Greene delivers a necessary defense of intellectual rigor against the rise of evidence-free contrarianism in digital media analysis. It is a sobering reminder that a "deep take" is worthless when it prioritizes viral engagement over the actual text.
Install our extension to search inside any video instantly.
THAT shrek takeAdded:
So, I got back on Tik Tok recently, mostly so I could do this, but I quickly fell into the trap of swiping until my thumb stopped working.
That said, I felt pretty tapped into the culture while I was on Tik Tok. I got the songs people were referencing. I I understood the jokes that my friends were stealing from the platform and I knew more of what the world was saying about movies, TV shows, music, things that it turns out I do like. And for a second there, they had me. I was unironically thinking, "Hey, why did I delete Tik Tok in the first place? This thing ain't too bad. Look at that Charlie De'lio. She's still going." But what changed my grin into a furrowed brow on that fateful morning I spent on the wretched clock icon app was a video.
so stupid, so mind-boggling that it launched the internet into a classic campaign of ridicule. A video so ubiquitous, at least on the side of the algorithm that I reside on, that it is now referred to by the internet as that Shrek take, made by Tik Tocker Amber Achila, a self-help influencer with the bio hot and having fun. She proceeds to have the least fun analysis of the 2001 animated film Shrek. I just posted on my Instagram story about how Shrek is not a fairy tale. It's a cautionary tale. An example of how a woman cannot turn an ogre into a man, but he can make an ogre out of you.
>> Now, when I first stumbled upon this video, you might be surprised to hear that I was ready to be convinced. I really like Shrek, and I also really like alternative analyses of weird older movies. But as Amber kept going, the video turned into something so ridiculous. Such a strange opinion to have that I thought she must be joking >> because she started as a princess. She had generational wealth. She could have had a pet dragon.
>> Like the dragon that was holding Fiona hostage in attack. You mean that dragon?
I don't know that she was her pet. I mean, that's hilarious. There there's no way she's being serious there. She goes on to call Shrek an unemployed predator.
The first person she meets is this moody ass stubborn ogre that basically negs her. An antisocial outcast, lives in a swamp. Isn't he also unemployed?
>> And at that point, I was sure this could not be real. It's the equivalent of me calling Simon from Alvin and the Chipmunks racists. It's meant to be a light-hearted romp in between my actual analysis of the text. So, I was waiting for that part. Where's the real analysis? When does she actually talk about the movie Shrek? Surely she will.
But the video just kept going.
>> You could be the prettiest and richest girl in the land, and if you don't have a hobby and some friends, you'll end up in the swap with an ogre, and you'll become an ogre, too.
>> And then it ends.
Oh, no.
>> She doesn't bring it to a punchline. She doesn't add any nuance to her opinion.
The video is just exactly what it states itself to be, an earnest analysis as to why Shrek is a cautionary tale about how men can turn women into ogres with the spookiest music ever beneath it. This Tik Tok has garnered, as of making this video, almost 9 million views and 1.7 million likes. Holy [ __ ] That's more views than I've ever gotten on anything I've ever made in my entire life. That's more views than this channel has now.
The comments, if you're looking at the most popular ones, are largely in support of this analysis. Because wait a damn minute, says this person, depicting themselves as a squinting Regina George.
91,000 likes. Oh my god, it's a horror story, Hope says while presumably covering their mouth to stop themselves from screaming at their phone late at night. 255,000 likes. Trek had literally not a single redeemable quality, says C. God, C.
People can just be named C on Tik Tok.
What a weird act. Amber Akquila replies to C like, "You can't tell me that was love." And follows it with four sobbing emojis. For she cries for Fiona, a woman never in love at all with that hideous [ __ ] Shrek.
Okay, so if you're anything like me, you're rather confused by all this, likely because you've seen the film Shrek. Fiona wasn't forced to be with Shrek at all. And this video pretty clearly implies that. But like, didn't she choose him at the end of the film?
Also, Shrek has redeemable qualities.
That's like the entire point of the film. Shrek is a gross guy in some ways, sure, but the movie shows he also has a heart of gold. He has layers. He cares deeply for Fiona by the end of the film.
The two are so compatible that there's a whole montage showing just how similar they are. And don't worry, these opinions aren't just my own. They're shared by a large portion of the internet who immediately started roasting the [ __ ] out of this annoying ass video. And though I read you a bulk of the most popular comments, there are still plenty that disagree with Amber.
Like this one from esteemed Tik Tocker Big Daddy the First, who eloquently states, "This is genuinely a terrible interpretation of Shrek, and I fear we are in a media literacy crisis." Well put, Big Daddy the First. Well put. I must agree or must die. Countless Tik Toks have been made about this video, stitching it and attacking it for being the death of media literacy and a blatant misunderstanding of Shrek. If Tik Tok has proved itself to be good at anything, it's hate trains. And this has become another one of those. People have attacked this from every possible angle.
So it seems. That Shrek take was low-key alt-right propaganda. This guy says as he stands, looking like he hella [ __ ] with laboo. Lisa Eckenberg, a gender studies major who studies political science. Ooh, let me place a kind emphasis on major says that the Shrek take is ableist and irresponsible pathizing. Tik Tocker Cororin XV has a pretty solid video breaking down why what she says happens is just wrong, but it's still missing the length to really dive in to just how odd Amber's video is. And so I figured I'm a guy on the internet who talks about movies and art.
I care a whole lot about those sorts of things. So what's the deal with Amber's Shrek tape? Is it really that terrible of a take? Is Amber Akquila evil and bad? And most importantly, why would she say such things about Shrek? [ __ ] did he do? So, I want to take you on a journey through this discourse and get to the bottom of it all. Is media literacy dead like Big Did Daddy the first announced?
I sure hope not. Otherwise, I'd be out of a job. I'm Maxwell Green. I care about art. And let's talk about that Shrek take and why everything surrounding it is painfully indicative of what the modern-day internet is.
This is a very weird Tik Tok. Let's please talk about it. I watched it so many times which sucks because I can't even log it on Letterbox. I think it is vital for us to begin by going through Amber's original Tik Tok line for line because really there's something stupid to talk about in every part of this video. So, let's rifle our way through it and analyze what it is that made people so upset in the first place.
Yeah, we're going to go bar forbar with this one. This is my euphoria.
Or I guess in terms of how much I like it, it's really my the heart part six.
Either way, we're going literary analysis mode on this one. whatever that means in this weird world with the internet.
>> Locality Max here. Just before we get started, if you go to Amber Akila's Tik Tok page and say anything mean, unkind, or [ __ ] talker, or say that I sent you, I disown you. I don't do that. Please don't do that. Be a normal person on the internet. Thank you. Okay, I love you. I >> I just posted on my Instagram story about how Shrek is not a fairy tale.
It's a cautionary tale, an example of how a woman cannot turn an ogre into a man, but he can make an ogre out of you.
>> So, the first line of this video is pretty tame in my opinion. Simply a thesis statement of what Amber's point is going to be, but it's still rather easy to poke holes in. As you'll remember from the film, if you've actually seen it, Yona is an ogre long before she ever meets a man who comes to save her. A curse has been placed on her that keeps her as a human during the day and an ogre at night, which can only be broken by true love's kiss. So, right off the bat, the idea that Shrek is about how a woman can't turn a man into an ogre, but he can turn an ogre out of you is pretty ridiculous. Sure, Shrek turns her into an ogre full time by kissing her, but I think it's unfair to say it was just Shrek who made her that way to begin with. It was a curse placed upon her, one that Shrek had nothing to do with. And she took Love's true form, as the movie indicates.
>> True love first kiss and then take's true form.
>> But I hear Amber's point. Perhaps she believes this is meant to represent how in a relationship sometimes one member can inadvertently make the other take their form. But to that, I say that's simply not the case with Fiona and Shrek. Fiona is definitely her own person. She doesn't turn into this weird unrecognizable woman version of Shrek.
In fact, most of the series conflict after the first film dives into the idea that Fiona and Shrek have different priorities in their relationship. But what Amber neglects, not just in this part of the video, but throughout the whole thing, is that the two of them love each other. It's not like Shrek grabs her and kisses her non-consensually. That doesn't happen in the movie I watch. They love each other.
That's like the whole point of the movie. It's a romantic film right away.
What a weird thing to say. And I think Amber running out of breath as she says the word you is pretty indicative of how she's running out of steam this early on.
>> But he can make an ogre out of you.
>> She then goes on to say >> because she started as a princess, she had generational wealth, she could have had a pet dragon. And because she was stuck up there, no hobbies, no friends.
>> So before she goes on to make her larger point here, there are a few large discrepancies between what actually happens in the movie Shrek and Amber's retelling of it. First of all, I think representing Fiona's princesshood as having generational wealth pretty clearly neglects a massive caveat that the film includes that she's only allowed to be a princess to have access to that generational wealth if she were to be rescued by a prince. She didn't really have any other options to get that money. Now, is it terrible that her parents did that to her? Yes. That's the point of the movie. I don't even want to mention how she could have had a pet dragon is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. as is the fact that she had no hobbies or friends. Fiona has this thing where, you know, she turns into an ogre at night, which I would imagine makes having friends pretty difficult, especially cuz the world has this insane built-in prejudice against the species of ogres. I I just don't see that working out with the girlies. Not to mention the giant rickety wooden bridge over lava you have to pass to get to her crib. Also, hobbies. I She [ __ ] knows martial arts. How's that for a hobby?
This is not a deep analysis of Shrek. I apologize for keeping it so surface level, but that's the thing. It would be counterproductive to go any deeper into the themes of Shrek right now when what Amber is saying is just literally wrong.
How could we have a conversation about Shrek's deeper themes when we don't even agree on what happens in the movie?
>> The first person she meets is this moody ass stubborn ogre that basically negs her. She takes that as a sign to like get him to like her and she falls in love with him.
>> What's worse than Amber's blatant inaccuracy when it comes to explaining the plot of Shrek is that she has literally no way to back any of it up.
She makes this claim that Fiona is basically manipulating Shrek trying to get him to like her. But when does that actually happen? Because I just watched the movie and it doesn't. How do you know what Fiona is thinking? What in the movie led you to believe that that was Fiona's train of thought? In actuality, it seems pretty clear that Fiona actually kind of likes Shrek. Like this moment where Shrek and Fiona make it to Farquad's domain early, and both of them convince Donkey that he's sick so they can spend one more afternoon together.
>> You know, she's right. You look awful.
Do you want to sit down?
>> Oh, you know, I'll make you some tea.
>> I'll find us some dinner.
>> I'll get the firewood.
>> Hey, where you going?
>> M subtext. It's so yummy. I'm eating it right up. They love each other. What is this cynical interpretation that Fiona is evil and trying to get Shrek to like her? Or this moment where Shrek asks Fiona to come visit him after she marries Farquad and she says she'd like that.
>> Maybe you can come visit me in the swamp sometime.
>> I'd like that.
>> She would like that. Maybe I'm just not seeing something, but I just don't think that this is a valid criticism of Fiona's character. That she manipulates Shrek to like her and is in some sort of trauma bond with an abusive chud. Or that she's just some lazy who has no hobbies or friends and doesn't rely on any women around her.
>> No hobbies, >> no friends.
>> No, Fiona is a character who by all accounts is rather feminist. I know I said earlier that in the world of the film, she needed a man to save her, but even that is a basic ass analysis of the text. Fiona is a badass. She does this Matrix ass [ __ ] minutes after being saved by Shrek.
She, as a character, is antithetical to your average pre 911 Disney princess because she fights hard for what she wants and she's picky about the men in her life. She doesn't fall for the traditional powerful prince with lots of money. She falls in love with an ogre who loves her very much and sees her for who she is. What she says about Shrek here is equally untrue.
>> The first person she meets is this moody ass stubborn ogre that basically negs her.
>> If you'll remember, Shrek is, when he first meets Fiona, not interested. He simply wants his swamp back and rescues Fiona as a job. Yes, he's a slob and he's rude, but he's far more nuanced of a character than Amber is making him out to be. In fact, the entire movie, I'd say, is about unraveling Shrek as a character, exploring the idea that people are more than they see. Shrek is as much a moody ass, stubborn ogre as he is a kind, loving soul. At the beginning of the film, he's being hunted by people because of what he looks like, the giant stinky green aura he has surrounding his big ass. At first, he seems ambivalent, or maybe even glad that he has so many haters. But as the film continues, you start to understand how hurt Shrek is by all of this. He's been jaded by the constant discrimination and angry mobs sent his way. But in reality, he's just a person trying to get by. You of course all know this because you watched the movie and you have a shred of empathy in your soul. So, it's both really ironic and telling that Amber fully neglects any of that about Shrek and just resorted to name calling, the very thing that this movie is against. So, it's curious. Do you think that Amber watched the movie before making this video? Or do you think she maybe just skipped to the parts where Fiona is on screen? Only the parts where she's human, by the way, not the parts where she's that ugly ass disgusting ogre? because I think that's the only way that this opinion makes any sense, at least in relation to the film Shrek. This is such a mean-spirited take. And don't you worry, somehow it gets meaner.
>> He manages to get a princess to settle for him, an antisocial outcast, lives in a swamp. Isn't he also unemployed?
>> Oh no, unnemployed. Watch out, anyone in the current job market. Amber doesn't [ __ ] with you. The worst thing about this part is that it's literally the funniest thing you can say about Shrek.
I I can't even argue it. Shrek is hella unemployed. All the people on TikTok arguing this point are ridiculous. She really [ __ ] owned him with that one.
Okay, but in all seriousness, saying that Shrek managed to get a princess to settle for him takes away all agency from Fiona as a character and I think is a rather misogynist point that this video makes because Fiona importantly likes Shrek. Remember at the end of the film Shrek runs up to Fiona at the altar interrupting her marriage and she chooses him.
>> I love you.
>> I love you, too. Sure, there's a lot of pressure on her in this moment, but if we're playing this game of speculation, I think it's fair to say that she just as easily could have had him thrown out.
She knows that Shrek isn't just some brute. I think it's fair to say that he'd respect her wishes if she really didn't want to be with him. But we don't even need to speculate that because she does love him. She tells him that she does. And if that's not good enough for you, she cementss it with a magical kiss.
But text be damned. I suppose Shrek is gross and smelly and green and that must be all he is because he burps and farts and poops all the time. Please do not watch the scene where Fiona burps too.
Uh that would literally destroy the point that I am making and it would be far too attentive to the movie.
>> That is no way to behave in front of a princess.
>> Thanks.
>> She's as nasty as you are.
>> She's thinking, "Oh my god, I got the loser to love me." alienates herself from her family to live with him in a swamp.
>> Okay, first of all, I love this part.
First of all, head cannoning Fiona to say, "Yay, I got the loser to love me.
Yay," is some supreme hater [ __ ] But in terms of her alienating herself from her family to live with Shrek in the swamp, I just don't think that that argument has any legs. The beginning of Shrek 2 shows the two going on their honeymoon to perhaps the greatest song written ever by the counting crows.
>> And then pretty much as soon as they get back from the swamp, they are summoned by her parents to go visit her hometown.
>> You are hereby summoned to the kingdom of far away for a royal ball.
>> And Fiona is thrilled to go see her parents. She jumps at the opportunity immediately.
>> You might be a bit surprised, but they're my parents, Shrek. They love me.
>> So, I don't know that it's really fair to say that she alienated herself from her family even though she saw them right after her wedding. Uh, but I guess if you haven't seen Shrek 2, you wouldn't really know that. Sorry, Amber.
You really should check it out. So, this raises the question, has Amber seen any of the Shrek movies recently? Because it's starting, it's really starting to feel like the answer is no. Maybe she just loosely remembers the last time she watched them and that time she thought, "Yeah, Shrek is big, stinky, and gross and Fiona cool." And she was 5 years old, by the way. I mean, she's definitely seen Shrek III at some point because she knows that Shrek and Fiona have babies, >> alienates herself from her family to live with him in a swamp, gets baby trapped. Baby trapping is when someone in a sexual relationship intentionally causes a pregnancy without the other member knowing. It is a truly evil act in my opinion to do to somebody because it essentially holds the other person hostage as they now have a [ __ ] baby.
This painted an image in my head that I did not want to see. Uh so I apologize.
But is Amber implying that Shrek poked holes in his condoms? I cannot say this sentence with a straight face. Holy [ __ ] Does she think that Shrek poked does she think that Shrek did that? Like do you think that she actually believes that he poked holes in his condoms and impregnated her with Fergus Farle and Felicia w without without her knowing?
Is that what she believes? What a claim to make. So I think there are only two explanations as to why Amber might say this. The first is the most obvious to me and it's that Amber has not seen Shrek 2. So you know she missed the part where Shrek actively said he doesn't want to have kids. Well, I suppose that will be a fine place to raise the children.
It >> It's a bit early to be thinking about that, isn't it? Indeed.
>> Which means she also missed the ending where Fiona and Shrek proclaim their love to one another. And it means she also missed the second magical transformation.
So maybe she just missed that. Maybe she just [ __ ] missed it. Which really begs the question, why are you talking about these movies in the first place?
Why make a video about a movie that you didn't pay attention to? And not just didn't pay attention to, actively misunderstood. Want to know how I know Fiona wasn't baby trapped? Shrek the third is literally all about how Shrek does not want [ __ ] kids. Listen, I know that movie sucks taint, but we can't just pretend it doesn't exist.
Come on. Shouldn't you doublech check that these points are true before spreading them out into the world?
Wouldn't a rewatch be in order before announcing that Shrek is actually about some [ __ ] My other theory as to why she said this is, well, that she just chose to forget these parts of the movies. Maybe she did rewatch the first Shrek film, remembered in the later ones that he has kids, and then didn't rewatch those before going on TikTok to make her flaming hot tape. Maybe she grossly underestimated just how many people online love Shrek. Or maybe she feared that if she rewatched them, they'd disagree with what her pre-existing opinions were. I get that.
It's the worst when you go back to your script after doing a little more research and realized that you made a [ __ ] take. Now you got to change a chunk of what you wrote to be more accurate.
And maybe your point isn't nearly as good as you thought it was. Such as the pain of being a writer where you try to analyze films in good faith. But Amber didn't feel such an obligation to the text nor to her viewers. And what a shame. If either of these things are the case, Amber is purposefully misremembering Shrek. Either because she chose not to watch the films, at least in their entirety, or because she chose not to back any of it up, with clips from the movie. These are easily debunkable things about Shrek. Half of them aren't even worth debating. Half of the video is just wrong. Not even just a different interpretation, just naive misremembering. And the other half is just weird speculation. Like this next part where she says that because Fiona is now an ogre and she has babies, she will never date again.
>> Gets baby trapped, she's also an ogre now. So if she ever wanted to leave him, she's severely limited her potential dating pool.
>> Severely limited her dating pool there.
Are they in an open relationship? Is this video pro Shrek and Fiona getting a divorce? Or is it pro Shrek and Fiona becoming swingers? Either way, I I think we're watching different movies. This statement represents a core point as to why I think Amber fundamentally misunderstands Shrek as a film, which is that she hates Shrek so [ __ ] much.
Not the movie, the person. She hates that green ass [ __ ] dude. She will never pass up an opportunity to roast the [ __ ] out of him. And she literally cannot fathom that Fiona loves him back.
And because of her core belief that Shrek is ugly and a terrible person, she neglects the entire emotional core of the film Shrek. Why are we neglecting the fact that love is so deeply important to these movies? It's the one throughine of all four films. That a and [ __ ] Eddie Murphy donkey. Is there an argument that Fiona has been pressured into her relationship? That Shrek has forced a trauma bond upon her. Maybe, I guess, if you're a hater and you don't believe in love. But I don't see any conclusive evidence of that in the movies. And Amber won't show me any [ __ ] clips. Back it up, Amber. When does any of this happen?
>> He's not willing to change anything about himself or the way he lives or to level up in order to provide for her and their family.
>> Okay, Amber. So, you didn't see Shrek 2.
It's a pretty good movie. Uh, not as good as the first one, though. Everyone says that it is. In that movie, by the way, Shrek wants to be with Fiona so badly that he steals a magical potion that turns him and her back into humans.
And if that's not leveling up in your book, I am not sure what is. I know I said earlier that Amber's biggest problem with Shrek was his personality, but I think even bigger, the thing that she brings up even more often is how ugly he is. She hates him for being chopped. You know what? I I can't even argue that. Yeah, Shrek is chopped. He's super [ __ ] ugly. Who cares about personality or anything? Let's analyze his cantal tilt, right, Amber? But let's really argue this point. The idea that Shrek didn't level up or change anything about himself for Fiona. And you know what? We'll do it without even talking about Shrek 2 because one, that's what everyone does, and two, I genuinely don't know if you've seen it or not, Amber. Let's play with the cards you have a and act as if we've only seen the very first Shrek move. The year is 2001.
In four months, Brooklyn's most famous geekrock band of the 80s and 90s, They Might Be Giants, are set to release their album Mink Car. It released to middling sales for whatever reason, but the movie Shrek was deeply embedded in the cultural zeitgeist. Are you there?
Are you in 2001? Are you picturing the movie Shrek in your head?
Okay, great. So, Amber, what do you mean? What do you mean that Shrek is not willing to change anything about himself? Are you saying that Shrek doesn't change throughout the movie?
Shrek? Really? Like, like actually, that's your point? The very first moment that we see Shrek, he's a misanthropic jerk. He wipes his ass with the very premise of love and gallivance around his swamp, content with his solitude.
He's a character that pushes people away from him at every opportunity, seemingly immune to relationships. The very first friend he makes in the film is Donkey, someone who literally has to force his friendship upon the ogre. I'm an ogre, you know. Grab your torch and pitchforks.
Doesn't that bother you?
>> Nope.
>> Shrek is genuinely taken aback by this, he's never been met with this type of relationship, one that's unconditional, and one that sees him for who he is.
While the friendship is originally pushed upon him, Shrek embraces Donkey as the film progresses. By the end of the film, Shrek becomes less afraid to be surrounded by other people, to lean on them when he needs to, and arguably the biggest factor in that change is Fiona. It's for her he decides to open his heart up voluntarily for the first time as he decides to confess his love to her. Though he doesn't go through with it right away, this is a massive change in perspective for Shrek. One materialized even more at the end of the film when he literally interrupts Fiona and Farquad's wedding.
I object.
>> Shrek.
>> So to say that Shrek doesn't change for Fiona is simply untrue. Shrek would never do this at the beginning of the film. All he cared about was [ __ ] Smash. He wasn't able to love anybody but himself. He was ruled by his selfishness motivated by getting his swamp back after Pinocchio rubbed his little nuts all over his pillow. But on the way, he found what it means to do something for someone else. Shrek changes. Maybe not his green ass skin or his affinity to goon in his mud baths, but on the inside. But those material things seem to be all Amber cares about.
Like, why can't he have a better house?
>> Did I mention she lived in a swamp when she could have lived in a castle? People try to trick women into not caring about material things, but there really is a level that you need to care about when you're going to raise children. Okay, men can go their whole lives sleeping on the floor, but how are you going to raise children in that kind of environment?
>> Oh, right. Shrek doesn't change. He still lives in a swamp. How's he gonna raise those kids in the swamp? I'll bet they'll hate the swamp, those kids.
Amber, they're ogres. They aren't human kids. They enjoy living in a swamp, ogres, in the world of Shrek. I'll bet it's really good for their pores.
Fergus, Sparkle, and Felicia seem pretty happy in that swamp of theirs. And I'm sorry, they don't even sleep on the floor. They have a crib. They bring a crib in there. So, I'm not really sure what your problem is, Amber. Amber Akquila is anti- lowincome housing.
Yeah, put that on the [ __ ] thumbnail, huh? She wraps up her TikTok by bringing it back to the thesis. Something that she did not do elsewhere in this video, but it's a helpful reminder to the viewer that the only thing that Amber cares about is the fact that Fiona is a [ __ ] loser.
>> You could be the prettiest and richest girl in the land, and if you don't have a hobby and some friends, you'll end up in the swamp with an ogre, and you'll become an ogre, too.
Okay, so now that we've seen the whole video, I think that I get it. This is a very loose vibes-based thematic analysis of Shrek. Perhaps we don't care too much about the finer details as we're trying to apply this film to our lives. It's often worth asking, does art mimic life, or have we gotten to the point where life mimics art? What art means is in the eye of the beholder, and interpretation is entirely subjective.
Perhaps Amber had some total bum in her life force her to be with him and he was a total [ __ ] [ __ ] and that's what she gets out of this movie. And though she doesn't give any evidence to support her interpretation, who am I to say that she's wrong? Do I disagree with her?
100%. But if Shrek helped her understand and contextualize what it means to be alive, I'm happy for her.
But did it? Is that really what this video is? An earnest person trying to figure out what it is that Shrek means?
Someone in good faith trying to learn from a movie and get something out of it? No, I don't think that's what this video is at all. I think this video is much more cynical and in some ways far more insidious because who even is Amber Aquila? Why is she talking about Shrek at me? What is she doing so late on her couch telling me a movie I liked when I was a kid is bad actually? Why does she seem to hate Shrek so much as a person?
And why does her analysis forget like everything that happens in the movie?
Well, Amber isn't just making a stupid Tik Tok video on a Tuesday. She's not motivated by good faith media analysis.
No, what she is is an influencer.
motivated by getting a bag.
Who is Amber Achila? What are her motivations? Why does she post these things? Amber Akquila has almost 200,000 Tik Tok followers at the point of me making this video. And the first video I clicked on when looking at her profile was this. And I think that sometimes people don't realize that life is not an avoidance of flop in order to slay. It is an integration of flop and slay. Flop and sleigh, one is not better than the other. They're actually equally important.
>> Wow, never mind. Nuance and intelligent discussion is alive on Tik Tok. Amber Akila is a Chinese Australian woman, a self-described philosopher, a DJ, a podcaster, and a self-help Tik Tocker.
>> So, you've never slayed a day in your life? I can fix that. Her videos often surround her answering a question from a comment left on a previous video. And she specializes in videos for women about self-empowerment and staying away from mindsets that circulate needing men's validation. She also talks in a way that's meant to get lots of engagement, often using Jenz slang to make her points.
>> The difference between people with rears and people with not so much re >> I think on paper, Amber Akquila is a good figure for women. She makes YouTube videos meant to inspire them to find self-acceptance and happiness. She hosts a podcast about similar topics and she overall is a strong voice in speaking up for women's rights in the modern internet era. But even if she weren't a strong voice, she certainly is a consistent one. She makes a [ __ ] ton of videos. Like seriously, she is an incredibly prolific Tik Tocker and YouTuber. She posts more than I could ever dream of. But I think just how prolific Amber is speaks to the type of content that she makes. Her videos are rarely scripted, perhaps at the most bullet pointed, and there's an air of I'm making this up as I go to everything she creates. Even her Shrek video feels improvised with awkward cuts between sentences.
>> He manages to get a princess to settle for him, an antisocial outcast, lives in a swamp. Isn't he also unemployed? Do you think he >> What a weird way to edit a video. and all of her videos have that sort of laidback feel to them.
Wow, doing this is really good for my shoulders. Maybe I should be a chill YouTuber. I actually don't hate a lot of Amber's videos, though I expected that maybe I would. She's a huge advocate for women being okay alone, which I think is the type of voice not seen nearly enough on the internet. So, is that why she decided to go on a tie raid against Shrek? though her opinions and videos often have more thought behind them. Did she mean to use Shrek as a way to make her larger points about men and women and feminism and all that? Well, I mean, probably. Yeah. I think this video deeply aligns with the type of content that Amber typically makes, and that is definitely worth pointing out here.
Amber makes videos most often about the concept of desentering men. The idea that women don't need men to define their own self-worth. They can do that on their own. Thank you very much. Most women are conditioned to send to men whether they realize it or not. The pursuit of beauty, the pursuit of knowledge, the pursuit of success is all done subconsciously under the premise that it will make you more desirable to men.
>> And I think this is all well and good.
[ __ ] men, you don't need them. Kill me first. But I think that when it comes to interacting with a piece of art that one is about a man and two was created by men, a certain dismissiveness rises.
Trek is a piece meant to dive into the nuances and dialectics of a man. It is a story that surrounds a man. And when it comes to Amber, I just don't think that this is the type of story that she finds interesting. In fact, in this video where Amber talks about men only wanting women for their bodies and that they're constantly aura farming, >> men feain interest in your mind in order to get access to your body or your energy. Those [ __ ] are constantly aura farming. Okay, >> Amber liked a comment that says, "Actually, I don't think I have found a man truly interesting." This is a joke of a comment that I don't mean to take so seriously, but I think this line of thinking is indicative of how Amber is coming at Shrek. She has a very strong view of the world, one that I don't and can't particularly share with, you know, the whole having a penis thing. While I can poke a million holes in her analysis of the text, perhaps she sees something that I literally cannot see as a man, and that I suppose is okay. That is one of the many beauties of art. But I don't think that Amber is able to get off that scot-free here. Does she see something I don't in this movie? Certainly. But remember, she failed to support any of what she said with clips from the movies and made some claims that were extremely far removed from what actually happens in Shrek. So, what gives? Is she just rage baiting? Is she? Is she? I don't know. Rage bait is a word that I deeply dislike. Mostly because it places the blame on the victim, not on the person doing the rage baiting. Oh, you got baited. Yeah, nice going, idiot. You fell for my purposefully mean-spirited and misleading joke.
Get rage baited, you [ __ ] idiot. To rage bait, for some reason, is seen as a win. you have successfully done the thing. You have gotten that person enraged. I say that to also say I use the word rage bait pretty often these days. It's just a part of my generation's lexicon that I wasn't able to shake. Instead, it consumed my vocabulary like a hungry boy. But I think the reason that the word is so popular is because it hits a certain viscera that its synonym trolling isn't quite able to. The fact that it is meant to fill somebody with rage. Rage bait is pretty easy these days, especially on an app like Tik Tok. People will say the darnest things to get you to keep watching or engage on a platform where people watching something for longer than 10 seconds is rare. It's why this guy who eats chilies in his car says [ __ ] like this.
>> And this time I got some of your guys' suggestions. And if you skip this video, a person with Down syndrome is going to peg you.
>> It's why people purposefully leave in wrong information or little mistakes to get people to comment. And it's why someone like Amber might make a video like this about Shrek. It's the ragebait economy here, sir. A tuppence for your anger? Because Tik Tok has some mystical algorithm. And one of the only things we know that works is when people click on things, videos tend to do better. And importantly, Amber makes a lot of outrageous content where people have lots of things to say in the comments.
It's why she uses Gen Z slang. It's why she titles her videos with things like aura and riz. It's why she posts things like me whether you love or hate what I have to say btw plastered over her pole dancing or born to support the girls and the gays forced to tolerate men in the process with her eyes blasting out lasers like NBA Young Boy. Does that mean that gay men are not men? I'm a little confused by the wording on that one, but never mind. Let's keep going.
Or what about this is how it feels to always end up being correct after enduring MF's telling you you're wrong as she convulses.
>> Release me.
>> And it may just be why she made her Shrek video or at the very least why she made it the way that she did. Because if this video is just some killer rage bait, Amber Achila is an aur. I've never seen such a successful piece in terms of getting angry ass reactions. The stitches to this video are so abundant.
The comments are so hateful, people are still making posts about this, like me.
Hello. So, to her credit, it worked. I mean, this is her most viewed video on Tik Tok ever. And this is just how Tik Tok as a platform works these days.
Hell, it's how every platform works these days. It's the cycle of negativity and haterism that gets people upset, and then Tik Tok will boost those videos because they get lots of clicks and comments, and then more people keep getting pissed off. Therefore, the most evil cycle continued. Now, Amber Achila isn't simply a ragebait Tik Tocker, but that doesn't mean she hasn't played a part in this vicious game of engagement bait. And I think that her Shrek Tik Tok is a prime example of it. Even if she does believe her argument, it's her indignation for Shrek and the fact that she made a video so contrarian and absolute in the first place. And it's really the video's tone that makes it so easy to hate. I mean, she knows that saying it all this way is bound to get people upset. And I think it's fair to say that that matters to her. But this form of content is not purely ragebait.
It is a symptom of a problem a lot bigger than what we've actually talked about. You see, a lot of people actually agreed with Amber's opinion when she made this video. And why is that? Do people just not understand movies anymore? Was Big Did Daddy the First, right? I fear we are in a media literacy crisis. He cried. He screamed. Is Amber's Tik Tok supreme engagement bait that she maybe half-heartedly believes?
Or are we actually doomed and people just forgot what movies even do now? Do people just not get Shrek anymore? Is Amber actually dumb?
Get the rations. Get in the bunker. It's a crisis. Media literacy is a concept hard to define, but I'll give it a go because what else do I have going on right now? It's essentially the idea that people are able to see the works that other people make and make logical assumptions about what that piece means.
And these days, it mostly just means, can you understand when a Tik Tok is trying to sell you something? And unfortunately for most people, the answer is no. Media literacy is likely more important than it ever has been.
What with robots trying to tell people that the president is jacked, the people need to be discerning. And this is troubling, especially when considering what the most consumed type of media is these days, which is short form content.
Quick, speedy videos that get to their point as fast as possible and leave little wiggle room for nuance.
>> Do you guys think that butt crack is the next big trend? Cuz I saw a girl post crack on Maine and it lowkey ate. Like I was like, this is [ __ ] So, let me know.
>> In comparing this new form of content with older, more traditional forms of media, it's like comparing night and day. But even more importantly, it's not necessarily the quality of the art we're consuming that's changing. It's the whole conversation surrounding it. So, we're all media illiterate, right? Tik Tok fried our brains and made us all slaves to the ever growing slop tree that giant corporations keep feeding us stinky little devil apples from.
Everyone is cooked. They're dropping Hamlet 2 next month. The world is over.
Well, I think it's a little deeper than that. It's important to remember that the current media landscape is wider than it's ever been. We are being bombarded with more things right now than at any point in human history.
Everyone is trying to influence you in some way or another. Whether that be a stranger online reading a Reddit post to you with no life behind their eyes, or some guy trying to figure out which gas station has the most evil item. News flash, buddy, it's Shell. I just know it. And then there's actually insidious people who just want to create chaos and uncertainty with their content. And all of it is just exhausting. This in a lot of ways makes some people really smart when it comes to consuming content.
Though that may just be my own hopeful thinking. Generation Z and alpha are so engrossed and consumed by the internet with so many new forms of content that they're actually quite a tough crowd when it comes to making new things for them. Playing the influencer game is a fickle one already, but it's only made harder by a bunch of 12-year-olds calling you unk if you have a poorly conceived take. Younger people are also a lot better at catching things that are AI, though I'm not sure that they really care whether or not the entertainment they watch was made by a human or not.
Uh, which worries me, but I'm not sure if it says anything negative about their media literacy. No, it's usually the fact that we've got kids who can't read that does that for us. If you can't tell, this problem is incredibly nuanced. But I think all in all, it's fair to say that media literacy is on the decline, and that's terrible. But also, doesn't it all make sense with the world that's been thrust at us? Don't you think we're asking a lot of people by throwing endless content at them and expecting them to understand and comprehend all of it? People just don't have that kind of time. Tik Tok and Instagram is not too deep and a way to escape for most people. And that doesn't necessarily make them stupid. It just means they don't give a [ __ ] about Twitter. they probably are too busy getting laid. On top of it all, media literacy is frankly far too vague of a term. Yes, true media literacy is suffering. People have no idea what is going on in the world. But is that really what Amber's Tik Tok is? I mean, not quite. It just seems like she didn't really get what Shrek was going for.
Well, I think this problem is a little more specific than a general lack of media literacy. This is a crisis of art analysis. Art analysis is dead. Long live art analysis. Now we must resort to watching movies at two times speed while we play Jetpack Joy Ride. Or better yet, just read that little AI blurb at the bottom of literally every YouTube video.
Now, Maxwell Green explores the liveaction Alvin and the Chipmunks film franchise, creating a personalized iceberg chart to analyze its themes.
Yeah, but you forgot the sections where I talked about poop and diddy. Nice try, robot.
Good luck explaining this video. Ah, [ __ ] They already did. Okay, sorry. I I don't actually believe that all art analysis is dead. But I do think that there's something critical missing from a lot of discourse surrounding art.
Listen, I'm one of those art is all subjective people. I know, I know, whatever. But I truly believe this because the thing I think makes art so special is that everyone can take away their own understanding of it. When watching a film, no two people gain the same thing. And were that the case, why would anyone interact with it? Listen, I'll stop getting so preachy about art and just say this. What art means is not set in stone by anyone. Sure, there's artistic intent, which is important to consider, but art is more meaningful and layered than that. But of course, Tik Tok is a bastion for poor art analysis.
And I'd argue that's in large part due to the form of content that's being thrown on there. Like I said before with Amber, videos don't necessarily do well if they're the most thoughtout thing on the planet. They mostly do well if people are touching it with their thumbs. People are just throwing spaghetti at the wall over there, prioritizing quantity over quality, and that leads to a lot less nuance overall.
A two-minute Tik Tok is hardly the place to make the weighty claim that Shrek is a movie about how men can turn women into ogres. And what's worse is that the claim was so halfbaked and she couldn't even back it up. But maybe I've lost the plot because this Shrek video is hardly even art analysis. This is just saying things to get a reaction. And that's fundamentally against the point of analyzing well anything to take meaningful connections and apply them to our lives. While Tik Tok is not the place for meaningful art discussion, that doesn't mean we should just throw away the whole concept of artistic integrity. Amber's Tik Tok was seen by almost 10 million people. I think she should be held accountable if she forgot what happened in Shrek. How embarrassing is that and how disrespectful it is, not just to the movie, but to anyone watching her video to begin with. Media literacy is dying. Sure, art analysis is on its way out. Okay. But what's worse is we've lost the time to talk about any of it in a measured and thoughtful way.
What works now, what's guaranteed to get you lots of likes is to just say some [ __ ] as long as it's under 3 minutes. And in doing that, Amber neglects the very function of art itself, which is that it has several meanings. Art isn't so absolute. But to save time, Amber acts as if it is, and that's the first place she went wrong.
So Amber is a complicated person. I feel like I should still give her that. I can't get into her brain, and that makes this video kind of difficult to make.
There's no clear answer as to why she would have made that video other than the fact that she was posting about it on her Instagram story earlier that day.
Perhaps she wanted to make an outrageous take to get people angry. Perhaps she doesn't understand Shrek. Perhaps she just made this Tik Tok on a whim for a smaller audience than it reached. I can't be so certain of any of it, though. I've scoured her account now and watched her video several times.
analyzing each thing it has to say, I still need more to come to a conclusion.
So, I went back to her page and remembered that she has a playlist pinned to the top of it called pop culture analysis. Well, if we want to see more of what she has to say about art in the world around her, this seems like a pretty good place to start. Let's check it out. What else might she have to say about other films or TV shows or or maybe even some hot goss? Okay, it starts with her Shrek video. That makes sense. A classic ho. And next is wait, what's the Shrek is a cautionary tale part two. She made a sequel. Wait, what else does she have on here?
It's all Shrek. It's six more videos about Shrek. All within 3 days of each other. Oh no. Why?
Amber's follow-up video, brilliantly titled Shrek is a Cautionary Tale Part Two, is by all means a terrible sequel.
It was posted mere hours after the original. She's in the same position on her couch as the first one, and she fails to make a better argument for her claim than she did in her last video.
She starts by reminding us that Shrek, in fact, is not a fairy tale.
>> Shrek is a cautionary tale part two. For context, Shrek is not a fairy tale. It was produced by DreamWorks. Okay, so right from the jump, I think that this is a very weird yet surprisingly common take on Shrek. Shrek is not a fairy tale. What an odd thing to say, because yes, it is. It's a fairy tale that's pretty blatantly against the themes of most fairy tales, and it's certainly not a traditional fairy tale, but it uses the setting and style of a fairy tale to best get to the ideas it's trying to make. The idea that love is powerful and you should accept yourself. Just because it lampampons fairy tales doesn't mean that it isn't one. Community is still a sitcom despite making fun of them all the time. It is simply a modern approach to the genre. Art is more complex than that. And to me, saying that Shrek is not a fairy tale comes off as rather dismissive to fairy tales, a perfectly valid and interesting form of storytelling. I think that this is all pretty indicative of Amber's angle here, as it already begins to muddy the waters between an opinion she can state and what is factually incorrect. And she's done this before. Remember, her first video just flat out states things that do not happen in Shrek, like Fiona getting baby trapped or the fact that she could have gotten generational wealth. These aren't just hot takes.
These are incorrect retellings of a movie that I can just go buy on DVD right now cuz I'm not going to [ __ ] watch it on Peacock. What should we watch on Peacock?
>> And it seems with her second video, she's done the same amount of research as she goes on to vaguely remember the history of Shrek's conception.
>> It was produced by DreamWorks and distributed by Universal Studios and I think written or produced by a guy that used to work at Disney.
>> Spot on, Amber. I remember that, too. I think the main point that she makes in this video is that Shrek falls victim to the brainwashed societal thinking that tells women that there are only two options in life. Shrek is not a fairy tale. Women are still brainwashed into thinking that you only have two choices in life. The loser that lives in a swamp or the narcissistic bubble head prince charming.
>> And she says that the secret third option is accepting yourself.
>> There is a secret third choice, accepting yourself and not requiring some external force to do that for you.
Because if she can only accept being an ogre through somebody like Shrek, now she lives in a swamp.
>> So yes, this is true. This is a third option that the movies never show being offered to Fiona. And if this were her only point that Shrek neglects to tell the viewers that Fiona would be fine without Shrek. I guess I couldn't argue that. Uh except I could if we were to remember that a movie exists called Shrek Forever After. Shrek Forever After is a film about, among other things, independence. In it, Trek is depicted as a jaded father, someone who misses when his life was much simpler and easy to manage without his damn kids and wife.
He storms out of his kid's birthday party after making a stink, and meets a character named Ruple Stiltskin, who manipulates him into signing away his life by offering him one day without his family. He's sucked into this magical orange void, and the world is [ __ ] terrible. Evil witchy poos fly around constantly. Angry mobs throw pitchforks at him. And he likes it, the little kinky [ __ ] But throughout the film, Shrek realizes that his life is so much worse without the people surrounding him. That his life, if he had not gone on that quest in the first film, would be horribly lonely and depressing. He mopes about and tries to find his family again, trying to break this curse. And that's when we see Fiona. Fiona, in a world without Shrek, is an independent woman who has accepted herself and changed for the better. She runs a communist army of ogres. She's a total girl boss. But this speaks to the point that Amber is making. No, that Fiona needs to accept herself and be hot and have fun, much like her bio suggests.
That's exactly what she does here. How could Amber possibly be upset about that? But very importantly, the film handles all of this with much more tact.
It still gives Shrek and Fiona room to change each other for the better, to fall in love. When they meet each other in this film, Shrek doesn't know Fiona at all. She's a completely different person than the woman he rescued from that tower. Yet Shrek insists they are still each other's true love. Insists they must kiss to break the spell from Rumple Stiltskin. Though Fiona doesn't seem to see it that way. At the end of the second act, Fiona kisses Shrek to get him to stop bothering her about it.
But when their lips lock, nothing happens. The two aren't yet in love.
>> The kiss didn't work because Fiona doesn't love me.
>> This represents the different lives the two could have led had they not met each other and also shows that Shrek still needs to change and love Fiona for who she is rather than love his own perception of her. It makes the case that it's possible to change while in a relationship. In fact, it's necessary.
After the kiss doesn't work, Shrek makes a huge sacrifice for Fiona, turns himself in to Rumble Stiltskin, then joins her communist rebellion and overthrows the government with her, proving that he can change for her. And that's when the two kiss, confirming that the two do still love each other even in these separate circumstances.
It's a film that tackles this idea of cosmic love, that love can exist in entirely different worlds if the two parties are willing to adapt and change for each other. And it's beautiful. You know what the best part of today was? I got the chance to fall in love with you all over again. I don't even like this movie that much. I think most of it is pretty [ __ ] boring. I don't like Craig Robinson Ogre at all. He pisses me off. But that ending freaking slaps, man. Come on. So maybe Amber hasn't seen this movie. It's fundamental research to her claim, by the way. But whatever. She makes her point anyway. And what really rubs me the wrong way about this video is that it treats Shrek as a series that has nothing interesting to say itself.
Shrek is far more nuanced than Amber makes it out to be. And the films allow for more than one interpretation. Shrek doesn't explicitly state its moral at the end of the film. It's not one of Asop's fables. And it's not an episode of Good Luck Charlie. But that's one of the things that makes it so wonderful.
Shrek has more than one theme. It's trying to say more than one thing.
Amber's videos have this subtext that Shrek as a series doesn't open itself up to these conversations about love, gender, and commitment when in fact it does. It just remains far more ambivalent and tries not to preach to its viewers. Easily one of the most heinous parts of the second SI act, the acronym that I've dubbed this series of videos, is where Amber once again doubles down on the fact that Fiona really could have married a better ogre than that dumb, ugly loser, Shrek.
Technically, she could have fallen in love with an employed ogre.
>> And I don't know that she could have. I I don't know that she had that many options when it came to ogres. Who would you have wanted her to date? The Craig Robinson ogre. I guess he is employed.
>> She wouldn't be sad in a swamp with her ogre children and her ogre husband.
>> Anyway, in her next Tik Tok, one that in its title yet again boldly claims, "What about the third option?" Dot dot dot self-love. Amber has this to say.
>> People that are saying that Fiona could only love herself once Shrek loved her are under spells. You are under a spell just like Fiona was.
>> Okay, Amber, I'll hear you out on this one. Maybe I am under a spell.
>> She was told her whole life that only through True Love's kiss could the spell be broken. But if she just decided that she was happy being half human, half ogre, I argue that she would have lived an even better life than if she had chosen to be a human or an ogre full-time.
>> H okay. Well, this is a take that she expands upon later in part five. So, why don't we just put a little pin in that?
Would you do that for me, bro? Just just plop a little pin in there for me, please. Anyway, when it comes to the third SCAC, I just want to say that it makes me feel a certain type of way.
Like a little stick to my stomach, maybe. Ouchie. loud cheese. Ah, >> and a lot of it comes down uh to how she ends it.
>> When you're having an argument with someone, the two default options that you're usually presented are to get defensive or just concede when there's actually a third option, saying nothing and walking away. The most powerful option of all.
>> This to me is where Amber's preaching to her viewers begins to visibly dilute the meaning of Shrek. Because at this point, I just do not believe she is practicing good faith media analysis. Rather, she's taking the very roundshaped Shrek and cramming it in to her square shaped brain. Because what do you mean she should have just stayed silent and walked away? She loved Shrek. Fiona is a strong woman. And unfortunately for Amber, some strong women love men. It's a fact of life. And the very idea of loving a man doesn't have to be this scary ideiation of certain doom. A lot of men suck. I I completely sympathize with that. But Shrek just doesn't. He's a kind guy doing his best and he shows consistently he's capable of change.
There's four movies about that. I think we have a fundamental disagreement here and it surrounds the fact that I believe something Amber doesn't. That you can change while you're in a relationship and while you're in love with somebody.
Why else would anyone be in a relationship if all they do is stunt your growth and make you a worse person?
And that is what the later films in the Shrek series say. They say that love is about adapting. It's not about changing yourself for someone else. In Shrek 2, Shrek learns that he needs to give more thought to what Fiona wants. He needs to listen to her. And he does. He literally changes for her into a human and tells her that if that's what she wants, he'll stay that way.
>> Fiona, is this what you want to be this way forever?
>> But she says no. She loves him too deeply and she loves him for who he is, an ogre.
>> I want what any princess wants, to live happily ever after with the ogre I married.
>> In a wonderful role reversal from the previous movie, the film asserts that these two love each other in a very real way. A way that I don't feel it would be a good analysis of Shrek to not acknowledge. Shrek is in a large part about love and love matters. I I didn't think it would be such a hot take to say that. So, the next sciact is a slideshow, a couple of pictures of people who have interacted with Amber's original post. It's meant to show off all of the hate comments she's received on her viral flaming hot take on Shrek 2001.
or at least I think that that's what this is supposed to be. This is a really strange Tik Tok. She shows someone saying Shrek is my comfort movie. Uh but like that's not a criticism of her video. That's just some [ __ ] people be saying in the comments of things. She shows some random user asking her about her love life and then another one asking her to go out to the swamp sometime with a smirking emoji, which is gross but not actually reflective of anything she says in her video. She could have shown some of the actual critiques launched her way. She could have watched one of the videos that stitched her video and gave some real counterpoints to what she said. But as you'll continue to see, Amber isn't so interested in actually discussing or having a conversation about the Shrek movies. She's more interested in telling you why they already fit into her established worldview. Fun. I'd respect her so much more if she'd actually just respond and explain her points a little better. Something she has yet to really do. Well, maybe in her fifth video, she'll get there. Amber's next Tik Tok about Shrek is called Trauma Limits Your Ability to Imagine Options. And it shows her responding to a commenter who says, or maybe it shows a person, you don't have to change to get a princess.
There's someone for everyone. Oh, what's that? Is that pro-Shrek propaganda I'm hearing? How [ __ ] dare you? You piece of [ __ ] [ __ ] So, of course, Amber goes on to say that Shrek is actually the bad guy and a terrible choice for Fiona because of her parental trauma.
>> She's had one day of freedom. So, of course, the first person she like properly meets and seems to have her safety as part of her concern. Even though it's a self-interested concern for her safety, that's going to seem really appealing. Jesus, stop flashing text at me and stop calling Fiona a loser and say it with your chest, Amber.
Stop half saying that Shrek and Fiona trauma bonded by flashing it on screen for a second. I could do the same thing.
I could put halfbaked takes on the screen and not back them up whatsoever.
She ends up having to change herself from princess to ogre in order to be with him. But in later films when she asks him to just be a little more open to the other creatures, to her parents, he takes that as an affront to his agency.
>> Okay, so the moment she's referring to is from Shrek 2. It's a part that I've already talked about when Fiona and Shrek are asked to return to far far away to reunite with Fiona's parents.
Shrek immediately doesn't want to as he's afraid they'll be mean to him because he's an ogre. Somehow I don't think I'll be welcome at the country club.
>> Will you stop it? They're not like that.
You could at least give them a chance.
>> Oh, to do what? Sharpen their pitchforks.
>> No.
>> And first of all, he's kind of right.
Her dad is immediately a dick to him and Hela hates him for being an ogre. But also, I think it's foolish to say that Shrek's immediate rejection of Fiona's wants is painted as a good thing by the film. In fact, the rest of the film is dedicated to Shrek trying to do what's right for Fiona because he feels terrible for how he's acted. So, Amber's problem here is essentially that Shrek has flaws. But importantly, if Shrek was employed, flawless, and did everything that Fiona asked him to, essentially all the things that Amber wants from him, Shrek as a movie would [ __ ] suck.
There would be no conflict, nothing interesting going on whatsoever. What the [ __ ] would be the point of any of it? On top of that, it would just be inaccurate in its reflection of reality, you know, the thing that art tries to do. I'm not saying you should aspire to be Shrek in every way, but I am saying that I think a lot of people relate to Shrek, too. That's a big point that Amber makes throughout all of her videos, that there's a lot of Fiona's in her comments who feel represented by Amber's analysis of the film.
>> There are plenty of people in the comments saying, "This was my life. Oh, is this my life? Oh, am I Fiona?
>> And that's all well and good. I'm glad they feel seen by Amber as a person. But I don't understand why we have to neglect those of us who maybe feel like Shrek sometimes, too. Because it's okay to see ourselves in multiple characters in a piece of fiction. That's kind of the beauty of a story with characters in it. But Amber just gives no credence to anybody who sees themselves as Shrek.
She doesn't believe that he is a good character. In fact, she thinks that if you see yourself as him, you might be the problem. You might be off-putting and weird.
>> I don't understand why people feel so adamant about being accepted for who they are when who they are is off-putting and weird.
>> So, I can't argue this point in the slightest. If you think that Shrek is off-putting and weird, I literally cannot tell you that he's not. Amber, this critique is so ugly. You know, it's harder for us to take you seriously the more you call Shrek a chopped loser and Fiona a lame femoid. But what I can say is that you thinking this is very telling of how you're interpreting these movies. Amber needs Shrek to be in the wrong. Just flat out. Her point does not hold up if Shrek is not secretly some super villain scheming in the background of these movies. She refuses to see his very clearly outlined growth. This is a movie for kids, mind you, because she went into this movie wanting it to align with what she already believes. And I get that it's a lot easier to make points if they are already what you know to be true. Watch Shrek the Third Sucks.
>> I just won a Webbby award. This type of analysis neglects the function of art and that it can open us up to new ways of seeing the world. But the way that Amber cares to see art is just not the same. It is genuinely to push an agenda.
She wants to push her hot takes about men and dating and feminism into the world. And that is a deeply limiting way of looking at art. But the way that Amber talks about it all is as if she's cracked the code. She's figured out Shrek for herself. And that sucks. And it's why she doubles down, seemingly incapable of seeing things from other people's perspectives. What's even more telling of all of this is that she won't even acknowledge the actual criticism being flung her way. Her videos typically involve her replying to a comment that she puts right at the top with that Tik Tok feature so you can tap it and watch her videos forever. She never uses comments that actually criticize her. Same with that one weird slideshow she did. What the [ __ ] was that? Because to show valid arguments would absolutely crumble her own. It would force her to reckon with the stupidity she spouts. It would force her to change. And if she can't see that Shrek can do that, I'd imagine it's hard to see that within herself. Now, I don't know Amber, so maybe I'm far off. This has all gotten far too speculative for me. Who's really to say any of the stuff that exists in Amber's brain, but I can tell you what goes on up here? And let me tell you, it's lots of this.
>> What should we watch on?
>> So, I can use my own life to argue the next point she makes, which is this.
>> She is social and outgoing and adventurous, but he is a antisocial shutin. They both have the right to be who they are, but they are not right for each other. So, this is not how Shrek and Fiona are characterized by these films. Like, sure, they are different.
They have different wants and sensibilities. They both come from different backgrounds, but they're not this different. They both love doing things together. They love gross froggy [ __ ] They like mud and the same foods.
They both have less boundaries when it comes to things most humans find gross or off-putting. And they both have deep insecurities that they feel are only truly seen and understood by the other.
But even in the ways that they are super different, isn't it good to be with people who have different ideas and lifestyles? Me and my girlfriend Ally are very different in lots of ways, but that's a part of what makes our relationship interesting. Yeah, it leads to obvious conflict, but that's the nature of being in any sort of relationship ever. We introduce each other to new foods, new art that we like, uh different activities that the other person hasn't tried before. Ally is far more introverted and I'm far more extroverted, but we're also both. What?
How crazy. People can be more than one thing. People contain more than one trait. Life is more nuanced than one is adventurous and the other is a shutin.
Are you telling me that people have layers? This is what the movie Shrek is about. Amber continues to preach to say that Fiona changed for Shrek when she didn't want to, which is something that just does not happen in any of the movies.
>> The deeper you get into your relationship, the more you convince yourself that it's what you want, even if it's not. All other possible options to you no longer seem viable because you never learned to come up with an option of your own.
>> And I can't really argue your point, but what the hell does it have to do with Shrek? You don't really know Fiona like that. How could you say she feels trapped in her relationship? Do you talk to her often? She's just using the amount of eyes on her to make some larger point that has nothing to do with Shrek. But for some reason, she keeps dragging Shrek through the mud while doing it. Although, I know he likes it.
That freaky little muddy [ __ ] End of this Tik Tok has a part that I've been thinking about for an embarrassing amount of time. Mostly because of how [ __ ] stupid it is. I'm not even going to sugarcoat this one. This is a genuinely bad point that I refuse to take seriously. Remember that pin I told you to place earlier? Go ahead and grab it now. Let your hair down, girly pop, because this [ __ ] is about to get ridiculous.
>> Nobody said she could choose for herself. Why don't you think being half human and half ogre is better than being human or ogre? She could rule the city by day and spend her weekends with Shrek in the swamp if she wanted to. She's already got the best of both worlds, but she was convinced to choose in order to make everybody else happy without being given any time to figure out what would actually make her happy and what would give her a sense of agency.
>> Yeah. Hey, why didn't she just stay half human, half ogre the whole time? Huh?
Why not? Huh? Why not? That would have been Aura if that were what she was.
That would have been a farming, wouldn't it? Wouldn't it be Amber? This is This is a baffling way to look at art because if you'll recall, Fiona is in torment over being half ogre, half princess.
It's really inconvenient for her. She hates it and it doesn't make her feel like herself at all. And yes, in a perfect world, she would just embrace that part of herself. But if you are actually viewing this as if it were to happen to you, I worry that you don't understand how storytelling works on like a fundamental level. Metaphor is a tool used to No, I I'm not explaining what a metaphor is to you. Fiona's half ogre, halfh human state represents the inner turmoil she suffers. She wants to be herself, but is literally restricted by the world around her by a curse. But the curse functions in the story as a vehicle for Fiona to learn what she actually wants. Being a human ogre hybrid is something that mentally harms Fiona. It is a manifestation of her own insecurity in who she is. Role-playing in a world where Fiona gets to be half ogre and half human and still slay the day away is awesome, but it's misremembering what the film actually is. The movie's bad because it would be cooler if she was just half ogre, half human the whole time. That might be the funniest thing I've ever heard. Like, I guess so. That would be pretty [ __ ] cool, little bro. But hey, wait. Doesn't that happen in Shrek Forever? In the alternate universe presented in Shrek Forever After, Fiona breaks free from the tower on her own and chooses to be half ogre and half human, the baddie that Amber wants her to be. And guess what? She still [ __ ] hates it. She is haunted by her curse. While she's more or less come to terms with it, she still must hide it from the ogres around her.
The ogres that rever her because she's insecure that they'd see her differently as a traitor to the ogre cause. Even in this alternate universe where she's embraced her hybrid ogre human self, she still falls in love with Shrek because she loves him. This is represented metaphorically once again by a magical kiss. This is where I think Amber is the most media illiterate and it is showing.
Saying a movie is bad because it doesn't do this cool thing you thought of in your head. It just doesn't give any valid criticism to the work at hand. And what's worse is that they did do the thing that she said it would be cool if they did. And it [ __ ] on her argument pretty hard. If Fiona stayed half human, half ogre, she would still be incompletely herself because she's still running from her true self. Something that Shrek helps her see and understand.
It is still a movie about love, and Amber will never once admit it. Now, look, I can prove Amber wrong all day.
I'm having the time of my life. But the point I'm getting at here isn't just that this analysis is wrong. It's that it's antithetical to the themes of Shrek. Amber's phrasing, her wishing that Shrek was more about these other things. Her dismissal of Shrek as a character because she views him as an [ __ ] is the very thing that these films are pushing against. There's a scene from the first film that I've been thinking about a lot lately, and I think it's where the intended themes of Shrek really shine. Shrek and Donkey lie down outside staring up at constellations.
constellations which Shrek loves and admires, but Donkey thinks are just lame.
>> Man, I ain't nothing but a bunch of little dots.
>> You know, Donkey, sometimes things are more than they appear.
>> So, really, why would Shrek say this?
Let's get out of the heady analysis focused part of the video. Why would Shrek as a person say this? Why would he so heavy-handedly hint that things are more than they appear if he didn't believe that to be true about himself?
Why would Shrek say that if he weren't a nuanced being with a lot of love to give and he felt so misunderstood by the world? Why would he then go on to say this?
>> People take one look at ME AND GO, "AH, HELP. RUN. A BIG STUPID ugly ogre. They judge me before they even know me."
>> Amber's neglect to mention this scene and the several others like it is intentional. Her argument simply doesn't work if it recognizes Shrek as a nuanced character in this film. So, she decides not to mention his depth and just brings up the parts of him that burp and are mean to Fiona and Donkey sometimes, like in her seventh Tik Tok about Shrek where she ends the whole thing by bringing up just how mean Shrek is to Donkey.
>> And I also want to mention Justice for Donkey because he was actually the character that introduced Shrek to the concept of radical self-acceptance at the beginning of the first movie. And look at the way he treats Donkey.
>> That's how she ends it. Justice for Donkey. Justin Donkey. Yeah, I mean Shrek is mean to Donkey, I guess, but he's also not. Shrek lets him stay at his house. He hangs out with him all the time. He saves him when he needs to be saved. Let's not act like Donkey is some innocent creature in this film. Sure, he roasts him and yells at him. But come on, he's Donkey. He's annoying as [ __ ] He doesn't respect anyone's boundaries.
And he's also mean to Shrek.
>> You definitely need some Tic Tacs or something cuz your breath stinks.
>> That's like their whole dynamic. It's funny. Is that what we're doing here?
We're mad at movies for having different characters that tell jokes. What is going on? In her sixth Tik Tok, she barely even talks about the movie. She just talks about how it turns out people need money to raise kids, which Shrek, I guess, doesn't have because he lives in a swamp.
>> You can look for love while living the lifestyle that you want rather than giving up a certain lifestyle for the illusion of love and then a lack of materials required to raise a family.
This is actually the only video where she talks about Fiona's ogre and human self being metaphors as she's replying to this comment.
>> I think we are all half ogre and half princess.
>> And she speaks to these two sides being within us. But she says it like this.
>> I think that within each person there exists the varying ratio of people who just want to live by their base human desires. the desire to take the easy way, looking for shortcuts, looking for the path of least resistance. And there is a part of you that's driven and ambitious and seeks fulfillment through action and achievement and intentional effort. And these two sides of you could be in constant conflict. Okay.
>> Okay. So, she is saying, and correct me if I'm wrong here, that Fiona being half human and half ogre represents that one half of you can be driven and want to change, and the other half of you can be lazy and not want to do anything all of the time. I am not sure how else to put it. This is a bigoted analysis of the Shrek franchise. Like, how did you manage to be racist against ogres?
They're not even real. As far as I know, they're not real. And this confirms everything that I said earlier that Amber just sees Shrek as some fat lazy oaf who doesn't do anything. What a disgusting way to interpret a film about love and understanding people beyond what they look like. Is it worth it just to get a few more clicks on your podcast, something you very conveniently put on all of your videos about Shrek after the first one blew up? She has no interest in a meaningful analysis of Shrek at this point. and she just has some [ __ ] to say and has to drag Shrek through the mud to say it. And I'm not even going to talk about how much he [ __ ] likes it this time. There is no way in hell you can convince me she is joking here because when is she made a joke in any of these videos? This is an affront to film analysis in my opinion.
This one really pissed me off. Amber's seventh and final Tik Tok about Shrek, at least the last one she put in her playlist of pop culture analysis, a playlist which I think it's fair to say did a bad job at fulfilling its description, is probably the least interesting of all of them. She seems to have lost all steam in her seventh Tik Tok about Shrek within 3 days. She mostly rehashes all of the stuff she said before, at this time with a lot more buzzwords than usual. I think that Shrek is an example of how relationship dynamics and trauma and the internalization of the patriarchy and lack of resources and nurturing of imagination can create less than ideal dynamics.
>> She also reveals a little too much about her process in my opinion as she says this.
>> And because I have no life and I'm so dumb and I ruined the movie, I watched all of them on 1.5 speed.
>> Okay, I stand corrected. There's a joke.
Uh, but I don't think she's joking when she says she watched these movies at 1.5 speed. And are you kidding me? Now, I'm sure some of you guys are watching this very video sped up right now. And no hate to those people. I'm sure it's very awesome that I sound like Eminem right now. But I feel like if you're going to make a video about a movie, at least try to watch it the way it was intended to be viewed, not fast forwarded like some shitty online lecture you're trying to speedrun before Chipotle closes. The one thing I can guarantee with these shitty ass videos is that I'm watching these movies all the way through one time speed. There's no chance in hell you'll ever catch me watching a movie sped up.
That's the Maxwell Green guarantee. I really have no life. I I have no reason to speed it up. Seriously. But of course, Amber couldn't make one Tik Tok without shit-talking my boy Shrek. This time she's upset with him for using magical solutions to solve his problems in Shrek Forever After, which I guess she finally watched.
Sped up a little bit, but still.
>> By the fourth film, when Shrek and Fiona have children and Shrek is so overwhelmed with being a dad, even though Fiona is taking most of the responsibility, >> how is Fiona taking most of the responsibility? I'm sorry. I just watched this movie this morning and Fiona, like I'm sure she does a lot, but the movie only shows Shrek taking care of the babies. He's a stay-at-home dad.
He feeds them. He plays with them. He changes their poopy ass little diapers.
This is a sneakissess that doesn't even work. And it's yet another instance where Amber is just wrong. Back it up, Amber. When does the film show Fiona taking most of the responsibility in your fanfic where she's half human, half ogre, and happy because of it? That's something I'd like to read. Actually, if you have fanfic, I like it when people send me fanfic. This is my fanfic email.
Send me some [ __ ] I'll read it. I've loved reading your [ __ ] Video coming soon.
>> Which is what people do all the time.
They think, "Oh, if I could just change the way that I look. If I could just get rid of my family, then I'm not going to feel this way." Have you thought about communicating?
>> Yeah, Shrek. Have you ever thought about communicating? Have you ever thought about understanding others around you?
Have you ever considered that maybe your life is pretty good with your wife and kids? Have you ever thought about the thing that you learn in Shrek Forever After? So, you get it at this point, right? If I debunked everything that Amber gets wrong about Shrek, this video would somehow be longer than it already is. Oh, Max, nice to see you experimenting with short form content.
Shut up. Okay, but I want to show you one last thing that Amber says that I think really cements just how little she understands these movies.
>> Instead of helping Fiona, he keeps getting in the way, trying to get her to kiss him, even though she technically doesn't know who he is. is borderline harassment.
>> Shrek is a pushy [ __ ] in this movie.
He bothers Fiona for a kiss because he thinks it'll break a spell that sent him to a world that he hates. He keeps asking Fiona to kiss him, much to her chagrin.
But remember, the movie understands that he's in the wrong. Fiona is in the right here. She doesn't know him. And even when she does kiss him the first time, it doesn't work. Remember? Tell me you remember. You supposedly just watched this movie. Shrek has to change and sacrifice himself to show his love to Fiona before she loves him back. The movie doesn't paint Shrek as a flawless hero. He's a flawed character who has to learn something. Chastising Shrek for being bad is okay. I guess I would agree with you. I don't think he's the best person in Shrek Forever After. But don't you think that that's maybe the point? I don't think Shrek is lazy. I don't think he takes the easy way out. I think that that's actually the opposite of what he does in every single Shrek film. These are movies about Shrek growing up, about him changing, but it's a change that for whatever reason, Amber is incapable of seeing, and that's worse than media illiteracy.
That's a fundamental misunderstanding of empathy.
And I'm inspired by the reaction because given the nature of the information that's being brought to the public about what's actually happening in the world, people still have the time to fight for ogre rights. Like imagine if you could channel that energy into something productive and that makes sense.
>> It dawns on me that perhaps I've been a little harsh on Amber. I think her Tik Toks are bad. I think they misunderstand a lot of the positive themes that Shrek has to offer, but it's important for me to note that I don't think she's like a bad person or anything. I just care a lot about art analysis, and when it's done badly, I tend to get riled up. But she's right, isn't she? Why must I defend Ogre's rights? That's silly, right? What's the point of any of this?
Shouldn't I channel my energy into something a little more productive? make a video about something more than why Shrek is good actually. Well, let me take her advice and do so. The thing that really bothers me about all of this is this idea posited by Amber that Shrek is not actually about love or self-acceptance or all these other things that people are saying it's about. It's actually about how men turn women into ogres. Shrek is not about that thing. It's about this thing and you're wrong for thinking otherwise. She talks about this in one of her later Tik Toks, not included in the original playlist. She argues that her contrarian opinion on Shrek means that she is mediiterate because she's able to see that media can mean different things.
But I don't truly believe that her Tik Toks make that point. No. Instead, they argue that Shrek ought to be interpreted this way and her tone indicates that those disagreeing with her, well, are just wrong. This mentality when it comes to art really bugs me because art is an expression of life itself. Sometimes I think it's the most meaningful way we can communicate. It's the only way I know that I'm really not alone here. And I think that must be the case for other people too. Art is human. Art is flawed.
Art is amazing. Art sucks. And art is all we have. But if art is human, then it can't just be one thing. It can't be so simple. It must carry with it the flaws of its creator as well as the wonders. To say that any of it has one meaning, one thing to take away from it.
patently misunderstands what art is meant to be and what humans can be. Art is not meant to have answers. Like I said earlier, its meaning is not set in stone. Some art is more upfront about what it's attempting to say, while other pieces are meant to be up for more interpretation. Ambiguity in art is something that makes it more interesting. And I think that this discourse about Shrek has flatout forgotten that the film is not meant to be about one thing or the other. As Amber might put it, there are more than two choices. But the reason I'm making this video is not simply because of Amber. It's because of all of it. All of the Tik Toks I've seen about Ambers are lacking the same nuance.
>> I just saw a video with 1.5 million likes that said Shrek is a cautionary tale that a woman can't turn an ogre into a man, but he can make an ogre out of you. AND YEAH, THAT MAKES SENSE IF YOU DIDN'T WATCH THE [ __ ] MOVIE.
>> JESUS, calm down, please. Yeah, a lot of the discourse surrounding Amber's first video is very reactionary, which I understand. Amber's Tik Tok is pretty annoying. I I get it. But a lot of these videos just tend to explain Trek correctly at me, and that's it. And some of them just make equally crazy claims, like this guy who said that Amber's Tik Tok was alt-right propaganda. Now, I'm not the one to make a video figuring out whether or not that's true. But I think the fact that this guy doesn't say a word in his entire video makes it clear enough that he doesn't know either. But in terms of the other people screaming what Shrek actually means at Amber, I think this is where the case can be made that perhaps we are too media literate.
Or at least we've lost the plot in understanding what that actually means.
Here we are looking for exact meaning in art. We are debunking Amber because she is wrong about these movies, which she is. But let's not pretend that Shrek is so simple. Shrek is a rich text. It has a lot to say. And just because Amber makes a lot of very bad points doesn't mean that she is 100% wrong. I think in some ways Shrek is hella a cautionary tale. It's about the idea of false promises from a government. How we can lose ourselves trying to be something we're not. It's about how if you're mean to people all the time, it's hard to have friends. There are lots of lessons to be learned from Shrek. And I think it's invalid to say that Amber is wrong when it comes to saying that there are.
Are her ideas mean-spirited and poorly conceived? Yes, they are mean and bad and dumb and lazy and bad. But let's indulge another point for a second, shall we? Art is in the eye of the beholder. Fortunately and unfortunately, people are allowed to gain what they want from it and they are allowed to tell other people what they think it means. I also think that people are allowed to hate on them if their point is poorly made and doesn't make any sense. Such is one of the many reasons for this video's existence. But while I don't think anybody here is doing anything wrong, screaming at each other and saying Shrek is actually about this, you idiot. I do think that the whole argument has gone nowhere. And that's because Shrek isn't about one thing. I don't know if you remember, I've only mentioned it several times, but that's like the movie's most preachy aspect.
Shrek won't shut the [ __ ] up about having layers. Trek is a movie about having empathy, but it's also about evil governments containing multitudes, self-acceptance, and love. It's a movie with a lot going on, but that's the beauty of it. So, this whole discourse kind of bothers me because at its core is this idea that there's a right answer to any of it. And I just don't think that's true because art is human and humans are contradictory nightmares.
This is what I love about art and hate about modern art discourse. There's always somebody trying to be right rather than open up to any meaningful conversation. Amber only replies to people who at the very least sort of agree with her. And I think that's kind of lame, especially when you have a Tik Tok that gets this much negative push back. She'll likely never respond to this very video. And that's okay. But I think her points about Shrek have really been tainted by her lack of listening to people's feedback on them. She's made a couple videos about Shrek since her original Sinister 7, and they're mostly about the fact that she just doesn't want to hear it. She says in this one that she's only seen a couple videos in response to hers. And she brings up like the dumbest point made against her, the idea that her videos are white supremacists. I'm going to be honest.
I've only watched a few of the stitches of my original Shrek video and I only really engage with people that are commenting on my own account because they're basically rage baiting themselves and it's kind of funny. But one thing that I find really weird is people accusing me of being a white supremacist or pushing white feminism because they interpreted the story so literally and my interpretation of it so literally that because Fiona is white and I think that she can do better than Shrek that I think white women are better than what people think Shrek represents which is the marginalized class or like people of color which is not how I interpreted Shrek's character and what he symbolizes, >> but no one in good faith is saying that.
And if they are, they're just wrong.
Obviously, Amber isn't a white supremacist, that's ridiculous. But she responds to that point to further make her case that she's right and the people lambasting her are wrong. But in reality, there are nuanced and interesting points to be made, but Amber just won't give any attention to the people trying to make them, likely because they blend in with the rest of the old men yelling at clouds in her comments or stitching her videos. SHE'S A BADASS WARRIOR [ __ ] WHO PUTS BELT TO [ __ ] ASS.
>> THERE ARE good videos responding to her, but most of them match her shitty and condescending energy, so why would she bother looking at them in the first place? She does mention one other creator, however, in this Tik Tok slideshow in which she argues the point that very few people are making that Shrek is supposed to be a person of color.
>> Shrek represents minorities.
Then why does he turn into a white guy with the same chomped personality he had as an ogre?
>> Wow, she never misses an opportunity to roast Shrek. And at this point, I almost respect it. Good on you for staying consistent, queen. In the caption of that slideshow, she writes, "Lmao, please watch at Midnight Scholar Society's videos and analysis with three exclamation marks." So, I did, and what I found was, surprise, surprise, someone with actually thoughtful opinions on the Shrek franchise. The first video she made about Shrek was in support of the ideas presented by Amber in her first video, and her points are, to be honest, still a little halfbaked. It mostly just mirrors Amber's points with a little more nuance, but it still has that same weirdness and misremembering of Amber's original video. Like, she also says that Fiona gets baby trapped.
>> She got baby trapped. She literally lives in squalor. She literally has to She She had the ability to shapeshift as a person.
>> And she also makes fun of Shrek for being a weirdass ugly green guy.
>> He's just another white man. He's just a smelly ugly one that doesn't fit the beauty standard over where Lord Farquar is.
>> But importantly, after making this video that makes a lot of the same points as Amber, Midnight Scholar Society keeps going. She made like 30 Tik Toks about Shrek after this. She live Tik Tocked her entire rewatch of Shrek. And I don't mean she went on Tik Tok live and reacted to Shrek. I mean she watched the movie, paused it throughout, and kept making Tik Toks analyzing the movie.
>> I am 11 minutes into this rewatch of Shrek. Hey, so we're now 15 minutes into Shrek. Okay, so we're back with Shrek.
We've gotten to the band of merry men on Shrek. Okay, so what I just want to let you all know that I teach media literacy.
>> Her points are very well thought out, chalk full of nuance, and she actually shows clips from the movie to back them up. I think so much of what rubs me the wrong way about Amber is that she refuses to take any accountability or even counter any points made against her. These creators could not be more different because one is willing to actually analyze art. Midnight Scholar Society is a literal professor and the other just wants to cling tightly to her worldview rather than see Shrek from any other perspective or actually rewatch the [ __ ] movies. Midnight Scholar Society makes some crazy claims about Shrek. Don't get me wrong. She calls Shrek redpilled and conservative, something I wasn't so sure about at first.
>> Maybe you're not in that dating pool to be able to recognize that Shrek is most definitely a red pill off-grid conservative white man.
>> But then somehow Midnight Scholar Society backs it up.
>> The reason why he's conservative, you all are very sensitive about that word.
Conservatism is a form of practicing traditionalism. one who conserves the old the culture that they're in and rejects shifting and change into new.
That is a type of person. You can be a conservative without being into politics and left and right and this and that.
Conservatives are people who hold to the traditional ways in which they live and they reject new and change.
>> Which got me thinking, hey, wait a second, Shrek totally is conservative. I don't think he's redpilled. I I think that if you told the original creators of Shrek that he was redpilled, they'd agree. But that's because they think he's more like Neo rather than, I don't know, Nick Fuentes. But yeah, in the traditional sense, Shrek is hella conservative. That's a great point. But one thing that Midnight Scholar Society claims that I'm not so sold on is this idea that she consistently claims that Shrek is not meant to be aspirational, it's satire. A lot of y'all are in my comments and you sound remedial.
So, just maybe pay attention and listen to this one because if you found Shrek to be aspirational and not satire, it means that no adults were present to help explain to you that Shrek in fact was satire. It is not aspirational at all.
>> But I would truly truly argue that it's both. Shrek is both meant to be a satire in some ways and aspirational in others.
Trek lampoons fairy tales, the American dream, and latestage capitalism, yet still posits that love can exist within that framework. Shrek is about more than one thing. Because while Shrek is a satire about all of those things, the film is still very much about love. The emotional core of Shrek is fundamental to my understanding of it. I'm sorry it's not in the media literacy textbook, I guess. Uh uh but that's where I think we've lost the sauce in all of this media literacy nonsense. We're calling it media, my friends. It is art, and art has layers. To say that Shrek flat out isn't aspirational is a really bland and one-sided take on Shrek. A film that actively fights to not be seen as one thing. Because Shrek is aspirational in some ways, I think it tells the viewer to follow their heart even if society tells them not to. Sure, some believe that Fiona is told by society that she must pick a man. But I think it's soulless to believe that her falling in love with Shrek is just that. Fiona has feelings. She's not some emotionless Wikipedia page on feminism or fighting the patriarchy. No one is. To say that she needs to break free from that fat ass ogre is, in my opinion, incredibly devalidating to her as a woman. That point argues that when she's with a man, she has no ability to break free, to be herself. And that's just not the case.
Shrek is flawed. Everyone is. And he's not perfect. He might be a little conservative. Perhaps he's redpilled.
Perhaps he's chopped. And that sucks, I guess. But Fiona loves him. And he loves her, too. And that matters to one's happiness, too. Now, listen. I know that this might sound a little naive, like some Rube putting his finger on his cheek and smiling.
And I'm not here to say that love is the solution to all of our problems, but I am here to say that it's a human constant we must be aware of to remain artistically literate. Shrek tells us that love matters more than anything else. And I think a world where we place our love very highly and let it be fulfilling, i.e. let it change us for the better, is important. So Shrek might be a satire of plenty of things, but I don't think it's a satire on love. I think it's pretty earnest in that regard and I really like that part of the movie. Now, there's one Tik Tok about Ambers that I want to talk about and that's by the Tik Tocker Uval. I've liked his videos for quite some time now and I think his take on this subject matter is wonderful.
>> This whole discourse is kind of crazy.
Shrek is a cautionary tale about how you can't make a man out of an ogre, but he can make an ogre out of you. Also, 12 Angry Men is a cautionary tale about propaganda and how one stubborn man can just ruin things for everybody.
Everything Everywhere All at Once is a cautionary tale about how a guy will make you give up a life of fame and fortune just to work at a laundromat.
Recreum for a dream is actually a very inspiring movie about how going out of your comfort zone can change your life in ways you never expected.
>> Duval makes these points likely facitiously. But he's also right. All of those movies in a way I guess are about those things, but they're also not.
Movies handle several themes. they no longer exist in the hands of the director as soon as they're released.
And that means they really mean anything. Art imitates life. And likewise, I also feel that the way we interpret art imitates the way we interpret life itself. Say you're a Tik Tocker who makes videos about how men are pretty bad sometimes and that women should not put so much of their self-worth into what men think of them.
You probably see Shrek as a film about how men can turn you into an ogre.
Uvuval doesn't make an explicit point here, but what I most get out of it is that interpreting films is completely in the hands of the viewer, and that is a wonderful thing. But this Tik Tok also says that people will see what they want to see and ignore everything else, and that is a dry and terrible way of looking at things. Shrek is a cautionary tale, but it's also not. Both things can be true, and I'm not here to tell you what to believe. It's not a crime to believe either of those things, but it is a crime to only see one meaning, one truth within a piece of art. Because to do that is to see only one meaning in life. And that simply cannot be the case, right?
Related Videos
Fouchon is Defeated | Hard Target
ActionPicks
4K views•2026-05-28
It Takes Two 💞
barefootandindependent
1K views•2026-05-31
Supply and demand, my friend. #movie #edit #shorts
gaskinpenton
11K views•2026-05-28
🎬 Across the Line (2000) 4K | Brad Johnson Neo-Western Thriller 🔥 | Crime & Border Justice
BabelWestern
734 views•2026-05-30
An Anime For Every Letter In LGBTQIA
KrisPNatz
2K views•2026-05-31
Mark Kermode reviews Tuner
kermodeandmayostake
2K views•2026-05-28
Once Upon A Time In The West (1968) - 20 Hidden Facts Nobody Knows
AmazingMovieRewind
111 views•2026-05-28
Backrooms Movie Review
TheAwardsContender
785 views•2026-05-30
