pretty sure that Ursula was the villain, not some secret feminism hero. Frankly everything she says is bad advice so what exactly is the message? I am getting lost with the new narrative these days. The advice was be yourself not sell some preconceived notion....yet Ursula was all that and more bad traits. she was the epitome of falsehood. she was not true in anyway and used deception to get her aims....what is the message exactly?
Yeah the whole thing doesn't make sense unless if you already are looking for that kind of message in the first place, which I doubt little children has the ability nor the will to do so.
>she was the epitome of falsehood. she was not true in anyway and used deception to get her aims....what is the message exactly?
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.
The femme fatale hasn't disappeared from fiction. Although the outwardly stoic woman has proliferated through out film and television almost since the beginning of the silver screen, characters like Catwoman and Harley Quinn are as popular as ever. Whatever merits Ursula's take on these traits may have are overshadowed by her role as a Svengali-Mephisto vis-a-vis an innocent and naive Ariel. Ursula makes a woman out of Ariel (quite literally) not out of a deep and abiding sisterly/motherly love but to advance her own agenda and does so at a terrible price for Ariel. That shouldn't go unnoticed.
I think it's very egalitarian to write a female villain who is every bit as powerful, cunning, and packed with personality as the male villains. Audiences actually love a good villain... look at the lasting appeal of, say, Darth Vader. Or Sephiroth.
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.
What seems more likely, that the identity-focused themes in The Little Mermaid are somehow genuinely subversive and were slipped past the suits at Disney, or that Disney has learned how to incorporate certain themes to apply a patina of subversiveness to its otherwise straightforwardly propagandistic movies?
> 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.
> In classic Disney animated features of old, plot was advanced through dialogue, and songs were incidental. For instance, in Snow White and the Seven Dwarves, the song “Whistle While you Work” does nothing to move the plot forward. Ashman and Menken approached the film’s book as they would a Broadway musical, using songs to impart critical plot points and character development.
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.
> 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.
Curious, how much of the movie do you remember? I'm not sure I can answer your question, but when I read the GP, my mind is filled with the Ursala's menacing voice. "You poor, unfortunate souls! Who cares? So what?!"
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.
It's a really good question, and I don't think anybody has a complete answer. But the best hint I can give you is that I bet you've got the lyrics to Poor Unfortunate Souls memorized -- or if not you, then ask a female friend or relative (who is more the target audience for the film).
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.)
This seems like kind of a stretch to be honest. The original story, about a mermaid longing to be human was written in 1837. And that trope in general, not fitting in with the current society, goes back a lot further.
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.
Your link doesn't seem to support what you're saying? It says that he wrote his letter about Riborg (a woman) and sent it to Christian (her brother) as a confessional. After Riborg's death, it was found she had kept Andersen's poems about her.
The link is a different story, but it is often assumed The Little Mermaid was inspired by Andersens affection for the male friend Edward Collin. He was not able to express his feelings, which inspired the mermaid literally losing her voice and (in the original story) having to witness her love marry someone else and not being able to do anything about it.
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.
The article is very clear that Riborg, the woman he never got over, is in fact a woman, though he wrote of interest in men as well as women. He focused his affections on the unattainable until his death at 70 years of age.
The original Little Mermaid is a very different sort of story.
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!
It's "feminism" as expressed through the viewpoint of a gay man in the 1980s. It was hidden inside the villain character, which is precisely what's so subversive about it. You couldn't just come out and say it, but if you gave it a strong beat you could stick it in people's minds.
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.
> Roger Ebert, to his credit, described Ariel as a “a fully realized female character who thinks and acts independently.”
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.
Maybe I watched the wrong movie and read the wrong book, but doesn't Scarlett end up ultimately paying dearly for those transgressions? A miscarriage, a dead daughter, and the man she actually loves ends up leaving her forever[1] over shit behavior.
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.
It wouldn't be much of a story if it didn't include tragedy as well.
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.
I've watched a video from Jordan Peterson where he interprets it as a criticism of identity politics. Honestly, I think you can get whatever you want from most of these kids' films.
What if it's just a musical, without any hidden meaning, and no ideological messages ? No, that's bullshit, everything must be a product of some kind of conspiracy
Apart from Ursula being inspired by a drag queen, I think the the gay subtext is imagined by the author. Reading homoerotic implications into the sailors being all male? Come on.
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.
33 comments
[ 3.8 ms ] story [ 78.8 ms ] threadthe 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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.