I’m indifferent to most of the remakes. I was wholly unimpressed with Beautiful and the Beast (I mention it because you did). Emma Watson is adorable, but she can’t sing - perhaps ensemble, but as a lead in a(n iconic) role heavily reliant on song to carry the movie? No.
But I have children and I don’t sit through many of these movies for my entertainment, but for theirs. And my girls watched The Little Mermaid trailer.
Their reactions:
My 7y/o was CAPTIVATED. She sighed and gasped and when it was over she begged me to go see it, “Pleeeeaaase.” (Incidentally, I was 7 when the Animation came out and was equally enthralled).
My 10y/o was mad - that it doesn’t come out till May and they aired the trailer too early and now she has to wait.
Neither of my girls give a damn - if they even registered - that Ariela doesn’t look like their beloved cartoon.
Cash grab? Perhaps. Disney is a business after all, and some formulas work better than others. But these movies are marketable to kids based on recognition with instant revenue in retail (both for the live-actions and their animated predecessors). I’m not mad about it. I would like to see more original content but I guess the risk takers aren’t there (they’re all fumbling around LucasFilm).
Rambling aside (apologies), the kids dig it. They’re genuinely excited. They’re not at all concerned by the change or aware of controversy.
If they are unaware of the controversy, then we do not have something to learn from them. It is wonderful that the girls are excited for it. But being unaware doesn't make their satisfaction more important than the feelings of others. If anything it makes it less.
Erik if we are being excellent to each other, then we should assume the best in people. That means not supposing hatred and racism is a primary motivator in people's attitudes towards this.
For me, being a 40 year old parent of 2, I am more annoyed than angry. Annoyed because they go out of their way to make this casting decision. Why go out of your way to do something controversial that will upset people who want the original honored? Changing things that matter to people is going to cause upset feelings. Why do it?
Because appearance is one very significant element to a character. And Ariel is a character that is (or was) shared in our collective culture in America. And culture matters to community.
I think it's healthier for American culture if we all know our icons to be the same thing and yes that includes appearance. I'd never want to remake Tiana to be white even though there are white people in Louisiana, and I believe the source material was Eurocentric. But that was adapted for black characters and that's how it was entered into the Disney canon. That's how we know it. There are white people in the Pacific, Lilo should always be an islander. And yes, Ariel should stay white unless there is some specific reason to cast her differently, besides to generate controversy and revenue.
In another way, it's not too much of a deviation from why Luke sucks in Last Jedi. For 30 years we all knew Luke to be a wide-eyed, naive, hopeful person. Sure people evolve and change especially as they age, but they could've written the story differently so that he wasn't a complete misanthrope.
I don't see why this is actually important, though. There are multiple different versions of Batman, Spider-Man and various other iconic comic book characters who are far more important to our culture than Ariel. Shakespeare, a cultural behemoth of the Western world, has been interpreted countless ways with race and gender-swapping over the years and we have survived. A black Little Mermaid does literally nothing to weaken the cultural bedrock of our society. It is in the tradition of our creative culture to change and reinterpret these characters, not the other way around.
The superheroes are behind masks, and I don't know of any mainstream interpretations of those stories that change the race of the character. Shakespeare isn't a part of American culture. Noone dresses up as Rosencrantz and Gildenstern for Halloween. I understand the point you're making but do not agree with it.
Shakespeare is a HUGE part of American culture. Sure, it's by way of historical Europe, but all across American kids are being introduced to theater by way of the Bard. Beyond that, it's a part of Western civilization and a huge, huge part of how our notions of entertainment have been shaped over time.
As for comic book characters...
Miles Morales is a great example of a Spider-Man who is not white. Many superheroes have gotten female analogs (Batgirl, Mighty Thor, etc.) Not all superheroes wear masks and pretty much all of them have their non-supe identities outside of the masks.
The point being, this is neither new nor does it represent some unsettling change to our culture. Having a black Little Mermaid will not in any way diminish the animated version. The animated version herself is merely one interpretation of an old European folk story that is FAR less a part of American culture than Shakespeare.
I understand that perspective. However there are no theme parks dedicated to Shakespeare characters. There are no stores in malls or streaming services dedicated to his content. So perhaps I could couch my comment that Ariel is stronger in American 'pop' culture, but however you would define the zeitgeist, I think more Americans could define and recognize Ariel over Othello.
I think the Pinocchio and Mulan remakes lacked joy and soul. Or maybe I just wanted to brag about my new Disney+ sub! =)
Ha!
Many years ago (50?), I saw "Julius Caesar" performed by the Royal Shakespeare Company. It was set in Mussolini's time.
Wonderful.
But I had seen the play several times and read it (thoroughly) for "O" levels.
If I could see the play only once (like most people), I would want to see it as Shakespeare imagined it.
There is a place for revisionists, but revisionism is a luxury for a saturated society (or a tool for those looking for easy headlines).
I think that most originalists are longing for their memory of a beloved work.
Maybe I am naive and there are more evil people than I imagine.
That's actually a really salient point I haven't really considered. Must ponder. Thanks!
I’m indifferent to most of the remakes. I was wholly unimpressed with Beautiful and the Beast (I mention it because you did). Emma Watson is adorable, but she can’t sing - perhaps ensemble, but as a lead in a(n iconic) role heavily reliant on song to carry the movie? No.
But I have children and I don’t sit through many of these movies for my entertainment, but for theirs. And my girls watched The Little Mermaid trailer.
Their reactions:
My 7y/o was CAPTIVATED. She sighed and gasped and when it was over she begged me to go see it, “Pleeeeaaase.” (Incidentally, I was 7 when the Animation came out and was equally enthralled).
My 10y/o was mad - that it doesn’t come out till May and they aired the trailer too early and now she has to wait.
Neither of my girls give a damn - if they even registered - that Ariela doesn’t look like their beloved cartoon.
Cash grab? Perhaps. Disney is a business after all, and some formulas work better than others. But these movies are marketable to kids based on recognition with instant revenue in retail (both for the live-actions and their animated predecessors). I’m not mad about it. I would like to see more original content but I guess the risk takers aren’t there (they’re all fumbling around LucasFilm).
Rambling aside (apologies), the kids dig it. They’re genuinely excited. They’re not at all concerned by the change or aware of controversy.
We can learn a lot from them.
And I think you just hit the nail on the head!
If they are unaware of the controversy, then we do not have something to learn from them. It is wonderful that the girls are excited for it. But being unaware doesn't make their satisfaction more important than the feelings of others. If anything it makes it less.
Erik if we are being excellent to each other, then we should assume the best in people. That means not supposing hatred and racism is a primary motivator in people's attitudes towards this.
For me, being a 40 year old parent of 2, I am more annoyed than angry. Annoyed because they go out of their way to make this casting decision. Why go out of your way to do something controversial that will upset people who want the original honored? Changing things that matter to people is going to cause upset feelings. Why do it?
Why does it matter to you? Why is it annoying that the skin color of a mermaid is changed?
Because appearance is one very significant element to a character. And Ariel is a character that is (or was) shared in our collective culture in America. And culture matters to community.
I think it's healthier for American culture if we all know our icons to be the same thing and yes that includes appearance. I'd never want to remake Tiana to be white even though there are white people in Louisiana, and I believe the source material was Eurocentric. But that was adapted for black characters and that's how it was entered into the Disney canon. That's how we know it. There are white people in the Pacific, Lilo should always be an islander. And yes, Ariel should stay white unless there is some specific reason to cast her differently, besides to generate controversy and revenue.
In another way, it's not too much of a deviation from why Luke sucks in Last Jedi. For 30 years we all knew Luke to be a wide-eyed, naive, hopeful person. Sure people evolve and change especially as they age, but they could've written the story differently so that he wasn't a complete misanthrope.
I don't see why this is actually important, though. There are multiple different versions of Batman, Spider-Man and various other iconic comic book characters who are far more important to our culture than Ariel. Shakespeare, a cultural behemoth of the Western world, has been interpreted countless ways with race and gender-swapping over the years and we have survived. A black Little Mermaid does literally nothing to weaken the cultural bedrock of our society. It is in the tradition of our creative culture to change and reinterpret these characters, not the other way around.
The superheroes are behind masks, and I don't know of any mainstream interpretations of those stories that change the race of the character. Shakespeare isn't a part of American culture. Noone dresses up as Rosencrantz and Gildenstern for Halloween. I understand the point you're making but do not agree with it.
Shakespeare is a HUGE part of American culture. Sure, it's by way of historical Europe, but all across American kids are being introduced to theater by way of the Bard. Beyond that, it's a part of Western civilization and a huge, huge part of how our notions of entertainment have been shaped over time.
As for comic book characters...
Miles Morales is a great example of a Spider-Man who is not white. Many superheroes have gotten female analogs (Batgirl, Mighty Thor, etc.) Not all superheroes wear masks and pretty much all of them have their non-supe identities outside of the masks.
The point being, this is neither new nor does it represent some unsettling change to our culture. Having a black Little Mermaid will not in any way diminish the animated version. The animated version herself is merely one interpretation of an old European folk story that is FAR less a part of American culture than Shakespeare.
I understand that perspective. However there are no theme parks dedicated to Shakespeare characters. There are no stores in malls or streaming services dedicated to his content. So perhaps I could couch my comment that Ariel is stronger in American 'pop' culture, but however you would define the zeitgeist, I think more Americans could define and recognize Ariel over Othello.