^Thanks for the explanation,
Sotiris. I think I get it now. And I guess you're right that race won't play a factor in the story.
Disney Duster wrote:This is why Ariel is a better role model than Cinderella and why Ariel is the most popular Disney Princess.
Well, I don't think Ariel is necessarily a better role model than Cinderella. I agree with
Redadoodles that they both have flaws and qualities. We just learn different things from each of them.
Disney Duster wrote:I don't think those metaphors were ever intended, but the fact is you can still read the films that way.
I guess with Howard Ashman and Hans Christian Anderson being gay that could mean Ariel was a metaphor for that, which would really bother Jodi Benson....
To be honest, I never saw the films as a metaphor of any of these things before reading about it here on the forum, and I still don't really see them that way personally. I usually see what happens in films quite literally. But I think it's great different kinds of people can identify with the characters for different reasons and, in the case of
Frozen, I thought it would be a shame if they ruined the metaphor for some of them. I agree those metaphors were probably not intended. I think it's more likely that Andersen or Howard Ashman, for example, were able to understand these characters better than others and therefore to add some nuances that make them feel more authentic and makes people with similar circumstances relate to them and see them as metaphors of their own situations.
Disney's Divinity wrote:I don't think it's entirely true that Triton's actions in destroying the grotto are what cause the deal. Ariel initially tells F&J to go screw themselves when they approach her, and that was after her grotto had been destroyed. Unfortunately, what the film actually portrays is that the only reason she ultimately goes to Ursula and then makes the deal is because of Eric; F&J and Ursula all recognize this is the way to get her on the hook, which is why F&J knock the statue face of Eric to her and Ursula shows a facsimile of Eric to her in the latter half of PUS when Ariel's hesitating at the cost. I think if Ariel's decision was less about romance with a man she's never spoken to and had been linked more to her own desires (in "Part of That World"), the brunt of criticism over her putting everyone in jeopardy wouldn't fall as harshly as it often does in my experience. The idea that she sold out her whole kingdom--knowingly or not--over a three day attempt to make a man she's never even spoken to love her makes her seem pretty frivolous and privileged.
Unfortunately, while TLM was a huge step forward from the Walt days, the narrative is structured in such a way that the only way the female character can be active is by being disobedient. And then all her problems are resolved by men. The depiction of their female characters is one of the few advantages I would acknowledge the Revival films have over the Renaissance.
OK, yes, I understand why people could have an issue with those things. It's true that Disney still had a long way to go regarding their depiction of female characters. I don't see anything too wrong with the film itself (I don't mind if the lead character is not the one to defeat the villain, for instance), but I can see it when we take into consideration all the films they had done until then (that any female character had been allowed to be the one to save the day, etc.). I agree they've made a lot of progress in that regard lately. I love that female protagonists are more active, their films don't necessarily have to revolve around romance or that there are films where a relationship between two women is at the centre of the story like
Frozen or
Raya and the Last Dragon. But I think there's still work to do. My complaint was that now sometimes they're too perfect and don't have many flaws or are not allowed to make mistakes, but I guess I was thinking more in general; the ones from WDAS haven't been bad in that respect. Another issue is that it seems that to be strong they all have to be warriors now and they seem afraid of making them too feminine. But it's a process. We had many films where they were damsels in distress, so I don't actually mind there are several now which are the opposite. I think they'll keep advancing in this area and we'll soon see more varied depictions of women in their films.
Redadoodles wrote:As for the remake, it's true that when Halle got cast, no one knew what Eric would look like but it was pretty predictable that they would choose a white guy especially after all the hatred that poor girl received when she was announced as Ariel.
You're right, I had forgotten it was quite predictable they would choose a white actor for the role of Eric. But more than for the backlash to Ariel's casting, I think it was because it was unlikely all the main roles would go to black actors in a big production like this where they want to attract the widest audience possible.
Disney's Divinity wrote:Like Redadoodles, I often saw Triton's reaction to Ariel being in love with a human as similar to racism or homophobia. And that's why the film probably had an emotional heft, because it was believable as compared to things many might hear or see in the real world but translated into fantasy terms. I think that a lot of that subtext will most likely be lost in the re-make because, Idk, it would be uncomfortable or problematic to imply a metaphor of racism when Triton and Ariel are people of color and Eric is white. "Reverse" racism isn't really a thing, at least not on an institutional scale anyway.
But Javier Bardem, who plays Triton, is not really a person of color, so I think reverse racism wouldn't be an issue in this case. Plus, I guess there'll be people of different races in Eric's kingdom too. Maybe Grimsby will be black, for example. Or perhaps Eric will have parents in this version and they'll be played by people of color.
