Lately I have been interested in analyzing children’s shows to determine what the moral is. One good way to spot the moral of the story is to identify the villain. So the movie Ralph Breaks the Internet was really interesting because it had a fascinating villain. But first let me take a detour to explain my theory of villainy…
When I was in grade school I learned that CONFLICT IN LITERATURE comes in a few different forms: man vs. man, man vs. nature, man vs. self, etc. I never really understood how that was particularly enlightening. What does it add to my understanding of Old Man and the Sea to wisely proclaim that this is an example of MAN vs. NATURE (cue ominous music).
Maybe whoever came up with that categorization had some deep insight, but I still don’t know what it is.
Ok, so I propose the following, more enlightening, categories:
- man vs. alpha, and
- man vs. other.
A good example of an Alpha Villain is Ernesto De La Cruz from Coco.:
In a recent post I linked to a book called The Goodness Paradox, which discusses the history of how beta males join together to kill/expel the alphas in the group if they get too powerful (ok, I know, that’s an oversimplification, but a useful one). These are the kinds of stories that justify that kind of revolutionary violence. In fact, I think this sentiment (the idea that we should bring down the most successful in our society to maintain equilibrium) is pretty much at the heart of all leftism.
Usually in a man vs. alpha story there is a pretense of some kind of wrong doing: the alpha deserves to be taken down because they got there by breaking the rules, or something. But the result leaves us thinking that maybe, just maybe, that alpha male in our life (our boss, our president, etc) got there by doing something wrong and we should band together to bring him down.
A good example of an Other Villain is Shan Yu from Mulan:
In this kind of story, the villain is often less developed. They don’t really need a backstory or motivations other than greed, lust, etc. because really, others like him are basically just animals. Usually they are foreigners, or monsters, or aliens, or robots…or anything with enough intelligence to be a menace, but not enough humanity to be a real character. Also, usually the Other Villain is ugly (whereas Alpha Villains are good looking).
While I associate stories with Alpha Villains with leftism, Other Villains are indicative of the right. We need to protect the established order from external threats, etc. and we usually need a typical in-group hero to do it (although, Mulan does break some of the norms by letting the hero be a woman, it is otherwise a pretty straight forward story about a hero of the pure race defeating the dirty foreign threat).
In some cases, a villain is a little bit of both, like Jafar:
I can’t exactly decide what kind of villain Jafar is because he has attributes of both kinds. He is ugly and more foreign looking than the protagonist, but also his main sin is ambition and wanting to succeed too much, which he largely has. At the end of the day, I think the story leans a little conservative because Jafar is actually a traitor to the primary order of society (the Sultan), and thus doesn’t have true legitimacy. So at the end of the day, Aladdin isn’t a revolutionary, he is a protector of the realm.
Ok, so while Jafar is a bit confusing, he can’t hold a candle to Ralph. As far as I can tell, Ralph isn’t an Alpha or an Other. He is a Clingy Beta (more ominous music?). Now, if you want to argue that Ralph is really an Alpha or an Other because of something he did in the first movie, I’m not going to argue because I haven’t even seen that one. But in the sequel, he is clearly a wanna-be.
Sure, he is big and tough and has some attributes of an Alpha. He is also dumb and brutish, like a typical Other. But in the end he is just a tag along following Vanellope von Schweetz along on her adventure and mostly just getting in the way. For a moment (after making a bunch or viral videos to save the day) it almost seems like he will get to be a hero, but he just doesn’t have it in him. he is an oaf. But worse, he has one fatal flaw that leads him to become a villain: he doesn’t want to let go of his friend and let her live her own life in a faraway land.
Now, there are lot’s of examples of clingy parents in movies. Usually they are crammed into the very beginning of the first stage of the Hero’s Journey when the Hero has to leave home (esp. the over-protective parents) in order to find their power and overcome their true villain. Mulan’s father might be an example.
In some cases, things get tragic, like in Dead Poet’s Society.
***BEGIN SPOILER ALERT*****
Neil Perry’s father dis-enrolls him, and contributes to his suicide because the father isn’t comfortable with him finding his own path (as an actor).
***END SPOILER ALERT*****
Ok, so if you haven’t seen Dead Poets Society, welcome to planet earth. Got see it. Anyway, I’m not sure tragedies even count. Do they really have villains?
Anyway, Ralph Breaks the Internet is interesting because it isn’t a tragedy. It tell’s a hero story…wait. I just thought of something. Ralph isn’t just the villain. He’s the hero, too. At the end of the day, even though Ralph is just tagging along on Vanellope von Schweetz’s journey, on a deeper level she is just tagging along on his journey of self discovery!
So it’s really a man vs self movie…and wait again. Did I just use a category from that tired old CONFLICT IN LITERATURE framework?
Anyway, Ralph overcomes the evil side of his nature (i.e., his desire to stay close to his friend) by deciding that they just be the kind of friends that call once a week and talk about stuff the other isn’t really involved in and doesn’t really care about.
Ok, I get it, clinginess is bad and if you don’t let go of your children and friends they will feel stifled and commit suicide.
But I can’t help but feel like these kinds of movies are just trying to reinforce a certain kind Standard Model American individualism which says that we can’t really reach our true potential if we don’t abandon all of our relationships and break with our family.
So let me put my cards on the table here. I understand that this kind of narrative has its place — especially, as I mentioned earlier, at the beginning of a Hero’s Journey. At some point we all have to take a leap of faith and try to find out who we are as individuals. But a Hero’s Journey isn’t complete if the Hero never comes home, and I feel like in the American Standard Model (and, coincidentally, in Ralph Breaks the Internet) there is no coming home.
According to the new model we start out in a safe homeland. Then we leave the safety of our beginnings, journey off to find our power, we find it….and then that’s it. Game Over. There is nothing to complete the cycle (unless becoming just like our parents despite everything we do to be nothing like them counts as completing the circle, and perhaps it does).
Anyway, according the Ralph narrative, it isn’t okay to have a permanent commitment to living your life with a team, a tribe, a family, because that will only stifle your individuality. And you know what? Maybe it does. Maybe in order to have an identity we have to sacrifice our individuality just a bit.
When my daughter grows up, I don’t want to just call her once a week and look at photos of grandkids. I want us both to feel like we are putting everything we have into working toward a common goal: doing what’s best for our family. I think Tywin Lannister said it best:
Lord of Casterly Rock, Shield of Lannisport, and Warden of the West would NEVER be satisfied with a weekly call to catch up. But our society (via movies like Ralph Breaks the Internet and Dead Poets Society — which, by the way, I love) is trying to convince us that to be Tywin is to be a great villain, and that true honor lies in letting go of our friends and letting our deepest ties dissolve.
In a modern society, families are not the proper carriers of culture. We do not learn our way of life from our family. We learn it in public schools along with hundreds of other people. I can’t remember where I heard this first, but there is a fascinating theory out there that Christianity actually caused the downfall of the extended family because it enabled people to extend their trust networks beyond the tribe and trust anyone who believes in the same God. This enabled people to engage more efficiently in commerce, which resulted in more specialization, great economic expansion, and all that is good in the modern world.
But I feel like it left a void, and what I am trying to discover is whether it is possible to fill this void or whether Ralph is right. Must I abandon my inner Tywin and join the likes of Ralph, lest I become like the tragic Mr. Perry?
