Andersen is clearly anti-Disney in her interpretations, and while I can agree with some of her points, there are many that I feel leap to such extremes, that I simply don't follow.
But, as a devout Disney supporter, I am naturally biased in the opposite direction. So, while I admit there are many flaws in the Disney movies, I often work to defend them.
For clarity, when I refer to The Little Mermaid, I mean Andersen's mermaid, and with Ariel, I mean Disney's.
I can concede to Trites' thesis argument: that "Anderson's mermaid quests for a sole, but Disney's mermaid, Ariel, quests for a mate".
To The Little Mermaid love is a means to an end, she seeks her Prince so that he may share his soul with her. It is the soul she desperately desires. This is the strong religious theme in Andersen's version. That what's important is to gain a soul and go to heaven, but even more important, is that you earn this soul by doing good deeds. This message is conveyed through the mermaid's failure to obtain a soul through the love of a man, and instead being given the opportunity to continue good deeds for the next 300 years to earn her place in heaven for herself.
In Disney's version, Ariel was always fascinated with the surface, but once she meets Eric she becomes desperate to grow legs to be with him - so desperate that the sea witch is able to trick he into giving up her voice.
I agree with Trites' view that Disney's tale can be seen as a warning to parents not to needlessly repress their children, as this will only cause them to rebel. For instance, as Ariel is forbidden any contact with the human world, and so this is something she craves so deeply, and, ultimately, she does trade her tail and her voice for human legs. This is a whole Disney created message, as in the original, the mermaids were allowed to go to the surface once they reached 15-years of age. They simply had to wait until then. And while it was certainly exciting and new at first, after a while the surface didn't hold much interest over the thoughts of the other sisters. The Little Mermaid was always an exception though, she was always more fascinated than the others. Ariel's motives, however, were very different in Disney's version that in Andersen's, as outlined in Trites' thesis statement.
Though I'm not sure how much I agree with the link to children "developing obsessive behaviors that cause them to reject their identity".
Trites clearly explains that Ariel is "incapable of autonomy" by highlighting that she only moves from a world dependent on her father, to one dependent on Eric. Whichever world she is a part of, a man holds power over her. So, despite all her intelligence and courage, it can be argued that Ariel never has her independence. In "A Part of Your World" Ariel sings of a world where she can be free:
"Bet'cha on land, they understand
That they don't reprimand their daughters
Bright young women, sick of swimming
Ready to stand"
However, when Ariel makes it to land, she becomes instantly dependent on Eric: leaning on him to sturdy her, living in his palace, dependent on his kiss for her to be able to keep her legs. But then again, you can't discount that this is what she wants. And she is still and adventurous, free spirited person, demonstrated as Ariel takes the reigns in the carriage and explores the wonders of the city.
I disagree with Trites' argument that "Ariel is manipulative and dishonest in pursuing" Eric. I believe Ariel is merely trying to communicate with him without words. And I find Trites' evidence false. She states that Ariel "clings dependently to Eric, winking back at her friends in the sea to show she is faking her weakness for the sake of the prince's ego". However, this clip clearly shows that Ariel genuinely falls of the rock and the Prince catches her. We have already seen that Ariel had been unsteady on her legs to start with, as she is only just learning to walk! Yes, Ariel does look back and smile at her animals friends as Eric offers to help her, but this is a smile of joy and excitement as the man she loves has found her and is kindly helping her...not a wink of coy deception. Also, I hardly agree that it is "entrapment" as Trites suggests. Not when you take into consideration that Prince Eric has already fallen in love with Ariel too, he thought he recognised her, but it's the mesmerizing voice that he remembers best. As this voce belongs to Ariel, and she is the girl he can't stop thinking about, any actions Ariel later takes in her human form, I don't believe can be termed "entrapment".
I believe Trites makes some interesting observations about the differences between the two versions. For instance, in the comparison between Andersen's and Disney's representations of love. The Little Mermaid is able to live as a human in quest of a soul until the Prince marries her, and shares one with her, or until he marries someone else, and she dies. No time frame is put on this process and love is given time to form in either circumstance. For Ariel, however, she is given but 3 days to obtain a kiss from Prince Eric, as a symbol of his love. This is Disney's magical 'true-love's kiss'. Trites uses this to show that Disney rushes love and equates it with sexuality - a physical act rather than an emotional connection - and that this love, therefore, "lacks the basic integrity imbued in Andersen's representation". This is an argument that I certainly agree with.
Towards the end of her article Trites' becomes much more extreme in her views and this is where I really disagree.
First, she interprets the red flowers in The Little Mermaid's garden as a prefigure of the "human genitalia the mermaid will seek" and so this is her "slowly preparing for human sexuality". Wow, and there was me thinking the red flowers represented the sun above the water and The Little Mermaid's fascination with the world above. After all, Andersen's description of the garden states "that of the youngest was round like the sun, and contained flowers as red as his rays at sunset". So I think the link to "human genitalia" is a little far stretched from that, in my mind at least. Trites' extends her analysis of the sexual references in Andersen's and Disney's work, focusing specifically on the imagery in the Disney film.
Further points of Interest:
Female Disney villains use "true-love" to get what they want by holding this notion over the naive princesses. Just as the Evil Queen encouraged Snow White to bite the wishing apple to gain her Prince, Ursula encourages Ariel to make a bargain with her so that she can be with Eric. In each circumstance, the villain had to remind the Princess of her desire and coerce her into their plan.
Disney's version puts a greater emphasis on the sea witch, Ursula, as Disney "relies on women to create the conflict between good and evil".
In Andersen's version, the sea witch warns The Little Mermaid of what she's about to do, but as an impartial and minor figure, does what she requests anyway: "it is very stupid of you, but you shall have your way, and it will bring you to sorrow, my pretty princess".
Andersen's original shows a much more positive bond between females. The sisters are all close and supportive of one another. They tell each other of their time at the surface, and they play together. When Ariel is human, the sisters visit her. And when they know she will die, they sacrifice their hair to the sea witch in order to give The Little Mermaid a chance to save herself with a magic dagger. The Little Mermaid is not prepared to murder, and instead kisses the Prince's new bride, showing affection for another woman; The Little Mermaid wants the newlyweds to be happy together, and she always admired the bride's beauty. Here, there is no longer jealousy and hatred. Arguably one of the most important female bonds is that between the grandmother and her granddaughters. The grandmother provides great wisdom and accurately explains the surface world to The Little Mermaid, giving honest and true council. The lack of this prominent female role-model in the Disney film is very telling about their attitudes towards women and their construction of pitting women against each other, rather than having them support one another. In the film, the sisters don't have as close a bond and they don't sacrifice anything to help Ariel. With the marriage scenes, Ariel and Vanessa are pitted against one another in a battle of good vs. evil in the fight for Eric's hand in marriage.
Andersen manipulates children: they must be good so the daughters of the air may sooner go to heaven and will smile upon them. If they are bad, these daughters will cry and their sentence is prolonged.
I disagree with Trites' point that the sisters "sacrifice their only treasure" when referencing their hair, as I believe they have many treasures; they had their gardens and were "delighted with the wonderful things which they obtained from the wrecks of vessels".
AGREE: "The grandmother, the enchantress, the princess, the sisters, and the daughters of the air are all strong, beautiful, supportive, and feminine. But by changing their gender, by making their motivations anti-feminine, or by editing their function from the story, Disney destroys all of these characters".
No comments:
Post a Comment