An Analysis of Machiavellian Tyranny and Dictatorships in Children's Animation
HEADS UP!
I’m going to be spoiling both Shrek (2001) and Avatar: The Legend of Aang (2005-2008). Both are fantastic so give them a watch!
There’s going to be a few less images than I usually throw in for cadaDOSsemanas but hopefully you’ll still find this pretty entertaining to read!
Since at least as far back as Walt Disney’s “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs” in 1937 we’ve seen depictions of evil rulers in animation.
And that’s a looooong time.
In fact, the idea of an cartoon villain who doubles as the evil king or queen is pretty cliché at this point. So that got me thinking… how realistic are these evil rulers?
Our own histories are no stranger to tyrants, dictators, and other evil authoritarian figures, but you probably wouldn’t want to go into detail about all the horrifying mass murder, genocide and other horrible things people like Genghis Khan committed in your children’s movies. So, given that’s how most of these evil dictators were like in real-life, is it even possible to depict a realistic tyrant in animation?
Or more succinctly put:
Are there any real Machiavellian tyrants in Children’s Animation?
Well, that’s what we’ll be exploring today!
While I was researching this topic I sent out an email to Ed Hooks, who wrote a book called Acting for Animators, which I strongly recommend. (It’s honestly a favourite of mine!) Unlike most people who write books about animation he’s not an animator at all. He’s an actor and an acting teacher who helps animators convey and depict characters with a unique perspective.
So I asked him the following questions:
What do you believe makes a compelling tyrant on screen, particularly in animation?
In your experience, are there unique challenges in regards to portraying characters such as the evil dictator or king in animation and acting?
In many of your talks you speak about trying to understand how a character’s responses are formed, do you think that an understanding of history and political theory could help to inform an actor or animator’s decisions on how to best portray a character, and if so, how?
I received a lovely email in response, which is a bit too big and detailed for me to quote in full, but in that email he said the following:
“[…] Indeed, [villains] can look like a priest or your Uncle Bob. In big-studio mega-budget movies, the villains are usually immediately identifiable by sight. That is because those movies are often really selling theme parks and toys.
The trick to acting a villainous character is to keep in mind that villains do not think they are villains. They think they are heroes. […]”
Now, the idea that villain’s are the heroes of their own stories is not an uncommon one. If you’re interested in writing at all then you’ve then probably read similar statements yourself. What people think is right and wrong is ultimately subjective and the best villains tend to have their own set of beliefs and ideals which are in conflict with the protagonist’s.
But hang on, isn’t an idea like subjective morality a little bit too complicated for a kids film?
Well actually, maybe not. Let’s look at an example.
In the 2001 animated feature film Shrek, our villain is Lord Farquaad. During his reveal he’s shown in a dark, dingy and gruesome-looking torture chamber. (Or at least gruesome by the standards of a film that was certified “U” here in the UK.) So you know, pretty classic villain material.
He interrogates and tortures (in a cartoonish and comedic way) the Gingerbread Man who then calls Lord Farquaad a monster to which Farquaad just responds:
“I’m not the monster here. You are. You and the rest of that fairy tale trash, poisoning my perfect world.” Shrek (2001) [Emphasis Added]
So just as Ed Hook’s described, Lord Farquaad doesn’t think of himself as evil in spite of his clear villainy. He’s cruel, malicious and discriminatory towards these fairy-tale creatures, but his mind he’s doing it for the greater good. Because, in Lord Farquaad’s head, he and his land are perfect.
Lord Farquaad’s belief that his land of Duloc is in fact perfect is something that is referenced a few times during the film. Such as in the lyrics of the song ‘Welcome to Duloc’.
“Welcome to Duloc, such a perfect town.
[...]
Duloc is, Duloc is...
Duloc is a perfect place.” Shrek (2001) [Emphasis Added]
Perfect, indeed. ‘Welcome to Duloc’ serves as a piece of in-universe propaganda for Lord Farquaad and what he would (inaccurately) describe as his kingdom. By the inclusion of this song Shrek is able to paint a clear impression of the sort of town that Duloc truly is. This is because propaganda like this is very real and modern dictatorships, such as North Korea, use them constantly.
This is joked about in ironic memes on the internet and is referenced in a 2012 thesis by Megan L. Gill entitled ‘North Korea: The Role of Propaganda in the Sustainability of the Kim Regime’ where she also describes the existence North Korean propaganda which claims the country to be perfect.
So that settles it, Lord Farquaad and Duloc are perfect analogues to real world dictatorships and— No.
Just because some similarities exist doesn’t mean that everything is completely realistic and well…
Differences between the North Korean regime and Lord Farquaad’s rulership do unfortunately exist.
In Shrek, Lord Farquaad seems to completely buy into the idea that he and domain are the epitome of perfection but Gill wrote that
“it is unlikely that [the former ruler of North Korea, Kim Jong Il] believed the propaganda claiming his country was perfect and flourishing when it so obviously was not.” (Gill, 2012: p.55.)
So that’s not good, our real world example and our fictional example don’t seem to line up.
Does this mean that Lord Farquaad is actually an unrealistic depiction of a dictator?
Actually… no!
According to Niccolò Machiavelli (who wrote such a detailed analysis on the horrifying politics of rulership that it was at one point banned in much of the world) Lord Farquaad’s incompetence might actually be fairly realistic.
Writing about the numerous ways in which a prince (or really any ruler) can fail Machiavelli discusses how flattery and flatterers can inadvertently deceive a ruler into believing pleasant lies as opposed to unpleasant and necessary truths.
“[Flattery is] the almost unavoidable error which princes commit if they are not very prudent or do not select their ministers carefully [...] Since men are so engrossed in their own affairs and are so readily deceived by flatterers, it is difficult for them to ward off this pestilence. For there is no way to ward off flattery except to convince men that you are not offended by their telling you the truth.” (Machiavelli and Atkinson, 2008: p.349)
So while Machiavelli would advise Farquaad to take these unpleasant truths in stride, Lord Farquaad falls into the simple trap that Machiavelli describes. Farquaad frequently indulges himself in the flattery of his underlings and makes sure to remind others that he does take offence to others telling him truths that make him look bad.
When the Magic Mirror reminds him that because Farquaad isn’t a king his town of Duloc cannot be called a kingdom. Lord Farquaad does not respond kindly to this reminder. He promptly orders one of his men to smash a hand mirror in a threat to make the Magic Mirror… shall we say “reconsider” his statement.
As Farquaad perfectly demonstrates in this scene, he chooses to surround himself with only those who reinforce his belief that he and his country are both entirely without flaw.
So while Farquaad’s rulership certainly isn’t stable, it’s a surprisingly good depiction of an incompetent and failing dictatorship. Something that’s further emphasised by the ending of the film where Lord Farquaad is eaten alive by Dragon.
After an apparent regicide Lord Farquaad’s subjects display a complete lack of loyalty to him by celebrating his death.
His subjects quickly abandon their duties and cheer for the happy marriage of the couple who essentially just overthrew and murdered the government. This quick change in leadership and the relative lack of resistance after their leader was slain actually parallels the real-life Persian Empire. In The Prince, Machiavelli describes the Persian Empire as one where power was consolidated into a single leader. As a result, the successors of Darius III were not able to retain any power after the Persians were conquered by Alexander the Great.
Despite the fact that the sort of incompetence that Lord Farquaad displays are well-documented work of Machiavelli, Lord Farquaad cannot be considered a Machiavellian ruler. In the modern day the term Machiavellian is known to mean “someone who use cunning and conniving politics to establish serious political power”. This would mean that to be considered Machiavellian Farquaad would have to not simply display things that Machiavelli wrote about. Farquaad would have to actually heed his advice and recommendations rather than serving as a great negative example of his political teachings.
A truly Machiavellian villain might not actually be desirable though. At least in animation created for younger children though as there is a narrative importance in the protagonists triumphing over the evil villains is of great narrative importance. In a 1959 interview with David Griffiths, Walt Disney stresses the importance of simple villains whose goals and motivations can be understood by children, and how they are overcome by virtuous opposition.
“All the world’s great fairytales, it must be remembered, are essentially morality tales, opposing good and bad, virtue and villainy, in dramatic terms easily understood and approved by children. Without such clash of good and evil and the prevalence of goodness – of the good people – fairytales like Snow White, Cinderella, Pinocchio, Sleeping Beauty long since would have died because they would have had no meaning.” (cited in Hooks, 2017: pg.28)
While in the book The Dictator's Handbook: Why Bad Behavior is Almost Always Good Politics it is said that:
“it is surprisingly easy to grasp most of what goes on in politics as long as we are ready to adjust our thinking ever so modestly” (Bueno de Mesquita and Smith, 2012: p.1)
It’s pretty unlikely that the youngest of audiences that Walt Disney believed stories should be catered towards would be able to adjust their thinking and be able to understand politics like Mesquita and Smith describe.
So perhaps the answer is a simple “No.” When it comes to the question of “Are there any real Machiavellian tyrants in children’s animation?”
It was a fool’s errand all along to find a piece of children’s animation that perfectly captures and represents truly realistic Machiavellian villains…
… Unless of course there was some incredible, award-winning animated series aimed at children which contains perhaps some of the greatest and most memorable villains in modern animation…
Avatar: The Legend of Aang
(Or Avatar: The Last Airbender if you’re in the US or use Netflix)
Avatar: The Legend of Aang gives us a similar type dictator to Lord Farquaad from Shrek in Fire Lord Ozai, the ruler of the Fire Nation, from the 2005-2008 animated series Avatar: The Legend of Aang.
Later in the series, Ozai aspires to take over the world declaring himself the supreme ruler of the world in the 2008 episode of the show ‘Sozin’s Comet’ and to secure his reign he plans to destroy an opposing kingdom in its entirety. While this might seem to be cartoonishly violent political scientists Bruce Bueno de Mesquita and Alastair Smith described the effectiveness of similar actions in history writing:
“[Leaders] must take whatever actions are needed to [stay in power]. Successful leaders are not above repression, suppression, oppression, or even killing their rivals, real and imagined. [...] Genghis Khan (1162-1127) understood this principle. If he came across a town that did not immediately surrender to him, he killed everyone that lived there, and then made sure the next town knew he had done so. [..] [Ghengis Khan] doesn’t have the greatest reputation [...] but he most assuredly was a successful leader.” (Bueno de Mesquita and Smith, 2012: p.129)
Thus the character of Ozai can be seen to draw direct parallels in his actions to real-world tyrants and rulers. His ruthless dedication to his prolonged reign can even be seen in his parenting and the lessons he chooses to teach to his son Zuko in the 2005 episode ‘The Storm’. In this episode, the prince Zuko attends a meeting in the war chamber where he objects to a general’s plan involving sacrificing a division of troops. Such a strategy would have offered a distinct tactical advantage as is explained in the episode, but Zuko protests on moral grounds. Because of this Zuko is forced to duel with his father to defend his honour Zuko however, again Zuko refuses to go along with violent and brutish acts and his father banishes him from the Fire Nation.
Zuko’s inability to commit atrocious acts, while on the surface seemingly very noble, would make him an ineffective ruler in the eyes of a dictator wishing for his family to remain in power beyond his own life. Once again, Avatar: The Legend of Aang perfectly captures real-world political science and philosophy as Bueno de Mesquita and Smith write:
“Certainly anyone reluctant to be a brute will not last long if everyone knows he is unprepared to engage in the vicious behavior that may be essential to political survival. If an aspiring leader won’t do terrible things, they can be sure that there are plenty of others who will.” (Bueno de Mesquita and Smith, 2012: p.129)
A desire to turn Zuko into a worthy prince following his actions can be seen in the quest he is given if he ever wishes to return from his banishment.
Zuko’s quest is widely considered to be an impossible task. Another character, Admiral Zhao responds incredulously to the idea that Zuko is still searching for the Avatar asking him
“Did you really expect to [find the Avatar]? The Avatar died a hundred years ago.” (‘The Southern Air Temple’, Avatar: The Legend of Aang, 2005).
In the context of Machiavelli’s framework this can be understood as Ozai is quoted as having said that “By refusing to fight, Zuko had shown shameful weakness.” (‘The Storm’, Avatar: The Legend of Aang, 2005). By dishonouring himself in such a way in front of a crowd Zuko publicly acts in an undignified way, losing the respect of many of the onlookers including Admiral Zhao and his sister Azula. Showing strength and dignity is something that Machiavelli stresses the importance of stating that “[the dignity of a prince] must never be missing from any act.” (Machiavelli and Atkinson, 2008: p.341)
After disgracing himself in such a major way were Zuko to ever rise to the throne of the Fire Lord would find himself in a disadvantageous position as according to Machiavelli, “it is difficult to conspire against and attack someone who has such prestige [...] and [is] respected by his subjects.” (Machiavelli and Atkinson, 2008: p.289). And therefore conversely a man of little prestige who has lost the respect of his subjects is one who is easy to conspire against and easy to overthrow.
However, if Zuko were to successfully complete an impossible task he would almost certainly be heralded and respected by his subjects once again.
As Zuko puts it himself: “Once I deliver the Avatar to my father, he will welcome me home with honour and restore my rightful place on the throne.” (‘The Southern Air Temple’, Avatar: The Legend of Aang, 2005).
Machiavelli considered this sort of an outcome to be a complete certainty, writing:
“There is no doubt that princes become great when they overcome the handicaps and opposition imposed upon them.” (Machiavelli and Atkinson, 2008: p.323).
However, Ozai’s harsh treatment of Zuko after he spoke up in the war chamber is not just an attempt to harden Zuko’s resolve and his honour. It actually serves another purpose as well.
As the character Iroh explains to a group of Fire Nation soldiers in the same episode:
“Zuko was right, you see? But it was not his place to speak out. [...] After Zuko’s outburst in the meeting [...] [the Fire Lord] said that prince Zuko’s challenge of the general was an act of complete disrespect. [...] Zuko had spoken out against the general’s plan, but by doing so in the Fire Lord’s war room, it was the Fire Lord whom he had disrespected.” (‘The Storm’, Avatar: The Legend of Aang, 2005)
As the ruler of the Fire Nation and with many other powerful individuals maintaining an image of power and hierarchy requires a great deal of respect. What Iroh explains about the attitude of the Fire Lord is a nearly identical lesson to one Machiavelli sought to teach in The Prince;
“when everyone can tell you the truth you lose respect.” (Machiavelli and Atkinson, 2008: p.349).
From these numerous comparisons we can see a shockingly accurate depiction of an animated dictator adhering to Machiavellian politics.
… And as the writing of Machiavelli, Bueno de Mesquita and Smith would all predict, the Fire Lord and the Fire Nation are shown to be incredibly successful in their domination. In the show the Fire Nation is at war with the Water Tribe and Earth Kingdom, the two next largest states in the world of Avatar: The Legend of Aang, and it is said that “The Fire Nation is nearing victory.” (‘The Boy in the Iceberg’, Avatar: The Legend of Aang, 2005). By the climax of the series, it is even said that “[the Fire Nation] pretty much won the war when they took Ba Sing Se.” (‘Sozin’s Comet’, Avatar: The Legend of Aang, 2008).
Another character in the show who appears to share the same Machiavellian philosophy as Ozai is his daughter and the sister of Zuko, Azula.
On the subject of how a ruler should be perceived Machiavelli said that:
“it is much safer to be feared than loved.” (Niccolò Machiavelli and Atkinson, 2008: p.271).
This is a philosophy that Azula explicitly and routinely follows. She uses instills fear in her subjects as a method of control.
In the episode ‘Return to Omashu’ after the character Ty Lee declines to join Azula. So Azula orders for Ty Lee’s acrobatics show to be made life-threateningly dangerous through the addition of fire and dangeous exotic animals. This quickly encourages Ty Lee to reconsider her previous decision and she quickly joins forces with Azula.
Much later in the series, when Azula’s allies turn on her in a later episode she roars in rage at them.
“You should’ve feared me more!” (‘The Boiling Rock’, Avatar: The Legend of Aang, 2006)
Azula is then quick to make examples of her traitorous former allies. She orders for their punishment in front of her other subjects without hesitation. This again perfectly demonstrates her Machiavellian principles to the audience. She understands that if she allows treason to go unpunished the fear that she holds over her subjects will soon fade, because as Machiavelli says:
“[...] fear is supported by a dread of retribution” (Niccolò Machiavelli and Atkinson, 2008: p.273)
… And thus she demonstrates to her subjects that her threats are not empty and that people must continue to fear her if they care for their safety and lives.
Although Azula has many Machiavellian qualities she cannot be considered a completely Machiavellian villain due to her fatal flaw.
Similarly to Zuko, Azula earns no respect from her subjects. Azula is despised by those who know her. Even her usually calm and affable Uncle Iroh says that
“[Azula is] crazy, and she needs to go down.” [Emphasis Added] (‘Bitter Work’, Avatar: The Legend of Aang, 2006).
Due to such widespread animosity towards Azula many of those who would normally fear her repercussion feel safe in acting against her. In The Prince, Machiavelli makes note that a prestigious prince is only difficult to conspire against so long as “he is an excellent man and respected by his subjects.” (Machiavelli and Atkinson, 2008: p.289).
A willingness to defy Azula as her demands and punishments become more unhinged can be seen in the episode ‘Sozin’s Comet’. Azula begins enacting disproportionately cruel methods of punishment towards her subjects, in one instance banishing one of her subjects for failing to remove the pit from a single cherry in a bowl of many. After this Azula orders other character Lo to be banished from the Fire Nation, while incorrectly pointing at her sister Li whom she says will be allowed to remain. The two characters respond only with confusion instead of any real fear of retribution.
The Fire Nation itself, to which Ozai and Azula belong also shares many similarities with the Ottoman Empire - a state which Machiavelli also compared to the Darius III’s empire where a single ruler held absolute power and other figures of importance are merely easily replaceable servants of the ruler. Machiavelli wrote that for that reason
“it would be difficult to acquire the [Ottoman Empire], but, once conquered, it would be very easy to hold on to.” (Machiavelli and Atkinson, 2008: p.129).
The difficulty of conquering and defeating the Fire Nation is made evident countless times throughout the series. From the very beginning of the series the ultimate goal of the protagonists is to defeat the Fire Nation. A feat which is ultimately only accomplished with the help of two other nations, a secret society comprised of several of the most powerful individuals in the world, and an ancient spiritual art that requires an entirely indomitable spirit which ultimately renders the leader of the Fire Nation inert, in the series finale ‘Sozin’s Comet’.
… And, as Machiavelli predicted would happen, Zuko is seen rising to the throne of the Fire Nation with ease and with no indication of strong rival factions seeking to challenge his rulership. (At least within the animated series itself.)
So in conclusion, I think we can see that the answer to the question whether or not it’s possible to depict a Machiavellian character in children’s animation is a resounding “Yes.”
It just might not always be desirable.
While aspects of Machiavelli’s works shine through in all of the previously explored examples, the needs of the demographic and narrative often require that villains not be entirely Machiavellian to ensure their ultimate failure and downfall.
But at the end of the day even the most incompetent and comedic of villains like Lord Farquaad himself can teach both our us and our children important lessons about the politics of being a truly Machiavellian tyrant.
Reece Morgado, todolaMEDIA
Bibliography
‘Bitter Work’ Avatar: The Last Airbender (2006) Directed by E. Spaulding. Available from: Netflix.
Bueno de Mesquita, B. and Smith, A., 2012. The Dictator's Handbook. New York: PublicAffairs.
Gill, M., 2012. North Korea: The Role of Propaganda in the Sustainability of the Kim Regime. Georgetown University, [online]. Available at: <http://hdl.handle.net/10822/557700> [Accessed 27 November 2020].
Hooks, E., 2017. Craft Notes For Animators: A Perspective On A 21St Century Career. 1st ed. Routledge.
Machiavelli, N. and Atkinson, J., 2008. Prince. Indianapolis: Hackett Pub. Co.
‘Return to Omashu’ Avatar: The Last Airbender (2006) Directed by E. Spaulding. Available from: Netflix.
Shrek. 2001. Directed by A. Adamson and V. Jenson. [film]. DreamWorks Pictures.
‘Sozin’s Comet’ Avatar: The Last Airbender (2008) Directed by E. Spaulding, G. Volpe and J. Dos Santos. Available from: Netflix.
‘The Boiling Rock’ Avatar: The Last Airbender (2008) Directed by J. Dos Santos. Available from: Netflix.
‘The Boy in the Iceberg’ Avatar: The Last Airbender (2005) Directed by D. Filoni. Available from: Netflix.
‘The Southern Air Temple’ Avatar: The Last Airbender (2005) Directed by L. MacMullan. Available from: Netflix.
‘The Storm’ Avatar: The Last Airbender (2005) Directed by L. MacMullan. Available from: Netflix.
So this was a weird post. There weren’t any of the usual cheeky pieces of graphic design littering the page and breaking up the pacing all throughout the blog.
Well that’s because this was originally written as an essay which I wrote while studying animation.
Back then is was a little bit more formal and academic-like, but still had some really interesting insights that I felt would be fun to explore and talk about here on todolaMEDIA too!
While academic writing and these big research projects based on lots of historical and other academic literature aren’t really my strong point this was a lot of fun for me to write. I can’t say I have another one planned out just yet but I’m feeling like there might be another one yet to come so if you’re interested make sure you give todolaMEDIA or me a follow on one of those fancy social media things where I post about the stuff I’m working on like this.
I post fun and creative blogs about topics about animation, productivity and just general creativity every two weeks in a series I call cadaDOSsemanas which is coincidentally what you’re reading right now. So if that sounds like your jam make sure you check out more!
And now, one last thing before you go we have something else to do. Every two weeks I’m ending these blog posts with a lovely short piece of animated media that you can watch online for free so it’s time for…
The Biweekly Recommendation
f l y by Briana Krzeminski
Briana is perhaps one of the most lovely people I’ve ever met. Her bubbly attitude and contagious enthusiasm inspires me every time I speak with her.
Her short film, “f l y” charmed me with it’s lovingly painted backgrounds and visuals. Coming from an illustration background as opposed to animation it’s certainly rough around the edges in places but “f l y” just oozes so much charm and a heart-melting level of cuteness that I can’t bring myself to care too much.
Briana Krzeminski’s “f l y” truly captures a feeling of childlike wonder and is well worth two and a half minutes of your time.