Feeling Ranty: About Disney

So, a couple of months ago, I ranted a bit about The Little Mermaid.  Now, I'm going to rant a bit about people's negative opinions about Disney.

**********************

I want to start with a quick disclaimer.  I'm a Disney fan.  I love the movies, I grew up watching the Disney channel (though I couldn't stand to watch it now).  Being a generally open-minded person, I've heard other people's opinions about Disney movies and characters.  I've listened to what they had to say, and I could even see what they were talking about.  But that hasn't stopped me from enjoying the movies.  So, this post acknowledges that people have very different opinions than me.  But this is my blog, so here's my thoughts after much discussion and thinking.

**********************

Let's start with the most obvious thing that people hate on, shall we?

I'm not really sure when Alice became a Princess.
Also, this is definitely not a comprehensive image of all the
Disney female characters.

Disney Princesses
I get it, I really do.  Tons of women, including myself, have been "lied to" and "duped" into thinking that a Prince Charming would come along to sweep us off our feet and ride us into the sunset.  Oh, ya.  And they lived happily every after.

Clearly, that's incorrect.  Clearly, when Disney first began the divorce rate was much lower, rates of reported domestic abuse were lower, and women were not as independent.  With the changes in society, the Disney Princesses have also changed.

Now, let me take the core 6 Disney Princesses that are highlighted on every Disney Princess merchandise item.

Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, and Cinderella were all beautiful and eventually saved by Princes.  Sure, they were all extremely kind to animals as well as fabulous singers.  But, for the most part their stories were being guided by male figures and evil women.

Moving on to the 1990's.

Ariel, Belle, and Jasmin were all beautiful and eventually saved by Princes.  Sure, they were all extremely kind to animals as well as fabulous singers.  But Ariel was independent and strong-willed, Belle was a bibliophile, and Jasmin was curious about other worlds and open-minded.

I could probably go on about how people think they're all horrible role models, how they all cater to some male sexual fantasy, and how they teach little girls the wrong things.

Firstly, why hasn't anyone mentioned the fact that the Disney Princesses are fictional characters, mainly created by male writers?  Yet, we blame the females for their shortcomings.  It could never have been the males fault, oh no.  We need to keep putting the blame on other women because that is the easiest thing to do.

Seeing that the holiday season just ended, I'm going to go with this metaphor:  Why is it okay for your child to believe that it's perfectly acceptable for a strange man to come into your home just because he's bringing a gift, but it's not okay for your child dress up to feel pretty and to believe that they are deserving of a happy and healthy relationship (which you as the parent will help to define for them)?

Really, I'm a strong believer that movies and cartoons are too easily scapegoated when it's the parents who say, "Well, the t.v. can babysit my child while I go do other things or take a rest or whatever."  Don't get me wrong, I understand being exhausted.  But that just doesn't seem like a good reason to skirt responsibility for what your child sees on tv, hears on the radio, or sees in their households and among their friends.

For goodness sake, talk to your child about gender roles at an early age!  It would be just as irresponsible to ignore or not allow your child's interest in "girly, princessy" things, because it would just lead to more misinformation.

Completely Forgotten Characters and Movies
So, first people get angry at Disney because of the Princesses.  But then they get angry at all the other movies for being boring or uninteresting or unoriginal - and those other stories were mainly those that didn't have a female character lead.

The "unoriginal" debate is the most ridiculous thing I've heard.  Disney made itself by taking well-known and well-loved stories and animating them.  Most of the stories were modified in some way or another to make them fit within the film constraints.  I personally can't name a lot of movies that stayed true to the original story as much as possible - well, except maybe the Lord of the Rings trilogy which were 3 hours long!

Now, I'm not going to sit here and say that all the Disney movies were absolutely amazing.  For example, I'm not really a huge fan of "Home On the Range," but I'd probably watch it again if it came into my possession.

But I heard all kinds of negative feedback about "Atlantis," "Treasure Planet," "Tarzan," and a whole host of others.  I could probably rant about the negative opinions about each of them, but I won't.

I just found it extremely interesting that everyone would find something negative about anything Disney would put out.  If there was a female lead, then she must be a horrible role model in some way maybe because she dared to want love.  If there was a male lead, then it was mainly ignored.

I don't know too many people my age who saw the movies I just mentioned above, unless they were Disney fans or have kids.

I just feel like all the Disney hating comes just because there's a name involved.  I get that - they're extremely powerful and own a lot of media outlets.  They get to control what we see in the media.

Yet, that doesn't mean that we aren't in control of our individual wills and thoughts and opinions.

But, those are just my thoughts and opinions.  And it's open for discussion.

This Mermaid's Thoughts on The Little Mermaid

So, in this day and age of Disney Princesses and Feminism, we all have an idea of what Hans Christian Andersen's and Disney's "The Little Mermaid" are all about.  But let me recap for you who might not be as familiar as I am.

After hearing about her older sisters' adventures exploring outside of the ocean, a young Sea Princess is extremely curious about the world on land but has to wait until she is 15 for her chance.  During her exploration, she sees a ship crashing and saves a man who fell into the ocean knowing that men cannot breath underwater.  She falls completely in love with him.

Lo and behold, he is a Prince.  In desperation, she goes to the famed and feared Sea Witch to see if she could do anything for the Little Mermaid.  The Sea Witch makes a bargain:  The Little Mermaid has to give her voice to the Sea Witch in exchange for human legs.

In the Andersen version, she would feel like she's constantly walking on the sharpest knives, and there was no deadline for the Little Mermaid to have the Prince marry her.  However, the Sea Witch is merely helping the Little Mermaid because she was asked to help.  She actually stays with the Prince for a very long time.  However, the Prince still believes that another princess was the one who saved him from the sea.  In the Disney version, she has 3 days to get the Prince to kiss her, and the Sea Witch is mainly out for revenge and power. 

In the Andersen story, she sacrifices her life to keep him alive, but ends up as sea foam.  The Prince did love her, but not romantically.  The Prince lives a happy life with his other princess, and the Little Mermaid becomes a Spirit of the Air and eventually gains a soul, which mermaids do not have.  Clearly, the Walt Disney Studios couldn't have a title character die, so she gets her Prince, and her father blesses their union with a rainbow in the sky.

Ariel's name, in fact, is an ode to Andersen's ending, representing the Spirits of the Air.

DisneyParks.com ad, photography by Annie Liebowitz

Romantic Point of View
Perhaps for some, Disney's Little Mermaid might be a symbol that dreams do come true, and that a Prince will then do everything in his power to protect you if you are willing to do anything for him as well.  After all, love should lead to an equal partnership.

In the Andersen version, the Little Mermaid truly sacrifices everything.  But because of her love, the Prince was able to live a long and happy life.  After all, love should mean that you are able to let your partner live their most fulfilling life.

Now, while I believe that we all deserve our happily ever after, there are some that seek that out and actively try to reach that fairytale goal no matter what.  Some believe they have to give up a lot, while others believe they'll only have to give up a little bit.  Either way, there is always something you will have to give up, even if it means that your partner doesn't have to.

Painting by Howard Pyle

Feminist Point of View
The general feminist point of view of the Little Mermaid is that she is a horrible role model for little girls.  She teaches girls that men will like you if you do not speak or speak only when you are spoken to.  She teaches that you should do whatever it takes to make someone fall in love with you, even if it means altering your body.  It also teaches girls that men and romantic love are more important than your family.

Here's a funny video about this point of view.



However, there is another feminist point of view that reflects upon this character: Ariel and the Little Mermaid are both strong female characters and role models.

Not only does she stand up to the patriarchal and perhaps racist system that her father uses to "keep her down" or oppress her, but she also seeks help from another female source.  In Andersen's version, there is very little about the sea king, and the majority of adult characters are all female.  The Sea Witch is more about the dark and mysterious side of femininity, and she wields her own power in that way.

Would the story have been different if she just tried to get his attention without the Sea Witch's help?  Ariel's original idea was to ask her friends to help her get his attention. Getting legs, though it was something she was curious about, wasn't necessarily her first choice.  It really wasn't until

In the Disney version, Ursula makes bargains with various merfolk who usually want selfish things they could actually attain themselves ("This one's longing to be thinner, that one wants to get the girl, and do I help them?  Yes I do.").  While Ursula is still the villain because of her harsh punishments, she also insinuates that she changed after being removed from the palace, though she doesn't specify whether she was a better creature back then or not.

In the Andersen version, she realizes that sacrificing her most precious asset prevented the Prince from really seeing who she was, but she also learns that causing more pain by killing him would not solve a thing.  She took responsibility for her actions and her choices.  Perhaps love doesn't have to mean sacrificing after all.

In the Disney version, Ariel actually stands up for herself after realizing that she had been tricked.  In fact, she doesn't let the fact that she was human and voiceless stop her from trying to do something about it.  Perhaps the only unfortunate part of the ending was that she couldn't stay a mermaid, though if Prince Eric loved her enough he would marry her regardless.

Historian Point of View
In the introduction of Hans Christian Andersen Fairy Tales written by Jackie Wullschlager, she basically breaks down his life story and mentions when he wrote certain stories.  There was some speculation that Andersen was actually bisexual, and often conflicted with his conflicting sides. Considering that Andersen and the 1800's had strong religious values, it makes sense that Andersen would question the validity of his soul and reflect that in his stories.

Being that mermaids are of two opposing natures, it is quite possible that "The Little Mermaid" was written about him wanting to be with someone but not being able to. I am sure that his version of mermaids without a soul was a reflection on how he felt separated from God because of his feelings.  The idea that the Little Mermaid would only gain a soul by being loved by a human and by sacrificing her happiness surely reflects on his decisions.

From Amazon.com

My Point of View
When I was young and had just arrived from the Philippines, it seemed that mermaids were quite popular in film.  "Splash" had been released under Disney's live-action branch, and (SPOILER ALERT) ended with the human male joining the mermaid in her world.  Shelly Duvall's "Fairy Tale Theater" also had their version of "The Little Mermaid," which was more true to Andersen's original story.  And of course, there was Disney's "The Little Mermaid," which basically solidified my love for mermaids.

The story and the mythology spoke to my own experiences, focusing mainly on really wanting to be part of a world in which I didn't belong and willing to do anything to fit in.  At the age of 5, after being bullied, I had already made the conscious decision to stop speaking Tagalog so that I would lose my Filipino accent.  I had given up my voice, and it isn't until after doing so did I realize that I had given up an important part of who I am.

To me, Ariel was a scientist and an explorer, collecting artifacts from a world she is curious about, much like my own collection of seashell jewelry and my interest in Middle Eastern culture through belly dance.  The Little Mermaid's strength in continuing to walk regardless of the sharp stabbing pain not only shows her resolve in getting what she wants, but also reflects on the pain involved in changing in general.

I personally never agreed with the idea that giving up her tail would make someone fall in love with her.  In fact, it's clear that the Prince in Andersen's version loved her but felt unable to communicate, whereas Eric loved Ariel knowing full well that she was a mermaid.

While Andersen's version mentioned that the mermaid would gain a soul with the love of a human, it was her grandmother who assumed that the Prince would not love her because of her tail - yet, what if she did try to interact with the Prince as a mermaid?  What if King Triton actually waited for Eric to wake up so that he could see Ariel as she truly was?  If he loved her, it wouldn't matter.  I do believe that if she were left to her own devices, "The Little Mermaid" would look a lot more like "Splash."

Splash Movie Poster

I remember being excited that Disney was going to release a sequel to their version of the story.  Though I did find it silly that they basically told the same story using her human daughter wanting to be a mermaid, I was more excited to watch Eric and Ariel interact with each other.  Even though their interaction was not as highlighted as Ariel's relationship with her daughter, it was clear to me that there was love.  Selfishly, it felt validating.

In the end, the lessons I learned from both versions of "The Little Mermaid" will probably stick with me for the rest of my life.  Your voice is your best asset, and giving it up makes you lose your power.  It's okay to explore other worlds and other cultures, but never lose sight of where you came from.  Trust your gut and seek help from friends rather than strangers.

I will always and forever love "The Little Mermaid" in any form that it's told.  And no one can convince me otherwise.