My Thoughts on Disney: The Little Mermaid
Jan. 27th, 2014 05:00 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
afterandalasiaThis is a raw copy of a comment left in Das Sporking, in response to a very thought-out and reasonable review of The Little Mermaid. Because the review prompted me to get in order a lot of my thoughts on Disney's adaptation of The Little Mermaid, I wanted to keep a copy of this.
Once again, this is a raw copy of the comment and has not been edited or proofread. Further notes may be added at the bottom but the content will not be changed.
Okay, despite the username *points* and the fact that I am a huge Disney fan, I went into this spork genuinely interested in what you had to say, and hoping that the points would be more considered and reasoned than most of what tends to be seen on the internet. In that, I was not disappointed, and I think you did a reasonable job of looking at this movie from a critical viewpoint. With regards to your spork, I would say a few things:
1) It's very brief. As much a discussion as a spork, I suppose, albeit a spork that roughly follows the plot in time.
2) Counts? They're not essential, but they are fun.
3) Your discussion of the film is very bare-bones. Yes, most people will have at least a passing familiarity with the film from their own viewings or just because it is so famous, but not everyone knows the ins and outs. I had to pause to remember the details of what happened with the shark at the beginning, and I write in Disney fandoms. YMMV, but some more details of what was going on might have been nice in places.
However, overall, this is sound spork and it was interesting reading.
And... now I'm going to put my Disney hat on for discussion.
Little Mermaid was actually released the year before I was born, although you wouldn't know it from the way that I grew up on it with the other Disney movies. Yes, it is considered the first of the Disney Renaissance, although I personally consider The Great Mouse Detective to have really been the film that set the standard for that era. TLM was the first fairy tale adaptation since Sleeping Beauty, however: the first fairy tale adaptation in thirty years. And it is fairy tales for which Disney is now so very well known, so The Little Mermaid (1989) to Mulan (1998) tends to be the range considered even if I'd say the core style was there in Great Mouse Detective (1987) and Tarzan (1999) as well.
Disney had worked mostly in book adaptations in the intervening period. Of eleven films between Sleeping Beauty and The Little Mermaid, eight were from books; two (Sword in the Stone and Robin Hood) were drawn from legend/lore sources; and one (The Aristocats) was as far as I can tell an original script. Sleeping Beauty had been considered a failure, which is why the studio had moved away from fairy tales, so going back to them was A Big Thing. So between the fact that The Little Mermaid doesn't date in the way that Oliver & Company (1988) does, and the fact that it marked the second wave of fairy tales in the way that Princess and the Frog (2009) seems to have... well, yes, it's generally considered the start of the Renaissance. But that's background stuff.
1: Skinny Mermaids
The stuff that you say about all of the mermaids looking very thin is definitely true. It might be something to do with whether mermaids are considered mammals (warm-blooded) or fish (cold-blooded). As far as I know, it's warm-blooded sea animals that tend to carry fat reserves, especially if they're living somewhere as far north as Denmark (where the film may or may not be set; it seems very confused on that issue).
I would expect mermaids to have powerful tails, and abdominal muscles to move them, and arms... would depend on whether they're used in swimming or not. These mermaids don't seem to, so I'd expect more slender shoulders and arms. Triton being ripped is... definitely weird.
There's also a strange split going on in how the men and women are portrayed -- The Little Mermaid did set the tone for the Disney Renaissance on this, unfortunately. The men are actually relatively realistic, if at the muscular/idealised end. Their body proportions scan. The women, on the other hand, really move away from realism in this period, and you get the large heads (I would guess for ease of facial animation) and narrow waists. It's something I can't really defend, and I would say that it's problematic. Compared to this, the earlier films (Snow White, Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty) tended to have more realistic female figures and less realistic male ones, because animating men was considered to be a lot more difficult. And I'd say that post-Renaissance films have generally had more stylised men and women, but I don't have such hindsight on that one and haven't seen all of the films this side of Tarzan. So take that with a pinch of salt.
Note of possible interest: Adella is sometimes described as looking chubbier than the other sisters in the TV series, but looking at screencaps I'm not sure that I'm seeing it.
The only definite fat merperson that we see is the one that Ursula conjures up during Poor Unfortunate Souls ("This one wanting to be thinner/this one wants to get the girl"). Though that does at least hint at social pressure to be thin among merpeople (why, I don't even know, I'm sorry), it really isn't a good explanation.
Something which you didn't mention is that the mermaids are also overwhelmingly white. But I'm not going to draw out that argument here.
2: The Father-Daughter Relationship
Coming from the Disney Kink Meme probably gives me quite a different view on this, because of the sort of fanon and headcanon that I see.
We effectively see 'a day in the life' of Ariel and Triton's relationship, so that leaves a lot of room for interpretation. It can go anywhere from 'Triton finally standing up to his wayward daughter' through to 'this is typical behaviour for Triton', and depending on how you look at it can really change things.
Option a: Triton stands up to a wayward, reckless child. He destroys the things which she has hoarded as part of her obsession with a dangerous species who killed her mother. This looks justified but shocking, and makes Ariel look sort of petty for running away from home as a response.
Option b: (An amalgamation of the middle of the spectrum sort of thing.) Triton loves his daughter, but doesn't always treat her very well. He can be constraining and harsh, and treat her like a child because she's the youngest. There's been friction building for some time, and this is where they finally both snap and lose their tempers. Triton destroys the cavern because he thinks it's best, but he doesn't explain his behaviour and Ariel takes it as an attack. She runs away because she feels stifled and unloved, and doesn't realise how much her father cares because they fail to communicate.
Option c: This is how Triton is. He is possessive, wants to keep Ariel cooped up or under watch at all times, destroys her treasured possessions without explaining why he is so paranoid about humans, and makes her feel like she has no autonomy. At the extreme of this view, you can read Triton as abusive. I've seen fics based on this, and it doesn't seem so unbelievable as a knee-jerk reaction might suggest.
I'm not going to say which of these is right, because... well, they're interpretations. But which one you take rather colours how you view the outcome of the film.
I think the it depends as well on how much you read into Part of Your World. For example:
"Wandering free, wish I could be/ Part of that world."
"Bright young women, sick of swimming/ Ready to stand."
"Ask them my questions and get some answers."
To what extent is this a girl thinking that the seaweed is always greener, as Sebastian puts it, or to what extent is it a young woman wishing for a way out of a situation in which she feels trapped? I genuinely think it's up for interpretation, and it speaks in different ways to different people.
3. Ariel's Characterisation
I do, to some extent, agree with you on the point you make that Ariel doesn't develop over the course of the story in the way that would normally be expected of a main character. However, I just want to repeat that this was not a book adaptation with 'pre-set' characters, and Disney was doing something different than it had in previous fairy tales.
Ariel is three-dimensional. She has good points (courage, imagination, curiosity, independence) and flaws (recklessness, pride, issues with authority). She has depth. What she doesn't do is change, so while I'd call her three-dimensional I wouldn't call her four-dimensional.
This isn't ideal, as you point out. But I'd say that The Little Mermaid is more of a Defeating the Monster-type plot than Rebirth-type one. The conflicts are external and plot-based rather than internal and character-based.
But yes, as you say, in contrast to the Elephant Graveyard scene you can see Disney developing their ideas and their characterisation. It's something that would have made The Little Mermaid a deeper film, and sadly we only really get a nod to it in the form of Ariel and her father embracing at her wedding. It's not only Triton changing Ariel, it's also her being honest with her father about what she wants, and I think it would have been interesting to see it taken to greater depths.
4: Ursula
Ursula is amazing. In some ways, I personally like her more than Maleficent, though I know that's shocking in some circles. As a side note, Ursula isn't a mermaid but a Cecaelia, a human-octopus/squid hybrid from... Greek Mythology, if I recall. Which makes the abandoned plot that I once heard about her being Triton's sister seem really, really weird.
Anyway, as you say, this scene is really interesting to look at from a feminist point of view. And overall, I'd say it comes out in the positive for two main reasons:
a) These views are coming from the mouth of the villain. These are the sorts of messages which are genuinely seen in society and books to this day, and yet by putting them in the mouth of the villain it is made clear that they are wrong. A girl shouldn't have to play demure and mute and pretty to get a man's attention.
b) I don't exactly remember when I first realised this, but it was definitely some years ago when I was below eighteen. Probably when I started to get into feminist literature. Ariel's voice isn't just her ability to speak. It's her ability to speak out. Ursula might be disguising her request, but she's actually trying to undermine Ariel's autonomy and ability to 'speak for herself' by taking away her voice.
For years, I've had the feeling that this scene has almost Faustian overtones to it. Or, if you're familiar with Supernatural, the feel of a crossroads deal. It's a Bad Idea, and Ariel is making a mistake by signing the contract.
5: Grimsby, and Eric's uncertainties
I've always thought Grimsby is kinda adorable. I wanted him for an uncle when I was a kid.
As for Eric... his whole obsession with the voice seems odd, but I suppose that in his head it was linked to the fact that the girl who had it saved his life. He wanted to find out who that girl was (and, I would expect, what the hell happened and how she saved his life). I can understand him being distracted and keeping thinking of this girl, although I'm not sure that I would call it a basis for a romantic relationship. Hell of a friendship, maybe, but still. It goes a little over-the-top.
Also, in Eric's favour, he is a nice chap who actually helps defeat Ursula at the end. Maybe not as nuanced or exciting as Aladdin or Flynn (and probably not as complex as Ariel herself), but he generally seems nice enough to me. I can think of worse romantic figures.
*cough*Edward Cullen*cough*
Once again, this is a raw copy of the comment and has not been edited or proofread. Further notes may be added at the bottom but the content will not be changed.
Okay, despite the username *points* and the fact that I am a huge Disney fan, I went into this spork genuinely interested in what you had to say, and hoping that the points would be more considered and reasoned than most of what tends to be seen on the internet. In that, I was not disappointed, and I think you did a reasonable job of looking at this movie from a critical viewpoint. With regards to your spork, I would say a few things:
1) It's very brief. As much a discussion as a spork, I suppose, albeit a spork that roughly follows the plot in time.
2) Counts? They're not essential, but they are fun.
3) Your discussion of the film is very bare-bones. Yes, most people will have at least a passing familiarity with the film from their own viewings or just because it is so famous, but not everyone knows the ins and outs. I had to pause to remember the details of what happened with the shark at the beginning, and I write in Disney fandoms. YMMV, but some more details of what was going on might have been nice in places.
However, overall, this is sound spork and it was interesting reading.
And... now I'm going to put my Disney hat on for discussion.
Little Mermaid was actually released the year before I was born, although you wouldn't know it from the way that I grew up on it with the other Disney movies. Yes, it is considered the first of the Disney Renaissance, although I personally consider The Great Mouse Detective to have really been the film that set the standard for that era. TLM was the first fairy tale adaptation since Sleeping Beauty, however: the first fairy tale adaptation in thirty years. And it is fairy tales for which Disney is now so very well known, so The Little Mermaid (1989) to Mulan (1998) tends to be the range considered even if I'd say the core style was there in Great Mouse Detective (1987) and Tarzan (1999) as well.
Disney had worked mostly in book adaptations in the intervening period. Of eleven films between Sleeping Beauty and The Little Mermaid, eight were from books; two (Sword in the Stone and Robin Hood) were drawn from legend/lore sources; and one (The Aristocats) was as far as I can tell an original script. Sleeping Beauty had been considered a failure, which is why the studio had moved away from fairy tales, so going back to them was A Big Thing. So between the fact that The Little Mermaid doesn't date in the way that Oliver & Company (1988) does, and the fact that it marked the second wave of fairy tales in the way that Princess and the Frog (2009) seems to have... well, yes, it's generally considered the start of the Renaissance. But that's background stuff.
1: Skinny Mermaids
The stuff that you say about all of the mermaids looking very thin is definitely true. It might be something to do with whether mermaids are considered mammals (warm-blooded) or fish (cold-blooded). As far as I know, it's warm-blooded sea animals that tend to carry fat reserves, especially if they're living somewhere as far north as Denmark (where the film may or may not be set; it seems very confused on that issue).
I would expect mermaids to have powerful tails, and abdominal muscles to move them, and arms... would depend on whether they're used in swimming or not. These mermaids don't seem to, so I'd expect more slender shoulders and arms. Triton being ripped is... definitely weird.
There's also a strange split going on in how the men and women are portrayed -- The Little Mermaid did set the tone for the Disney Renaissance on this, unfortunately. The men are actually relatively realistic, if at the muscular/idealised end. Their body proportions scan. The women, on the other hand, really move away from realism in this period, and you get the large heads (I would guess for ease of facial animation) and narrow waists. It's something I can't really defend, and I would say that it's problematic. Compared to this, the earlier films (Snow White, Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty) tended to have more realistic female figures and less realistic male ones, because animating men was considered to be a lot more difficult. And I'd say that post-Renaissance films have generally had more stylised men and women, but I don't have such hindsight on that one and haven't seen all of the films this side of Tarzan. So take that with a pinch of salt.
Note of possible interest: Adella is sometimes described as looking chubbier than the other sisters in the TV series, but looking at screencaps I'm not sure that I'm seeing it.
The only definite fat merperson that we see is the one that Ursula conjures up during Poor Unfortunate Souls ("This one wanting to be thinner/this one wants to get the girl"). Though that does at least hint at social pressure to be thin among merpeople (why, I don't even know, I'm sorry), it really isn't a good explanation.
Something which you didn't mention is that the mermaids are also overwhelmingly white. But I'm not going to draw out that argument here.
2: The Father-Daughter Relationship
Coming from the Disney Kink Meme probably gives me quite a different view on this, because of the sort of fanon and headcanon that I see.
We effectively see 'a day in the life' of Ariel and Triton's relationship, so that leaves a lot of room for interpretation. It can go anywhere from 'Triton finally standing up to his wayward daughter' through to 'this is typical behaviour for Triton', and depending on how you look at it can really change things.
Option a: Triton stands up to a wayward, reckless child. He destroys the things which she has hoarded as part of her obsession with a dangerous species who killed her mother. This looks justified but shocking, and makes Ariel look sort of petty for running away from home as a response.
Option b: (An amalgamation of the middle of the spectrum sort of thing.) Triton loves his daughter, but doesn't always treat her very well. He can be constraining and harsh, and treat her like a child because she's the youngest. There's been friction building for some time, and this is where they finally both snap and lose their tempers. Triton destroys the cavern because he thinks it's best, but he doesn't explain his behaviour and Ariel takes it as an attack. She runs away because she feels stifled and unloved, and doesn't realise how much her father cares because they fail to communicate.
Option c: This is how Triton is. He is possessive, wants to keep Ariel cooped up or under watch at all times, destroys her treasured possessions without explaining why he is so paranoid about humans, and makes her feel like she has no autonomy. At the extreme of this view, you can read Triton as abusive. I've seen fics based on this, and it doesn't seem so unbelievable as a knee-jerk reaction might suggest.
I'm not going to say which of these is right, because... well, they're interpretations. But which one you take rather colours how you view the outcome of the film.
I think the it depends as well on how much you read into Part of Your World. For example:
"Wandering free, wish I could be/ Part of that world."
"Bright young women, sick of swimming/ Ready to stand."
"Ask them my questions and get some answers."
To what extent is this a girl thinking that the seaweed is always greener, as Sebastian puts it, or to what extent is it a young woman wishing for a way out of a situation in which she feels trapped? I genuinely think it's up for interpretation, and it speaks in different ways to different people.
3. Ariel's Characterisation
I do, to some extent, agree with you on the point you make that Ariel doesn't develop over the course of the story in the way that would normally be expected of a main character. However, I just want to repeat that this was not a book adaptation with 'pre-set' characters, and Disney was doing something different than it had in previous fairy tales.
Ariel is three-dimensional. She has good points (courage, imagination, curiosity, independence) and flaws (recklessness, pride, issues with authority). She has depth. What she doesn't do is change, so while I'd call her three-dimensional I wouldn't call her four-dimensional.
This isn't ideal, as you point out. But I'd say that The Little Mermaid is more of a Defeating the Monster-type plot than Rebirth-type one. The conflicts are external and plot-based rather than internal and character-based.
But yes, as you say, in contrast to the Elephant Graveyard scene you can see Disney developing their ideas and their characterisation. It's something that would have made The Little Mermaid a deeper film, and sadly we only really get a nod to it in the form of Ariel and her father embracing at her wedding. It's not only Triton changing Ariel, it's also her being honest with her father about what she wants, and I think it would have been interesting to see it taken to greater depths.
4: Ursula
Ursula is amazing. In some ways, I personally like her more than Maleficent, though I know that's shocking in some circles. As a side note, Ursula isn't a mermaid but a Cecaelia, a human-octopus/squid hybrid from... Greek Mythology, if I recall. Which makes the abandoned plot that I once heard about her being Triton's sister seem really, really weird.
Anyway, as you say, this scene is really interesting to look at from a feminist point of view. And overall, I'd say it comes out in the positive for two main reasons:
a) These views are coming from the mouth of the villain. These are the sorts of messages which are genuinely seen in society and books to this day, and yet by putting them in the mouth of the villain it is made clear that they are wrong. A girl shouldn't have to play demure and mute and pretty to get a man's attention.
b) I don't exactly remember when I first realised this, but it was definitely some years ago when I was below eighteen. Probably when I started to get into feminist literature. Ariel's voice isn't just her ability to speak. It's her ability to speak out. Ursula might be disguising her request, but she's actually trying to undermine Ariel's autonomy and ability to 'speak for herself' by taking away her voice.
For years, I've had the feeling that this scene has almost Faustian overtones to it. Or, if you're familiar with Supernatural, the feel of a crossroads deal. It's a Bad Idea, and Ariel is making a mistake by signing the contract.
5: Grimsby, and Eric's uncertainties
I've always thought Grimsby is kinda adorable. I wanted him for an uncle when I was a kid.
As for Eric... his whole obsession with the voice seems odd, but I suppose that in his head it was linked to the fact that the girl who had it saved his life. He wanted to find out who that girl was (and, I would expect, what the hell happened and how she saved his life). I can understand him being distracted and keeping thinking of this girl, although I'm not sure that I would call it a basis for a romantic relationship. Hell of a friendship, maybe, but still. It goes a little over-the-top.
Also, in Eric's favour, he is a nice chap who actually helps defeat Ursula at the end. Maybe not as nuanced or exciting as Aladdin or Flynn (and probably not as complex as Ariel herself), but he generally seems nice enough to me. I can think of worse romantic figures.
*cough*Edward Cullen*cough*
6: The Changes from Andersen's Story
I was expecting to see more of this discussed in the spork, so I hope that you don't mind my bringing it up. Den lille havfrue was written by Andersen in 1837. The Disney adaptation takes out the pain which the mermaid experienced when she walked, merges the sea witch and the temple girl/princess into one person and makes her more of an antagonist, takes out the chance the mermaid is given to kill the prince, and entirely removes the issue of a soul/heaven and puts love/freedom in its place instead.
These changes were probably made for various different reasons, but they do markedly change the tone of the story. Instead of wanting the prince and a soul, the mermaid wants the prince and to be human. Part of Your World was essentially setting this up, I think, with humanity in the place of a soul. Firstly, it takes out the religious element which it probably would have been a mistake (and certainly controversial) to put into a movie which was definitely aimed at children.
But secondly, I... kinda like the pro-humanity message of it? This is a more personal thing, but when your surrounded by stuff like Twilight and the "humanity sucks" message that dreck carries, it's kinda nice to have someone wanting to be human. Ariel associates humanity with freedom and the right to learn and everything, and I think that's sort of a good message.
(Of course, most kids still come away going, "I wanna be a mermaid!" but that's kids for you. :p I went through the same phase, until I watched Mulan. Then I wanted to be Mulan.)
Lord, I'm so sorry, this got so frigging long and rambly, but apparently My Thoughts On Disney came out here. tl;dr: You bring up some very good points, and the film certainly isn't perfect. However, I don't think that it deserves a lot of the vitriol which it tends to get.
I extend that to a lot of other Disney films as well. Hit me up if you want a pro-Cinderella discussion, for example.
Anyway, this spork was interesting to read and definitely got me thinking about things which I hadn't always considered in such depth as before. It also prompted me to get a lot of my thoughts in order about The Little Mermaid, which actually isn't one of my favourite Disney films but which I still appreciate.
I was expecting to see more of this discussed in the spork, so I hope that you don't mind my bringing it up. Den lille havfrue was written by Andersen in 1837. The Disney adaptation takes out the pain which the mermaid experienced when she walked, merges the sea witch and the temple girl/princess into one person and makes her more of an antagonist, takes out the chance the mermaid is given to kill the prince, and entirely removes the issue of a soul/heaven and puts love/freedom in its place instead.
These changes were probably made for various different reasons, but they do markedly change the tone of the story. Instead of wanting the prince and a soul, the mermaid wants the prince and to be human. Part of Your World was essentially setting this up, I think, with humanity in the place of a soul. Firstly, it takes out the religious element which it probably would have been a mistake (and certainly controversial) to put into a movie which was definitely aimed at children.
But secondly, I... kinda like the pro-humanity message of it? This is a more personal thing, but when your surrounded by stuff like Twilight and the "humanity sucks" message that dreck carries, it's kinda nice to have someone wanting to be human. Ariel associates humanity with freedom and the right to learn and everything, and I think that's sort of a good message.
(Of course, most kids still come away going, "I wanna be a mermaid!" but that's kids for you. :p I went through the same phase, until I watched Mulan. Then I wanted to be Mulan.)
Lord, I'm so sorry, this got so frigging long and rambly, but apparently My Thoughts On Disney came out here. tl;dr: You bring up some very good points, and the film certainly isn't perfect. However, I don't think that it deserves a lot of the vitriol which it tends to get.
I extend that to a lot of other Disney films as well. Hit me up if you want a pro-Cinderella discussion, for example.
Anyway, this spork was interesting to read and definitely got me thinking about things which I hadn't always considered in such depth as before. It also prompted me to get a lot of my thoughts in order about The Little Mermaid, which actually isn't one of my favourite Disney films but which I still appreciate.
Renewed plat
Date: 2016-02-09 05:31 am (UTC)android terminal download songs videos for mobile japan sexy wallpaper android 2 1 games download download history app
http://android.adult.games.yopoint.in/?mail.juliana
android animation store play download free kostenlose android app android ad free apps android mobile htc