In her article "Disney's Sub/version of Andersen's The Little Mermaid," Roberta Trites argues how Disney's alterations from Hans Christian Anderson's original tale results in a "movie even more sexist than the original story" (145). Trites then goes on to compare the two stories in greater detail. Even if Trites is accurate in saying that Disney's new depiction is more sexist than Anderson's, she must acknowledge that the original story would be totally inappropriate for a children's movie. And given Disney's standing as a business, it makes complete sense that Disney adapted the original work to appeal to their audience. There are many examples of things that Disney had to change in order to make it more child-friendly (not cutting off Ariel's tongue, the feeling of walking on knives, turning into sea-foam.) All of these aspects would certainly cause parents to hesitate to show their children the film. For this reason alone, it is evident why it was in Disney's best interests as a corporation to tailor the story into a more cheery children's version. Moreover, Trites should recognize that Disney's decision to craft an old tale into a feature film is something that they frequently do. Many of Disney's other movies are based on a fairy tale (or other similar work), and they adapt the main concept of the story into a full-fledged animated movie, often with many changes between the original and new interpretation. For these reasons, Trites' argument is somewhat diminished, since it is apparent that Disney's main motive is to profit by producing films that are enjoyable for a broad audience, and often build off of classic written works in order to craft their animated movies.
http://disneyvault.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/The-Little-Mermaid-3D.2.jpeg
No comments:
Post a Comment