or an abusive parent who puts them in a state of constant cruelty.

I also have a problem with relating this fairy tale to real life. In the fairy tale - Rapunzal was beautiful, healthly, mentally sound, and alert/responsive in a normal fashion to the things outside her environmenet.

If this had happened in real life, the 18-year-old girl who had been confined to one room from infancy to being 18 would be more animal than human - COMPLETELY unable to relate to other humans, frightened of them, unable to communicate, and would not look like the character in the cartoon. Real young people like this have been found. And they are horrible to look at. And it is the epitome of abuse.

I am not saying that confining someone to one room all their life is right. Rather, the situation was dramatically untenable for the vast majority of kids across the nation. Disney put this child in a position to excuse the later rebellion. The worldview communicated was simple, if your parents are too strict, you can be justified by rebelling against this authority. Her rebellion was not because of abuse, her rebellion was because she wanted to see the lights.

Secondly, the fact that a lying thief is the "hero" and "love" excuses his bad morals is horrible. This thief would later marry the Rapunzel. Are we to communicate to our families, our girls, that bad people are okay to marry because we can help see them change? No! I want my girls to marry godly men with good morals. What a horrible moral statement made in that movie.

 

[Scarlett O.]

Oh, and about the thief. He REFORMED for crying out loud.

That great big diamond thing that he was after .... once he found Rapunzel and got to know her, he slowly changed and eventually he gave up that diamond crown to save her life .... not knowing that he would get to be with her forever. It wasn't a trade off in his mind - he gave the thing away to spare her from other wicked people.

AND he laid down his life for her - twice. Once the evil witch stabbed him and he was dying - he COULD have allowed Rapunzel's hair heal him, but he didn't. Because that would have meant that Rapunzel would have had to have lived with the witch forever.

Once Rapunzel found out that the abusive "mother" she knew was really a witch, she was willing to stay with her forever and allow the abuse of confinement to continue, if she were allowed to use her hair to save this man's life. And she intended on keeping her word.

He knew she would keep her word and never try to escape again, so when she leans over him to use her hair to heal him, he reaches up, she thinks to touch her hair, and he cuts her hair off at the neck rendering it powerless and taking away it's blonde beauty.

Ergo, in his mind, he dies, but she gets to escape. In her mind, panic starts because he dies and she can't save him.

Each was willing to give up their own life, him literally and her figuratively, so that the other might live and live in peace.

This cartoon character at the end of the movie was a FAR cry from his character at the beginning of the movie.

Why couldn't you have talking to your girls about how people can change for the better?

 

[Ruiz]

Oh, and about the thief. He REFORMED for crying out loud.

That great big diamond thing that he was after .... once he found Rapunzel and got to know her, he slowly changed and eventually he gave up that diamond crown to save her life .... not knowing that he would get to be with her forever. It wasn't a trade off in his mind - he gave the thing away to spare her from other wicked people.

AND he laid down his life for her - twice. Once the evil witch stabbed him and he was dying - he COULD have allowed Rapunzel's hair heal him, but he didn't. Because that would have meant that Rapunzel would have had to have lived with the witch forever.

Once Rapunzel found out that the abusive "mother" she knew was really a witch, she was willing to stay with her forever and allow the abuse of confinement to continue, if she were allowed to use her hair to save this man's life. And she intended on keeping her word.

He knew she would keep her word and never try to escape again, so when she leans over him to use her hair to heal him, he reaches up, she thinks to touch her hair, and he cuts her hair off at the neck rendering it powerless and taking away it's blonde beauty.

Ergo, in his mind, he dies, but she gets to escape. In her mind, panic starts because he dies and she can't save him.

Each was willing to give up their own life, him literally and her figuratively, so that the other might live and live in peace.

This cartoon character at the end of the movie was a FAR cry from his character at the beginning of the movie.

Why couldn't you have talking to your girls about how people can change for the better?

Then ends does not justify the means.

A couple of good actions does not make someone reformed.

When I have done marital and premarital counseling, oftentimes I hear people excuse all sorts of bad acts by a few "good acts." Yes, God can redeem people and change them. However, I would not place a "redeemed" child molester in a room alone with a child. I would also not trust my daughter to a thief because he does one or two good acts. Rather, I would examine his character.

This girl again, was shown "justified" for daring to fall for a thief and "justified" for hanging out with a man of horrible character because "he fell in love" and did a few good things.

Rather, when I discussed this movie with my children, I took them to proverbs where it says that a man is known by the company he keeps. She chose to rebel against her mother by clinging to a thief. Yet, it was all okay because he became a "good person" and her mother turned out to be evil.

The message once again communicated is "the ends justified the means." Since everything turned out okay, they showed she was right in running away with a thief. Because he reformed, they showed she was justified in relying on a criminal. Because he did a few good acts, they showed he now is a man of great character that you should marry. How many people have you known who are now heartbroken because the evil men they married showed a few months of "good character."

No, the ends does not justify the means. It is not right to run away with a criminal, to rely upon him, and to open your heart to such men. Because a criminal does a few good acts does not make all the previous acts good, nor does it mean he is a man of character. The man is a thief and a criminal and I personally do not want my kids justifying a criminal's behavior because he does some good things.\

God redeemed me and changed me, so I understand redemption and sanctification. However, when I was redeemed did not make me a man of character. I still had baggage and God had to work in me for years before I was ready to marry. The type of things we see in this movie are only in fairy tales, and not in real life.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

The film was never intended to have a Christian world view - neither Disney nor anyone else would claim that.

I do think it is a matter of how it is discussed with children that makes the difference.

I was truly bothered by the abusive behaviour of the kidnapper. To support submission to someone who is using one for their own evil intent is a scary thought in my mind. Are we saying 'no matter what this parent figure does to you you must submit?' In this country this kind of thinking led to horrible abuses in the state homes. Children obeyed and submitted because the only 'parents' they knew were abusers and paedoephiles.

I think the positives far outweigh the negatives. I would no go to the extent of the women who responded trying to bring a Christ figure into the story (link in the original post on the other thread), but it was a nice story about sacrifice and putting others first.

 

[Ruiz]

The film was never intended to have a Christian world view - neither Disney nor anyone else would claim that.

I do think it is a matter of how it is discussed with children that makes the difference.

I was truly bothered by the abusive behaviour of the kidnapper. To support submission to someone who is using one for their own evil intent is a scary thought in my mind. Are we saying 'no matter what this parent figure does to you you must submit?' In this country this kind of thinking led to horrible abuses in the state homes. Children obeyed and submitted because the only 'parents' they knew were abusers and paedoephiles.

I think the positives far outweigh the negatives. I would no go to the extent of the women who responded trying to bring a Christ figure into the story (link in the original post on the other thread), but it was a nice story about sacrifice and putting others first.

You are now going above and beyond in trying to link what I said to submitting to pedophiles. Come on, let us have a philosophical/theological discussion and not this type of discussion. You have introduced a red herring into the conversation.

First, I said in the initial post that I communicate to my children that if I were to give a command different than the Bible, they are to disobey me and obey God's Word (in the other thread).

Secondly, I noted the reason for the rebellion was not the abuse, but the "lights." This is evident in the movie. No one would have criticized her for running away from abuse. I do criticize Disney for making the excuse for rebellion the lights.

I never said Disney wanted a Christian worldview. However, their worldview is extremely destructive with horrendous ramifications.

However, your post condemning WND over this issue was over the top as well. I do not like WND and if I ever get a link to them, I never even read the article because I think they are quacks. However, to take issue with them over this issue of a movie that advances the worldly philosophy "the ends justifies the means" is wrong. Yes, they are not advancing a Christian worldview nor meant to, but as Christians or thinking philosophers, we should call out their horrible worldview for what it is, evil.

You mentioned, "I think the positives far outweigh the negatives." Can you name me the positives in the movie? The only major positive my family received was a Biblical discussion that ensued after watching the movie. The lady lied and deceived, fell in love with a thief and criminal, and everything was okay because the ends justified the means.

Now, I didn't shelter my kids from the movie. Rather, I took them through the movie and we discussed the movie from a Christian Worldview. We discussed what should have occurred and why the main characters were all wrong. There was not a "good" character among the main characters. Disney sought to place such a worldview conflict to justify values clarification.

My question, if you watched it with your children, did you talk to them about the horrible parts of the movie like her rebellion, lying, embracing a thief and excusing his character?

Because something ends in good does not make the means good. It never has nor ever will. Such a philosophy has been used to excuse a myriad of evils in our world and that philosophy is anti-Christian. Packaging it into a nice cartoon does not make it less horrible, but makes it more horrible in that they are concealing the horrendous philosophy in such a form.

 

[Ruiz]

Not to belabor the point, but as I recall the movie also contained the phrase, "a little rebellion... is good."

Really? That is not exactly what I think is good movie going. I am teaching my kids that rebellion is not good, the opposite of Disney.

 

[abcgrad94]

Not to belabor the point, but as I recall the movie also contained the phrase, "a little rebellion... is good."

Really? That is not exactly what I think is good movie going. I am teaching my kids that rebellion is not good, the opposite of Disney.

Depends how you define "rebellion." The term "rebellion" gets tossed around a lot in super-strict, legalistic fundy circles, and usually does NOT mean rebellion against God, but against man-made rules and traditions that have no basis in scripture. Anything but blind obedience or brainwashing is labeled as "rebellion" to keep people in line, to keep them from using their God-given brains to question cultish behavior.

 

[Ruiz]

Depends how you define "rebellion." The term "rebellion" gets tossed around a lot in super-strict, legalistic fundy circles, and usually does NOT mean rebellion against God, but against man-made rules and traditions that have no basis in scripture. Anything but blind obedience or brainwashing is labeled as "rebellion" to keep people in line, to keep them from using their God-given brains to question cultish behavior.

ABC,

The context was a thief who is excusing a lady's deceit and lying in order to go see lights in the sky. He excuses her actions by saying that everyone needs a to rebel a little. To young kids, this is not something that needs to be conveyed or supported. If my child disobeyed one of my rules and quoted this part of the movie, we would have some serious talks.

Again, what Disney was trying to do was to make the ends justify the means. The girl gets away from an evil lady and back to her family through deception, lying, and falling in love with a criminal. As I convey to my children, it is never right to do wrong in order to do right. Rather, I give my child the example of people like Betsy in the true story "The Hiding Place."

Betsy and her family did disobey illegitimate laws which contradicted the Bible. However, in so doing, they refused to sin and be rebellious. Their moral compass was to always tell the truth, to be loving even to their captors, and to display a strong Christian ethic. They did not believe the ends justified the means. Rather, they believed the ends could be accomplished by righteous means. As a result, we see the character of Betsy and Corrie as true examples of moral and Christian ethics. We should see Rapunzel not as someone to emulate.

Tangled conveys the opposite viewpoint to Betsy and Corrie. While I certainly agree that locking a woman up in a room for all her life is wrong, this does not justify her later acts. Disney paints a picture that the ends justifies the means, and I think that is horrible. As well, I think conveying in a movie that everyone needs to rebel is a recipe for disaster among young children.

Yes, my family watched the movie. However, we had a serious conversation about this movie to implant true Biblical virtue, not Hollywood's virtues.

 

[abcgrad94]

Tangled conveys the opposite viewpoint to Betsy and Corrie. While I certainly agree that locking a woman up in a room for all her life is wrong, this does not justify her later acts. Disney paints a picture that the ends justifies the means, and I think that is horrible. As well, I think conveying in a movie that everyone needs to rebel is a recipe for disaster among young children.

Yes, my family watched the movie. However, we had a serious conversation about this movie to implant true Biblical virtue, not Hollywood's virtues.

I'm glad to hear you used the movie as a teaching tool for your kids. I wish more parents would do that!

 

[Steadfast Fred]

I am curious, Ruiz...

If the movie offended you as much as you say, why didn't you get your family out of the theater after the first offensive part? I mean, you see offenses over and over and then complain to others later. What gives?

It really makes no sense to watch a movie, find offenses several times through it, continue to watch the movie to the end, then to complain about it.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I'm glad to hear you used the movie as a teaching tool for your kids. I wish more parents would do that!

I agree. Though I disagree with Ruiz's assessment I appreciate using it as a teaching tool. My kids are all grown, we watched the movie last night with grandkids and their parents. The girls are only 7 and 4, but I will keep this is mind next time we watch a movie together.

 

[Ruiz]

I am curious, Ruiz...

If the movie offended you as much as you say, why didn't you get your family out of the theater after the first offensive part? I mean, you see offenses over and over and then complain to others later. What gives?

It really makes no sense to watch a movie, find offenses several times through it, continue to watch the movie to the end, then to complain about it.

Steadfast,

We didn't see it in a theater but at home. However, I do not believe in always sheltering my children from contrary worldviews. Rather, I believe in seeing them confronted with other worldviews and engaging those worldview intellectually and Biblically. Don (D.A) Carson once noted that one of the problems with modern Bible Schools and Seminaries are that they condemn others so much, but never really engage others that when some of us actually meet a liberal (for instance) and find out they are nice people, who do nice things, and are very smart, it disarms us and causes more harm in the long run. Within limits to my children's age and maturity, I want to engage them in such conversations so when they see other worldviews elsewhere they can recognize it, engage it, and not be threatened by it.

Granted, I don't want to expose my kids to pornography or other visuals, but worldviews are oftentimes helpful to helping us understand our views better.

 

[menageriekeeper]

Well, troublemaker that I am, I believe the ends did justify the means.

The first thing one should keep in mind is that Rapunzel was 18. She wasn't a small child and she wasn't a rebellious hormonal teenager. She had one simple wish, to see the lights, and she was denied by her trusted and beloved "mother" for reasons that were less than truthful.

And she knew it. Eventually, every child that is abused and taken advantage of longterm begins to question the motives of the abuser. And when they lose their assurance that the abuser can be trusted to teach them right from wrong then they are left to their own devices to figure it out for themselves.

It wasn't "rebellion" for her to leave the tower (thief or no thief) it was survival. She could have stayed. Used 'rebellion" as a reason not to leave even when she suspected strongly that her "mother" wasn't to be trusted. And she may never have escaped, because it takes an amazing amount of mental fortitude to leave an abusive situation. Rapunzel was leaving every single bit of security that she'd ever had behind her with no assurance whatsoever that she'd have any ever again.

And even when she left, even when she was for the first time feeling grass under her feet, she questioned if she dared go on. Because when you've been told you aren't capable, you won't survive, people don't care about you, you'll never amount to anything on your own, you question every step you make. The temptation to return to the abuse is amazingly and unexplainably strong.

Instead of focusing on what Rapunzel did wrong, why didn't you use the opportunity to show your children how she was taken care of in spite of her seeming wrong decision. How the thief was sent just at the right moment to protect Rapunzel (who certainly planned on leaving the tower by herself) as she traveled through the forest. And Who would be a great enough God to care about one innocent girl who'd never left her room? And while He was at it He sent along a man who also needed something.

Aren't these better things to focus on? And aren't we told to focus on what is good?

 

[Chris Davenport]

I didn't really see too much wrong with this movie. Seems like a good movie.

 

[Revmitchell]

What is it with all the dead threads being resurrected lately?

 

[Squire Robertsson]

I don't know. But this zombie thread (the last post before today's dates from 2011) is closed.

What is it with all the dead threads being resurrected lately?