Watched it Christmas Eve on D+. My daughter had already seen it and loved it while at college. It was on in the background at the beginning but eventually we all got sucked in and watched the last half together. Loved it to pieces. My wife (a clinical therapist who’s worked with families) was loving it and diagnosing all the issues and roles the family members had fallen into. She’s already going to go back and watch it more closely to see everything. And also try and track down how the story evolved since it was pretty upfront about dealing with family/generational trauma. Smart chicks, whatcha gonna do?
Question for those who saw it in theaters. Was the penultimate musical number (that plays over the abuelo vignette) subtitled or anything? It’s a heartbreaking scene anyway, but having the lyrics in closed captioning on D+ just made it even more so.
No, there were no subtitles for the Spanish songs. Watching it again on D+, I was surprised to learn that the setting was explicitly Colombia (I don’t think Disney movies are often set in real-world places). Also the caterpillar song sort of made the brief appearance of the butterfly a bit more meaningful.
Edit:. I guess Mulan and Princess and the Frog are other examples, so maybe I shouldn’t be so surprised.
The Rescuers is set in Louisiana, The Great Mouse Detective is set in London, etc.
Frog Princess is New Orelans, Rescuers Down Under is specifically by Uluru Australia, Inside Out San Francisco, Pocahontas Jamestown, Peter Pan& Sword in the Stone & 101 Dalmatians London, Lilo and Stitch Hawaii, Hunchback of Notre Dame and Aristocats Paris, Oliver and Company New York, Emperors New Groove is specifically in the Andes
Its really about 50/50 if it is a specific explicit real
world location, versus a generic pastiche or fully fantasy setting.
I was wondering what was up with the guys carrying firebombs and machetes and murder. This Polygon article still doesn’t answer that question but provides some interesting context into what he calls “The Violence”.
(He almost made it through the whole article without talking about Bruno, too.)
A BTS look at the art pipeline.
As for the movie itself: I liked it more than I expected to. Firstly, Lin-Manuel Miranda being involved isn’t a big selling point for me since I’m not a huge musical fan and was afraid the movie would contain more song parts than your average Disney animation movie. I wasn’t also really engaged during the first minutes because the main arc and Mirabel’s destined role in the family is utterly predictable and moves along the black sheep/ugly duckling archetype even if it’s not all of the family to shun her. But as the movie went on, I simply had a good time overall, enjoyed the colorful and oversaturated look of things and the character designs - and tip my hat to the writers for not shoehorning in some antagonist because the plot didn’t really need one. (In a lesser movie, that would have been one of the people–or descendent thereof–who were after Mirabel’s grandparents way back.)
See, I feel like the movie started out as the Ugly Duckling/Sky High archetype, but turned into something totally different and completely unexpected (although obviously you get hints about it along the way). The story wasn’t about Mirabel; it was about the family as a whole.
I thought it was extraordinarily well done, and I keep thinking of examples (or family members) that the story applies to. It was charming and fun and the songs were great, but it has lessons that apply even as an adult.
Correct, it was about Abuela. Mirabel is just the POV character.
Just watched it. Loved it. I want that house.
Lovely movie. Most of the songs were a bit too hyperkinetic for my tastes (seems to be a Lin-Manuel Miranda thing?) but the accompanying animation sequences were pretty creative overall, so it mostly worked. I liked it, but I still like Moana better, in big part due to its tighter focus.
Big hit in my house for the songs… my wife totally picked up on the cadence of the songs matching Hamilton, and was gratified seeing Lin Manuel Miranda’s name in the credits.
As for myself, I just… can’t do the modern Disney-Pixar world building happily anymore. I mean, I’m enjoying the craft, but every one of these movies stands on some bizarre pillar of super specific magic or a construct that without it, wouldn’t work. I world populated by intelligent mice working alongside people? Possible… plausible, sure. Have to squint my eyes a little but sure, why not. World where voodoo magic is a thing? Yep, cool.
A world where one family having a tragic loss inflicted upon them get bestowed genetic magic gifts that exist in perpetuity and grant them elevated social status amongst their peers as long as they stay in harmony? What?
A world -sorry, a piece of land mass- that is the known world controlled by dragons but is usurped by a manifestation of this area’s human malice until people try a little trust-building fixes everything (everywhere else I guess too?) huh? A world where predators and prey get along, because they’re civilized, but we never know what the predators are eating to make this at all work (other than donuts)? guh? A whole complex afterlife system of triage and management and predisposed talents and interests and… blahblahblah… island gods determine the harvest potential of food growing, and exploring islands is what makes things better even when the harvest is restored(does this affect the mainland as well?)… argh…
Too much Disney/Pixar at one time maybe, but can they just make a nice animated movie that tells a human story without having to exist in some ridiculous bubble that needs five to twenty minutes of apologist exposition to make work?
You might like Luca?
In some of these cases, it feels like you’re confusing metaphor-building with world-building, and while these metaphors aren’t without their issues, I think it’s a relevant distinction to make. (Some of them. Raya was just…kind of a mess all over).
People keep talking about how Encanto is about “generational trauma”, but I wonder the degree to which people realize that they’re using that as a euphemism to avoid saying that Encanto is a story that is fundamentally about a non-white immigrant / refugee experience. I wonder the degree to which white Disney audiences even recognize that that’s what it is. I haven’t really followed the critical dialogue around it, particularly the difference in reception between white and non-white critics, but the interpretation is obvious to me.
The miracle that Abuela was given is, essentially, emigration. Her behaviors (single-mindedly preoccupation with wealth and social status, as well as the support of family and relatives “back home” in the village) are all very familiar to second or third-generation children of American immigrants. The special abilities conferred by the miracle representative of the privileges afforded to the family who have escaped to e.g. America, and the comforts therein. The actual powers being manifestations of Abuela’s physical needs (primarily the first generation: uncertainty about the future, natural disasters, and medical care), and insecurities (primarily the second generation: strength, beauty, concern about what other think, and the ability to “shape-shift” to avoid trouble, but also to fit in in new environments.) The children after Mirabel represents a (very real) generational break, a cultural shift from being “immigrants” to being “American” (or whatever other new home), where the basic needs are met and they’re able to focus on and enjoy self actualization (i.e. the “useless” but personally fulfilling gift of talking to animals). Mirabel, being the bridge that has to connect these worlds.
As my wife and I joked, the way you know this is a fantasy story and not real life is that at the end, Abuela acknowledges that she was wrong and apologizes. Movie should have ended with her just pulling out a plate of cut fruit.
I’m not trying to put too fine a point on it as a 1:1 mapping of the experience. This metaphor isn’t perfect, and there are some specifically Columbian aspects that I’m certain that I’m not getting and may have different interpretations, but I think that fundamentally, Encanto is a story about this metaphor, such that the world-building…kind of isn’t the point? It’s not trying to build a coherent world with consistent rules, it’s just using that as a lens to tell a singular story. It’s not like Zootopia, which is clearly establishing a setting in which you could tell other stories. Per the thread title, it isn’t X-men, its a personal story about a single family.
I am in the same boat. Moana is my favorite for a reason, and especially as a father I love the way they depict the female protagonist.
But Encanto is very good. And more colab work with Miranda please! Both Moana and Encanto have non eurocentric stories where the culture of the characters has a meaningful part in the story. I really appreciate how they are able to do that now, as it gives them more texture and distinctness and just simply the fact that having a more diverse cast, story, etc is good on its own.
There are things to say about the story details, but @CLWheeljack articulates that far better than I ever could.
That’s a great take on the whole thing, but I disagree on that last point. It is a world with rules, because without them, there was no reason for the Encanto to fail. In fact, there was a whole system of candles, geneology, events and even the name Encanto itself of which the Grandmother refers to as if she leant the whole thing in school. And yet, obviously, the way it’s bestowed is clearly singular and arbitrary (and inconsistent to all the other people suffering trauma and not getting Encantos), especially given they really don’t need this magic around now that the bandits are gone and the town is an otherwise normal town again.
I don’t mean to disagree about the metaphorical aspects at all, I just think if that was the case the whole magic thing needed to be way more abstract and ambiguous… but it is a kid’s film after all… which is why I prefer, if they’re going to go here, have it be a world where Encantos are a thing that happens to others too. Just have one townsperson say “ahh an Encanto, my cousin Filipo had one when he stubbed his toe” and then poof, we’re good.
My problem with Encanto (which I generally like) is that it’s not clear to me why the events of the film happen at all. As far as I can tell, Bruno has a vision of the house falling apart, and Mirabel being involved, which freaks him out so he takes off, which starts the deterioration of the family. Then Mirabel has a vision of the house falling apart (which is never explained – she doesn’t have visions!), which causes her Abuela to mistrust her, which leads to the deterioration of the family, which leads to the destruction of the house. Which Bruno saw in his vision. Basically, the vision happens because he had the vision.
It’s also never explained why Mirabel doesn’t get a gift – it seems like the explanation is because the family was having issues, but the issues were all caused by the stress Abuela was under from the fact that Mirabel didn’t get a gift; wondering if the miracle was fading. So, again, apparently Mirabel didn’t get a gift because… she didn’t get a gift.
Also why didn’t the cousin who can hear everything tell anyone that Bruno was still in the house?!? Or like, if she wanted to keep the secret, at least visit him or something?
Eh, I didn’t get the impression that anybody in-world really understood any of it. They knew there was a candle, and that was the “source” of it, but nobody seemed to know how it worked, or why it was given to one person but not another, or what could make it fail. Abuela claimed she knew what kept it alive, but that was just based on her single lifetime of experience. She’s only an expert because she proclaimed herself one. She was as worried as anybody else when it seemed like it was failing because she had no idea what actually made it work. It’s closer to magical realism than fantasy, in that way. (The context of a Latin American setting not being lost there).
I mean, it’s explicitly a miracle. Why does God cure this cancer, but not that one? (I’m not equipped whatsoever to speak to the Columbian Catholic / religious aspects and imagery there, but I assume e.g. the candle itself is tied into Catholicism pretty directly).
Yep, don’t buy Christian world building either…!
If you consider the Encanto as God, making the arbitrary decisions He’s known for… you’re right, the whole thing is a bible story, with God sitting back at the end, pleased the little peoples figured out his riddle. Fair enough. Makes sense I didn’t like it.
I chuckled. And yeah, in the last 20 minutes the movie goes for a happy ending that to me felt unearned. Everyone is so quick to acknowledge their misconceptions in a way that’s just not plausible, but then again, a lot of movies are guilty of that, and it’s understandable.