The Little Mermaid
Aug. 15th, 2020 09:29 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
osprey_archerThe Little Mermaid is one of those movies that people have very strong opinions about. Either Ariel is a terrible role model for girls who abandons her home, her family, and her very voice to leave the sea on the off chance of bagging a man, OR Ariel is a proto-anthropologist who leaves the sea because of her deep fascination with human culture (and also a man, but this interpretation strives to make Eric as secondary as possible).
The second interpretation, IMO, is an overreaction to the first, and it really only works if you ignore whole swathes of the story. Yes, Ariel has a prior interest in human culture, which is why she’s on the surface watching Eric’s boat in the first place, and yes, her father’s outrage when he discovers and destroys Ariel’s stash of human artifacts certainly helps drive her to Ursula to make the fatal “voice for legs” bargain, but you can’t really get around the fact that Eric is at the heart of it.
On the other hand, I also think the first interpretation is too harsh. In particular, it ignores the fact that Ariel doesn’t abandon her home and family etc: she’s driven away by Triton, and while it’s pretty clear to the audience that he regrets it instantly and would accept her back into the hold, Ariel doesn’t know that and, in that moment, might not care. Who wants to go home to Dad after he just destroyed her entire carefully constructed collection of delightful human objects?
What really struck me about Ariel is that she’s such an 80s teenager: irrepressible and irresponsible (missing her own birthday concert) and dramatic. When she runs away to Ursula, that’s the under the sea equivalent of slamming her bedroom door and shouting “You just don’t understand me!” and then sneaking out to the party, anyway. And clearly has second thoughts when Ursula reveals that Ariel’s voice is the price for this pair of legs, but at that point she’s already so deep in negotiations that it’s hard to back out.
Is any of that smart? No, but for God’s sake, the girl’s sixteen; maybe she should be allowed to do stupid things and make mistakes. Let her mess up and have trouble fixing it. Heck, isn’t that worth modeling in its own right? You can make a very bad mistake and still come back from it and find acceptance and love.
The second interpretation, IMO, is an overreaction to the first, and it really only works if you ignore whole swathes of the story. Yes, Ariel has a prior interest in human culture, which is why she’s on the surface watching Eric’s boat in the first place, and yes, her father’s outrage when he discovers and destroys Ariel’s stash of human artifacts certainly helps drive her to Ursula to make the fatal “voice for legs” bargain, but you can’t really get around the fact that Eric is at the heart of it.
On the other hand, I also think the first interpretation is too harsh. In particular, it ignores the fact that Ariel doesn’t abandon her home and family etc: she’s driven away by Triton, and while it’s pretty clear to the audience that he regrets it instantly and would accept her back into the hold, Ariel doesn’t know that and, in that moment, might not care. Who wants to go home to Dad after he just destroyed her entire carefully constructed collection of delightful human objects?
What really struck me about Ariel is that she’s such an 80s teenager: irrepressible and irresponsible (missing her own birthday concert) and dramatic. When she runs away to Ursula, that’s the under the sea equivalent of slamming her bedroom door and shouting “You just don’t understand me!” and then sneaking out to the party, anyway. And clearly has second thoughts when Ursula reveals that Ariel’s voice is the price for this pair of legs, but at that point she’s already so deep in negotiations that it’s hard to back out.
Is any of that smart? No, but for God’s sake, the girl’s sixteen; maybe she should be allowed to do stupid things and make mistakes. Let her mess up and have trouble fixing it. Heck, isn’t that worth modeling in its own right? You can make a very bad mistake and still come back from it and find acceptance and love.
no subject
Date: 2020-08-16 05:33 pm (UTC)I also don't understand how anyone can subscribe to this interpretation who actually listened to the lyrics of "Poor Unfortunate Souls." It's right there in the fact that it's voiced as advice in the villain song—a character with ulterior motives! a character we are not supposed to trust!—that the film does not believe Ariel should trade her voice and suppress her identity for the sake of a man:
You'll have your looks, your pretty face
And don't underestimate the importance of body language
The men up there don't like a lot of blabber
They think a girl who gossips is a bore
Yes, on land it's much preferred for ladies not to say a word
And after all, dear, what is idle prattle for?
Come on! They're not all that impressed with conversation
True gentlemen avoid it when they can
But they dote and swoon and fawn on a lady who's withdrawn
It's she who holds her tongue who gets her man
and in fact this gambit does not work; specifically it allows her identity to be stolen from her, because her voice is the recognition token of Eric's hazy post-rescue memory; silence doesn't quite equal death in this version because seafoam has been removed from the equation, but it is a textually bad idea. Loving Eric is not the problem. Sacrificing an essential part of herself to attain him through a conventionally misogynistic route is. How severely do you have to misread the film not to notice that?