Breaking Stereotypes of Villain Representation in Frozen (2013): A Less Traditionally Villainous Traits

Breaking Stereotypes of Villain Representation in Frozen (2013): A Less Traditionally Villainous Traits

Hanif Nazmi., Mohamad Fauzi Md Khalid

Faculty Film, Theatre and Animation Universiti Teknologi MARA Shah Alam, Selangor, Malaysia

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.908000652

Received: 19 August 2025; Accepted: 26 August 2025; Published: 25 September 2025

ABSTRACT 

This essay examines the subversion of villain stereotypes in Frozen (2013) through the character of Prince Hans. It argues that the contrast between stereotypical Disney villains, who are typically defined by over-the-top physical characteristics and overt evilness, and Hans, who presents himself as an intelligent and noble-minded figure, hides his self-serving persona. By analyzing character elements, traits, and archetypes from previous research studies and scholarly works, this study seeks to demonstrate how the characteristic subverts traditional villainous stereotypes and the impact the subversion has on character believability in contemporary animated storytelling. The methodology employs a qualitative content analysis approach to delve into the characterization, overthrowing traditional villain traits, and contributes to the overall narrative structure. Adopting a qualitative approach, the study compared the story and character characteristics, particularly in terms of manipulation, morality, and attraction. The analysis data highlight the broad use of indirect characteristics of villain traits to be discussed in the search for villain stereotypes. The research findings reveal that traits of manipulativeness, moral ambiguity, and charisma are consistently identified as dominant traits in the construction of villain characters, highlighting the importance of portraying complex and psychologically nuanced villains. Future research could explore the complementary false villain trope in female protagonists through narrative, which could contribute to reducing stereotyped representations of evil in future animation content.

Keywords: Villain, Stereotypes, Traits, Characteristics

INTRODUCTION

Villains have been an integral element of storytelling since time immemorial, serving as the primary opposition that protagonists must overcome to triumph. In animation cinema, particularly in Disney’s filmography, villains have been utilized to advance narrative conflict, convey moral lessons, and leave a lasting impact on the audience (Booker, 2004). Traditional Disney villains, such as Maleficent, Ursula, and Scar, are typically characterized by exaggerated physical features and overtly villainous behaviors that clearly establish them as the ethical opposite of the hero. These portrayals tend to reinforce binary ethical frameworks of good and evil, allowing young audiences to easily distinguish right from wrong (Kjeldgaard-Christiansen & Schmidt, 2019). Nonetheless, over the last twenty years, Disney’s strategy towards villain depiction has also evolved in accordance with changing social norms and an increasing appetite for morally sophisticated storytelling. Researchers such as Keen (2006) and Culpeper & Fernández-Quintanilla (in press) note that the contemporary villain is now more defined by psychological realism, inner turmoil, and social intelligence, rather than conspicuous evil. This move in the story reflects a broader cultural movement away from stigmatized externalities, such as foreignness or physical “deformity,” as markers of villainy that had long been familiar tropes (Zipes, 2006). Frozen (2013) depicts this paradigm shift in the character of Prince Hans, who portrays himself as noble, kind, and selfless. Rather than being visually coded as a villain, Hans is established as a romance hero, an instance of the “false hero” character described by Propp (1928) and expanded upon by Tatar (1987). Only later in the narrative is his treachery revealed, creating one moment of extreme dramatic irony and emotional dissonance. Disney villains were typically defined in terms of stereotypically negative physical traits, including caricatured features, dark color schemes, and caricatured facial expressions (Kjeldgaard-Christiansen & Schmidt, 2019). This aesthetic approach, particularly prominent during the 1980s and 1990s, served to unambiguously convey a character’s moral inclination, thereby solidifying reductive good-versus-evil dichotomies..

Figure 1. Evolution of Early Disney Villain

In Table 1, figures such as Ursula, Jafar, and Hades exemplify this trend through their over-the-top, often grotesque appearances, which immediately mark them as threats. However, starting in the 2010s, Disney began to depart from these classic conventions by presenting characters who were villains with more appealing, seductive, or apparently harmless appearances. These newer characters tend to conceal their evil motives beneath a façade of moral appearance, making them less visually recognizable and more psychologically nuanced.

Figure 1. Evolution of Early Disney Villain

As evident in Table 2, authors such as Prince Hans (2013), Dawn Bellwether (2016), and King Magnifico (2023) demonstrate this change in storytelling. Unlike their predecessors, these characters dissolve the boundary between villain and hero through charming facades and false identities. Although audiences initially perceive characters like Prince Hans as heroic due to his handsome and dignified appearance, his true intentions are later revealed in a surprising plot twist. This case of cognitive dissonance challenges traditional assumptions about the looks and behaviors of a villain. Disney villains have traditionally been portrayed as deviant from the moment they appear on screen for the first time, often being presented as abnormally thin or obese, old, dark-complexioned, or lacking mainstream attractiveness (Kjeldgaard-Christiansen, 2019). Frozen (2013) depicts this paradigm shift in the character of Prince Hans, who portrays himself as noble, kind, and selfless. Rather than being visually coded as a villain, Hans is established as a romance hero, an instance of the “false hero” character described by Propp (1928) and expanded upon by Tatar (1987). Only later in the narrative is his treachery revealed, creating one moment of extreme dramatic irony and emotional dissonance.

The approach of characterizing villains by morally questionable actions and false appearances has both benefits and drawbacks. On the one hand, most scholars and viewers believe that it enhances and enriches the narrative experience, as it brings complexity, tension, and emotional depth to the story. By having antagonists who are not necessarily malevolent at first but rather appear charming, sympathetic, or even heroic, the story becomes less predictable and more thought-provoking. This allows viewers to watch characters and plot more critically, turning around initial impressions and judging the moral grounds for actions instead of relying on appearances. On the other hand, some critics express concerns that such representations have the potential to blur moral lines for young audiences, making it difficult for them to distinguish right from wrong, especially when noble actions are punished or evil actions go unpunished. However, the growing popularity of such complex villain archetypes suggests an evolving media landscape that seeks to explore the complexities of morality in the real world, compelling viewers to think more deeply about character motivations and moral choices.

Therefore, the research study aims to explore the character element traits and archetype of the villain in analyzing the representation of villain characters, such as Prince Hans, in the movie Frozen (2013). This will be closely quantifying visual and narrative elements, including character design, identity, and narrative role, specifically how they connect with the inversion of conventional villain stereotypes. By studying the villain traits and characterization elements, it contributes to the field of animation and character representation by investigating how breaking away from conventional character archetypes can enhance narrative involvement. This will also offer an understanding of how non-stereotypical characterizations can promote believability and relatability, which can inspire creative practitioners to try new approaches in villain characterization, thereby facilitating the creation of more sophisticated and varied characterizations of characters.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Character persona is the unique collection of traits, behaviors, and external manifestations that a character uses to portray themselves in a specific manner within the context of a story. The term encompasses both the inner motivations and the external processes that characters exhibit in various forms of social settings or narrative designs. Carl Jung (1953) explained that the term “persona” once referred to the social façade individuals present when they are out in public, a self-construction influenced by what society expects. In the context of narrative creation, this phenomenon manifests itself as the persona a character adopts to achieve specific goals, influence impressions, or hide their true identity.  McKee (1997) describes how the persona of a character is part of a characterization that is established through choices, actions, and contrast between appearances and reality. For instance, a deceitful hero might adopt the persona of a savior or a righteous individual when concealing their selfish intentions. According to Vogler (2007) in his book The Writer’s Journey, personas are tools for transformation, trickery, or revelation within a character arc, depending on their interaction with the narrative’s moral framework. To this end, a character’s persona is not just a facade; it’s a narrative device that encapsulates the conflict between image and identity, frequently adding character depth and thematic resonance.

Character Persona through Direct and Indirect Characterization

Direct characterization is a basic method in which an author directly tells the personality traits of the character. For example, statements like “She was brave and generous” provide direct information to the reader about the character, without using inferential reasoning. This method provides clarity and promotes quick character establishment, making it extremely useful in genres such as fairy tales, children’s literature, and short stories, where brevity is required in narrative. As explained by Lostracco and Wilkerson (2005), direct characterization provides the author with complete control over how the character is revealed to the reader. Overreliance on this method can lead, however, to one-dimensional characters lacking in subtlety and verisimilitude usually desired by the readership. Murphy (1972) continues that there is no room for ambiguity with this method, something that may either be a strength or a weakness depending on what the story requires. While indirect characterization, unlike direct characterization’s overt nature, relied inference. Authors reveal character traits through dialog, actions & behavior and interaction with other characters. An example would be a character who regularly gives time at a food bank or consoles a distraught person, who is indirectly characterized as compassionate and sympathetic. Abrams and Harpham (2011) point out that not only does such an approach generate reader interest, but it also enriches the narrative through the employment of subtext and underlying meaning. Indirect characterization is deemed to be more realistic and involving, since it reflects the way individuals come to know one another in life. Reinforcing this sentiment, Murphy (1972) holds that such techniques evoke curiosity and emotional engagement on the part of the audience. This design persona demonstrate a visual transition of attributes can be restructured into dark and symbolic motifs which aligns towards the character with villainous traits. 

Traits of a Villain Character

Villains in storytelling share common traits, though these have evolved over time. Typical villain traits include Manipulativeness, Deceptiveness, a Lack of empathy, Ambition or greed, Moral ambiguity, Calmness and Calculation, and Charisma. Manipulativeness is one of the most typical characteristics of villains. It is defined as the capacity to control or dominate individuals, usually through manipulative, coercive, or exploitative means. Villains who resort to such manipulation are masters at exploiting emotional vulnerabilities, building trust only to betray it later, and twisting situations to serve their own purposes. These villains are motivated, not by compassion, but by the need to control others psychologically and emotionally. Deceptiveness is a core trait inherent in the character of a villain. It is the intentional act of deceiving people to gain influence, property, or trust. This trait is very dangerous as it can hide the true intentions of the villain, thus allowing them to infiltrate and manipulate even the closest of relationships. A lack of empathy is usually the common characteristic that enables the foes to carry out acts of atrocities without any guilt. Empathy can be defined as an ability to feel or perceive the emotions of another individual. Without it, people may see others as objects instead of human beings, making it easier to inflict injuries on them. Ambition, unchecked, can become greed and hunger for power, prestige, or domination regardless of the moral cost. The character is particularly attractive since it has a tendency to reflect real leadership and governance shortcomings. These villains rationalize their behavior as a necessary compromise to the “greater good” or to their own interests.  Moral ambiguity makes a villain more complex and, in some cases, more relatable. Rather than representing pure evil, such characters often have motivations that audiences can sympathize with, albeit through immoral means, as they strive to achieve their goals. It is this corruption of moral lines that makes them compelling. Calm and calculated villains are a different kind of menace because of their strategic minds. They do not act based on rage or passion, but on careful planning. Their coldness and exactness make them unpredictable and challenging to thwart. Charismatic villains are especially compelling because their charm often conceals their dangerous intentions. They manipulate not through fear, but through attraction, winning over others with persuasion, eloquence, and even humor. This makes them difficult to confront, as their appeal creates confusion and moral conflict.

Character Archetypes of False Hero

The false hero is an insincere character who tries to usurp the glory of the hero without undergoing the same tribulations or showing the same moral stature. In Propp’s (1968) Morphology of the Folktale, the false hero appears in the “recognition” stage of the narrative structure, usually stealing the hero’s deeds or seeking to marry the princess through false means. This archetype plays a critical role in developing narrative tension and providing a moment of truth in which the worth of the true hero is realized and justice is served. Jack Zipes (2007) discusses that the false hero archetype serves as a symbolic denunciation of fake authority and social degradation. Through the unmasking of this character as a fake, the narrative reinforces moral values, including integrity, bravery, and honesty. The false hero can be similarly interpreted as a performative figure, one who appropriates the surface qualities associated with heroism, such as speech or body language, without embodying the inner qualities necessary to fulfill the journey. This interpretation is in line with Erving Goffman’s (1959) explanation of the “presentation of self,” in which individuals negotiate social interaction through impression management, hiding their own intentions behind socially accepted roles. Psychologically, Carl Jung (1966) defines the idea of the “persona” as a social mask assumed to fulfill societal demands. In literary contexts, the imposter hero can be understood as a character who assumes the persona to the extent of causing deception. The archetype presents the audience with the opportunity to explore themes of identity, recognition, and moral judgment. Lastly, the false hero exists to contrast the value of inner integrity with outer performance, and their exposure tends to be a moment of narrative justice.

A strong literature review should be well-structured, analytical, and focused on the research objectives. It should not merely summarize existing work but should critically engage with sources to highlight their contributions and limitations. Proper citation of sources is essential to acknowledge previous research and avoid plagiarism. By following these principles, researchers can create a compelling literature review that strengthens their study and provides valuable insights into their chosen field.

METHODOLOGY

Researching the character traits and archetypes of complementary villain characters would help future students and scholars understand conventional villain stereotypes and the effect of narrative choice on character authenticity. This could help future artists make a decision in creating a new generation of villain traits and characteristics to apply to the narrative structure of animated films. To capture the attention of the latest villain stereotype, this research approach investigates Hans from Frozen (2013) as a non-traditional villain, examining his traits and archetype. Initially, a qualitative study will be conducted through content analysis to collect relevant data from existing journals, articles, and books, providing a brief explanation of the utilization of the villain traits element. A summary of the similarities in archetypes’ traits across all scholars and experts is being observed to identify the most frequently used key themes in defining the next villain creation. Observing the movie multiple times will be used to identify major scenes that reflect villainous characteristics. By using both the method of characterization and the most prominent traits, we will identify the character Hans and summarize the findings of the villain stereotypes in the selected movie scenes.

Figure 1. Methodology

Analysis

Figure 2. Conceptual Framework

Table 1. Summary of Similarity in Villain Archetype Traits by Experts and Scholar

Using the keywords discovered in this topic research, multiple previous studies have concluded in creating a base of understanding of character traits. Creating a bar graph pattern to specify certain elements that are commonly used and mentioned in relation to character traits helps define the categorization of simple terms to differentiate other types of villain traits.

Figure 3. Most Frequently Mention Villain Traits in Previous Studies

According to the data collected from 10 researchers, the traits of manipulativeness, moral ambiguity, and charisma appear most frequently across the studies. Based on this analysis, manipulativeness is described as an individual being emotionally detached, calculating, and prone to manipulating others to their own benefit. It tends to justify their behavior by minimizing the damage done, focusing solely on outcomes and never morality, which makes it more dangerous since their actions are perceived as justified (Christie and Geis, 1970). Moral ambiguity demonstrates how evil and complex characters can capture real issues, making them more realistic and emotionally compelling, for example, by defying justice, ethics, and ultimate motivations. Lastly, charisma serves as a source of authority derived from perceived personal qualities, rather than power (Max Weber, 1947). This suggests that these three characteristics are consistently identified as dominant traits in the construction of villainous characters, underscoring their importance in portraying complex and psychologically nuanced villains. With these villain traits chosen, most will contribute to matching the villain’s characterization and explain each component throughout the selected movie scenes.

FINDINGS

Figure 4. Manipulativeness of Prince Hans Through the Scene

Hans’s manipulativeness is gradually exposed in Frozen (2013) through several characterization methods that reveal the depth of his deceit. He first earns respect by exhibiting affectionate behavior and charisma, but tells his true intentions through action and words. His manipulative nature is also emphasized by his actions, pretending to save Anna takes control of Arendelle but abandons her in her most vulnerable state. This aligns with Ekman’s (2001) theory of deceptive behavior, which explains how skilled deceivers often exhibit genuine emotional expressions to maintain their disguise. Hans’s nonverbal behavior also shifts noticeably from warm to cold smiles, becoming grim, stiff glares, reflecting the revelation of his hidden self. This is characteristic of the Machiavellian villain, for whom manipulation is a survival or power imperative (Christie & Geis, 1970).

Figure 5. Moral Ambiguity of Prince Hans Through the Scene

Hans’s villainy is not outright apparent, as he operates within a grey moral space until late in the story. His dialogue, when blaming Elsa and Anna, “But then she doomed herself, and you were dumb enough to go after her,” reflects Bandura’s (1999) moral disengagement theory, where individuals dissociate themselves from accountability by blaming victims or circumstances. Through reactions from other characters, such as Anna and the palace guards who entrust him with leadership, Hans is perceived as noble and reliable. His princely design and regal posture further obscure his true intentions, creating a visual contradiction between appearance and morality. According to Mulvey (1975), such dissonance heightens the viewer’s shock when the truth is revealed, thereby reinforcing the false hero trope. This duality allows him to operate within the boundaries of moral uncertainty until his betrayal becomes evident.

Figure 6. Charisma of Prince Hans Through the Scene

Charisma is the foundation of Hans’s deception. He copies Anna’s mannerisms, which are sharp and vibrant. Upon meeting for the first time, Anna utters: “Can I say something crazy? Will you marry me?” and Hans responds humorously: “I love crazy.” This copying creates instant trust, a characteristic of charismatic manipulators (Conger, 1998). The characters in the film portray absolute trust and respect for Hans. When Anna is injured, he is concerned, asking, “You said she’d never hurt you?” and gently repeating, “Anna?” This emotional depth plays its role in cementing his portrait as a sympathetic character. In the public setting, he performs heroic acts, such as rallying search parties and providing supplies, which cements his reputation as selfless. Researchers such as Weber (1947) underscore that charismatic authority frequently relies more on perception than on actual circumstances, a notion that Hans adeptly manipulates throughout the narrative.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the present study identifies that Prince Hans from Frozen (2013) is a contemporary reimagining of the villainous character, who comes across as a charming, chivalrous false hero that ultimately has manipulative and power-driven traits. His betrayal, unlike that of classical villains, is tainted with emotional betrayal and concealed motives, rather than being revealed through professed visual cues. This alteration in character representation indicates a broader trend in animated narrative techniques, holding valuable lessons for creators and educators on the application of narrative misdirection. Theoretically, the research reaffirms the ongoing applicability of Proppian and Jungian theory while demonstrating how complex representations of villainy will more deeply engage audiences.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

 I gratefully acknowledge my academic supervisor for their essential guidance, input, and unwavering support in developing this investigation into the various types of visual effects and approaches. I extend immense gratitude to my family, friends, and collaborators for their help and thoughtful input, which have helped shape my studies. This project would not have come together without the encouragement and support of everyone. Lastly, I sincerely thank the Faculty of Film, Theatre, and Animation, Universiti Teknologi MARA, for their assistance and guidance throughout my research, and the Office of Research and Innovation, Faculty of Film, Theatre, and Animation, Universiti Teknologi MARA, for their support in publishing my research.

REFERENCES

1. Bodkin, M. (1934). Archetypalpatterns in poetry: Psychological studies of imagination. Oxford niversityPress.
2. Booker, C. (2004). The Seven Basic Plots : Why We Tell Stories. Continuum.
3. Hahn,L. (2022). Moral clarity decreases as viewer age increases: A contentanalysis of the moral values and reinforcement cues depicted in popular U.S.children’s television. Journal of Children and Media, 16(2), 168 187.https://doi.org/10.1080/17482798.2021.1943475
4. Jung,C. G. (1966). Two essays on analytical psychology (R. F.C. Hull, Trans.;2nd ed.). Princeton University Press. (Original workspublished 1928 and 1943)
5. Keen,S. (2007). Empathy and the novel. OxfordUniversity Press.https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195175769.001.0001
6. Kushlaki, M. (2013). Unmaskingthe villain: A reconstruction of the villain archetype in popular culture(Master’s thesis, San Diego State University). SDSU Digital Collections. https://digitalcollections.sdsu.edu/do/81b9d689-591e-48a5-bacb-02fd4eb16084
7. Nurjanah, H. (2023).Propp’s taxonomic model of narrative functions in selected Jane Austen’snovels. Studies in Literary Forms, 10(3), 78–90.
8. Propp,V. (1968). Morphology of the Folktale. University of Texas Press. https://doi.org/10.7560/783911
9. Raglan, L. (1949). Thehero: A study in tradition, myth, and drama. Faber & Faber.
10. Ramakrishnan, M. (2022).The modality of Proppian “False Hero”: Neither a hero nor a villain in (folk)narratives and real life. ShodhKosh: Journal of Visual and Performing Arts,3(2), 89–96. https://doi.org/10.29121/shodhkosh.v3.i2.2022.150
11. Siregar, L. S., & Putri, A.(2022). An analysis of Proppian’s archetypes on characters in Zootopiamovie. Anglo-Saxon: Jurnal Ilmiah Program Studi Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris,13(2), 182–196.
12. Vogler, C.(2007). The Writer’s Journey: Mythic Structure for Writers (3rd ed.).Michael Wiese Productions.
13. Zhang, Y., Waldman, D. A., Han,Y.-L., & Li, X.-B. (2020). Heroes or villains? The dark side ofcharismatic leadership and unethical pro-organizational behavior. Academy ofManagement Review, 45(3), 528–551. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2017.0084
14. Zipes,J.(2007). Why Fairy Tales Stick: The Evolution and Relevance of a Genre(1sted.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203700662