FROZEN as a Gay Metaphor Redux and The Substance of Subtext

As nice as it is to be in the "in-crowd" it can be very hard to really care about something that lots of other people care about too, especially because there will usually be those who care about it in a way that conflicts with your own reasons of devotion.  In humanity's eternal quest for existential meaning and moralistic understanding, the philosophies of Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Christianity, polytheism, monotheism, atheism and thousands of other religious systems of belief have sprouted and developed their own variations throughout the millenniums.  And while most of these faiths have far more in common than do they differ, the little differences make all the difference, and civilizations push and shove to justify the way something matters to them as the right way over the way the same thing matters to another.
You could argue that in comparison to the matter of faith, movies are trivial, but I would disagree.  Arts and entertainment are very similar to the purposes of faith as part of our aspiration to understand and feel and "live" in the most figurative sense of the word, and ever since the early 20th Century, movies have taken a leading role in chronicling human history, emotion, intellect and so much else, and in the ways we perceive and connect through these issues.
However, when we think about cinema as an art, as sophisticated with multiple layers of meaning and ambition, there's a fairly limited range of films that most people are willing to accept; CITIZEN KANE, perhaps being the most obvious, also RAGING BULL, 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, THE GODFATHER, etc.  These are films that are made for and marketed to adults, serious on the surface and revered by critics and scholars.  Then there's this thing that we call pop art or popular entertainment; films of this sort often being referred to as "popcorn movies".  I resent the label of popcorn movie.  It's used in a manner meant to justify the enjoyability of a popular movie, to say that it's entertainment and little else, and any attempt to seriously discuss it can be dismissed as a case "reading in too far", applying one's own irrelevant agenda to the material or in other ways ridiculous.
Animated movies and/or family movies, are usually considered in this category of popcorn movies, even if the precise terminology may not be present.  I made no secret of what I saw as a gay "coming out" sentiment in last fall's surprise smash hit, FROZEN.  It wasn't just myself who considered it though, but for whatever reason, it took a little while for the floodgates to really bust through.  It seems like the internet finally exploded into the debate sometime last month, but what sparked it was a voice from the other side of the debate.  A fellow blogspot.com presence, "A Well-Behaved Mormon Woman", aka Kathryn Skaggs, a clear-cut case of the gay politics side of the infamous "I'm not racist, but..." philosophy, posted an article titled "Frozen: Not Gonna "Let It Go" When Movie Advocates Gay Agenda".  Her following evidently being, ahem, less exclusive than my own, Skaggs' post went viral, and before long, most of the entertainment/culture columnists and other such pundits who had been totally silent about it before (if it even had occurred to them) had to have their say.  Unfortunately, for most of them, having their say involved ridiculing the idea of any subtext to the film altogether.  After all, it's a kids movie, right?  Just a kids movie with pretty colors and imaginative visuals, ultra-catchy songs and a bare-bones, easy-to-swallow moral about sisterhood, I guess.  Sigh.
While I abhor her anti-gay sentiments (I just don't see how anyone can stretch their imagination far enough to justify her "disclaimer" outside of blatant dishonesty), at least she's willing to consider movie outside the laziest interpretation.  Of course an animated musical fairy tale marketed at children and families can make a statement on contemporary political issues.  It doesn't have to, but it sure as hell can.  It wouldn't be unheard of.  Some of the most obvious cases would be HAPPY FEET (an overall anti-tradition/dogma fable with specifics about commercial overfishing), THE LORAX (a lackluster film version of an already politicized environmentalist fable by Dr. Seuss) and the most current box office sensation, THE LEGO MOVIE (a full-on subversive parody of the establishment and individualism).  Those aren't films with so-called "hidden agendas" though.  They wear their agendas on their sleeves.  There are some movies with well-known allegorical readings, despite never coming straight out about it in on the celluloid, such as THE CHRONICLES OF NARNIA, based on Christian icon C.S. Lewis' book series; ROBOCOP, SUPERMAN RETURNS and the Harry Potter films (suck it, fundamentalists) are Christ allegories and ALIEN is about rape, just to name a few.
Then there are all the movies that critics, scholars and fans just can't stop debating about, Stanley Kubrick's THE SHINING being an ideal example, as seen in the documentary ROOM 237, in which various voices argue the cases that THE SHINING is about either the United States government's systematic relocation and genocide of indigenous peoples, a confession that Kubrick assisted to create false Apollo 11 moon landing footage, a reinterpretation of the myth of Theseus and the Minotaur or an allegory about the Holocaust.  It's impossible to prove if any of these theories are true, although a few of them smack of falseness more than others (the moon landing one in particular), but they can be interesting ways to experience the film.  I particularly favor the one about indigenous peoples and American violence, and while I suspect that Kubrick, a famously calculating filmmaker, may have used some of those elements intentionally, it doesn't really matter, does it?

Once an artwork is out there and becomes part of a culture, it takes on a new identity that is not exclusive to the artist's sole vision, and besides that, on something as complex as a film, there's definitely more than one vision at work.  So does a film have to absolutely mean one thing?  Of course not!  In fact, even for one person, what a film means can change as that person changes.  When I was four, THE LION KING was about lions (some of nature's biggest badasses), with cool music and colorful visuals.  When I was about 12, THE LION KING was something nostalgic, still with cool music and visuals, but something a bit weightier.  Now when I watch THE LION KING, it's an animated epic with inspirations from the theories of Joseph Campbell, the biblical stories of Moses and Joseph (especially the former); it's a story about the figurative death of innocence that gives way to the birth of adulthood and something greater.  For some people, I'm sure it stands for the annoying cartoon that their kid watches over and over again.  Movies are a lot about personal experience.
When I first watched FROZEN, and each time that I watched it again afterwards, I identified the character of Elsa as a "gay" character.  That doesn't necessarily mean that I identified the character as specifically being attracted to a character of the same gender, which sounds silly, but people talk about their favorite television characters this way, so bear with me.  Romantic relationships are irrelevant to the character of Elsa in the story that FROZEN tells.  She's not the main character and her part of the story already has enough drama that there wouldn't be room for a romantic interest, so her romantic interests don't even matter.
I do believe sincerely though that there are enough elements to suggest that Elsa has some connection to a gay identity, beyond the obviously vague themes of persecution and being an outsider.  As I've pointed out before, the film takes the time to point out that she is born with it, not cursed (potentially alluding to the "nurture vs. nature" controversy); she is advised "conceal, don't feel" (potentially alluding to a "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" philosophy); and her defining characteristic in the first act is that she locks herself away in a figurative "closet", in her room or with the locked gates.  She feels shame and is compelled to lock everyone out, but she flourishes in her "Let It Go" coming out moment.
But you know what?  It doesn't matter whether she is a legitimate gay character or not, because one way or another, she resonates with the gay cause, doesn't she?  If there were no truth to it, then it's unlikely that the debate would have gotten as much attention as it has.  There just wouldn't be enough people embracing the idea or feeling the need to address it at all.  The fact that columnists take the time to say that it's a meaningless theory indicates that there's weight to it.  If you genuinely believe that it's all made up in the minds of conspiracy theorists, then you can enjoy FROZEN for what you see in it.
Seeing Elsa as a gay figure helps me embrace the film even more though.  It makes her plight more identifiable and emotionally resonant.  I really feel for those who feel cast out for something as integral as their sexual identity, and I believe they flourish with self-acceptance and familial love.  In reading the story through that lens, her fears and joys hit me so much harder, and it makes Anna's quest mean something more than just a sisterly bond.  It adds a more human and accessible conflict.
It's possible that you may feel something different to embrace in the character and story, and your reasons may not have even occurred to me.  However, I think it's unfortunate if the idea of Elsa as a gay character actually offends you.

Even if the makers of the film deliberately injected gay politics into the film, they would never make an explicit point of it for several reasons, among them being the marketability of a family film, avoiding provocation and most importantly, if people are arguing about your film and thus fueling free publicity, then why interfere with that?  "Never let fear or shame keep you from celebrating the unique people that you are," is how Kristen Anderson-Lopez and Robert Lopez, songwriters for the film, put it in their Oscar acceptance speech for "Let It Go".  Not changing who you are is a long-standing favorite moral message of kid-friendly entertainment, but it does apply well to the gay community.  The way the message is approached in the film easily brings that connection to mind, and whether it was clearly decided or utterly unintentional, it's a perfectly reasonable understanding of the film.  I don't think the filmmaker would be unanimous about a subtext, but considering the substantial gay presence and tolerant atmosphere of the Disney company (which provides employee benefits to both heterosexual and same-sex relationships), it would be practically impossible to argue that no one had such themes in mind.  There are no specifics about it, and in future years, after gay relationships have been "normalized", as the silly Ms. Skaggs would describe it, it's possible that the possibility of gay themes in films like FROZEN will be entirely unnoticed and instead applied to an entirely separate cause.
Whether or not FROZEN is a "pro-gay" film is unimportant though.  What is significant is how you react to the notion of it as a gay film.  If Elsa being intended as a gay character ruins the movie for you, I'd say you have a problem.  In a totally upfront way, it's a film about familial love, self-sacrifice and loving someone even in spite of their differences, and if you can't get with that moral just because the person you should be showing love for is gay, then you suck.  Elsa doesn't have to be gay, but why shouldn't she be?  That's what you should ask yourself.