by Mirha Girt
University of Wisconsin–Madison
Disney’s recreation of Hans Christian Andersen’s stories, like “The Little Mermaid,” altered their meanings and changed Andersen’s portrayal of women, in particular. Disney’s versions—lighter and often with a happy ending—erase the original passion and anguish that are the backbone of Andersen’s stories. These films lead many people to believe they are watching the recreation of the real story when they actually present quite a different story from Andersen’s.
Disney’s “The Little Mermaid”—produced by Walt Disney Studio in 1989—tells the story of a rebellious teenager who wants to marry the handsome prince on land to fulfill her materialistic desires: marriage to a perfect man. In this sense, the Disney film suggests that women’s lives and desires revolve entirely around the intent of marrying the handsome prince and, in turn, taking away the agency of women and leaving their desires and choices in the hand of a man. While Disney may portend to be presenting the updated modern social values, through both the characters and narrative structure, as viewers we should ask if these adaptions are positive changes for the image of women, sexuality and love, gender roles, themes, and plots of the story of “The Little Mermaid” (Bendix 281).
Andersen is most known for his fairytales, which, according to Bruno Bettelheim, is a “‘magic mirror which reflects some aspects of our inner world’”, and when one learns to communicate with the story, one will see the deeper meaning and gain inner peace (309). Andersen knew his audience included both little children and their parents; therefore, he enjoyed providing them with “‘a little food for thought’” (Bachlund). Although he was not afraid to introduce both ideas and feelings considered to be advanced or even difficult for children to comprehend, he never lost touch with the perspective of children (Bachlund).
However, when these stories are adapted into a film, stories completely lose their “fluidity and adaptability of orality” (Bendix 280). This mode of communication imposes a certain image and, as a result, excludes all other images. Disney has “turned the Little Mermaid into a vehicle for the corporate American worldview which Disney studios themselves have helped to shape since the 1930s” (Bendix 289). As Bendix mentions, Pauline Kael argues that the Disney version is vapid and stale in comparison to Andersen’s much more meaningful and intricate look into real heartache, desire, and sacrifice of the little mermaid. The problem with Disney’s adaptation of Andersen’s story is that both stories sketch two completely different plots (Bendix 281).
Andersen broke from the tradition of past collectors and editors such, as the Grimm brothers, and did not believe that he had to follow the “formulaic nature of oral folktales” (Bendix 282). Therefore, his stories use imaginary creatures, princes, and princesses to create his own art that focuses on the lessons and the hopes and weaknesses of humans. Andersen’s stories have a much different impact on the audience, in particular children, in comparison to Disney movies. In a Disney movie, there is always a happy ending; the conflict is always resolved in the end. However, this cannot be said for Andersen’s stories, which are a mode of teaching lessons to children and presenting a discrete way of ridiculing society. He discusses a symbolic or real loss of death, social failure, or virginity, which are themes not often prevalent in Disney movies. Instead of delving into the psychological and moral complexity that Andersen addresses, Disney “accentuates the most sentimental and romantic aspects” (Hastings 85). To create this happy ending, Disney removes conflicts and characters.
Andersen’s version of “The Little Mermaid” follows the little mermaid’s growth and maturity as she toils and suffers in order to obtain an immortal soul instead of becoming sea foam, like all mermaids do when they die (Mortensen 447). Throughout the story, there is a lot of movement upward and downward of the little mermaid. In order to go up to land, she must first go down to the evil witch, which takes her further away from the prince. However, in the end, her selfless deeds are what fulfill the requirement needed to build a bridge for her soul from the sea to the heavens, changing the outcome of her soul from sea foam to immortality. These religious aspects should not be surprising considering the role of Christianity during the Romantic Era (Easterlin 258). In Disney’s version, Ariel’s journey takes place over a much shorter length of time; therefore, her lack of real suffering, and, in turn growth and maturity, is not present.
In both Andersen’s tale and the Disney adaptation, most of the story takes place on the sea surface and the dry land. This is the middle ground: above the sea and below the sky. Mermaids are known to lure men from the land into the sea exercising siren-like qualities; however, Andersen’s little mermaid acts as a reverse siren. She tries to obtain a human life by attempting to marry the prince, because a “human life is the mode that makes it possible to connect the animal and the divine” (Mortensen 451). This means that it is human love that transforms an animal’s sexual drive to an outcome resulting in good deeds and self-sacrifice (Mortensen 451). The prince marries another woman; however, the witch gives her one more chance to save herself and become human by killing the prince. Instead, she chooses to die. With this last act of selflessness, the little mermaid obtains an immortal soul (Ross 58, 59). In Walt Disney’s version of “The Little Mermaid,” the plot involves both the rebellious teenager and her quest for love. Ariel rebels against her father’s wishes, and at this point, Disney provides adults with the message that if children are repressed then they may rebel. This warning to parents is a recurring theme in Disney movies (Trites 145). In Disney’s story, Ariel’s pursuit of marriage is her end goal, and she equates this with love. This exemplifies the materialistic qualities of Ariel and portrays women not only as dependent on men but also robs women of integrity. In Ariel’s opinion, the prince is perfect and her obsession could imply that only perfect men are loveable. Through Ariel’s interactions with Eric, she seems to perceive herself as incomplete without a man’s love, and, therefore, she must do everything to obtain his love, and with the help of her friends and her sisters, she is able to finally marry him (Trites 145). This idea of trying to impress a man to obtain his approval and love implies that men control women.
Importantly, in each story the conditions for the little mermaid to be on land differs, suggesting a difference between the definitions of love and marriage. In Andersen’s story, the little mermaid has until the prince marries someone else; therefore, she has time to develop her feelings for the prince. At the same time, the prince has time to develop his feelings for her and possibly reciprocate her love. Disney, on the other hand, conflates love with sexuality. The princess has three days for the prince to kiss her, and without her voice, she must find a way to attract the prince physically. Mermaids are seen throughout fairytales as sirens. They are temptresses who use their voice, bodies, hair, and beauty to attract men. By focusing heavily on physical sexuality, Disney makes Ariel’s siren-like qualities more prominent and suggests that young women can marry the prince if they exercise siren-like qualities; a personality is beneficial, but not necessary. In the film adaptation, the prince does not seem to care about Ariel’s personality, but instead is infatuated by her physical beauty. This is not love; it is purely sexual, which makes Disney’s story of love lack the “basic integrity imbued in Andersen’s representation of it” (Trites 145). In doing so, the Disney film is demeaning toward both men and women suggesting that a man is driven solely by physical appearances, and that a woman is driven by marriage to the ideal husband, both of which are very superficial.
Although some may see the little mermaid in Andersen’s version as selfish since she gives up her family for her desire to obtain an immortal soul, she is so completely fueled by her desire to be eternal that she will endure pain and even the possibility of death to earn a human life. Her tongue is cut out by the sea hag, every step she takes as a human feels like knives in her foot, and her voice will never return yet still her desire keeps her going (Hastings 86). In comparison, in Disney’s version, Ariel’s decision to be human is not only pain-free but she does not have to fear death in the event of failure; it “purges these elements of pain” (Hastings 86). She is not willing to sacrifice herself completely like Andersen’s little mermaid (Ross 59).
Interestingly, there is no conflict between good and evil in Andersen’s tale compared to the Disney version. Ursula, in the Disney version, is power hungry and wants to control the King of the Oceans’ daughter (Trites 145). In Andersen’s version, the sea hag tells the little mermaid about all of the drawbacks in becoming human; therefore, it is the mermaid’s desire for eternal life that leads to pain and danger. While both versions of this sea hag may seem evil, in Andersen’s version, the sea hag does not interfere with the little mermaid’s attempts to win the love and affection of the prince. Ursula, however, turns into a beautiful woman with Ariel’s voice in order to sabotage Ariel’s chance at marriage, and, therefore, gains the ability to control her forever—her revenge against Triton (Hastings 87).
In the end, both stories conclude happily, yet the definition of happiness is differently expressed. Disney seems to provide its audience with the message that “girls can gain an identity independent from their parents by becoming dependent on someone else” (Trites 145). Ariel finds happiness by marrying the prince, which, as discussed previously, is based on very materialistic desires, yet for the audience, this is a happy ending: princess gets the prince. To obtain Walt Disney’s happy endings, the woman becomes passive. On the contrary, many see Andersen’s ending as sad since she didn’t get the prince and someone else stole his heart; however, this is the reaction conditioned by those who have been raised with fairytales interpreted by Walt Disney. Andersen ends his story with the little mermaid gaining a soul without relying on the prince to “bestow a soul upon her.” The prince’s inability to act or develop his character means he cannot give the little mermaid an eternal soul. This instead conveys to children that they should obey their parents because a man cannot give everything that a woman needs, like an eternal soul, unlike Disney’s perceived message (Mortensen 445). Andersen instead says that he wants his “‘mermaid to follow a more natural, more divine path’” by going upwards through her good deeds (Trites 145). This produces for the readers an image of women who do not need seek completion and satisfaction through marriage but are instead independent individuals that can take their own path without having to rely on marriage as a crutch. This is happiness: her dream comes true, an immortal soul. She stays true to herself and does not change by hurting someone or marrying someone who did not completely respect her; instead, she just followed the goodness and innocence of her heart.
Although there is much criticism of Disney’s version of not only the “Little Mermaid,” but also other fairytales, Maria Tatar provides the public with another side to Disney’s movies. In fairytales, there is much description with regards to setting and general descriptions of the characters, yet the little mermaid’s face, for example, is constructed through each individual’s imagination. When Disney produces movies of these fairytales, all of the characters come to life in the frame of imagination of the Disney producers, which may compliment or reject one’s anticipated characters. Therefore, instead of seeing this Disney movie as ruining the fairytale, one could also see it as another version of the story (Lambert).
While the little mermaid in both of these stories could be viewed as two separate adaptations, it is the popular and widely distributed Disney version that often comes to mind. The little mermaid of Andersen’s story is an image of our imagination, but the little mermaid of Disney’s story is an image that has come to life in front of the generations who were raised on Disney from infancy. “Walt Disney cast a spell on the fairy tale” and with the company’s use of the most up-to-date technology, its name has obscured the name of many famous writers of fairytales, one of them being Andersen (Zipes 21).
The two adaptations of “The Little Mermaid” that are analyzed above are quite different. Although Disney’s film was produced as a replication of Andersen’s fairytale, the messages and characters contrast: Ariel is more superficial, which differs drastically from the powerful and independent figure of the little mermaid in Andersen’s story. These changes change the core messages of the story in particular, the reason for the little mermaid’s pursuit to be human. The ending of Disney’s “The Little Mermaid” completes the stark differences in the values that are taken from these stories. The audience is presented with two contrasting paths to happiness: sacrifice your agency to marry the prince and live happily ever after or experience the tragedy of life and still find a way to obtain the desires of the heart.
Bibliography
Bachlund, Gary. “Four Fables.” Music and Texts of Gary Bachlund. N.p., n.d. Web. 5 Dec. 2015.
Bendix, Regina. “Seashell Bra and Happy End: Disney’s Transformations of “The Little Mermaid”” Fabula3-4 (1993): 280-90. Jan. 1993. Web. 28 Nov. 2015.
Bettelheim, Bruno. The Uses of Enchantment: The Meaning and Importance of Fairy Tales. New York: Random House, 1976. Print.
Easterlin, Nancy. “Hans Christian Andersen’s Fish Out of Water.” Philosophy and Literature2 (2001): 251-77. Project Muse. Johns Hopkins University Press, Oct. 2001. Web. 28 Nov. 2015.
Hastings, A.W. “Moral Simplification in Disney’s The Little Mermaid.” The Lion and the Unicorn1 (1993): 83-92. Projct Muse. John Hopkins University Press, June 1993. Web. 1 Dec. 2015.
Lambert, Craig. “The Horror and the Beauty.” Harvard Magazine. Harvard Magazine, 01 Nov. 2007. Web. 11 Dec. 2015.
Mortensen, Finn Hauberg. “The Little Mermaid: Icon and Disneyfication.” Scandinavian Studies4 (2008): 437-54. SASS. University of Illinois, 2008. Web. 6 Dec. 2015.
Ross, Deborah. “Escape from Wonderland: Disney and the Female Imagination.” Marvels & Tales1 (2004): 53-66. Project Muse. Wayne State University Press, 2004. Web. 28 Nov. 2015.
Trites, R. “Disney’s Sub/Version Of Andersen’s The Little Mermaid.” Journal Of Popular Film & Television 4 (1991): 145. International Bibliography of Theatre & Dance with Full Text. Web. 13 Dec. 2015.
Zipes, Jack. “Breaking the Disney Spell.” From Mouse to Mermaid. Indiana University Press, 1995. Web. 8 Dec. 2015.