Film review: Tangled - now I’m the bad guy!

But one thing bothers me every time I watch the movie: why are we compelled to hate Mother Gothel when the real villain of the piece is Rapunzel’s own mother?

Shock, horror, denial? Make a club.

Mother Gothel is an awful person because she hid the sun’s flower instead of sharing it. By singing a song to the flower (how did she know about the song? Did she make up the lyrics herself? Did somebody tell her the secret? Who was this “somebody”? Disney’s evil, subliminal “enlightening” messages strike again!) she selfishly used its powers to keep herself young. And after accomplishing her mission she covered the flower with a basket, so no one else would find it.


She probably watered and fertilised the flower regularly, too, so it wouldn’t shrivel up and die. Maybe she even salted the neighbourhood slugs, before they could feed on its stem. Oh, what a terrible, terrible person, to take advantage of a magical flower and not share its benefits with others! Somebody call the police and haul this woman to jail!

The Queen, however, is portrayed in the movie as a lovely person. Admittedly she’s sweet, pretty and kind but she picked the flower, and drank it down. Did she bother to make sure somebody grafted a new shoot, so that another sun flower might bloom in its place? No. Did she stop a moment to think about the consequences of her very definitive actions (kill it, swallow it, leave no trace of it behind)? No. Did she care to share? Not really. She was sick, she was the Queen, she wanted the flower, end of story.

On the contrary, Gothel is depicted as a vile person for kidnapping the infant princess. But she didn’t set out to do that. All she wanted was a lock of hair. Snip, snip, and I’ll be on my way, she had thought. However, while cutting the flower’s stem doesn’t reduce its restorative properties but cutting hair apparently exterminates the lock in this case. What kind of gene mutation is that? Blame the parents, I say.

What choice did poor Gothel have other than snatching the child? She didn’t have a job. She didn’t have a kingdom which she could tax and then use that tax money to make oversized mosaics of the family photo. She didn’t have a husband to mope with her. All she had was a song that kept her young, and the evil Queen wouldn’t even let her use that. Plus, Gothel raised Rapunzel; changed her diapers, wiped her nose, probably stayed up all night dealing with colic and puke and measles and all the hoopla that comes with a baby. She brought Rapunzel paints and books. She made Rapunzel’s favourite hazelnut soup! I think Mother Gothel was a reasonably good mom, but sadly according to conventional wisdom, blood’s thicker than water, yadda yadda.

Just because the Queen was “good”, we fail to see that it was actually she who set in motion the wheels for Rapunzel’s kidnapping. On top of that, she was a loser; were she really that strong and heroic, she would have pulled herself together and tried for another baby, because every kingdom needs an heir to the throne. And if you say, “Well, maybe her insides got messed up and she couldn’t have another child,” then do remember that she had drunk the sun flower — a flower that could heal anything and everything.

Yet, in the end Gothel is mercilessly destroyed. Just because, like every parent, she wanted security in her old age and some gratitude in return for all the work she put into raising Rapunzel. Surely, given enough time the two could have discussed their issues and come to a reasonable agreement (Something to the effect of “I’m 18 now! Please let me go out with my friends!” followed by “Well, alright, but I will need everyone’s parents’ names and phone numbers, and be back by 7 pm.”).

But that doesn’t matter, because intentions don’t matter. In our world, we live for appearances. If it looks good, it is good — no two ways about it.

Published in The Express Tribune, November 5^th,  2011.