Wensko 1

Nathan Wensko
Communication 301 TTH 3:30pm
4-21-11

Within the Dragon

The creation of animated films has increased dramatically since the introduction of

computer generated images. As with any animated film, even the adults get a little humor that is

directed to them while it goes right over their kids’ head. This is an old practice of animated film

makers to ensure that not just their target audiences are entertained but also the parents bringing

the kids. In this analysis, I ask how film makers use animated films to advocate against

hegemonic ideas of society. I argue that How to Train Your Dragon illustrates how the

oppressive hegemonic ideology of traditionalism cannot subvert and free society through

postmodernism. This is significant because animated films imbed concepts that they may or may

not have been intended. Furthermore, the film itself ignited a heated controversy from many

credible people. Such as Noam Chomsky, a well known philosopher from MIT, who was quoted

as saying, “I am not even sure that we should be promoting a movie about training dragons in the

first place. . . Such thinking is typical of Western nations, as it reeks of elitist paternalism that

only perpetuates the worst of our imperialistic and interventionist tendencies. Anyone who trains

a dragon is probably also a war criminal.” (Blockbuster). With such a strong response from a

credible philosopher it poses an inquiry as to what the film is truly saying to the public audience.

ARTIFACT

The story of the film is set in a medieval Viking village and follows a young Viking by

the name of Hiccup. Hiccup is the son of the Viking leader Stoick the Vast, who leads his village

in fighting off the pest that inhabits their lands; dragons. Hiccup is different from the rest of the

Vikings though, and has many drawbacks biologically and mentally. Instead he uses new and
 Wensko 2

innovative ways to join his people in the life quest to kill dragons. Everything goes wrong

though when he actually takes down the ominous night fury but cannot bring himself to slay the

beast. He instead starts a friendship with the dragon that has been wounded from Hiccup’s strike.

At the same time his father has decided to allow Hiccup to begin dragon training. Hiccup begins

to lead a double life and begins to discover that dragons are a lot different than he has been told.

How to Train Your Dragon was created by Dream Works and released in 2010

(imdb.com). Since that time it has been nominated for 31 awards including the Oscar for best

animated film of the year according to internet movie data base. While the film’s achievements

are enough to illustrate the impact on the public, it also stirred a bit of controversy among some

significant political and religious leaders in our society. For example, Mike Huckabee even

weighed his thoughts by saying, “A nation must rally to the point where we recognize there is no

compromise. There is no alternative. We must win; they must lose. Dragons must disappear from

the face of the earth. . . If this doesn’t convince you why we need prayer in schools, then I don’t

know what will.” Whenever a member of our political system has something to say about a piece

of media we must look further into it to understand why they feel this way.

METHOD

The method that I use to analyze the movie will be an ideological criticism. This type of

criticism has been influenced by many people such as Charles Sanders Peirce, Jacques Derrida

and Phillip C. Wander, to name a few (Foss 211-212). An ideology is a set of beliefs that an

individual or entity has created to interact with the world around them. Ideological criticism

functions to view the rooted beliefs of a culture that has created a particular artifact (Foss 210).

Beliefs exist in all cultures and hold strong over time. Through many avenues certain belief

systems become dominant or hegemonic (Foss 210). Hegemony defined by Alan O’Connor is,
 Wensko 3

“Understanding the world in certain ways, but not in others.” (Foss 210). Hegemonic ideas must

also defend themselves to survive.

For this essay I will be using a form of ideological criticism known as activist criticism.

The criticism has been developed by Anne Makus and Jim Kuypers. The criticism goes one step

further than the one found in our Foss book. First the critic must find the ideological key figures

or the most prominent elements within the artifact. Next you will understand what the

“ideographs” are. Ideographs are a figure of thought, a summary of one aspect of a people’s

historical ideology.” (Kuypers 352). This will allow for understanding the meaning of the

prominent symbols that have been identified in the artifact. Next, the critic will categorize each

symbol into two fields of understanding, “domination or “freedom”. Domination or also known

as “power”, aims as being an emancipator and can best be styled as a ‘‘freedom from’’

oppressive elements of any ideology (Kuypers 353). Makus defines this as being able to make

your views and values universal with validation and legitimacy (498). The other category, which

both authors agree upon, is freedom. This can be defined as a ground to which is in constant

reflection and focuses on creating new relations with others (Keypur 353). After the symbols

have been categorized the analysis then turns to advocacy. This is the part of your criticism that

identifies future actions to take for social justice or anything in kind of that idea (Keypur 353).

The importance of this criticism is that it goes beyond just exploring an artifact but searches to

create new knowledge for future people to use to progress life forward to benefit society.

ANALYSIS

The movie has two major elements that formulate the ideologies presented, Stoick the

Vast and Hiccup. The two characters share a father-son relationship that easily contrasts the two

ideologies in a polarizing fashion. First, Stoick the Vast is a representation of traditionalism.

 Wensko 4

Traditionalism is a strict adherence to societal norms and beliefs. Tradition-directed people

hardly think of themselves as individuals; their conduct is determined by folk rituals handed

down from the past (Manchester 537). Any deterrence from the “code” is ridiculed and shunned.

Stoick, the name, gives a large clue about the ideology, coming from the root stoic. The practice

of stoicism is not allowing your emotions to overtake the senses so there are no major mishaps.

Stoick is a physical representation of the traditional values in the Viking culture. He is the

strongest has a large beard which, in many cultures, represents wisdom. He also embodies the

characteristics such as being the most fearless of all Vikings. He can take on any dragon and kill

it with his bare hands. He sticks to the “code” of his people. He is constantly using terms and

ideas found in their “Bible” called the “Dragon Manual”. The Dragon Manual states that every

dragon is extremely deadly and must be killed on site. Stoick believes this more than anybody

and is obsessed with the idea of finding their nest and eradicated them for good. Furthermore, he

even treats is son, Hiccup, as an outcast telling him he needs to stop of “this” and gestures to all

of Hiccup. This creates an embodiment that Hiccup is an antagonist to the way of life in the

Viking village. Because traditionalism seeks to bond a society into normative beliefs, Stoick

himself must reject his son. He does so verbally with a statement of, “you are not my son.”, when

he finds Hiccup in violation of their way of life. Stoick expresses that they had a “deal” to

commit to their traditional values of killing dragons rather than befriending them. The term deal

is used in reference to social contracts that we all make to promote the greater good for all within

a given community.

The act of shunning is only son gives a clear image of how oppressive traditionalism can

be. Furthermore, Stoick is defining the role of domination. His oppressive idealism illustrates the

contrast between him and Hiccup. By shunning his only son he forces Hiccup to do something
 Wensko 5

crazy to save his friend toothless. After his shunning he takes flight to save his dragon and not

his fellow Vikings from danger. This act is a moment of freedom from or a release from the

oppressive way of life.

Hiccup, on the other hand, is the representation of postmodernism. Postmodernism is

inventing new codes and reshaping information for the production of knowledge or also,

the transformation of the game rules for science, art, and literature (Aylesworth). Even the name

Hiccup at its denotative value means to disrupt breathing due to a spasm in the diaphragm.

Hiccup is small, weak, and disorganized. He is constantly bullied because even though he wants

to be a part of Viking tradition he does it in non-traditional ways. He reinvents the traditional

weapons to be more efficient. Hiccup then is given an opportunity to be just like everyone else

by killing the downed night fury but cannot bring himself to kill it. This action goes against

everything he has been taught and begins to question everything he has been taught about

dragons. During this revelation he has been put into dragon training and begins to use the ideas

and beliefs that are being taught to learn about dragons in a whole new way. Instead of

controlling the dragons through physical force he learns it can be done through simple things like

a pet on the neck to make dragons fall asleep.

Hiccup also begins to ride his dragon because without him the dragon, toothless, cannot

fly. This symbolic action represents the freedom as defined earlier. Hiccup has bonded and

created a new relationship with the dragon community. Using his innovation to create a new tail

wing and controlling it, he understands that there is a symbiotic relationship that is mutually

beneficial. Hiccup’s relation with the dragon is in direct violation of the traditional belief that

relations with dragons are dichotic or “us” versus “them” mentality, with no grey area. The

culmination of deconstructing the knowledge that is known by Vikings turns to a grand

 Wensko 6

revelation for Hiccup and iterates this by saying, “Everything we know about you guys is

wrong.” Hiccup the postmodernist reinvent the old knowledge to new. He tries to show his

people that their beliefs of dragons are false. As Stoick his father watches his son try and

befriend a dragon in an arena that is meant to legitimize the traditional role of killing dragons,

Stoick stops the match. This act is due to the violation of the “code” and the clash of the two

ideologies begins here as the abrupt violent act of Stoick to stop the match turns the dragon

against Hiccup. Due to the nature of traditionalism, viewing any progressive idea about a way of

life is forbidden, Hiccup’s new perception is dismissed and he his ousted from society.

Postmodernism always tears down old ways and creates new perceptions and is a direct

infringement upon any society that holds to traditional ideology. So Hiccup has clearly illustrated

what he believes and continues to fight for the new beliefs rather than the old. His friends come

to his aid to help him save is dragon friend which advocates that his new perception may have

potentially to benefit them.

Whether or not the film intended to confront the two ideologies or not is unclear. The

roles that the father and son play are domination and freedom or oppression and free will. Most

audience may overlook the underlying message of the harms that come from oppressive

ideologies that leave no room for progression. The film seems to set out to show that

postmodernism can lead to many benefits to a society. When hiccup rides on toothless he gives a

non-verbal response of his freedom from his society. When Stoick observes this his dominant

ideals kick in that actually endanger his own son. Learning that killing dragons does not have to

be an “occupational hazard” as Stoick and Hiccup both express verbally. Instead both Vikings

and Dragons can share a symbiotic relationship that can create ties of friendship and end what

seems to be a never ending war. Additionally, traditionalism is portrayed as a highly oppressive

 Wensko 7

tool in society. The firm grasp of ongoing beliefs even allows a father to reject his only son

which can be viewed as the most extreme case of traditionalism. He shows that societal

normative are more important than flesh and blood.

The film does fall short though of overcoming the oppressive hegemonic ideal of

Vikings. In the opening narrative Dragons are referred to as “pest” and in the closing narrative

they are then referred to as “pets”. Interestingly, only one letter is removed to create a new

perception of the world that Hiccup lives in. this semantic play of words actually reinforces the

hegemonic stance of the Viking people. We may see pets as friend in traditionalism but what

remains after the battle of the two ideas is the concept of dominance. Traditionally, Vikings

dominated in an aggressively and violently eradicate dragons. The ending of the movie tries to

portray the concept of deconstructing this notion; it fails to do so by calling dragons pets. To own

a pet is to dominate or as a traditionalist would say domesticate a living thing. In the process of

owning a pet you are teaching it to obey your commands and breaking any sense of its natural

“wild” tendencies. The film does support the clash of traditionalism and postmodernism well but

fails to give any clear sign that postmodernism can lead to ending oppressive hegemonic beliefs

and attitudes. The end of the film only gives rise to a new way of thinking that will lead into a

traditional role in time and again become oppressive to anyone that challenges the status quo.

To truly make the change from one ideology to another one must completely destroy the

very foundation to which it is standing on. This may sound a little extreme but does not always

have to be a violent action. Foundations can be crumbled from within the system as well. While

Hiccup makes a good run and changing his village to stop the oppressive rituals, as with any

postmodern move in a society, it takes parts of the old and creates the new. As for Hiccup he

made pest into pets and still fulfilled his father’s dream of dominating the dragons. At this point
 Wensko 8

in the 21st century it does take the lens of “freedom from” or to form new relations by social

network. Local communities should be using social networks online to connect and share like

minded ideas and grow new ideologies to overwhelm the old. This is exactly what has been

happening in the Middle East and shows that it takes more than just a different ideology in the

world it takes peaceful and unified action to implement those ideas.

As a whole the film had a great message to youngsters. I contend that oppressive

hegemonies in society could not be subverted an opposing ideology which was an accurate

contention. The film does show a strong polarizing dichotomy between father and son to uphold

and tear down traditional views through verbal and non verbal images. The thesis does account

for the ending of the movie and how domination continued even after the change. Even though

Hiccup did deconstruct the way society interacted with dragons, the belief that dominating them

continued to hold firm and keep an oppressive state for dragons themselves. If they truly were

completely accurate, the dragons would be seen as friends or wild natural creatures instead of

pets to control. This conclusion was surprising to even me because I viewed the film as uplifting

and triumphant. With a closer look though it seems that traditionalism is a long lasting theme in

human society and cannot just be overtaking by new ideas. It would take a change in a large

scale paradigm of being oppressive and hegemonic in nature is a negative aspect of life rather

than a necessity to survive as a culture.

 Wensko 9

Works Cited

Aylesworth, Gary, Postmodernism, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Winter 2010

Edition, Edward N. Zalta (ed.),

<http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2010/entries/postmodernism/>.

Blockbuster Hit “How to Train Your Dragon” Evokes Intense Controversy. 31 May, 2010.

Conspicuous Cynic. < http://beedeekay.com/2010/05/31/blockbuster-hit-how-to-train-

your-dragon-evokes-intense-controversy/>. April 2011. Web.

Foss, Sonja K. Rhetorical Criticism: Exploration and Practice. 4th ed. Long Grove, IL:

Waveland, 2009. Print.

How to Train Your Dragon. Dir. Dean Deblois and Chris Sanders. Pref. Jay Baruchel and Gerard

Butler. Dream Works 2010. Film.

Kuypers, Jim A. The Rhetorical River. Southern Communication Journal 73.4 (2008): 350-

358.Communication & Mass Media Complete. EBSCO. Web. 27 Apr. 2011.Web.

Makus, Anne. Stuart Hall's Theory of Ideology: A Frame for Rhetorical Criticism. Western

Journal of Speech Communication: WJSC 54.4 (1990): 495-514. Communication & Mass

Media Complete. EBSCO. Web. 27 Apr. 2011. Web.

Manchester, William. American Caesar Douglas MacArthur, 1880-1964. Boston. Little, Brown,

1978. Book.

Movie Database. 2011. Imdb.Inc. <http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0892769/>. April 2011. Web.