Showing posts with label Protagonist. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Protagonist. Show all posts

Saturday, September 28, 2013

Ariel and The Little Mermaid: "Something's Starting"


"I don't know when - I don't know how -
but I know something's starting right now
watch and you'll see
someday I'll be
part of your world"


I always felt those words held the most weight in Disney's adaptation of The Little Mermaid.  Methods and Means are unknown, but the grand nature of her passion has become decided and unstoppable.  Although Ariel may have a decidedly more outgoing personality than Hans Christian Andersen's Little Mermaid, this passage echoes perfectly the essence of the original story and character.

If you need a quick review of Hans Christian Andersen's classic, read below.  It's quite short.  If this iframe doesn't work for your computer/browser feel free to read it on my scribd account - just click here.



The passage I quoted at the beginning of this post is devoid of character and plot detail, shaved down to only the concepts of the individual and the Other, which is exactly what the original does.


For instance, the original tale of Andersen's may have a mermaid as the protagonist, but most mermaid characteristics are not a part of the story.  There is a storm at sea, but it's never said that our mermaid caused it.  She may have the loveliest voice in the ocean, but she never uses it to entrance sailors.  She has no vanity: at no point does she brush her hair, or look at herself in the mirror.  She has no history of interacting with humans nor does she try to, and he even invents a tradition that limits mermaids from visiting the surface, that only on her fifteenth birthday is she allowed to see the horizon, etc.  Even though she becomes an instant expert dancer once a human because of her past fluid existence at sea, her sexuality is never mentioned in the story.  No, the only real connections to past mermaid lore are one, her longing for a human, which in and of itself is "watering down" if you will the mythological meme's lust for a human, and two, the idea that mermaids don't have souls like human beings, that they are outside of the world of Christianity.  You'll notice Disney's Ariel has all of these qualities as well (she has more in common with the original than appearances and choreographed musical numbers might imply).


So though the setting of The Little Mermaid is romantic, it is more about two worlds, one unknown and one known.  For the little mermaid, the known is the sea, the unknown the land.  For the reader it is the reverse: the sea unkown, the land known.  This inverse yet parallel relationship between the protagonist and the reader is a perfect set up for us to identify with this mermaid's struggle.  This is what I mean about the story's focus on the Other.  More generally this concept refers to whenever we wish for something, but we don't know what we're wishing for, or when we feel different and outside of a given community we wish we could be a part of, or when our circumstances don't feel like enough for our happiness.


Even her very form, half human, half fish, "embodies" this (if you will).  Everyone's not felt "whole" at one point, fully one thing or another.  We seem to be made of parts, and the relationship between them often seems as disparate and opposite as the mermaid's fleshy torso and scaly tail.  And that is what I mean by "the concept of the individual."  Why have we created this concept of becoming "one" and why do we want it so much?  Why not let it remain a mystery?  The little mermaid is like us.  She cannot remain in the sea, living out her limited three hundred years of peace and plenty.


Once she hears of the immortal soul, her fate is decided, her ambition stronger than anything despite the odds.  I find this in Ariel's "Watch and You'll see."


Our existence is chiefly built in longing, drive, and action towards our ambitions for more.


So I guess the remaining question is, if the background and character of The Little Mermaid aren't the essence of the story, does her gender still hold significance, at least for me (this being a feminist blog and all)?

Well, first let's address the elephant in the room.  This tale is rumored to have been semi-autobiographical, as Hans Christian Andersen allegedly/trully had love for a man who did not return his affections.  In addition, Hans Christian Andersen once had a beautiful voice as a child and performed, but once his voice changed with adolescence so did his presence on the stage.  In addition, Hans Christian Andersen, despite mingling with nobility, was never trully a noble himself.  (All of these facts are presented in an extra feature for the 20th anniversary edition of Disney's Little mermaid, although they can certainly be found elsewhere.)  So here we have some major overlaps with The Little Mermaid, and the writer is man, not a woman.

(Eric and Arien

Perhaps once the idea of land and sea came to mind, a merman was too outside of tradition, as mermen are barely a part of any lore, the phenomenon being almost strictly female by all historical accounts and tales.

(From Brian Froud and Alan Lee's book, Faeries)

Perhaps the protagonist was made female as a cloak to hide how close the story was to the writer's life.  Perhaps, since back in his time having anything but strict heterosexuality as your identification as a man, Hans Christian Andersen decided his fictional reflection should be a different gender.

But what of the significance in the story itself, to readers across the ages, that our identifying character is female?  It is certainly interesting that the eyes of the prince are what attracts her most to him, and conversely that the male character as well so easily dismisses her - although I've always thought that to be more because he's royalty and used to having girls in love with him.  So certainly how a female feels attraction and rejection are subjects of possible scrutiny, and even more important, are topics of possible influence over men and women readers in thinking about the nature of women.

(Art by Edmund Dulac)

But I want to leave the influence of the story aside in this post, and focus more on the story itself, standing outside its influence over the past 176 years.

Certainly her becoming a "favorite" of the prince is something solely female of the time period the story is placed in, and her sleeping outside his door every night is something typical of the day, submissive, something a man, however favored by royalty, would not do unless perhaps he was the lowliest servant and ordered to do so.  Her quiet nature and then resulting inability to speak can also be associated with feminine submissiveness.

(from the 1968 Russian adaptation)

Yet despite her reputed beauty, on the most basic level, the character strikes me as androgynous.  This is for the reasons I've listed earlier: the setting and time have little influence over the meaning of the story, dissapear behind the overwhelming concept of longing.  So too does the character's gender, at least for me, dissapear into the background.  Perhaps this is because she is first and foremost a thinker.  She doesn't frolic with her sisters: she looks out her window and asks her grandmother to tell her stories.  Thought has no gender.

(by Lisbeth Zwerger)

And this is precisely why I personally find the tale such a feminist story.  There are so many tales that have men women easily can identify with, but very few times do we encounter the opposite.  In addition, in the end the little mermaid does not need the prince to accomplish her dream, becoming a daughter of the air, earning her immortality for herself just by being herself.  Quite the empowering role model.  In fact, not only does she not need the prince, but despite loving him still, she doesn't end up married, and the marriage between the prince and his bride is depicted as a mistake.  So the traditions concerning women, love, and marriage are very much challenged.  And don't forget - she's the one who saved the prince.  Then there is the witch figure, which despite living up to the established witch archetype, is a source power, the grandmother figure, a source of knowledge, along with the female daughters of the air - when you add the giving up of the feminine locks of hair by the part of the little mermaid's sisters, we essentially have a horde of women challenging established modes of femininity.


Once, at a party, someone mentioned 
Disney's Little Mermaid degraded women 
because Ariel went after a man.

Putting aside my usual response that Ariel wanted to be a part of the human world before Prince Eric, I responded,

"And why should it be unfeminine for a woman to chase a man for herself?"
(by Christian Birmingham)


Saturday, August 6, 2011

Hello Again


HELLO AGAIN! !NIAGA OLLEH


It's three months and fifteen days short of a year since my last post! Two New Years ago I posted a photo of Dorothy just stepping onto the yellow brick road as a symbol of my resolve to post more regularly. This time I'm starting out with an image of Dorothy a step further... because I haven't come too far as a person since then but I still like the picture? Whatever it's symbolism.


Ok, so before more excuses, some content.

This fall I am entering college - two years after graduating highschool - and it bears mentioning that my application's personal essay (which I might include here) spoke of my obsession with The Little Mermaid (the ensuing film adaptations, etc.) and its bearing to feminism and multimedia - in short, this blog.

Yes, I have been researching my butt off to find anything on how Hans Christian Andersen's tale has effected our culture in the past 174 years, 4 months and 30 days.


Surprisingly, it's a lot of work. Nothing much organized is out there, apart from e-texts and fan sites for Disney's Ariel. My life-long dream has become to create a user-friendly and informative website about "Little Mermaid" culture and history, but for now, I'll give you an idea of what I've dug up.


Here are the adaptations that almost make the list - but don't:


You see, I figure my research isn't your typical picture of historical archiving. Sure, everyone knows that the amount of documents or projects or evidence ever made throughout time on earth is finite. However, the pursuit of finding and exploring and explaining history is a blissedly impossible art - as is pretty cutely analyzed in this book I've been reading, History: a Brief Insight by John. H. Arnold.

But I figure since film was only discovered in the 1920s or something, I have a real fighting chance of finding all the versions of the Little Mermaid ever made (or of knowing some to be lost). See I figure if my generation is in the singular position of knowing black and white photographs means grandma and grandpa (which will never be true again), then film being such a new expression in our minds is likewise a peculiar imprint on our ways of storytelling, or something like that. I don't know I haven't really bothered to think it through.


Anyhow I think the various little mermaid film adaptations have a lot to say about what film-makers try to do as film itself has progressed. Sort of like the mermaid story is the control and the development of film the variable. And since the story itself is about pushing boundaries and crossing mediums, I figure that film is well suited to the story as well.

It's not that simple of course; when you read Hans Christian Andersen's writing you'll notice, I think, that the Little Mermaid herself is very quiet and thoughtful, and that as much of the story lies in her thoughts as in the avant-garde breaking of bonds from mortal water to temporary human to daughters of the air or what have you. This (her silent thoughts and nature) is a very precious element (haha) of the story that is easily lost in film. But that makes it twice as fun! How does an artist who works with film deal with that?

I have a feeling this is one of the main concerns that led Disney to fundamentally change the personality of The Little Mermaid in their adaptation. Ariel wants the prince as much as Hans Christian Andersen's Little Mermaid does - the unrelenting concept of "want" is still there - but they made her more fierce, more smile, more blatantly an embracing figure, and by far more adventurous and assertive. But I'll discuss more of that later if I ever get around to publishing my entry on her.


Then there's the female question (you've probably been wondering when I'd get around to this, since I keep insisting this is a feminist blog). Is it the woman needs a man, or is it that people think it is unfeminine for a woman to chase a man? Is it a story about becoming a woman - since literally the "little" mermaid was not only young and lacking full maturity, but was in fact inhuman and therefore in-woman for a great part of the story. Is there a latent implication that it is the province of women to dream from the sidelines, or hope without hope, or love without love, or fight without success, or yearn without need? For the last one - you've got to admit she was a princess of the ocean. She had it made. Why did she want more? (Of course there was that whole, "we don't have a soul" thing but give me a minute I'll get to that.)

But how could it be a latent implication that it is peculiarly a woman trait to yearn unecissarily or dream a vapid dream, since this story was written by a man well known to be shy himself, to have gone through unrequited love himself, unfinished dreams himself (lost career as a singer hellooo), to feel he was a stranger in a new world himself (a writer amongst the gentry, however successful, was at that time in that place still to be a serviceman)?

Of course then there is the rumor - or fact, I haven't read enough - that Hans Christian Andersen had homosexual tendencies so some might say he was getting in touch with his inner woman or something, but that's a whole other can of non-kosher non-politically correct worms, indicating that sexual orientation and sex (gender) are somehow related...


What was I talking about? Oh, my quest with the story, and how it effects and has effected film and people over time. And how I think my quest is especially cool because film is new and - I didn't mention this yet - the story itself is one story from one author, unlike other fairytales. (This isn't completely true in the sense that it was inspired from at least two old folktales I can think of right off the bat - The Legend of Undine and Dvorak's Rusalka, - but run with me here.)

Okay so my opening thoughts were I think these ingredients (mermaid, film, history, woman, writing) are curiously intermingled and that's cool and special.


Okay cool! Done with my short opening remarks. haha.

By the way I haven't included the 1987 Shelley Duvall "Fairy Tale Theatre" version because I haven't been brave enough to try watching it yet - the fan effect to make the hair look like it is underwater looked more like the creatures were trying to have a conversation in a whirlpool. However, I have sources that say it's worth watching so we'll see.


Ok so since my opening remarks were so long I'll make my middle and end remarks nice and short. I want these entries to be shorter so I can post more often.

ooo! I promised more excuses. Here we go. Why I haven't posted but still keep proudly calling myself a blogger.


I've continued to obsess and collect all information about Disney's Tangled (and how it's discussed and portrayed in the media of course).

(a revised edition of a Disney Princess book that includes Rapunzel. One of the new 2D designs for her in the Disney Princess consumer product line. I love how all the princesses are dolled up past recognition XD)

(left to right: older, newer)




(left to right: new, newer)

I think I might have mentioned a while back that I find Rapunzel the second most important fairy tale behind the Little Mermaid when it comes to issues with women and issues with the Self. So the most famous feature-length film adaptation has become a source of major fascination. Plus the way it was made, technologically, is about the marrying of artistic vision and technology, perhaps for the first time at this scale ever ever ever, so that as you might suspect is very personal to me.

(concept art by Claire Keane)

Plus I figure every five years or so you should find something to be fiercely addicted to and obsessed with. For your health and vitality or something.

Though I've kind of been losing sleep and seeing less people because of it, so maybe I should rethink that.


(fan poster-thing made by me. funny right?)

Starting September of Last Year, I have been trying to write a comprehensive series of entries on this movie - that was two months before it came out. The first entry was "Tangled - Can I Marry This Movie?" For these entries I uploaded One Hundred and Thirty-Four images - detailed screencaps from trailers to discuss the choice of the depiction of her body, the tower, etc. Hopefully I'll get around to touching those entries up.


Here's an example of the level of detail my scrutiny of Tangled has become.



The top moving image is from the first trailer. The lower image is from the movie (I had to flip the image so they'd be easier to compare). The trailers and choice of promotion focal points or whatever were very controversial, because Rapunzel was barely seen in them and the character Gothel was left a mystery - some thought the main character was going to be a glib theif amongst a shadow of a Shrek film. It was NOT, but the change of title from "Rapunzel" to "Tangled" made it seem like Disney was pandering to audiences to try and lure unsuspecting little boys to watch a princess film. At least that's what lots of critics said.

Anyhow you'll notice annoyed Rapunzel from the trailer's hair is differently shaped and colored from annoyed Rapunzel from the movie, and her lips pout more (perhaps to exaggerate the modern sexiness they wanted to get across?). Trailer Rapunzel's hair frames her face more and there are more distinctive highlights of pink. Not to mention they chose to enhance the color scheme to maybe make the trailer "pop" more. Also movie Rapunzel smiles in a moment of confusion before she raises her frying pan in a huff. Were they shortening the clip for trailer time purposes or did they want to emphasize the "spunk" of the character in the commercial?

Maybe they made these changes because they were still fine-tuning her character. Maybe the hair is different and pinker in the trailer because they were still debating how distracting it would be for 70 feet of screen hair to have pink highlights.

Maybe I should be doing better things with my time. haha.

(concept art by Glen Keane, current desktop picture)

But seriously, food for thought. Some animator made these changes and they did it because they cared, it's a career decision for them. The more I learn about Disney the more I realize how damn seriously they take themselves and their work. And as a non-diagnosed obsessive compulsive and workaholic I like that in an art company.

P.S. - This next moving .gif was always my favorite part of the trailer. It still feels a lot like the finished Rapunzel. A part of me wishes it made it to the movie, but I see why they couldn't fit it in (she'd have to be too comfortable with a strange human's presence in her isolated tower too fast and THAT doesn't fit the character).


By the way I made this moving gif. image to discuss how they squished her body and the use of under-eyelids for expression we are accustomed to see in 2D animation -
- as well as a pontificating discussion of what they might do with her (Rapunzel's) sexuality. yeah.

Of course the eyelid thing for these two characters are especially similar because the animation for both Ariel and Rapunzel were headed by Glen Keane.




- Okay so now I'll classify that as my MIDDLE remark(s). Now for the end remarks.

Um, I like to watch films with tea and pretend they are pouring coffee...



...I've been thinking I should try to articulate why the show Daria is appealing beyond the solidarity for the intelligent female shut-in, not that that's nothing... if you don't know the show, I'll clue you in...


... I've noticed the beginning of the Hobbit (I'm rereading it) makes you quite hungry (all that talk of cold chicken and pickles and seed-cake and coffee and cheese and mince-pie).

... did I forget to mention I've spent as much as $70 in the past week trying to purchase from Amazon Japan certain Little Mermaids I have been looking for, neither of which were what I wanted, one of which was borderline bootleg of terribly done cheap animation? UGH the risks and hardships one takes for the cause... I did find the original audio for one of the Japanese ones so the last month hasn't been a total loss...


... ooo and I've been working on videos. Animated Fan Music Videos. One which I hope will be done very soon, is my attempt to emphasize the darker tones of Disney's Rapunzel and the story of Rapunzel in general through Emelie Autumn's "Lady Shalott," some color scheme changes, and some playful editing... I'll keep you posted on that...

...Futurama's back for another few seasons, which is great. I should do a Leela entry... they really push the boundaries of her likability, which I really admire... those writers have balls... (haha stereotypical male metaphor on feminist blog!)

Futurama Thursdays 10/9c Get The Ball
Bender plays fetch with Mr. Peppy, Fry's alien pet. Video Clip, Airdate 8/11/2011Comedy Central
grrrr I want one of those as a pet.

... and with that cute little tidbit I think I will leave you. A Very Un-Birthday to you! (yeah I went there.)

Hopefully a new post sooner than a year from now! (It's my un-birthday wish.)