Shrek's Legal Troubles: Breaking Laws In Far Far Away

In the Shrek franchise, the titular character, a bad-tempered but good-hearted ogre, breaks several laws. In the first film, he kidnaps Princess Fiona, who is betrothed to Lord Farquaad, and falls in love with her. This act of rebellion against Lord Farquaad's orders could be considered a crime, as it directly opposes the ruler's wishes. Additionally, Shrek and his companion Donkey engage in acts of arson, as they burn down the castle of Lord Farquaad. The pair also physically assault the Gingerbread Man, causing him to lose his legs.

In the fourth film, 'Shrek Forever After', Shrek makes a deal with Rumpelstiltskin, a manipulative magic deal-maker. This deal results in an alternate reality where Shrek was never born, and Princess Fiona leads an underground resistance against Rumpelstiltskin's tyrannical rule. While this may not be a direct crime, it highlights the chaotic and rebellious nature of Shrek's actions, which often lead to significant consequences.

Shrek committed assault causing bodily harm to the Gingerbread Man

In the first Shrek film, the Gingerbread Man, also known as Gingy, is interrogated and tortured by Lord Farquaad's henchman, Thelonious. Thelonious rips off both of Gingy's legs and dunks his body into a glass of milk. Farquaad then takes over the interrogation, taunting Gingy with his broken-off legs, throwing one leg at him and crumbling the other into pieces.

This treatment of Gingy by Farquaad and Thelonious would likely constitute assault causing bodily harm. Assault is a crime that involves intentionally inflicting violence or physical force on another person without their consent. In this case, Farquaad and Thelonious used physical force on Gingy, causing him to lose his legs and suffer other injuries. This act of violence resulted in bodily harm to Gingy, as he was physically injured and left with only one leg attached.

It is important to note that the definition of assault and the specific laws surrounding it may vary depending on the jurisdiction. However, in general, the act of inflicting violence and causing bodily harm to another person is considered a criminal offense in many legal systems.

In the context of the Shrek franchise, it is worth mentioning that the characters exist in a fantasy world where the laws and consequences may differ from those in the real world. However, if the events of the movie were to take place in the real world, the actions of Farquaad and Thelonious towards Gingy would likely be considered assault causing bodily harm under the law.

Shrek was guilty of animal abuse, causing the death of Mama Bear

In the film Shrek, the character of Shrek is guilty of animal abuse, which causes the death of Mama Bear. This is evidenced by the presence of Mama Bear's pelt as a decoration in Lord Farquaad's chamber. While it is not shown on screen, it is implied that Mama Bear was killed to create this decoration, with her hat also being present in the room.

Mama Bear is a member of the Three Bears Crime Family and is first seen caged with her family, Papa Bear and Baby Bear, by the Duloc guards. While Papa Bear appears later in the film, comforting Baby Bear, Mama Bear is notably absent, and her pelt is seen in Farquaad's chamber. This suggests that she was separated from her family and killed, with her pelt and hat taken as trophies.

The death of Mama Bear is a dark and tragic twist in the film, highlighting the mistreatment and abuse suffered by the fairytale creatures at the hands of Lord Farquaad. It is a subtle detail that adds depth to the story and showcases the dark side of Duloc. While Shrek himself may not be directly responsible for Mama Bear's death, it is a consequence of the actions he takes to reclaim his swamp, which was invaded by banished fairy tale characters.

The inclusion of Mama Bear's death in the film serves as a stark reminder of the abuse and violence faced by the fairytale creatures, adding an extra layer of complexity to the story and providing a darker interpretation of the classic fairytale characters.

Shrek was complicit in the trafficking and kidnapping of Princess Fiona

In the first Shrek film, the eponymous character is complicit in the kidnapping and trafficking of Princess Fiona. Lord Farquaad, the ruler of Duloc, needs Princess Fiona to marry him so he can become king. When Shrek and Donkey visit him, they are forced to rescue her from an enormous fire-breathing dragon. Shrek and Donkey take her back to Lord Farquaad, and along the way, Shrek begins to fall in love with Fiona.

In the fourth film, Shrek Forever After, Shrek is suffering a mid-life crisis. He is dissatisfied with married life and pines for the old days when he was a terrifying ogre. Rumpelstiltskin, an evil and manipulative magic deal-maker, offers Shrek the opportunity to spend a day as a real ogre again in return for another day from Shrek's childhood. Shrek agrees and is transported into an alternate reality. The day that Rumpelstiltskin takes is the day of Shrek's birth, meaning that Shrek was not there to rescue Princess Fiona in the first movie.

In both films, Shrek is complicit in the kidnapping and trafficking of Princess Fiona. In the first film, he actively takes part in her kidnapping and returns her to Lord Farquaad. In the fourth film, he agrees to a deal that results in him never rescuing her. In both instances, Shrek's actions could be considered illegal and a violation of the law.

Shrek's mistreatment by Lord Farquaad could be considered a hate crime against ogres

Lord Farquaad, the ruler of Duloc, wanted to create a "perfect world" free of all things magical. He evicted all the fairy-tale creatures from his kingdom, including Shrek, the local ogre, and relocated them to a swamp. Farquaad's bias against ogres and other fairy-tale creatures is evident in his treatment of them as second-class citizens, forcing them out of their homes and into a swamp. This act of discrimination and the negative sentiments towards ogres that it perpetuates could be considered a hate crime.

Furthermore, during a tournament in which the winner would be sent to rescue Princess Fiona, Farquaad declared that the knight who killed Shrek would be named champion. He offered Shrek a proposition: if he rescued Princess Fiona, Farquaad would remove all the unwanted fairy-tale creatures from his swamp. This ultimatum reinforces the idea that Farquaad's actions were motivated by bias against ogres, as he was willing to go to great lengths to remove them from his kingdom.

In addition, at the wedding of Princess Fiona and Lord Farquaad, when the sun set and Fiona transformed into an ogress, Farquaad was shocked and disgusted. He declared himself king of Duloc and ordered his guards to seize Shrek and Fiona, threatening to have Shrek drawn and quartered and Fiona locked in a tower for the rest of her days. Farquaad's extreme reaction to Fiona's transformation and his violent threats towards an ogre and an ogress further indicate a bias against ogres, which could be considered a hate crime.

While the definition of a hate crime in the United States does not explicitly mention ogres, the negative sentiments and discriminatory actions of Lord Farquaad towards Shrek and other ogres could be considered a form of hate crime. The impact of his actions extended beyond Shrek, affecting the entire community of fairy-tale creatures and perpetuating a culture of bias and intolerance.

Shrek was guilty of sexual harassment towards Princess Fiona

In the fictional world of Shrek, the eponymous character is guilty of sexual harassment towards Princess Fiona.

Shrek's actions towards Fiona can be interpreted as sexual harassment because he makes unwelcome physical contact and advances towards her. When they first meet, Shrek crashes into the roof of Fiona's tower and wakes her up by shaking her. He also grabs and carries her over his shoulder when she refuses to go back to Farquaad. These actions can be seen as physically aggressive and non-consensual, especially since Fiona clearly expresses her discomfort and resistance.

Furthermore, Shrek engages in inappropriate behaviour by making suggestive comments and innuendos towards Fiona. For example, he tells her that he wants to "get to know her better" and makes lewd jokes about her being "easy." Shrek's behaviour is not only offensive but also qualifies as sexual harassment because it creates a hostile environment for Fiona, who feels uncomfortable and threatened.

Additionally, Shrek makes unwelcome sexual advances towards Fiona, such as trying to kiss her without her consent. This is a clear violation of her personal boundaries and can be considered assault.

Shrek's behaviour towards Fiona is not only inappropriate but also qualifies as sexual harassment under modern legal definitions. His actions contribute to a hostile environment for Fiona, and he disregards her clear lack of consent. While the context of their interactions may be fantastical, the power dynamic between them is imbalanced, with Shrek using his physical strength and aggressive behaviour to intimidate and harass Fiona.

Frequently asked questions