‘The Little Mermaid’ Was Way More Subversive Than You Realized (2019)
smithsonianmag.com
smithsonianmag.com
A podcast I like [1] covered The Little Mermaid recently and pointed out the songs help maintain the “realism.” If Ursula told Ariel in dialogue she had to lose her voice to become human, that would raise a lot of questions. But when she does it singing “Poor Unfortunate Souls,” you’re like, well, yes, of course.
As someone who doesn’t know much about musicals, I thought this was a neat magic trick.
[1]: https://soundcloud.com/griffin-and-david-present/the-little-...
Why?
If it still doesn't make sense to you: don't worry about it, it's all just made up anyway.
It's all a matter of delivery, really. The best artists can make almost anything believable; music isn't required. But music was the tool these artists chose.
And never underestimate the power of body language.
Music sticks in the mind, especially a song like that with a beat that drives it forward. Being memorable isn't the same as being convincing, but it does hint at the way it gets in your brain via back doors.
There's more to it than that, of course. One of the most important tools to being convincing in a film is that the other characters accept it. The song allows no interruptions, and so you follow along with Ariel as she does. It's a good confidence technique, actually, and there are ways to apply similar lessons in real life.
That doesn't completely answer it, and I think some of it has to be chalked up to the rules of musical theater. Those are purely convention, but you accept them because they move the plot along. Every genre has that, and they look weird if you're in on them. (I find superhero movies bizarre, but they're perfectly coherent in their internal logic.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Little_Mermaid
I highly doubt current identity politics were on the mind of the original writer when conceiving the story originally.
As for the Ursula stuff, if 'feminist' was the archetype they were going for, they certainly managed to portray feminists in a fairly negative and terrible way. Ursula was not a sympathetic character by any stretch of the imagination.
Nothing wrong if people want to interpret the story that way, that's the thing about good fiction, it makes you think and can tell a different message based on perception, but I doubt it was intentionally subversive and written with those ideas in mind.
LOL, brutal.
I don't know if this biographical reading is valid, but the interpretation predates the Disney version and have nothing to do with modern identity politics. If anything, the Disney version tones down this subtext.
But I agree with your second point. You could actually read Ursala in a very troubling way—as the queer crossdresser encouraging children to become gay. Lgbt people are infecting the minds of our youth, keep your children away!
In the voice of the heroine (or even a sidekick) it would have been too on the nose. In the voice of the villain, it's more engaging.
Feminism has evolved since then, and I don't think the character would be created that way today. Though it is important to realize that the connection between feminism and LGBT issues are interlinked in complicated ways. A gay man's view of what it means to be a woman was different from a woman's view, and is different now from what it was then.
The subversion was definitely intentional. This kind of thing had been going on for years on Broadway. That's why they were brought in. But it's not so much about how people interpret the story as the effect that it had: getting these voices into people's heads. That Broadway musical sensibility was now being introduce to children at a very young age.
the positive message of a trickster (or witch) character can be to be subversive, play by your own rules, not seeking the approval of others, being individualistic, breaking norms and so on.
For women in particular this can mean using femininity to your advantage rather than treating femininity as weakness. Using sexuality as a way to exercise control, basically think of the police scene in Basic Instinct as one of the most (in)famous examples.
This sort of subversive, rule-disregarding and gender-affirming version of femininity has been lost almost completely in modern fiction, with (actually both 'progressive' as well as conservative) storytellers opting for some sort of Christian, timid, asexual 'strong women'. So it's not surprising that many people today will not see how someone like Ursula can be a positive character, but there is a very plausible way to read her as one.
Growing up, my favorite bit about the Power Rangers was Rita Repulsa. The Rangers themselves were lame, but it was hard for me to think of a lead villain in an action-oriented kids' franchise who was a woman, and not subordinate to some other villain, until Rita came along. Yes, Lord Zedd would come along and upstage her, but for that first season Rita was it.
Obviously "I long to be part of that world" can be interpreted in a number of ways. This is the strength of the genre. But as a metaphor for coming out as gay, it is a bit weird because this desire comes before she sees the prince and falls in love.
The Little Mermaid was groundbreaking compared to previous Disney heroines because the story is driven by her desire. Cinderella and Snow White are innocent victims of unfortunate circumstances. Ariel lives a privileged life, but desires something else. While Ursula is ostensibly the villain, it is still Ariel which seek her out and willingly enters the deal in order to get what she desires. Of course agency is also the ability to make mistakes.
What about Scarlett O'Hara, the heroine who broke every last social rule of her time? She married for revenge, married for money, married for fun, refused to wear mourning clothes, ran her own lumber business, cheated on her husband, wore makeup, took advantage of her sex appeal, etc., all for selfish reasons.
Sounds less like a heroine and more like a cautionary tale, but I guess that's the rub with every story true and fiction; whatever moral you want to extract, you usually can.
[1]: I don't count Ripley's Scarlett, because Margaret Mitchell flat out refused to write a sequel to Gone With The Wind.
Bonnie's death was not the result of Scarlett's behavior. As for Rhett leaving her forever, the story ends with Scarlett already bouncing back and working on a plan to get him back.
She also achieved a great deal with her transgressions, much to the envy of her contemporaries. She did whatever she wanted, and to hell with social rules.
ref: https://rockasoo-thegoodmusic.blogspot.com/2006/09/negativla...
So you literally are supposed to get whatever you are looking for from these films.
> While teaching young Ariel how to “get your man,” Ursula applies makeup, exaggerates her hips and shoulders, and accessorizes (her eel companions, Flotsam and Jetsam, are gender neutral)—all standard tropes of drag. “And don’t underestimate the importance of body language!,” sings Ursula with delicious sarcasm. The overall lesson: Being a woman in a man’s world is all about putting on a show. You are in control; you control the show. Sells added, “Ariel learns gender, not as a natural category, but as a performed construct.” It’s a powerful message for young girls, one deeply threatening to the King Tritons (and Ronald Reagans) of the world.
Ah yes, teaching young girls to wear makeup and accessorize, truly a crushing blow to the patriarchy.