Shrek 2 (2004)

PG, but this one gets a little bit transphobic.  Man, they make a lot of jokes about mannish women and gender-confusion.  It's 2004.  It doesn't give it a pass, but it is also in the hey-day of what people didn't know what they were saying.  Once again, the raunchiness of the movie still is shocking.  Still acting as a substitute to Disney's ultra-santized docket of films, there is more than I care to admit in these movies.  Still, PG.

DIRECTORS: Andrew Adamson, Kelly Asbury, and Conrad Vernon

I don't regret watching these movies.  I regret that I watch these movies and have to write about them, considering that have Bardo on the docket and would much rather write about that movie than Shrek 2.  I don't even have much to immediately look forward to, except for Shrek the Third, which I am now acknowledging that my brain has already filed away into the canon of forgettable films.  So my big motivation right now is just the the powering through blog entries for the sake of being caught up.  Sorry, Neil Gaiman's Masterclass on writing; I have to write about the Shrek movies.

My students consider this to be the high point in the Shrek franchise.  Just to be a little bit blasphemous, I have to tell you that I'm genuinely enjoying Shrek Forever After, the one that nobody saw.  I kind of love, kind of hate Shrek 2.  I know.  I'm taking a bold stance there of middling on a movie.  Shrek 2 has an immediate budget bump that makes it look way less dated than its predecessor.   But that doesn't mean that it isn't Guess Who's Coming to Dinner? all over again.  I mean, points given for actually having a message.  Sure, the allegory isn't really taking a ton of risks.  It's no Zootopia or anything like that.  Even with the message of race hidden behind the film's central plot, it's not even a one-to-one.  Maybe as a metaphor for homosexuality, but I don't get that vibe based on the other comments made in the film.  Still, I am going to give Shrek 2 some props for having a  message when it really didn't need to have one.  After all, it's Shrek.  As proven by the other entries in the series, a message is almost happenstance as opposed to saying anything meaningful.

I'm torn about the whole thing, though.  There's a problem with Shrek, as a franchise, being so darned popular.  I mean, the second half of the film is Shrek storming the castle to fight the fairy godmother who cursed Fiona to begin with.  In terms of plotting, it makes sense. After all, she might actually end up being the big bad of the franchise due to her manipulation of all of the events.  Cool.  But if the message fo the film is to talk about differences and how we shouldn't change for the others, isn't the entire point buried with the notion of being able to change?  The very notion of magic puts a really weird spin on the whole story.  Fiona, at the end of Shrek, embraces that she is an ogre.  She is an ogre.  She was always meant to be an ogre. It's a big step for her.  Her arriving at her parents' house is coming out.  Now, it goes poorly. Sure.  Dad becomes more evil than I thought that Dad would be, but all of that scans.  When Shrek makes change for Fiona, it's meant to be this noble-yet-stupid moment where he misses the point.  That's what Shrek movies are all about, I guess.  But the real problem lies with Fiona.

Fiona wakes up with Shrek missing and she has been returned to her humanlike background.  She puts the gay genie back into the bottle and is relieved that her curse is over.  Now, it doesn't change the fact that she's with Shrek.  This is what makes me feel like this is more of a race allegory than it is a gender allegory.  But it is a solve that doesn't hold up with storytelling the entire time.  After all, it's not like she chooses Prince Charming when she sees that Shrek looks different than he is.  There would be a moral component to that potential plot device. Instead, the story makes Fiona think that Charming is Shrek. It completely unfolds the message of Guess Who's Coming to Dinner?  The very notion of Guess Who's Coming to Dinner? is about the internal conflicts we have to deal with because there is no external conflicts, shy of breaking up.  That's never really played as a potential ending for Shrek 2.  Maybe the role of magic in the world of Shrek gives too many options for digging one's way out of a hole.  (As much as I'm into Shrek Forever After, the secret escape clause is exactly what I'm talking about.  Why would Rumplestiltskin include this and allow for an origami alternative to count?)  

Which all brings me back to my point.  Messages in movies make them memorable.  After all, Shrek the Third has borderline nothing challenging to say. It is about the nerd who finds his voice, which 2000's Disney storytelling.  Okay.  But Shrek 2 is the one that I remembered as Sidney Poitier's animated form.  It just doesn't work.  The need to make the movie entertaining, which it successfully does, undoes any value to the storytelling narrative.  Instead, we're given pop culture references to cover up the fact that there isn't a lot of meat in this movie.  Golly, the pop culture references.  I'm right now spouting off against Shrek 2, a completely fun movie that I enjoyed watching with my kids.  But any time that Shrek movies get vulnerable, they hide behind something that instantly dates the movie.  Okay, fine.  I'm griping because I'm running out of things to say.  I have no idea what to say about Shrek the Third because these movies don't really want to evolve.  I actually like the pop culture references.  When Donkey and Puss sing "I Need a Hero", it's pretty epic.  I know I'm not alone in this thought.  I've seen the memes.

It's just that Shrek is all about growth.  In the grand scheme of things, Shrek does have a character arc.  He goes from being an isolated misanthrope to finding love and friendship.  It doesn't change who he is.  It's just that he literally does change who he is in this movie.  Sure, Fiona recognizes that Charming and Shrek could never be the same person. While I'm writing this, I might have the epiphany that the Shrek movies start to not be great (again, Forever After is kind of doing it for me) because Shrek learns his lessons from previous movies.  Shrek still has boorish behavior.  I don't want to downplay that.  It's not saying that people completely 180 and become someone wholly new. But Shrek 2 almost lacks a call to adventure.  He sees the threat and is already in hero mode.  Maybe Shrek 2 shares some DNA with Avengers: Age of Ultron (a movie that I still contend is stronger than the original Avengers movie). It's kind of nice when we get over a hero's origin story because we can get straight into the action.  Origin movies tend to just scratch the surface of why a character does what he does.  It's the sequel that allows him to embrace skills.

So why am I so ho-hum about Shrek 2?  Part of it comes from having to write about Shrek the Third, which has had more than its fair share of digital real estate in this blog than it deserves.  While I admit that I enjoyed Shrek 2 while watching it, I also know that some dangerous precedent was established during Part 2.  There are so many callbacks to the first movie.  There's a lot of evidence that the movie doesn't know what to do with Donkey, who might be the scene stealer.  Also, my snobby butt won't stop looking down on Shrek, the people's family comedy.  Why am I so above this?  It's a fun franchise.  I'm having a good time.  But I just want depth and the Shrek movies aren't giving me much.  It's the job of the blogger to find meaning that may or may not be there.  But it feels like Shrek is wearing so much on its sleeves that every analysis feels forced.  I just want more.  I desperately want more.  

Which is why I can't wait to write about Shrek Forever After..assuming I finish it soon.