Trites The Little Mermaid

Roberta Trites is most definitely not a Disney fan. In her article, she launches a scathing attack on Disney and the materialistic and superficial values that Disney portrays in The Little Mermaid. Trites makes her thesis statement abundantly clear from the outset; Disney destroyed Anderson’s classic tale that embodied femininity and valued personal identity and integrity and created a movie based on the idea of superficial love. She is undoubtedly critical of Disney’s version and therefore, leaves no stone unturned when it comes to exposing the shallowness of Ariel’s and Eric’s characters. Trites is relentless in her criticism of Disney in this article and makes numerous searing accusations that this movie conveys the “wrong” message to children, especially young girls regarding love and independence. While I do agree that if you were to examine this movie with a fine toothcomb and analyze every detail, it is probably not the best teaching aid for young children. However, it is first and foremost an animated movie, one that was supposed to be entertaining and cheerful, not a point of reference for parents when it comes to instilling the importance of core values to their kids.

Trites suggests that Disney implies that; if children or teenagers, in the case of Ariel are “needlessly repressed” they will rebel against their parents and develop obsessive tendencies. Triton may have kept a tight rein on Ariel but I don’t think it was “needless repression”. He was simply doing what he thought was best for the wellbeing of his daughter and didn’t want any harm to come to her at the hands of human fishermen. While I agree that Ariel is somewhat of a free spirit and does what she pleases, I think that Disney was perhaps trying to imply that it is important to follow our dreams and that that we shouldn’t be content to remain miserable or dissatisfied in our lives.

Trites also argues that Disney insinuates that teenagers can become independent by becoming dependent on someone else. Personally, I think that this claim has more validity and is often seen in other Disney movies. Ariel’s desire to become free from her father’s control is so she can be with Eric, another strong male character rather than to lead the life she wishes. Both Eric and Ariel are guilty of focusing on the materialistic and superficial aspects of love and this is why Eric is so easily tricked by Ursula. However, the suggestion made by Trites that someone must be perfect in order to be ”loveable” is simply taking it too far. I completely agree with her when she notes that three days is a completely unrealistic time span for falling in love but, we have to remember that this is a movie and Disney wanted to cram as much in as they possibly could while still giving us what we all want at the end, the happily ever after wedding.

Trites focuses extensively on the imagery in this film, something I think that she reads way too far into. Ursula is definitely a menacing Disney villain and like other powerful Disney women, extenuates evil but the references to “Freudian and phallus like imagery” are quite a stretch.

Overall the message I think that should be taken from Trites’ extremely biased and critical article is that we must possess personal integrity if we are to develop a defined sense of identity, sadly something Ariel and so many Disney princesses never succeed in doing.

Dopey's Legacy

As much as I would like to believe that Disney did not purposely set out to ridicule individuals with intellectual disabilities in its movies, the arguments presented by Schwartz are truly compelling in her article “Dopey’s Legacy”. Schwartz structured her argument very effectively; with a clear and concise thesis statement, well-reasoned and logical points and most importantly, she provided overwhelming evidence to validate her highly controversial claims. Before reading her article, I must admit that I was quite skeptical that Disney could possibly satirize such a delicate, “taboo” subject so openly in is films when mental illness and disabilities are still issues we all are reluctant to address in today’s society. I remember saying in my opening post that I planned to remove my rose tinted glasses in order to uncover the truth behind the ideological Disney Empire over the course of this class. In that case, those glasses are well and truly shattered after reading this article.

Schwartz not only presents us with one example of Disney’s stereotypical portrayal of individuals with intellectual disabilities, but three, with each example being progressively more appalling and shocking.

Schwartz chose to deal with the highly entertaining and comical characters of Dopey from Snow White, Gus from Cinderella and Le Fou from Beauty and the Beast. While these characters are from very different films, from different time periods they are all connected by the fact that they all share three common characteristics according to Schwartz; they are all portrayed as being childlike, non-human and fools/’The village idiot’. From watching Snow White it is obvious that Dopey is not like the others; he lags behind and is generally incompetent in whatever he does. Schwartz cleverly points out that Dopey wasn’t in the Grimm brothers’ original version. Therefore, the question is whether Disney intentionally set out to portray him as having a disability or just added his character for comic purposes. Personally, I think that Disney’s intention was closer to the latter, however, individuals with intellectual disabilities are easy targets and it is easy to poke fun at them.

For me, the most sinister point Schwartz made was that we view these individuals as being non-human. De-humanizing characters such as Dopey and LeFou makes it easier to us to make fun of them and laugh at their expense as it is almost like they are not humans with emotions and feelings like us. Such degradation of human beings is truly horrifying and distasteful and is a far cry from the ideological image portrayed by so many aspects of Disney films. These characters as branded as ‘the other’ and are marginalized and unvalued by society. This is unfortunately a sad reality faced many people who have a disability or not conform to social norms in our world today. Gus may be the exception in so far as that he is actually a mouse but the similarities between LeFou and the pig in the pond are uncanny and slightly unsettling. Dopey’s and LeFou’s names further enhance their portrayal as being stupid with LeFou literally being translated from French as ‘the fool’. Schwartz really challenges us to reflect on the value of each and every human life and highlights the enormous influence that global corporations such as Disney have in setting what are perceived as being societal norms by creating exaggerated stereotypes. Whether it likes it or not Disney has the responsibility to be an advocate for society

and has an unfathomable influence when it comes to shaping the attitudes of society. Sadly, these characters are only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to negative stereotypes of intellectual disability and Disney clearly does not fulfill this responsibility in these and many of its other films.

A Modern Take on a Disney Classic

This weekend I came across a video in Buzz Feed that tied in perfectly with my topic for Essay1.  Kristen Bell may not be as iconic as the beloved Julie Andrews, however, this video offers a refreshingly entertaining twist on the classic Mary Poppins while also exposing the very relevant themes of social inequality and poverty still present in today's society, some 50 years after the film was released. Maybe Disney's ideals are not just pertinent to a post Depression audience....
http://www.buzzfeed.com/whitneyjefferson/kristen-bell-minimum-wage-mary-poppins?utm_term=2aayo6k&sub=3398600_3458821