The Perversion of Stories and the Shipwreck of Young Generations: Survival Thoughts

Dr Kmita looks at the effects of mass culture, music, movies, video games, and cartoons on the loss of faith amongst the young people of today.

From One Peter Five

By Robert Lazu Kmita, PhD

When we try to understand why young Catholics go through deep crises of faith, sometimes even abandoning the virtue of religion and their own Church, we realize that the answers addressing such problems have many facets. At the same time, if we read the analyses proposed by those engaged in this crucial discussion, we notice a few recurring elements. One of these constantly points to “mass culture.” Concretely, this refers to music, movies, video games, and even cartoons. As products of modern secular culture, most of these creations are often imbued with the relativist and vulgar spirit of our troubled times. Their influence is considerable, and the pseudo-values they transmit seriously weaken the faith of children and young people. To illustrate all these problematic aspects, I will present just one such creation below.

Launched in 2001 with great fanfare, the first creation in the Shrek franchise is one of those animated films made entirely with computer assistance. Featuring the voices of Eddie Murphy and Cameron Diaz, the animation—directed by Andrew Adamson and Vicky Jenson—is spiced up with references to everything that the (sub)cultural world of cinema and music offers us year after year. Wrapped in special effects and humorous, though often vulgar, gags, the plot of Shrek raises serious questions for anyone accustomed to classic fairy tales. Let’s take a closer look.

Near a grand kingdom lives an ego-centric ogre with only one wish: to be left alone. Enjoying all the delights of an isolated ogre’s existence (mud baths, an abundance of “delicacies”: worms, lizards, frogs, etc.), Shrek is occasionally disturbed by groups of villagers wishing to rid themselves of their fearsome neighbor. Luckily, the ogre seems to be fake: he doesn’t eat people. He simply sends his enemies back where they came from with a fierce tirade that never misses the chance to mock the heroes of traditional stories.

Everything remains the same until one day his peace is disturbed by the invasion of characters familiar to children of all times: the seven dwarfs and Snow White, the three little pigs, Pinocchio, the big bad wolf, and many, many others. They have been expelled from the neighboring kingdom by Lord Farquaad, a surly fellow, lacking imagination, and insecure about his tiny stature. Reminiscent for a moment of traditional plots, Shrek can regain his peace by making a deal with the petty tyrant: he must rescue Princess Fiona, held captive by a terrifying dragon.

In reality, Farquaad’s hidden plan is quite different: he wants to become a true king, something possible only through marriage to a real queen (and Fiona was a true princess). Accompanied by Donkey, Shrek sets out in search of the princess, whom he snatches from the monster’s clutches after some spectacular and comical adventures. Monster, did I say? In fact, it is a… female dragon. As in the black-and-white films of the 1930s, the unexpected intervenes, and the impossible happens: Fiona and Shrek fall in love. Despite their strong feelings, a misunderstanding separates them, and the princess ends up at the royal court where wedding preparations begin. Standing before the bishop who is officiating the ceremony, Farquaad and Fiona are startled by Shrek’s sudden appearance as he insists that the marriage be stopped. Without hesitation, he exposes the usurper’s selfish desire, which invalidated the union: he only wanted to marry in order to be legitimized as king.

Then comes the surprise: in childhood, Fiona was cursed to return each evening after sunset to the appearance of an ogress! Every night she would transform, only to regain her human form at dawn. Only a kiss of true love, like the one in Beauty and the Beast, could break the curse. She would remain forever in the form she had at the moment of the saving kiss: a woman if kissed during the day, an ogress if kissed at night. Thwarting Farquaad’s trick, she allows herself to be kissed by Shrek after sunset, remaining forever a “beast” and not a “beauty.” Furious at losing the marriage that would have legitimized him as king, Farquaad orders the arrest of the monstrous lovers. But the ending is not in his favor.

The female dragon, who had fallen in love with… Donkey, swoops in, carrying the flying beast, and saves the ogre couple. Shrek and Fiona kiss as newlyweds while the fairy-tale characters throw a monster-party to rock music. That, in short, is the story. Complete with a “happy ending.” Where do the problems lie?

First of all, although it appears to be a children’s film, Shrek is not actually that: the coarse expressions, the decidedly non-childlike jokes, the references to films and shows for adults can only leave children confused. Secondly, the “philosophy” of the film is even more problematic: if in Beauty and the Beast the monstrous appearance hides an enchanted prince (the theme of transformation being common in many classic fairy tales), in Shrek everything is systematically perverted, with the princess ultimately becoming an ogress in order to live happily ever after with her “tender” husband.

The idea is more than clear. There are no firm “values,” no absolute “good” or “evil,” but only relative ones, interchangeable depending on context. The mentality behind this kind of creation is the same that drives the harshest criticisms against authors like C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien, accused either of being bound to a misogynistic mindset or of proposing to their readers strong moral values embodied in clearly defined characters, good or evil.

The relativist mentality explains the systematic deconstruction of the classic fairy-tale structure carried out by the creators of Shrek. Everything is upside down. The dragon becomes female, the princess an ogress, and the ogre replaces the prince—the good hero. Faced with such creations, we can only ask ourselves in perplexity: how is it still possible to educate children in the relativistic atmosphere promoted by such productions? Accustomed from a young age to the idea that nothing is certain, that no one is truly good or evil, how will they guard themselves against vice and unruly passion? How will they resist and fight against evil, lies, and ugliness if even fairy tales are rewritten upside down?

Confronted with such mass cultural phenomena, every Christian parent must understand how important it is to cultivate a healthy imagination in their children. Though seemingly harmless at first glance, the hidden messages woven into the texture of a cartoon like Shrek have long-term effects. Images remain in children’s minds just as vividly as the orcs in Peter Jackson’s films. Without the discernment of a mature mind, all relativistic creations lead to confusion and, ultimately, to profound crises. Good and evil are not relative, nor are beauty and ugliness. This is a truth that postmodern culture ignores in the name of individualism.

Anyway, I don’t want to end on a pessimistic note. I would be unfair if, because of a single problematic cartoon, I did that. Actually, there are many such relativistic creations. How could it be otherwise in a culture that some sociologists and historians classify as “post-Christian”? Yet, there are also, even in the world of animation, creators who convey completely different values than those in Shrek. The name of Michaël Dudok de Wit, animator of masterpieces such as Father and Daughter (winner of the Academy Award for Best Animated Short Film in 2000) and The Monk and the Fish (1994), or those of Tomm Moore, Nora Twomey, Paul Young, Didier Brunner, Viviane Vanfleteren, and Fabrice Ziolkowski, who contributed to the making of the wonderful animated drama film The Secret of Kells (2009), immediately come to mind. Thus, by always discerning and offering our children and grandchildren what is truly good, true, and beautiful, we can move forward even through this world that so often seems to have forgotten its Christian roots.