One of the challenges that occurs when cataloging the tropes of a work that has a large cast is the tendency to start going through the many 3, 4, and 5 person tropes and start assigning characters to those tropes.
When doing this you have to make sure of two things...
1) Do the characters fit well into the personality types required by the trope?
2) Most importantly, Do these characters actually function as the group trope in a way that is meaningful to the story??
Number 2 is essential as to whether the trope is actually in play.
For Encanto we have three entries for Freudian Trio that all basically fail number 2.
The Freudian Trio consists of three characters: one who acts emotionally and instinctively (id), one who acts with cold, passionless logic who follows the rules and social conventions (superego) and one who reconciles the two conflicting ideals (ego).
One of the classic examples of this trope in play during story telling is in Star Trek. Bones (id), Spock (superego), and Kirk (ego).
The first example proposes Julieta (superego), Pepa (id) and Bruno (ego). These three don't function as a Freudian Trio because that aren't even together and interacting until the last few minutes of the film and even then they are celebrating Bruno's return or rebuilding the Casita. Bruno is never seen trying to balance Julieta or Pepa's ideals.
The next example proposes Dolores (ego), Camilo (id), Antonio (superego). Again, they don't serve as a Freudian Trio to the story. Once Antonio's gift ceremony is over, he basically disappears from the story until the Bruno vision ritual, so he's never shown to try and present the need for rules/social conventions into the story. Camilo is too busy being a smarmy 15-year kid to offer any emotional perspective to the story and Dolores isn't shown in any reconciliation-type mode and basically adds to the chaos during the proposal dinner.
The final example suggests Isabela (superego), Luisa (ego), Mirabel (id). While Mirabel does interact with each sister separately during the course of the story, they aren't functioning as a Freudian Trio to Mirabel's quest. Both Isabela and Luisa are shown struggling emotionally with the pressure of Alma's expectations. Luisa certainly never shows a balance but instead veers off into despair and while Isabela is aloof, we learn that it's simply a mask she wears as she is really more of a passionate artist.
In short, all three examples should be removed because a Freudian Trio never comes into play in the service of the story. This is more of a case of seeing three sets of three siblings and pushing them into this trope more because there are three characters than because the trope is actually in play.
Hide / Show Replies
You make a solid statement. I guess I was just thinking more of grouping the children of a certain couple together rather than imagining them as an actual trip.
Do I need to talk to someone first to remove that trope from the page or can I just go ahead and do it?
Edited by JSB-ABC-132
What you did was understandable. There are a lot of character grouping tropes out there and since our brains love to find patterns everywhere it's easy to start overapplying them.
However, we always need to keep in mind, is the trope in play for these characters in service to the story?
Since you added the entries initially, you are free to remove them whenever you wish.
Does Isabela really qualify as a Perky Goth? I rewatched the movie and while her bodice does turn mostly black during her music number, it seems more like a side effect of her experimentation with new plants versus intentional. The black is messy just like the other colors on her body and you can still see the bits of the original purple on her sleeves. When she actually DOES change her dress at the end, it becomes almost completely bright blue with orange, yellow, and green accents. Wouldn't that put her more in the True Blue Femininity category?
Edited by Elemiel Hide / Show Replies
Isabela is not a Perky Goth. The trope even defines such a character as "She wears the clothes, but her personality is always cheerful and amiable."
Isabela is not dressed as a Goth just because she has some black on her dress.
She's the girl who felt she had to live up to being the perfect Girly Girl image her whole life but during "What More Can I do" discovers that she like to play in the mud, gets dirty with pollen and likes the artistic, multi-colored look.
She not really True Blue Femininity either. More like a conservative girl suddenly becoming a artistic hippie girl
Edited by rva98014
Would it safe to remove the Perky Goth trope from her tab then?
Edited by Elemiel
I would think so. It's not really a difference of opinion here, she just doesn't fit the trope definition ie "She wears the clothes, but her personality is always cheerful and amiable."
The character section has a thread of Stepford Smiler running through it that I don't think is appropriate.
The family is dysfunctional due to Alma's firm grip as matriarch but she wasn't an iron-fisted tyrant who forced her children to become smiling, happy pod-people from day 1.
The screenplay makes it clear that after the Encanto formed, Alma made the choice to steel herself and wipe away the tears. Over the years she became more rigid, more limiting, with higher, never-ending expectations that could never be reached.
We enter the story with the dysfunctional family presenting in different ways. Isabela is the most like Stepford Smiler as she tries to conform to the "perfect golden child" label. However, Luisa is more dour and stoic as she feels she always has to say "yes" to any chore handed to her even when she's exhausted or doesn't feel like she's strong enough to handle it.
Pepa with her volatile moods certainly isn't a smiler and seems to work full time just trying to keep her weather focused on "clear skies". Dolores doesn't have too much of her personality defined but one would think that she would have run straight to Alma with her Mirabel gossip. Camilo comes across as a typical 15-year with the usual snark and attitude. Felix and Agustin don't really show much as smilers.
Essentially it feels like we have a real, diverse but dysfunctional family buckling under the weight of Alma's expectations. But they aren't all bright, chipper, and pleasant under all circumstances as the Stepford Smiler requires.
I would like to remove the Stepford Smiler examples from the character page as they are tending to shoe-horn characters into that trope.
EDIT: After many days of no response, even after sending some PMs to invite feedback, I'm moving forward with removing the stepford smiler implications in the character section. Will list this discussion in the edit reason.
Edited by rva98014
Isn't Señora Guzmán Mariano's mother not grandmother? I feel like the tropes originally had her listed as mother but now it's been changed to grandmother? I feel like she was pretty clearly his mother, even referenced as such in song. Am I wrong?
Hide / Show Replies
Right now it's not been officially clarified by any Word of God Reference.
Two books: Encanto Deluxe Junior Novel and Encanto: A Tale of Three Sisters apparently list Senora Guzman as his grandmother.
However, in the movie itself, Dolores sings to Mariano: "You take care of your mother and make her proud" and when "the entire town" comes to help rebuild the Casita, you can see Mariano and Senora Guzman there with no other female close by.
So it's hard to say. The movie strongly implies Senora Guzman is the mother, but nothing completely discounts her being the grandmother with the mother an unseen character.
I suppose I’m kind of confused about Shoot the Messenger and how it applies to Bruno. I am sensing an Edit War as I deleted the original Shoot the Messenger description and moved it to Cassandra Did It with an explanation, but then someone added another description for Shoot the Messenger before both were deleted and the Shoot the Messenger description was replaced with the Cassandra Did It description. So there is confusion and I want to be on the same page as everyone in regards to what each trope actually means.
The current entry:
Shoot the Messenger: Downplayed. People don't try to hurt him for delivering bad news, but he is often blamed for what happens in his visions. He'd show people a future, and if they didn't like it, they'd blame him for it. It's part of why he left. Bruno: Oh, Bruno makes bad things happen. He's creepy and his vision killed my goldfish!
Shoot the Messenger doesn’t apply to Bruno because no one actually hurts him. A correct example of downplaying of the trope would be the receiver of the message slapping the messenger, but that is at best an implied trope that happens offscreen if even. Without this element of violence, the trope is simply Bearer of Bad News.
Cassandra Did It is a related trope that focuses on the receiver of the message assuming ill intentions from the messenger after a calamity has occurred. This part is shown clearly in the above entry. However, something that is throwing people off is that there is no indication that Bruno’s prophecies aren’t believed, making him not The Cassandra. I’d argue that not bing a “Cassandra” doesn’t exclude Bruno from the trope. The current trope page for Cassandra Did It does mention the prophet being The Cassandra but the original page, as seen in the YKTTW Archive under "Discussions", makes no references to actually needing to be one. I guess this means that Cassandra Did It might need repairs but I digress.
I suggest that either the current entry is removed or changed to fall under Cassandra Did It or Bearer of Bad News.
Edit: So it's been a couple months and I've only got one reply so I'm going to at least change the entry to the Bearer of Bad News
Edited by Mintbunny29 Hide / Show Replies
I think you have a good point about Shoot the Messenger involving actually hurting the messenger and Bearer of Bad News sounding like a better fit. The more I look at the Cassandra Did It trope page and its history, the more confused I get, so I might check in with the "Is this an example?" forum if no one else weighs in on this page, but in the meantime I'm in favor of reworking into a Bearer of Bad News entry by removing the part about the trope being "downplayed."
I do not believe this Greater-Scope Villain entry is a proper example of the trope:
- Greater-Scope Villain: They have about 30 seconds of screen time and no characterization, but are directly responsible for the circumstances and conflicts in the film. Their threatening of Alma and the triplets and their cold-blooded murder of Pedro led to birth of the miracle and the seclusion of Encanto. More importantly the trauma this caused Alma turned her from sweet and carefree woman to hardened single mother who developed a perfectionist personality and lived with an ever present fear of being exiled again. This caused her to instill in her children and grandchildren the burden to dedicate their lives to serving the community. The trauma was so great that whenever Alma tells the sanitized story of Pedro’s loss she characterizes the murderers as nebulous dangers and it is only when she tells Mirabel the story in full that her granddaughter can finally understand and reconcile with her grandmother.
There's no doubt that their actions have a significant effect on the story but that's what Small Role, Big Impact is for.
The definition of Greater-Scope Villain says:
While the Big Bad is directly responsible for the current story — the Big Bad is the villain that the heroes are attempting to defeat — a Greater Scope Villain isn't a major force in the plot, only a major force in the background.
... and...
The Greater Scope Villain is always Out of Focus — the threat they pose is general and in the background, while the threat posed by the Big Bad is specific and immediate.
This doesn't fit the Nameless Horsemen at all. They have only 30 seconds of screen time. They are never portrayed outside of a flashback to indicate that they are a present day threat. They are not the cause of the miracle failing or the casita cracking.
They are essentially a plot device to illustrate that Columbia has had a very turbulent past from "La Violencia" to ''The Thousand Days War" in which villagers were often turned out from their homes and became refugees like Alma and Pedro.
They play a Small Role, Big Impact but they are not the Greater-Scope Villain.
Edited by rva98014 Hide / Show Replies
Alma is terrified throughout the film of losing her home. What she fears most is reliving her exile from home and the loss of her family. For this reason she cultivates in her children service to the community, this causes Isabela to agree to marry Mariano and Dolores to keep her love hidden, this made Bruno feel unable to make his gift help the family and Mirabel constantly feeling in the way by trying hard to be of help. The four horsemen who raided Alma’s village may be long gone and La Violencia in Colombia may have passed, but Alma’s fear is present and real, and that is what causes the conflict in the story. Alma doesn’t fear a plot devices she fears real people driving her defenseless from her home.
So far you've done a good job showing how the 4 horsemen have served as a catalyst for Alma's PTSD and are perfect examples of Small Role, Big Impact.
I still don't see a case for them being a Greater-Scope Villain
One aspect of Greater-Scope Villain that may help this discussion is that their presence, their threat still exists as the story is going on even though they aren't the Big Bad.
It's like the MCU movie The Avengers. Loki was the Big Bad of the story but Thanos was the Greater-Scope Villain and was still present as threat even after Loki was defeated.
The horsemen attacked the village, killed Pedro and left emotional scars on Alma. And now their role in the story is done. They don't continue to threaten Alma, the don't cause the magic to fade. Given what happens to them when the candle ignites, they probably aren't even alive anymore.
I hope we can resolve this here but if not I'll take it up to ATT or the "Is this an example" thread.
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.
Purple Candlelight, I sent you a PM shortly after I saw your first message. I am not sure why you didn't get it. I have now sent three more, but I have no idea if there is an actual problem so I have decided to be better safe than sorry. At least you will see this eventually.
While you were right that Karma Houdini not only being about villains, it still involves people doing things illegal and/or malicious. What Deloros did does not met that criteria.
Hide / Show Replies
Hi! Thanks for letting me know what this situation looks like on your end. Something's seriously going wrong in the message function because instead of getting your message, my own disappeared and then after responding to the one that went through, all of the ones I sent and the one I got from you disappeared as well. Now the only messages the page shows are from weeks ago.
I'll just leave whether the trope applies up to everyone else here; I have something that just came up and don't really have the mental space to focus on this right now. Thank you for trying so hard to get in contact with me over this. I hope you have a nice day.
Dolores lost her home and her powers, so she can’t be called a Houdini. She searches for Mirabel with Felix and is visibly upset she can’t use her hearing to locate her.
Mirabel and Bruno have Celibate Hero added to their character sections which I feel is a wrongly applied trope.
Mirabel's entry is
- Celibate Hero: She’s a 15 year old girl but never once shows any personal interest in romance. Her attention is focused entirely on her family. Her opinion of resident Mr. Fanservice Mariano is that he’s a big, dumb hunk.
Bruno's entry is ...
- Celibate Hero: He’s a big fan of telenovelas and stories of forbidden romance, but never once shows any interest in romantic relationships. His attention is focused solely on his natal family.
Celebate Hero is the character who just doesn't get romance, who consciously and actively shuns it. However, the definition warns... Please do not conclude a character is a Celibate Hero just because they lack any romantic arc. Without evidence to suggest a character would shun a sexual/romantic encounter, it's impossible to tell if they have chosen a celibate lifestyle.
Just because the story that a character is involved in doesn't present the opportunity for romance doesn't' mean Celebate Hero is part of their characterization.
In the context of the story these two characters are presented, neither really has an opportunity for romance during the course of the narrative. Mirabel is busy with her family falling apart and Bruno is actively shunned by his family and the outside community, that and living in the Casita's walls for years doesn't provide for many dating opportunities.
Neither has evidence to suggest they would actually shun a sexual/romantic encounter, just that it's not part of the story being told.
I suggest both entries be removed.
Edited by rva98014 Hide / Show Replies
I agree they don't fit. The movie leaves it entirely up to viewers' imaginations. Mirabel's comments on her big sister's boyfriend don't tell us anything about her feelings on romance. She could be a Celibate Heroine, but she could just as easily want a boyfriend, want a girlfriend, want either, be genuinely uninterested, etc., and all of these interpretations are equally plausible. Same with Bruno.
Does Family-Unfriendly Death apply to the off-screen death? The trope page contrasts the trope with when "villains expire off-screen, and never a drop of blood is seen," which makes me think that the trope is for graphic deaths.
Hide / Show Replies
From Bambi:
Family-Unfriendly Death: Bambi's mother is shot dead when she and her son are looking for food in the winter snow. A whole generation of kids was traumatized. Now, movies for kids should not be all sanitized pink happy affairs. But the death of a parent is quite disturbing to any six-year-old. This one is fairly famous for all the denial associated therewith. It gets worse. Originally, Bambi was going to go back later, and find his mother lying in a pool of blood, but the idea was scrapped, both because it was too cruel and because it wouldn't make sense for a hunter to score a deer and then just leave it in the woods
I'm not sure that one fits, either. Not everything listed on a trope page is supposed to be there, to the point that there are forums dedicated to cleaning up pages with significant amounts of misuse.
Where does Pepa fall on the Nice Mean And In Between scale? She's currently listed under both "mean" and "in-between."
Personally I think she's "in-between." The reasoning on the page given for "mean" is that "she is a mood swinger who can summon storms and lighting bolts when provoked and antagonizes Bruno for an It's All About Me attitude against ruining her wedding," but I don't think her powers make her mean, and the mood-swinging sounds like something that puts her in the middle ground. I don't remember any scenes with her antagonizing Bruno, but if she did so in retaliation for something, I think that puts her in the "in-between" category, too.
Hide / Show Replies
Different characters can fulfill totally different roles relative to each other. The same as temperaments and philosophies. Pepa fulfills the role of mean in comparison to her siblings, especially from the point of view of protagonist, Mirabel. Pepa is the most antagonistic toward Mirabel, she gives her a dirty look when M takes her seat at the table and after the botched proposal outright asks her “what did you do?” Camilo also has a very negative opinion of bruno, which must come exclusively from his mother. Dolores and Isabela who were old enough to remember him and they speak of him at least in sympathetic terms. Camilo is a mamma’s boy. He trolls his dad but is very tender with his mother. Even when she zaps him he doesn’t complain. it’s implied the entire custom of not speaking about Bruno for entire town comes for Pepa’s benefit since just the mention of his name is enough to make her sour the weather. When Mirabel mentions his name she barges into the nursery to cow her into submission. Where Pepa gets sympathy points is that she is also a victim of Alma’s perfectionism. Like her brother, Pepa has a delicate emotional state, and Alma’s high standards have probably also contributed to Pepa’s anxiety, since she is terrified that Antonio will not get a gift, since he is next in line after Mirabel, and will then suffer from Abuela’s disappointment. Therefore, among the siblings, Pepa is the mean. But among the women she is the in-between, since she also suffers from Alma’s strict standards.
The trope can be based on how the characters act relative to each other, but I'm still not sure Pepa is more "mean" than "in-between."
Camilo seems to be mischievous in general, so I think he exaggerates what he says about Bruno in order to troll, but even if he really does believe it, we don't know whether he got it from Pepa. He could have, but "We Don't Talk About Bruno" features a bunch of other people complaining that it was unpleasant to be around him too.
I also think that if the town was avoiding mention of Bruno because of Pepa's Power Incontinence, it would be more "We Don't Talk About Bruno In Front of Pepa," and since she can't control her powers, it wouldn't make her mean, since she can't control them.
I think Pepa entered the nursery to look for something and only told Mirabel "We don't talk about Bruno" because Mirabel tried to specifically ask her about him. I remember her looking in some sort of chest, but I've only seen the movie once and don't have a copy I can check.
That leaves the part where "she gives her a dirty look when M takes her seat at the table and after the botched proposal outright asks her “what did you do?”" While this sounds "in-between" to me because it's in context of Mirabel seemingly causing trouble, I can see it being "mean" compared to Julieta and Bruno.
Pepa was going into the nursery because she wanted to gather the rest of Antonio’s belongings, it was the way she entered, she barged in without knocking and scared Mirabel who had just recently reassembled the broken prophecy and said Bruno’s name out loud. When confronted about her brusqueness Pepa s responds that she heard Mirabel say the name no one is supposed to say. Mirabel’s repeated attempts to engage Pepa in conversation about Bruno upsets Pepa until she summons a storm. Felix then comes in and insists that Mirabel should know about Bruno. Pepa then explains about how Bruno ruined HER wedding, though Felix does point out that it was their wedding. Pepa has a serious case of It's All About Me. as it turns out that Felix, Dolores, Camilo, and Isabela have no problem talking about Bruno, but only allow themselves to do so once Pepa goes first. Compare the way Pepa treats Isabela to the way she treats Mirabel. Pepa often gives Isabel smiles and holds her hands while preparing the table for the proposal dinner. My interpretation is that Pepa, like Alma, has the bad habit of misplacing blame. First to Bruno and then to Mirabel who become the two scapegoats for the problems in the family. When Mirabel upsets her by mentioning Bruno, Pepa complains about the dark clouds leading to drizzles, this implies that she is afraid of disappointing her mother like Bruno did, by being unable to use her power for good. Once Pepa reconciles with Bruno and the community rebuilds the house, Pepa gives Mirabel a genuine materteral smile, it shows that Pepa indeed had something of a grudge against Mirabel, that she had to let go. In a trio of the three siblings Pepa is definitely the mean. In the same way that the other two sets of siblings have a mean (Isabela and Camilo) who are not at all evil, but more troublesome or antagonistic than their siblings. Isabela’s case is similar to Pepa’s. Isabela probably bears a grudge against Mirabel because since Mirabel as no gift, Isabela feels even more pressure to be perfect to make up for the fact that her sister isn’t.
Compare also the way the triplets discuss bruno with Mirabel. Julieta (nice) speaks in very compassionate terms. She tells M that her brother Bruno lost his way and she doesn’t want the same to happen to M. it’s clear that she doesn’t resent Bruno, instead she feels sorry that he lost his way and the family lost him, her focus is on M’s well-being. Bruno (in-between) blames himself fully for not being good and for his family being better off without him, he also admits to M that he took the blame to spare her the censure of the community, but at the same time is too cowardly to face his mother and gives enough guidance to M so that she saves the magic on her own. Pepa (mean) centers the discussion entirely on how Bruno ruined HER wedding day and that’s about it, she ignores Mirabel’s attempts to discuss the validity of Bruno’s visions and it takes Felix’s intervention to address Mirabel’s concerns.
I don't think her Emotional Powers, starting the story by saying "it was my wedding day," or trying to avoid talking about the subject when she finds it upsetting and it triggers her powers make her mean.
I think that the other characters who started talking about Bruno once Pepa started would have done the same if any other character had started. Pepa herself wasn't even the one to bring him up. Just like the others, she only started talking about him when someone else (Mirabel) did. It could probably interpreted either way.
Same with the interpretation of Pepa having a habit of misplacing blame or having a grudge against Mirabel. That interpretation works, but it also makes sense she'd be smiling at Isabela when Isabela is helping decorate and they're setting up the proposal dinner and at Mirabel at the end because those are happy and hopeful moments.
The part about her barging in without knocking isn't open to interpretation, but it's the kind of rude-but-not-malicious thing that Bruno sometimes does too, so I don't think it makes her "the mean one" in the trio.
Would Three Successful Generations in Mirabel’s folder be better suited for the family folder?