From Disco Dan: I haven't posted a review of HTTYD2, mostly because I was speechless. The film exceeded all my expectations thoroughly. However, I sent one of my best friends to see it with his family and here is his review. He is a very accomplished actor and an honorary Scot.
Why I Didn't Like How To Train Your Dragon 2 by Zany Zach
Okay, before I begin, I should qualify everything I say with two caveats:
1. I did not see the first "How To Train Your Dragon" (although I have it on good authority that it was not necessarily a prerequisite for understanding the sequel that I saw today).
Likewise, I have never read any of the books that the movies are based on.
2. I am not an experienced film critic.
I am, however, a published author/historian, and something of an expert on both Celtic and Norse history and culture. Hence my disdain for this particular film.
With that out of the way, I will explain my issues with this film, which initially spawned from my confusion as to why the majority of the adult characters portrayed in this film spoke in distinct Scottish dialects, even though it is clearly implied that the story of the film takes place in Scandinavia.
A quick Google search revealed that the first "How to Train Your Dragon" film cast Gerard Butler (a native of Scotland) as one of the leading roles in the film, early on in the first film's production. This information stated that the casting directors and producers decided that Mr. Butler's natural Scottish accent might fit well with the character he was playing in the movie, and that he should keep it, despite the fact that the film takes place in Scandinavia, and not Scotland. This exception was taken a step too far when it was decided toward the end of the casting process to cast Craig Ferguson (another native of Scotland) in another leading role in the film, who was also encouraged to use his own natural Scottish accent for his character portrayal.
It was at this point that producers and directors decided that the entire adult generation of the small community in which the film takes place should also speak in Scottish dialects, so as to portray as senses of homogenization amongst eachother, as well as with the two characters played by Butler and Ferguson.
There are several theories as to to why a Scottish dialect was not only overlooked, but encouraged for this particular film, even when the setting of the film should dictate otherwise. The first theory is that ancient Celtic and Norse culture and mythology have a lot of crossover and intertwining. While there is some truth to the statement, in that there were several Viking settlements and integrations in the far northern islands of Scotland during the time of the Vikings, there was not enough cultural integration to postulate that actual Vikings would've spoken Gaelic, let alone spoken in Scottish dialect (a derivative of Gaelic). As a matter of fact, there is more historical evidence that Northern Scots of that time would have spoken Norse or with Norse accents, rather than the other way around.
Another working theory for this oversight, is simply that the Scottish dialect is more palatable to certain audiences, particularly those expected for this film. It's argued that precedents for this line of thinking were set by films such as Braveheart (which made Scottish dialect, and culture, extremely popular), or films like Shrek, wherein the actor (in this case played by Canadian actor Michael Myers) chose a Scottish dialect simply because he thought it fit the nature of the character he was portraying, not because the character actually hailed from anywhere in Scotland. In the case of Shrek, the use of dialect to match a character is far more excusable, again because the film itself does not take place in any specific geographical or cultural location. This is not the case with either of the "How to Train Your Dragon" films, which clearly portrays a specific geographic location (namely Scandinavia) both by displaying landscapes that have a distinct Norwegian feel about them, and then even more so by referring to the human characters in the film as "Vikings" - a term associated with a group of people at a specific place in a specific time period.
If in fact the Scottish dialect for this film was decided upon simply because of the popularity of the Scottish dialect as a whole, I am both offended and saddened. I have seen many films in the past 20 years that should have been wonderful, but instead completely missed the mark because directors and producers decided it would be a good idea (for example) that 19th-century French peasants should speak like Cockney Londoners, in order to convey a sense of poverty and streetlife in a non-US/Western European nation. I'm certain that the powers-that-be decided to go this route because they decided that American audiences are too uncultured to enjoy a movie with French accents, or (what's worse) these same powers decided that American audiences were too ignorant to know that the film takes place in a country other than the United States. Both are unacceptable motivations for these decisions, and the assumed ignorance that American audiences possess will only be further exacerbated with such a historical/cultural inaccuracies in film.
I will say that the "Dragon 2" film wasn't a total loss. The animation was beautifully executed and artistically pleasing. The voice actors did a fine job, and I found the plot of the film to be perfectly adequate for the genre and the intended audience. The part in the film with the traditional Viking funeral was not only touching and beautiful, but surprisingly accurate from a historical perspective, considering that there were so many other historical errors in the rest of the film. In fact it's paradoxes like that that lead me to believe that the filmmakers knew what they were doing when they made a Viking film, and blatantly decided to mix up cultures anyway, just for cheap entertainment value.
I see two easy fixes for this film, which would have enabled me to enjoy it thoroughly:
1. Change the Scottish dialects to Norse dialects. The Disney movie "Frozen" used a small amount of Norse dialect for a film that also took place in Scandinavia. It worked beautifully and audiences loved it.
2. Change the Scottish dialects to American dialects. The younger generation portrayed in "Dragon 2" all spoke with an American dialect, which was completely acceptable, since the movie was designed for an American audience. Again, it was the juxtaposition of mixing American dialects with Scottish dialects, that made the absence of a Norse dialect anywhere in the film, feel so blatant and uncomfortable for me.
As an actor myself, I have come to realize the importance of using dialect in character portrayal. As a matter fact, I have used both Scottish and Norse dialects in a professional capacity, for various shows. Admittedly, I'm sure this experience is partially responsible for the personal disdain that I had with this particular film, but nevertheless I feel my argument is valid for movie audiences who know about dialect, as well as those who don't.
Overall, the historical and cultural inaccuracies were too much for me to ignore, in order get lost in the film's better qualities. I'm well aware of the fact that I'm probably in the minority when it comes to the intended audience for this film. However, that leads me to strongly believe that Hollywood has an even greater responsibility to maintain cultural and historical accuracy so that children and uninformed adults can come away from this film with the newly acquired base of knowledge, whilst being entertained. In my opinion, there is a gigantic difference between artistic license and flat-out falsehoods, and this film was on the wrong side of that line. Entertainment does not necessarily have to be educational, but if it is in danger of simultaneously educating while it entertains, filmmakers have a duty to ensure that it educates properly.
