Shrek (Two-Disc Special Edition)

Customer reviews:

WHY WATCH SHREK AGAIN: Shrek as Imperial Critique, 2008-12-01
Shrek is an Ogre. A monster. Something to be feared. Those who are hunting for him with torches and pitchforks have their fantasy-projections of what ogres are like. But is he really as bad as his pursuers think? Perhaps monsters are mere projections of our prejudices and fears onto those who represent the unknown. In this way, 'the other' is part of our mythologizing, whose identity is constructed by the dominant story-tellers of society. Toward the beginning of the movie various 'others', the defected fairy-tale characters, are bought, sold, and rejected. The motif of colonialism arises as the fairy-tale creatures are relocated to the mirky swamp by the orders of Farquad, and thus disrupting the ogre's peace. (Recall the ginger bread man calls Farquad a "monster").

King Farquad represents the ruling elite. He is a white male with a Napolean complex - that is, he is short and often tries to appear taller than he actually is. This is an indication of shame and part of his fabricating identity by bullying others; rising to power is not merely compensation but is a contrived way of affirming his significance. This is part of a very important theme: Farquad is a pretend king. He is playing make-believe, and whether he knows he is or not is a worthy conversation. He seems to deceive himself by his making-believe forcing the others to participate. Notice his control of the authentic. During a festivity his servants are made to display cards reminding the crowd to "Applause" or "Boo". The magic mirror tells him what he wants to hear, but under threat. He maintains his image with violence. His power and glory are a fabrication that is established by a play of fear and of prejudice. Most noteworthy and more central is his ongoing struggle to establish the "perfect kingdom" - and so he attempts to capture the "happily ever after" for himself. Yet this "perfect" kingdom - with no ambiguity and perfect conformity to his liking - is really a utilization of social construction with which he manipulates his reality. In this way the movie is suggestive of how people see themselves as within a story.

There is a general understanding among anthropologists that we interpret our world through story, allowing our expectations to be shaped by them. We assume the stories are prescriptive and so we live by them, when really they may confine our interpretation of lived experience. Hence, the princess was waiting to be rescued by the prince. The dragon was 'supposed' to be killed. This is how one is "supposed" to find "true love" - a fixation the princess sees within a narratival framework. The story isn't 'perfect.' She learns that along the way.

Within the theme of the imperial pursuit of the 'perfect' and its corollary dehumanizing of the other, a feminist critique can be found. Notice the chivalry of Robin Hood. Hood believes he is saving a damsel in distress. This reflects the chivalrous will to establish identity in relation to the damsel by conquoring evil - the "threat." Every classic horror film where a beautiful woman is victimized by a gothic creature serves to a particular perspective of good and evil through a particular construction of women. According to the script, it is a scandal for a woman to be with an ogre. This points to the complication of gender construction in an imperial context. It is widely recognized by sociologists that the constructions of gender-relations are integrated with other social constructions such as 'race' and 'class'. In general, the 'other' plays a role in the construction of power and privilege through its contradistinction from a construction of authentic humanity ('white', 'male', 'middle-upper' class). Hence chivalry is part of a narrative construct of how masculinity is established in its distinction to the 'other.' But this depiction of chivalry seeks to affirm adequacy or power in battle against an other - defining its power in terms of defeat and conquest, and restoration of a well-defined order.

Moreover, in its presumption of the weak and passive role of the woman, there is suggestive here a weakness in patriarchy itself. Both Robin Hood and Farquad need to fit themselves in a defining narrative whereby it is easy to manipulate their identity. Robin Hood is insecure because he needs to define himself in just this way. The Robin Hood scene nicely upsets the imperial/patriarchical assumption of chivalry. The princess doesn't need Robin Hood's help. In fact she sees herself as a victim of his presumed heroism. Robin Hood's sing-and-dance routine reveals his motives are really not really pure at all. He is using the role of chivalry and its play on otherness (the ogre) to placate his desires (which may include remaining a hero of sexual conquest and earning or keeping the respect of his band of merry men). Princess Fiona proves to be stronger than Robin Hood, revealing his weakness and deconstructing his facade.

At the end of the movie, the princess kisses Shrek, the spell is broken, and she remains an ogre - only permanently. It's actually as if her day-time identity as a fairy-tale depiction of a fair-maden is the fake - the curse. It's not so much that Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but rather escapes social construction. King Farquad is exposed as a fraud, and his kingdom built on inauthentic and is itself truly anti-human. The Shrek story effectively deconstructs the fairy-tale narrative - but does so in the formation of another narrative. What I come away with is a sense that to live by a pre-scriptive narrative, and to mediate one's identity through it, is to be fake, inauthentic, and to transcend; only in transcending the expected can we find what is true, good, and beautiful.

Now, by explicating these themes, I don't mean to imply that there are no race or gender typology being used here. For instance, all people in this movie are white. Some may see the donkey character as resembling the stereotypical non-white side kick, for instance. The hero is still a male. At very least, I would like to suggest that these stereotypes serves the movies critique.

In summery, Shrek is a commentary on empire. The power of empire is its story. It is in story that people interpret their role, through which they mediate identity and are predisposed in an interpersonal and political trajectory. Story gives meaning. The empire controls the story-telling of a society, and manipulates it in order to type-cast itself into the heroic and the salvific.

The Best, 2008-11-24
Must have watched this 1000 times. makes me laugh every time. Will be a classic if not already.