“The Little Mermaid,” the 1989 animated film directed by Ron Clements and John Musker and released by Buena Vista Pictures, delves on the story of a mermaid who falls in love with a human being. This film is likewise a cartoon adaptation of the original version of the novel of the same title written by Hans Christian Andersen and first published in 1837. With regards to the Disney version, it is observable that the film incorporates several techniques that seem to diminish the innate animalistic nature of the aquatic creatures, such as the crabs, lobsters, octopus, the tropical fish, and even the fictional mermaids. The goal of this method is to make the thematic appeal mellower or tamer than their biological counterparts, thus making the film more suitable to younger audiences. As such, the film chooses to abandon any scenes showing animal dominance through hunting, and instead opts to portray all species as peacefully existing without the need to eat other species for nutritional purposes. In a sense, Disney fosters a principle of ‘cuteness’ in their mermaid adaptation’s underwater film design, as what can be evidenced in Aaron Marcus’ journal article which will be discussed later. Thus, it can be argued that Disney’s deliberate attempt to present a child-friendly underwater environment wherein animals’ characteristics are tamer is aimed at conforming the film’s themes to its target audiences, which are the children, by making the animals ‘cute’ in terms of appearance and demeanor.
It is a safe premise from watching “The Little Mermaid” that its depiction of underwater animals has been child-friendly in the sense that they are fun to watch. These animals are, expect perhaps for the main antagonist octopus-monster Ursula and the grey shark, presented as multi-colored, comic strip-style, and comprised of bright colors that children easily enjoy watching them. In this respect, it must be noted that this form of cartoon presentation is a deliberate one, in that the film intentionally aspires to ‘cutify’ the film for the benefit of the viewers. Aaron Marcus, an author and expert on interface design, explains this further: “By making the user interface happier, we were meeting the request of the client to ‘cutify’ the realistic image and to make a more pleasurable user experience” (Marcus 31). This is understandable especially when considering the possible negative reactions of children if the characters had been drawn in a visually-frightening manner, or even in a natural way. As such, there is an importance to show the animals in a non-natural or comic way, such as in the close-up scene of Flounder (The Little Mermaid 05:42). Here, Flounder, a tropical fish, is seen with human-like features such as lips and moving eyebrows, and even big expressive eyes.
This same quality of ‘cuteness’ is also observable in other characters, such as Sebastian’s wide and expressive mouth, huge eyes, his use of clamps as comparable with human arms and hands, and even his manner of human-like walking. Once again, Marcus defends this technique when he states that cuteness can be expressed in many forms, such as “the use of large-eyed creatures, bright color and pastels, and biomorphic forms” (Marcus 31-32). These traits are clearly manifested in the characters of “The Little Mermaid”. In this respect, it can be said that the aim of Disney creators in portraying such characters as excessively cartoon-like with bright colors and human-like movement is to connect these animal characters with their audiences. This is parallel with the principle advanced by Leslie Bishko in his journal article for Animated Studies, whereby he stresses the need for the cartoon genre to have “Depiction of characters in some dramatic context, where the intent is to promote believable character performance” (Bishko 26). Hence, this explains why the characters of Disney film’s “Mermaid” are portrayed in a manner similar to humans, albeit bearing excessive levels of ‘cuteness’ as a means for the children audiences to connect with the characters.
Aside from altering the biological or physical forms of animals into their comic equivalents, Disney has likewise changed the animals’ manner of movement to mimic those of human beings. A case in point, among many others, can be evidenced in the scene where Sebastian is riding a carriage made of sea shell and being pulled by two fishes (The Little Mermaid 03:17). Most noteworthy in this scene is the way that Sebastian comically struggles to have a solid grip on the harness due to loss of balance, which obviously does not conform to natural qualities of a crab. Moreover, this comedic quality in Sebastian also coincides with principles of cartoon style which states “Comedic as opposed to expressionist content” (Bishko 26). This means that cartoon characters should almost always convey a sense of humor in their actions and not place too much emphasis on thematic or emotional appeals.
Such comedic effects have not been limited to the characters in the film, but also on the underwater environment. This is because millions of bubbles had to be sketched manually and incorporated with film techniques such as superimposition, airbrushing and backlighting. Indeed, Disney’s “Mermaid” film is the last of its kind, in that it is the last time that traditional hand-painted cell animation has been employed in a Disney cartoon film. Indeed, the cumulative effect of all these film techniques results to misrepresentation of the real world into one which is more vibrant and safe than the real world. This beautification effects of the underwater world observable in “The Little Mermaid” is likewise emphasized by Waller Hastings in his article for Lion and the Unicorn, whereby he states “Every story is sacrificed to the ‘gimmick’ of animationDisney falsifies life by pretending that everything is so sweet, so saccharine, so without any conflict except the obvious conflict of violence” (Hastings 83). As such, the manner that the “Mermaid” film had presented the underwater world is somewhat similar to it real counterpart, albeit imbedded with themes that revolve around childish fantasies of peace and harmony, and life enjoyment.
Perhaps it can be safely said that one of the main reasons for presenting the characters in “Mermaid” in such a manner is due to ‘Disneyfication’, according to Alan Byrman in his article for The Sociological Review. Here, he opines that, especially in cases of Disney animated films that originate from previous novels, Disney “put an original work through a Disney mincer to emerge with a distorted version of it” (Byrman 27). As such, this means that the process of ‘Disneyfication’ in the “Mermaid” necessitates physically misrepresenting the appearances of animals to best suit its intended market, which in this case are the younger generations, especially young girls. If this is the case, then it is understandable for Disney to present the animals in a comical way, so much so that they even resemble humans in a funny way by having large eyes and mouth, and tentacles, fins and clamps that serve as arms and legs.
In the same manner, David Forgacs, in his journal article for Screen, explains that this alteration of physical features of characters may be termed as being ‘Disney Baby’. Disney Baby is defined as “a line of toddler productswhich bear the images of baby versions of Disney charactersThey are designed to be irresistible to new parents” (Forgacs 361). From this argument, it can be said that aside from targeting the younger generation, the Baby Disney technique, such as the one employed in the ‘Mermaid”, also aims to persuade parents of young boys and girls into patronizing the film, hence maximizing the potential revenues of the said film. Thus, this likewise justifies why even the main antagonist, Ursula, seems not to exhibit overly frightful features that are common in films, and instead possesses ‘Disney Baby’ qualities such as funny-shaded eye brows and fluffy physique, among others. Moreover, ‘baby’ features can especially be seen in the character of Flounder, due mainly to his light pastel colors, high-pitched voice tone and three strands of hair. In this aspect, one of Disney Corporation’s chief animator, Marc Davis, expounds on the importance of “deliberately transposed the shape of a baby’s head to his drawingsenlarging the forehead and shortening the jawbring in some of these elements that say ‘youth’ and ‘young” (Forgacs 365). Clearly, the purpose of this practice of attributing human baby qualities to cartoon characters is to associate these animals with those who can relate with them such as the young parents and the children audiences themselves.
Consequently, it must be noted that Ariel also exhibits ‘cuteness’ qualities even if she cannot be considered as purely animal, being a mermaid. This is because just like Flounder, Ursula and Sebastian, Ariel has a larger-than-life expressive set of eyes and lips, and has been humanized enough as to move just like a normal person on land. Nevertheless, it is worth mentioning that the thematic appeals forwarded by Ariel is much too complex than those of other characters. Firstly, there seems to be a basis as to why film animators designed Ariel as a petite, pretty, voluptuous and mild-mannered young lady. This seems to suggest a sex-related theme, or at the very least pertain to normative social gender roles. Deborah Ross, in her article for Journal for Fairy Tale Studies, argues that the fantasies of Disney female heroines “reveal desires for any things, including novelty, excitement, power, sex and knowledge” (Ross 56). In this respect, perhaps the aforementioned desires in Ariel’s case will include sex and knowledge, given that Ariel, no doubt covertly, no doubt dreams of sexual relations with Prince Eric, thus her decision to become a human being. In the same manner, knowledge is also a dominant reason for Ariel since she aspires to learn the physiological ways of human beings so that she can spend the rest of her life with Prince Eric. As such, for these two goals to come into fruition, Ariel must act in accordance with accepted feminine social role of submissiveness. Indeed, the “Mermaid” “story is a tragic celebration of feminine self-sacrifice” (Ross 58), give that Ariel has to abandon her own species to be happy, which cannot be said of Prince Eric’s case.
As such, Ariel presents a certain level of feminist conflict which originates not only from her personality traits but more so due to her appearance. This conflict is further explained by Dawn England, Lara Descartes and Melissa Collier-Meek in their journal article for Sex Roles when they argue that sexism in Disney films can be evidenced by “specifically noting the heroines’ extreme pale skin tones, small waists, delicate limbs, and full breastsgender images were not current with social developments in gender equity” (England, Descartes and Collier-Meek 556). Indeed, sexism can be seen in the film on many instances, one of which is 11:01 wherein Ariel is framed side-by-side with her father, King Triton. Moreover, the said scene reveals a very obvious physical difference between Ariel and her father, wherein she is shown as being very Caucasian skin color, having slim waist, fragile-looking arms and bursting breasts, which is exactly how the authors Dawn England, Lara Descartes and Melissa Collier-Meek describe sexism to prevail in Disney animated films.
Animal Traits and Their Equivalent
The animal characters in Disney’s “Mermaid” undoubtedly exhibit certain qualities that are suited to their roles, both as protagonists and antagonists. Designers of this film have incorporated physical attributes to enhance the character’s effectiveness in forwarding thematic messages to the viewers. In this regard, Ariel’s quest to be with the man she loves is ironic, in the sense that while she indeed exhibits bravery and modernism in pursing her goals, it is still unquestionable that she still possesses domesticated qualities in choosing to sacrifice her innate nature for the sake of Prince Eric. This observation is similar with the argument expressed by the book author, Laura Sells, when she opines that the mermaid is an “attempt to broaden the spectrum of representations of women while simultaneously invoking a cartoon-like, stay-at-home Mom as a viable option” (Sells 176). Hence, it can be understood that Ariel is not simply an innocent female cartoon character, but an embodiment of the modern Western women; one who is steadfast and resolute, yet is eternally ready to face the challenges of family life. Perhaps this irony is the main reason why designers of the film opted to design Ariel as she is: with dyed orange hair and a sexy and fit body, yet still restricted to the confines of her sea environment. This indeed matches the popular conception of the modern Western woman, as one who possesses dynamism to experiment with her looks, physically stronger than the women of previous generations, yet is ultimately reserved, if not trapped, with the responsibility of giving birth and rearing her children.
Another character worth assessing is Flounder. This is because he seems the only major character in the film who is still young, based on his actions and high-pitched voice, as opposed to the older youths that comprise the rest of the film characters. Obviously, the film designers of “Mermaid” aim to convey Flounder’s young bubbly personality as a means for the younger-generation target market to relate or connect with. Hence, this explains Flounder’s vibrant yellow and blue colors and big cheeks. However, despite of Flounder’s innocence there are scholars who identify certain social conflicts in his character, specifically pertaining to child abuse. This is especially evident in the scene where Flounder is being chased by a big shark inside a sunken ship (The Little Mermaid 17:02) wherein there are numerous times when he was bumped and tossed aggressively making him loose control and hit the walls of the said ship. In this respect, David Hubka, Wendy Hovdestad and Lil Tonmyr, in their journal article for The Social Science Journal, express fears that young Disney characters are often seen being “thrown violently” (Hubka, Hovdestad and Tonmyr 435) in Disney animated films. In fact, these scholars-authors even claim that the physical cruelty being suffered by young characters in Disney films “that were identified include mostly hitting with the hand or an object or throwing the child or an adolescent” (Hubka, Hovdestad and Tonmyr 434). As such, while it is true that Flounder is an effective representation of human children in the ‘Mermaid” film, it is also true that he exhibits certain forms of maltreatments that are common in Disney film animations.
Ursula, on the other hand, despite of being the sole major antagonist in “Mermaid” is still replete with themes of innocent and humorous harmless fun. This is primarily achieved by her design which borders on weirdness, as evidenced by her platinum white hair color. Also, Ursula’s choice of skin color of very light violet, blackish tentacles, obese physique, and fancy-colored eye make-up all contribute to the overall humor that her character conveys. Hence, it can be understood from the film designers’ point of view, that there is no deliberate and strong effort to frighten the viewers, specifically because they have designed Ursula in a comical way.
This same quality of ‘cuteness’ is also observable in other characters, such as Sebastian’s wide and expressive mouth, huge eyes, his use of clamps as comparable with human arms and hands, and even his manner of human-like walking. Once again, Marcus defends this technique when he states that cuteness can be expressed in many forms, such as “the use of large-eyed creatures, bright color and pastels, and biomorphic forms” (Marcus 31-32). These traits are clearly manifested in the characters of “The Little Mermaid”. In this respect, it can be said that the aim of Disney creators in portraying such characters as excessively cartoon-like with bright colors and human-like movement is to connect these animal characters with their audiences. This is parallel with the principle advanced by Leslie Bishko in his journal article for Animated Studies, whereby he stresses the need for the cartoon genre to have “Depiction of characters in some dramatic context, where the intent is to promote believable character performance” (Bishko 26). Hence, this explains why the characters of Disney film’s “Mermaid” are portrayed in a manner similar to humans, albeit bearing excessive levels of ‘cuteness’ as a means for the children audiences to connect with the characters.
Works cited
Bishko, Leslie. “The Uses and Abuses of Cartoon Style in Animation.” Animation Studies 2 (2007): 24-35. Print.
Bryman, Alan. “The Disneyization of Society.” Sociological Review (1999): 24-47. Print.
England, Dawn Elizabeth, Descartes, Lara, and Melissa Collier-Meek. “Gender Role Portrayal and the Disney Princesses.” Sex Roles 64 (2011): 555-567. Print.
Forgacs, David. “Disney Animation and the Business of Childhood.” Screen 33.4 (1992): 361-374. Print.
Hastings, A. Waller. “Moral Simplification in Disney’s The Little Mermaid.” The Lion and the Unicorn 17 (1993): 83-92. Print.
Hubka, David, Hovdestad, Wendy, and Lil Tonmyr. “Child Maltreatment in Disney Animated Feature Films.” The Social Science Journal 46 (2009): 427-441. Print.
Marcus, Aaron. “The Cult of Cute: The Challenge of User Experience Design.” Interactions (2002): 29-34. Print.
Ross, Deborah. “Escape from Wonderland.” Marvels & Tales: Journal of Fairy-Tale Studies 18.1 (2004): 53-66. Print.
Sells, Laura. Where do the Mermaids Stand? Eds. Elizabeth Bell, Lynda Haas, and Laura Sells. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1995. Print.
The Little Mermaid. Dir. Ron Clements and John Musker. Perf. Rene Auberjonois, Christopher Barnes, and Jodi Benson. Walt Disney Pictures, 1989. Film.
