Oh, okay. I thought her super hearing allowed her to hear the rats speak a human language while everyone else just heard squeaking because it is common for animals in Disney movies to be able to talk to each other but not to normal humans.
Check out my forum game: Rate the above YMMV.
That's true but given that this story specifically gives Antonio the gift of Speaks Fluent Animal and the gifts don't overlap, it's fair to say Dolores can't hear rats talking but was just hearing Bruno instead.
I'm going to update the Amplified Animal Aptitude example and remove Dolores' Speaks Fluent Animal.
The No Antagonist trope has been added a few times to the Encanto main story page but it does not apply to this film.
An antagonist does not have to be a villain, evil, or filled with malice. In narrative terms an antagonist is simply a character that opposes the protagonist. The pair doesn't have to be good guy vs bad guy. They may even have the same well-intentioned goals (in this case, protecting the Encanto and the miracle) but they simply try to achieve those goals differently such that they are in conflict.
The definition page for the trope even affirms... "No Antagonist" means Exactly What It Says on the Tin. If one or more sentient beings get in the way of the protagonists/main characters, however well-intentioned they are and however justified their actions, it is not an example.
In Encanto, Mirabel is the protagonist. Alma opposes her efforts and is the antagonist. Thus the trope No Antagonist is not in play in this story and should not be added as an entry.
Hide / Show Replies
^ Agreed, and I'd also like to add this from No Antagonist:
Originally, the entry was as follows:
Personally, I think that this interpretation is more accurate and makes sense from a narrative perspective: the husband and father's Heroic Sacrifice gives birth to the miracle that will protect his family.
Anyway, the entry was later changed to:
I think that this one misses the point in the first sentence, and that the second sentence is irrelevant to the trope.
Thoughts?
- Fly, robin, fly! - ...I'm trying! Hide / Show Replies
I kind of think the interpretation part is a problem here. Unless there's a Word of God one way or the other, I don't see how we can decide if the miracle was caused by Pedro's death or Alma's grief. And yes, I agree the second part is irrelevant.
^ Fair point. I guess that since the miracle's origin is open to interpretation, it might be better to leave it out of the example entirely, or add it under Ambiguous Situation or something like that.
- Fly, robin, fly! - ...I'm trying!
The exact cause of the miracle is open to interpretation. The screenplay implies Alma was more of the active agent with her highly emotional prayer. She had just watched her husband be killed in front of her and now the horsemen were bearing down on her and triplets.
"As the horses approach, Abuela sinks to her knees... tears to her eyes... begging the earth to spare the lies of her babies. Praying for salvation. And suddenly... the ground around her begins to glow... the candle fills with magic... and the villians are blown back... We see abuela... crying... heartbroken, but saved."
However, I've always been fine seeing it as a combined emotional trigger for the miracle... Pedro's brave willingness to try and stop the horsemen even though he knew he could die along with Alma's grief over his death and fear for her children.
But this does mean that Pedro did not accomplish a Heroic Sacrifice as tvtropes defines it. So his death is part of the origin story but not the central hub of the miracle and ultimately his death weighs the most on Alma which drives her origin as the firm, stoic matriarch of the family. The children never knew Pedro and his influence on them is through what Alma shares with them.
Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but why is this media listed as "Western Animation" when (IMO) it pretty clearly belongs in "Film - Animated"? This is not a TV show, it's a feature-length film.
Hide / Show Replies
Because Film-Animated is a Media Category, used to organize examples on trope pages. Namespaces are an entirely different thing. Both movies and and TV shows are created under the WesternAnimation namespace.
The gaslighting entry has been revised several times and upon reflection and re-reading the definition, I don't believe that gaslighting is the appropriate trope for what's going on.
- Gaslighting: Mirabel interrupts Antonio's party to shout about cracks in the walls everywhere, but when others take a look, everything seems fine; Alma declares that the magic is strong and so are the drinks. Later, Mirabel overhears her talking to Pedro's portrait and lamenting the cracks in their casita, meaning Alma knowingly denied Mirabel's correct perception of reality. The movie never indicates that she intends to drive Mirabel insane but she's dead-set on hiding the vulnerabilities of her family and their magic, while the terrified Mirabel says that the house is in danger for all of the townsfolk to hear.
The most general definition of gaslighting is "denying someone's perceptions of reality in order to cause confusion, anguish, and paranoia".
After Maribel finishes "Waiting for a Miracle" we see, along with Mirabel, cracks appear in the Casita. We see Mirabel burst into the party shouting about the house being in danger, tiles falling, cracks everywhere, and the candle almost went out. But when Alma and the rest of the party come into the open area, there's absolutely no evidence for any of Mirabel's claims.
We see Alma cut Mirabel's protests short and declare that nothing is wrong with La Casa Madrigal and that the magic is strong.
Later, when Alma has her prayer to Pedro we overhear that she laments about cracks in the Casita and asks for his help to figure out what's going on. The fact that she calls her family vulnerable suggests she's seen many cracks appear over time and she's not just reacting solely to Mirabel's outburst that evening. In fact, unless Alma had seen cracks before, she really had no reason to take Mirabel's claims seriously.
To me, this doesn't count as gaslighting because:
1) Alma is not intentionally trying to cause Mirabel to feel confusion, anguish, and paranoia.
2) Alma is not the active agent who causes the cracks to appear then disappear in order for Mirabel to see them and then not be believed.
3) Mirabel's outburst followed by a lack of any evidence doesn't really give Alma a good opportunity to publicly support Mirabel especially given Alma's character arc which is based on the fear of the miracle dying.
4) At most Alma is guilty of not sharing all that she knows. In other words, she lied to Mirabel and did not try to talk to Mirabel afterwards.
In my opinion, I don't think gaslighting is truly in play here.
Lying... yes.
Failure to confide in Mirabel after Antonio's party... yes.
Poor Communication Kills... yes.
But actual gaslighting... no.
I believe the trope should be removed.
However, if there's a feeling that the trope should remain on the list because Alma actively denies anything is wrong with the Casita when she apparently is aware that the Casita has been cracking at some point, I'm ok with the listing staying but it really needs to point out that it is a downplayed version of the trope and explain why.
Edited by rva98014 Hide / Show Replies
I do think it should still be on the list because even though Alma's reason for doing so was to hide any weakness from the community rather than specifically to harm Mirabel's mental state, she flatly contradicts Mirabel's accurate account with the result that Mirabel is publicly humiliated and doubts her perception of reality. This fits with a larger pattern of Mirabel being marginalized and treated as The Unfavorite. Even her mother implies that Mirabel is, if not making it up, at least seeing things due to stress. What seals it for me is the overheard prayer. If not for that, it might be reasonable for Alma to doubt Mirabel's claims, but the prayer makes it clear to me that Alma knows Mirabel is telling the truth, but deliberately makes the decision to let Mirabel and the rest of the town think she's crazy or attention-seeking for the sake of her reputation. I'm good with it being marked as downplayed because she didn't intentionally set out to drive Mirabel crazy, but it was still an intentional action, she did set out to discredit Mirabel in the eyes of the family and town, and the result was the same.
Edited by Gitman
I'll probably be slow to respond because I'm busy, but I think I have my two cents to put in. :)
First off, I don't mean to vilify anyone; I sympathize a lot with both Mirabel and Alma. However, Alma's a flawed person, and to my understanding, her realizing and overcoming her screw-ups is the point of her character arc. So, I think it's reasonable to point out her screw-ups in our entries, and we should keep the one about gaslighting.
To my knowledge, the gist of gaslighting is knowingly denying someone's correct perception of reality, and that's what Alma does in this scene. She doesn't cause cracks with a plan to make them disappear after Mirabel sees them but it's enough that she either believes Mirabel or knows she's right, yet Alma implies Mirabel is drunk or something and thus can't be trusted. Alma does cause her anguish and confusion, judging by Mirabel's talk with her mother.
I believe Alma doesn't mean to drive Mirabel crazy: such malice doesn't add up with the rest of her characterization (or my understanding of it, anyway.) However, being inconsiderate, wrapped up in her fears, and unwittingly harming her family while trying to protect it is her whole problem.
As I said in my edit reason, abuse can be done unwittingly. Well, if we get technical, TV Tropes description of gaslighting doesn't say this, though UsefulNotes.Abuse does (see "Abuse is always intentionally or mindfully performed on the part of the abuser" in the section about myths and misconceptions.)
Because of this, I'm not sure the trope is downplayed, so when I edited the entry, I thought it was better to remove the "downplayed" wick, and I rewrote that last sentence to point out the context of Alma's action anyway. But I guess the wick wasn't harming anything; I can put it back.
edit: fixed a link
Edited by Tenebrika
Oh wait, I think I found words for my reason why I was hesitant to call this a downplayed example!
I think it's safe to say that Mirabel is already terrified after seeing the cracks and all that, and instead of getting any comfort from her family, she gets brushed aside as well as publically humiliated, as Gitman already pointed out. This is quite a bit of anguish and confusion, and this is a direct and obvious consequence of Alma denying her perception of reality. Again, I'm willing to be as charitable as I can and say that Alma didn't deliberately set Mirabel up for this and didn't set out to hurt her — but Alma still uses the technique and produces the results. I'd be fine with putting "downplayed" on a mild case of abuse but this, honestly, doesn't feel mild.
edit: fixed a typo
Edited by Tenebrika
One of the trickiest parts of figuring out whether a character is gaslighting is that so many people nowadays have very different ideas of what "gaslighting" is, some of which are much more serious accusations than others. The trope page itself says the word "has undergone a certain amount of lexical devaluation" and people now use it in situations ranging from abusive cases of long-term manipulation to innocent cases of genuine differences in perception and memory, with at least one party sincerely misremembering something. (That's not what's going on here, because Alma shows later on that she did think Mirabel's account was accurate. I bring it up to help illustrate why this is such a tricky conversation.) I think this might be a topic for a Trope Talk forum
.
(Edit: changed some formatting, changed wording of the second sentence for better clarity)
Edited by bookworm11
Taking into consideration the feedback presented here. I have a suggested wording for the Gaslighting entry that acknowledges that we have an unusual case of the trope in play but still points out that Alma is wiling to leave Mirabel confused as to what she saw.
- Gaslighting: Played with. When Mirabel sees the numerous cracks appear throughout the Casita, they magically heal up of their own accord before anyone else can see them. So we aren't dealing with a standard example of the trope. However, during Alma's prayer to Pedro later that night we learn that she was already aware that there have been cracks in the Casita before and fears for the loss of their home. So, although Alma didn't see Mirabel's cracks specifically, when Alma cuts off Mirabel and declares the magic is strong it signals to the audience that Alma finds it more important to hide the vulnerabilities of her family and their magic, than supporting Mirabel. Alma is willing to leave Mirabel confused and questioning what she saw to in order to preserve "La Familia Madrigal".
Thoughts?
Edited by rva98014
^^ Good point. I've read a book that lumped together a bunch of psychological abuse techniques and called them all gaslighting. Also, the term is often criticized for being a Non-Indicative Name: gaslighting surely doesn't have to involve light or gas.
^ Um, your rewrite seems confused to me. It looks more like another post in our discussion and less like a description of what happens, while it should be a description: an entry should make sense even to people not familiar with the work.
It's not easy to parse how gaslighting applies in the first place: the entry talks about the cracks appearing and disappearing, says it's a non-standard example, retells Alma's prayer that is heard later, comes back to her not seeing Mirabel's cracks, then finally mentions Alma cutting Mirabel off (entry doesn't mention Mirabel talking about the cracks in the first place) and saying the magic is strong.
If you open your entry saying it's played with, I believe it's redundant to say, "So we aren't dealing with a standard example of the trope" in the third sentence. Also, at this point, it sounds like it's a non-standard example because it involves a magic house.
This, "magically heal up of their own accord before anyone else can see them" is speculative. It's possible, and I myself think so — but the movie doesn't show this. From this entry, one can easily get the impression that the movie shows the cracks healing, and Mirabel sees it.
Similarly, Alma being "already aware that there have been cracks in the Casita before" is not stated in the movie.
This, "Alma finds it more important to hide the vulnerabilities of her family and their magic, than supporting Mirabel" and next, "Alma is willing to leave Mirabel confused and questioning what she saw to in order to preserve "La Familia Madrigal"" say almost the same thing.
Your opening post in this discussion is rather well-structured, and the rewrite really isn't. I didn't expect this from you.
And a little thing: to me, it's odd to say Alma prays to Pedro: he's not a god or a saint or something. Do I miss something indicating it's really a prayer?
edit: added a missed preposition
Edited by Tenebrika
If my last comment seems unstructured, it's because I was trying to take everyone's perspectives into account and it's quite difficult given the lexical devaluation of the term against all that happens in the movie.
Remember, my vote was simply to remove the entry for gaslighting entirely.
To summarize:
Mirabel sees cracks, runs into party shouting, everyone comes out. There's no physical evidence to support her claims. Alma steps in and says the magic is strong and dismisses Mirabel.
At that moment in the story, from Alma's POV, she's justified in denying Mirabel's perception due to a complete lack of evidence and the fact that there is a reasonable motivation for Mirabel to be "seeing things" right after Antonio's successful gift ceremony. We, the audience, know Mirabel's telling the truth but no one else does.
At this point, no gaslighting is occurring according to the basic definition of the term. Alma was not trying to affect Mirabel's mental state, Alma was not the active agent in making the cracks go away, nor did she have a strong reason to believe Mirabel's claim.
But wait... later that evening, we overhear Alma's prayer, conversation, whatever to Pedro in which she talks about cracks and the family being vulnerable. This implies that Alma either (1) has some kind of previous awareness of the Casita having cracks which disappear (this is possible because Bruno's been repairing cracks for a decade) or (2) she believes there's some truth to what Mirabel claims.
If (1), this implies that earlier in the evening Alma had knowledge that what Mirabel claimed to see could have happened even though Alma had nothing to prove it to herself that it really did happen as Mirabel claimed but choose to ignore it to preserve the Madrigal family image.
If (2), it shows Alma was more interested in preserving the Madrigal family image than supporting and believing her grand-daughter.
It's a convoluted situation. It requires looking at the scene as it actually plays out, then gaining some new information, and revisiting the earlier scene to say that something kinda-like gaslighting occurred. Plus it requires a complex wall of text explanation to layout all that's occurring.
In my opinion, a more solid situation is Alma lied to cover her fear that the Casita was crumbling and Mirabel was the collateral damage. Just because the result is something similar to what occurs in gaslighting doesn't make it a solid example of that trope.
I hold that what occurs is too much of a deviation to the standard definition of gaslighting and the trope should just be left out of the list.
Edited by rva98014
...Okay. My position hasn't changed. I believe the trope applies because:
- Alma uses the technique: she denies Mirabel's accurate perception of reality.
- Alma achieves the result: anguish and confusion.
- Abuse is not always done intentionally. Also, while hurting Mirabel isn't the goal, Alma still decides to throw her under the bus.
Let's wait for more opinions, I guess. Or maybe I'll get around to asking in Trope Talk but this won't happen until next week at least.
Edit: changed wording to improve clarity, hopefully.
Edited by Tenebrika
^ I don't think that definition is the one used by most tropers. Under that one, someone who accidentally perpetuates a Fandom-Enraging Misconception or a Mandela Effect may be gaslighting if it ends up confusing and/or upsetting someone, and in my experience, the term is usually meant to be describe situations with at least some sort of manipulative intent involved. (The term "abuse" is a different matter.)
Add in that there was recently a completely unrelated ATT that spawned a disagreement between tropers about what the word means, I'm starting to think that trying to hammer out some sort of site-standard definition at a Trope Talk forum might not just be useful, but necessary.
So this is an issue that could potentially spark a lot of discussion and we may need to elevate up to ATT or some other discussion forum, but for now I thought we'd start here.
The issue is Pedro and whether his sacrifice counts as a Heroic Sacrifice.
First off it belongs up here on the story page as it's something he did as part of the narrative rather than being down in his character section.
Second was it really a Heroic Sacrifice? There is no doubt that what he did was noble and courageous, but in confronting the faceless horsemen he didn't stop them but got cut down by a machete off-screen. Alma reacted in grief so could see his murder take place meaning she didn't use the time he bought her to try and escape or hide.
At best he bought a few minutes for the villagers. If the candle had not ignited with the miracle, the fate of Alma and the triplets could have been tragic. But this is something neither Alma or Pedro could have expected.
It seems that Pedro's better choice to save his wife and children would have been to put out the candle and lead them off the path into the heavy bush of the dark forest where the horsemen (who did not have torches) would have been at a serious disadvantage.
It's unfortunate, but as Fridge Logic sets in, Pedro's actions come across as more of Senseless Sacrifice with a subversion that Alma is saved by the candle/miracle not Pedro.
I'm proposing this entry:
- Senseless Sacrifice: Pedro's attempt to block the faceless horsemen, while noble and courageous, only results in his death. Alma's scream of grief on the riverside leaves her and triplets exposed should the horsemen press on. It's subverted only because the candle ignites in a miracle that sends the horseman flying and raises the mountains to form a protective valley for her and the other fleeing villagers.
Feedback?
EDIT: Ok this has been up for 4 days with no comments or feedback even after I sent invites to various tropers. So I'm going to roll this onto the main page to describe's Pedro's action. I am also going to go through the main & chracter pages and any example that has Pedro listed as Heroic Sacrifice will be changed to just sacrifice.
Edited by rva98014 Hide / Show Replies
So, I have been asked by message why I removed this, and I feel I'm going to dissent here so as to put it to the public.
A senseless sacrifice is when a sacrifice doesn't accomplish anything- obviously, it does here. What's relevant is if this is a subverted senseless sacrifice. Which it isn't- there is no senseless aspect shown.
To subvert a senseless sacrifice, you need to first show it as a senseless sacrifice. Which the film doesn't. You'd need a scene where the riders move past his body and raises the sword at Alma or something similar, before the miracle kicks in. This doesn't happen- after a few seconds of of alma crying, the miracle stops the riders. The riders don't attack, bear down or otherwise act between then. This is clearly shown to be a heroic sacrifice- he dies and, in doing so, saves the community and his family.
Now, granted, there is the Fridge Horror of what would have happened if the miracle hadn't happened. But this is on the same level as "if Pela causes hurricanes when stressed, wouldn't that cause serious damage"- maybe, but it would clearly be silly to put her as a Person Of Mass Destruction. She might be one in reality, but she isn't one in the movie.
Headscratchers and Fridge Horror have their own page for "wait, how did that work?", but the main page is for the tropes in the movie. In the movie, Pedros death is a straightforward Heroic Sacrifice, with no indication it wouldn't work. Later thought may bring it up, but that's a different tab to the main one.
I propose we change all of this back to heroic sacrifice, maybe with a fridge logic addendum about how this doesn't make a huge amount of sense. But whether or not it makes sense upon further consideration, the trope being used here is heroic sacrifice.
Edited by Urbenmyth
Summarizing the three sacrifices here on tvtropes.
Heroic Sacrifice - A character saves another/others from harm and is killed, crippled, or maimed as a result.
Senseless Sacrifice - a character willingly sacrifices them-self so that others may live but the others die anyway.
Stupid Sacrifice - If the character in question sacrificed himself to accomplish a goal, when he could have accomplished the same goal without dying.
It's obvious that we're supposed to think of Pedro's stand against the nameless horsemen as a Heroic Sacrifice.
However, that didn't sit right with me because Pedro failed to stop the horsemen, Alma didn't take any time to run or hide, and when the candle sends out it's burst of magic, we see that the horsemen are charging toward the river directly toward the candle.
This means that if the miracle hadn't occurred, Alma would have shared the same fate as her husband and Pedro had no way of knowing a miracle would occur when he stood against the horsemen.
Admittedly this all happens very quickly and can require multiple viewings to piece it all together. However, the full screen play of the movie was dropped a few days ago which makes the events at the river much clearer.
"Pedro races back to beg the men on horseback to let them live. They listen to his plea... and ignore it. And just like that... Pedro is lost."
... and then...
"As the horses approach, Abuela sinks to her knees... tears in her eyes... begging the earth to spare the lives of her babies. Praying for salvation. She puts her hand INTO THE SOIL. And suddenly... the ground around her begins to glow... the candle fills with magic... and the villains are blown back... We see Abuela... crying... heartbroken, but saved."
Reviewing the movie itself in conjunction with the script makes it apparent that there's no question what Pedro did was noble and brave, but ultimately it only resulted in his death. As the horsemen are now charging toward Alma she now shares the same fate. Hence a courageous but Senseless Sacrifice from Pedro.
However, the Deus ex Machina from the candle saves Alma which makes it a Subverted Senseless Sacrifice.
I stand by that trope and suggest that it be left as is.
Edited by rva98014
While Dolores rightfully deduced that Bruno never left Encanto, I don't think she actually knew that Bruno was living inside the walls. No Madrigals, except Mirabel and Antonio, seemed to be aware that there exists a "Bigger on the Inside" world within the walls apart from the bedrooms.
There is a new entry for
I think an example can be made that Bruno's rats do show this trope given how they are shown using tools in Bruno's room and can explain to Antonio what's going on. However, the example is focused on them being able to speak which I don't feel the story really supports.
We never see the rats talking and the only implication we have that they do talk is Dolores who tells Mirabel... "The only one worried about the magic is you and the rats talking in the walls".
The challenge here is that Dolores is shown to be an unreliable source of information. By the end of the story, she claims that she always knew about Bruno being in the walls and has been keeping that a secret for years.
Given the script has the line written as "The only one worried about the magic is you... and the rats talking in the walls... (BIZARRE, A BEAT)". It seems the writers were intending to have her statement about "talking rats" come across to the audience as an odd thing to say.
I suspect that Dolores was actually referring to hearing Bruno talking about the magic behind the walls, but she didn't want to share that information with Mirabel so she changes the source to the rats even though it make no sense why they would be worried or able to talk. However, this fits into Dolores' line in "We don't talk about Bruno" where she says "I can always hear him sort of muttering and mumbling".
In short, I don't think Dolores heard rats talking in the walls nor can she Speaks Fluent Animal because that is Antonio's gift. I think she was just wanting to gossip to Mirabel but not reveal that she knew about Bruno.
So, I'd modify the current example to focus on the rats using tools in Bruno's room and being able to explain to Antonio what's been going on but leave out the bit about Dolores.
I'd also remove the recently added Speaks Fluent Animal trope to Dolores' character section because I don't think she has that power. That's Antonio's gift and we're shown that the gifts don't duplicate.
Edited by rva98014 Hide / Show Replies