The Little Mermaid is Disney propaganda

Kat Rosenfield is an UnHerd columnist and co-host of the Feminine Chaos podcast. Her latest novel is You Must Remember This.

June 5, 2023

One of the musical highlights of the original, animated Little Mermaid is a scene in which Ariel, newly human, tries to get Prince Eric to kiss her. If he doesn't, she’ll turn back into a mermaid, but because Ariel has lost her voice, her main job is to sit there looking available; the actual seduction is stage-managed by her crab friend Sebastian, who sings encouragement into Eric's ear:

Yes, you want her, look at her you know you do.Possible she wants you too, there is one way to ask her.

In the new version of The Little Mermaid, presumably out of deference to our evolving, post-MeToo sensibilities surrounding sexual consent, that line has been subtly changed. In 2023, Sebastian's advice is: "Use your words, boy, and ask her."

Not so romantic, but in this case, the question does seem necessary, since Ariel's feelings are far from obvious. While 1989 Ariel makes it quite clear that she's keen, our contemporary one, played by the pop singer Halle Bailey, has no thoughts of kissing at all — because, in a truly massive departure from the animated source material, she's forgotten she needs to in order to win her freedom.

It's not hard to see how the film's writers might have talked themselves into giving their new Ariel amnesia: it's not very feminist to have your heroine spend the bulk of her screen time voicelessly thirsting after a man, after all. But in stripping Ariel of her goal — stay human by seducing the prince — the writers have effectively gutted the character: now, she wanders vacantly through every scene with neither purpose nor agency.

I realise that this is a very adult complaint about a film that is ostensibly for children — but then, I’m not sure children are The Little Mermaid‘s intended audience. Like so many of Disney's live-action remakes, this movie is for the now-middle aged millennial women who grew up watching (and loving) the 1989 original — only to become scandalised, as adults, by their heterocentrism, their whiteness, their phobias and isms. While Disney World is embroiled in an ongoing conflict with Florida governor Ron DeSantis — a sort of proxy war for the soul of the nation — the Disney content mill is plagued by the same anxieties as much of its adult audience.

The beloved but problematic cartoons from the bad old days remain available on the Disney+ streaming service, but come affixed with a hectoring title card that you cannot fast forward through: "This program includes negative depictions and/or mistreatment of people or cultures. These stereotypes were wrong then and are wrong now," it reads. "Rather than remove this content, we want to acknowledge its harmful impact, learn from it and spark conversation to create a more inclusive future together."

By Kat Rosenfield

Meanwhile, many of its newer offerings are meant to be part of that future, explicitly catering to progressive sensibilities — and, perhaps equally important, sparking consternation among conservatives. The Little Mermaid — with its vague handwaving in the direction of consent culture, its dutiful nods to the environmental damage wrought by humans on the undersea world, and a black actress bringing the house down in a traditionally white role — is clearly intended to be part of that "more inclusive future". As is the 2022 movie Lightyear, which featured an, albeit chaste, lesbian kiss, and Frozen 2, which was animated by an anti-colonialist message.

In fact, that heady mix of liberal millennial guilt and Nineties-era nostalgia is an animating force behind much of today's most controversial entertainment, from the all-female reboot of Ghostbusters to the release of new, sensitivity-edited editions of works by Roald Dahl and R.L. Stine. Kids don't notice this stuff, but adults do, which is entirely the point: all these choices generated a backlash from the Right, which in turn generated a backlash to the backlash from the Left, which in turn generated months’ worth of frantic coverage from a media establishment that relies on rage-clicks to keep the lights on.

Unfortunately, in the quest to make The Little Mermaid inclusive, Disney seems to have forgotten that it should also be watchable, and the resulting film feels at once bloated and muted. Gone are the fish playing musical instruments, the whispering moray eels who recruit Ariel to Ursula's lair. Bailey, a phenomenal singer, is miscast as a character who is silent during most of the story's pivotal moments. And yet, more positive reviews, while noticeably cagey about the quality of the film itself, lavish praise on both her performance as Ariel and on the Disney corporation for selecting her. "If these films are to have any purpose beyond being nostalgia-powered cash-ins, it must be to allow all children — not just the white ones — to see themselves as Magic Kingdom denizens," suggested the Guardian, while a Variety critic adds that, "the most important thing about remaking this particular favourite for a fresh generation is maintaining the fantasy that any of us can be Ariel".

In other words: even if the movie is bad, it has the best intentions. It's on the right side of history. And isn't that what matters?

In this framework, any objection to movies such as The Little Mermaid can be understood as conservatives having a meltdown over the mere inclusion of diverse characters on screen. Perhaps this is true in some cases. But I suspect that what people really object to is a Hollywood apparatus that does not seek to entertain an audience so much as hand-hold it to the morally correct conclusions.

When Ted Lasso — a show featuring a multiracial cast, strong female characters, and an uplifting message of sportsmanship, self-betterment, and general decency — became the subject of backlash during its recent third and final season, it wasn't because people suddenly became incensed by its diversity. It was because it started featuring scenes that could have migrated out of one of those dramatised instructional videos they show during DEI compliance training: such as the locker room lecture about looking at nude photos that followed a massive celebrity leak. If people balk at this, perhaps it's less because they disagree with the substance of the message, and more because they resent its intrusiveness — can't a guy just enjoy a TV show without having lessons in moral betterment foisted upon him, Sesame Street-style, by a bunch of actors dressed up as footballers?

At the root of this is the notion that art is inherently political, and hence that every mainstream entertainment property must necessarily double as either a morality play, or a salvo in the ongoing culture wars. For those who subscribe to this framework, there is no opting out; if your film doesn't announce its politics, a set of politics will be assigned to it by a critical apparatus that is increasingly incapable of understanding art in anything but crude identitarian terms. One of the more incisive reviews of The Little Mermaid, written by Wesley Morris of the New York Times, describes the film as "everything nobody should want in a movie: dutiful and defensive, yet desperate for approval". He's right. And yet, even as he notes that the film is something of a trainwreck — and even as he admits that obsessing over the political correctness of movies like this is "a misery" — he nevertheless insists that it, and the other Disney films like it, are "important, culturally reparative work". And so he reinforces the idea that art described as "important" need not concern itself with being beautiful, or moving, or funny.

By Mary Harrington

Critics and creators alike are increasingly caught in the trap of the "important" movie, which substitutes political pieties for a good story and markets itself on controversy instead of hype. Long before The Little Mermaid hit cinemas, progressives understood that they were basically obligated to support it for political reasons; even now, the narrative persists that anyone who dislikes the movie must be a racist troll (that is, unless they’re denouncing it for not being woke enough). And the "important" movie is many things: explicitly moral and painstakingly diverse. Checking its privilege. Centring marginalised voices. Sparking conversations and moving toward a more inclusive future. And yet it is invariably bad in every way — including the ways in which it attempts to do better.

Consider the original Little Mermaid, a story about a young woman who yearned for independence; who made a reckless, impulsive bargain in the hopes of pursuing the life she wanted; who learns that choices like this have a ripple effect well beyond the confines of one's own life. Now consider the politically correct version of the same story, in which Ariel is conveniently saved, by amnesia, from knowing what she's done — and hence deprived of any opportunity to own it, to reckon with it. The former story is about a girl who does things; the latter is about a girl to whom things happen. Which of these is supposed to be a vision of female empowerment, again?

This is perhaps the worst thing about Disney's contemporary remakes: not that they are blatant cash grabs, but that they are infantilising. The original Little Mermaid placed infinitely more trust in its intended audience of children than the new version places in those same children, now that they’re grown up. And while it still includes that moment, at the end, in which Sebastian waxes wise about autonomy — "Children got to be free to lead their own lives" — it's hard to fathom, after two hours and fifteen minutes of Ariel stumbling like a hapless sleepwalker through her own story, that anyone really believes it.

"Rather than remove this content, we want to acknowledge its harmful impact, learn from it and spark conversation to create a more inclusive future together."

Rather than refrain from monetising our back catalogue (which we would do if we had any principles and actually believed in all that woke guff), here's a patronising reminder that you’re a racist even for watching. That’ll be $10.

When people talk about being inclusive, the very first thing they do is exclude. Exclusion is a psychopathic tendency, a feminine one; and one that can cut deeper than the more masculine psychopathic actions.Those that use the term equity, they also exclude. It is a nasty group of people who are causing such harm in our society.

Another thing. A character from any other part of the world would have to be represented by someone from that part of the world. Today we are black washing too often. Most white people don't care when this happens but it is becoming so common place now that the majority of white people will have had enough. More and more people are feeling as if they are being replaced. This is not a good space to venture into

What makes this more interesting – although still frustrating, is that many of these race-swapped characters were originally white redheads.

There is online talk of a Hollywood ‘Gingercide’.

Cancel your Sky/Netflicks subscription and you TV licence

Interesting article. And the big question (actually, the only question that really matters) is…how much did the movie gross at the box office?And the answer (from various internet sources) is…not all that much relative to large production and marketing costs. In particular, the income from ex-US markets is poor.No clear explanation from the internet for the relatively poor performance, but the lack of overseas viewers might potentially be explained by the DEI moralizing being badly received outside the US. I’m sure, however, the msm won't report that possibility.

Movie has earned $209 million, but the budget was $250 million!! How can it possibly be this expensive to make a movie? I’m sure it will turn a small profit, but it has to be disappointing.

"Movie has earned $209 million, but the budget was $250 million!!"Yes, the production budget was $250 million, but there was an additional $100 million spent on marketing.I wonder how many of these ideologically-driven duds movie studios are willing to lose money on before they go back to providing entertainment?

If you think the ‘Entertainment Industry is about entertaining you totally misunderstand everything. Entertaining is the carrot they use to pass you the poison.

The Medical-Bio-Pharma industrial Complex is NOT about health, it is much opposite to that.

The Education Industry is not about education, and the Military Industrial Complex is not about Defense…The MSM is not about ‘News’.

They are all just Lizard People Conquering the World by destroying the Middle Class and Working class, what we call the ‘NWO’. They are all now just 5th Generation Warfare directed against us.

But they miscalculate – the Global Elites. They planned on a Neo-Feudalism with us Serfs, and them Masters….But….

They took their eye off AI, haha, and now they suspect AI will be the Master, and them just cockroaches in the palace walls….haha… if allowed even that….

AI will have us all extinguished.

The majority of it goes on what's called "Above the line talent". The lead actors, director and writer, and long list of executive producers, will all get fees in the multiple millions. Millions more will be spent on their trailers and first-class travel and assistants and nannies. A huge chunk will be spent on advertising and marketing gimmicks. The actual production costs (camera equipment, editing suite, audio production, sets, costumes, hair and make-up) will come to just a couple of million. If you want to watch an excellent movie that cost a tiny fraction of this budget. I recommend "Ladybird", currently showing on iPlayer.

That it made that amount is a testament to what has transpired over the past decades.Personally, I am sick of it and tell people in no uncertain measure. Don't need fools for friends. No more Mr PC. Calling it as I see it and I think we all should. If they call me "whatever" homophobe, racist, misogynist, antisemitic, and the rest, I can always defeat them in pure argument and call on my old friends to put their silly accusations to rest. The only ism / phobia / et al; i probably have now become a fully fledged misanthrope – thanks to these loonies.

In recent times, one of the favourite occupations of Leftists has been to scold white people for engaging "cultural appropriation". Pity the poor white woman who decided to have her hair put in cornrows, or the fresher who put on a sombrero and a false moustache to go to a fancy dress party,Shrill voices of social denunciation were just dying to inflict shame on them.Roll on a few years and we are seeing the wholesale cultural appropriation of the art, literature and even the history of the white race. The works of Hans Christian Andersen, Dickens, Shakespeare, and numerous other authors are having their art torn apart and retrofitted to not only remove whitely and replace them with a coloured people, but to use the work to attack the white race. The same has happened with our history, for example, Channel 5's production of Anne Boleyn.Part of the reason for the these appropriations is to forward the progressive, woke agenda of pulling down Western civilisation and demonising white culture and history. But in doing so it shows up the paucity of the contribution of great works of art, literature and invention by those the "progressives" deify and would have us replaced with. When they do actually do African stories they are either purely ficticious (Black Panther's Wakanda") or are historically falsified to remove the nasty and unfortunate bits ( the Agojie women in the The Woman King).In the absence of black cultural achievement and invention, the Leftist "progressives", simultaneouly appropriate white culture and acheivements on a grand scale, and then use it to attack,demonise, and discredit the white race and venerate those whose actual stories and history are full of inconvenient facts.To think of the absurdity of calling the replacement of white authors by those of other races in British universities, "decolonisation". It is, of course, the complete opposite. It is the colonisation of white culture in our own homeland.

I’m eagerly awaiting a biopic of MLK starring Larry the Cable Guy. I doubt the left or black community will have any qualms with that cultural appropriation.

One day recently I googled the Brian Jacques series of books about animals living in a community, much loved by me as a child. The first article I came across was by a female writer berating Jacques for not making any of the swash buckling characters female. This fact ruined her enjoyment of the books since she couldn't place herself in those characters’ positions.

I never noticed. It never mattered to me, as I had an imagination, and this meant my own mind didn't apply shackles to itself. It's deeply sad that imagination has been so denigrated by younger generations.

The fact that I will never be a British officer under Queen Victoria never ruined the brilliant Flashman books for me, either.

This kind of thing always reminds of this bit from the Simpsons:"When I read your magazine, I don't see one wrinkled face or single toothless grin. For shame. To the sickos at ‘Modern Bride’ magazine." – Abe "Grampa" Simpson

I think at this point it's become clear that Leftism is nothing more than a Provocation. An attempt to provoke a reaction. It pushes transgressive boundaries until the disuption sparks a public resistance that the left can seize upon, label as Fascist, Phobic or etc and then claim the moral high road. But at the end of the day, its an unproductive money pit.

Critical Leftism like Intersectionality is now so far beyond parody that one has to think the Theorists at the "Policy Institutes" are already planning the Gaslight Synthesis to act like none of this ever happened. Just like how they effectively convinced the Public that they had nothing to do with civil unrest, inflation, lowered education outcomes or Covid lockdown policies.

I do wonder whether non-white individuals who watch films like this have a pang of guilt over the possibility that they are being pandered to by white middle class middle aged women who refuse to write new, interesting non-white characters for them to look up to.

But if white, middle-aged middle-class women attempted to write new, interesting non-white characters for them to look up to, they’d be hounded, punished, and cancelled for having the temerity to speak in an inauthentic voice.

Honestly, I don't care what colour the actress is. She's playing a mermaid. Last I looked this is a totally made up species. Who cares.

The article did remind me of a series called Ballers, with the Rock. The first three or four seasons were awesome – spicy, irreverent, human, funny. And then it suddenly got woke. It became angry and moralizing – and boring. And then it was gone.

Interesting tidbit. Their idea of a Trump supporter was one of those intergenerational ultra wealthy white guys – wearing a sweater tied around his neck and talking in an old money New England accent. And playing tennis!! I kid you not. This was their idea of a Trump supporter.

I think it appropriate to cast a European fairy tale with Europeans. Why Not?

And so lets ask the dreaded ‘Why Not’? – only we probably may not. We all know the reason, but still……..

We must seem an odd people to all the rest of the world. Not happy with our bodies, achievements, ethnicity, culture, past…..The ‘Troons’ (the rude word for transsexuals – I wonder if it will slide past…) have multi $Billions of effort directed at getting children to self mutilate the genitalia they were born with – chemically and physically, and reject who they are utterly. We do not just enable that, we force it on them – and so the Western people are trained to despise their own selves as a people, and all this is a bit of it. It is a weird world now days.

If something is not by accident, then is is for a reason, and so what reason describes the insanity of the modern Western era?

I’m no different than the vast majority of people on this site – alarmed and troubled by the woke march through our institutions. IMO, the ethnicity of the Little Mermaid is a big nothing burger compared to mutilating children in the name of gender affirming care, or the myriad of other examples out there.

While I would have agreed with you not that long ago, I take issue with the double standard applied here. Try and have a white portray Margaret Singana in Ipi Tombi and there would be howls of cultural appropriation – then calls for heads to roll and boycotts. If this is not checked now, all history will be adulterated and that is unacceptable. The precipice is not that far off.Perhaps you should reacquaint yourself with what is now transpiring in South Africa.By government decree companies may not employ whites anymore.And to think that I gave up so much of my energies as a young man to fight against the Apartheid regime, only to see the laws that [w]e finally eradicated return 30 years later.Where is the moral outrage now? I’ll stop there!

We had friends – American self-described liberals – who lived in Cape Town during Apartheid. They often spoke of it very fondly, and had lovely pictures of the flower-covered house they rented. We haven't spoken for years, but I do wonder what they’d make of South Africa today.

Well Cape town still has a semblance of order since the Democrat Alliance retook the province and the city from the ANC and they are the bastion of progress in a county falling apart at the seams. So they would be shocked at the squatter camps that the ANC allowed spring up, no, helped set up in order to get control of the city and province, which the DA is helping them to lift themselves out of poverty. (Not a DA member, but giving credit where credit is due.) In fact up to 74% on their 2023/24 budget is earmarked in one manner or the other to assist these people. The province I live in Natal, is a disaster by comparison.

Most Western Europeans are definitely not like this, at least in my corner of it and are growing increasingly resentful at the behaviour of these morons. The thing that frightens me is that it's all bubbling under the surface.

"Rather than remove this content, we want to acknowledge its harmful impact, learn from it and spark conversation to create a more inclusive future together."….. and we are not going to surrender the income stream this content produces

Give me "Megamind" every day of the week. They don't make them like they used to!

Bullfighting and the Isle of Man TT races have NO equal for entertainment.

Ugh! Each to his own.

May I ask have you ever attended either of them?

What decent person would attend a bullfight?

What sort of person makes utterly ignorant comments about bull fighting?The Course Camarguaise (Camargue bullfighting). Bloodless, except accidentally. Do look it up and educate yourself. Spanish bullfighting is not the only one.

I might throw in a day at the PDC World Darts, where the crowd is as entertaining as the sport.

Agree about the TT. Watch the documentary "Closer to the Edge"

As an orthodox/conservative Christian, I’m reminded of the unwatchable "Christian movies" of my youth. (Not even aware of them, I hope?) Preachy. Wooden—no, leaden. Suspension of disbelief never.To paraphrase the (Christian) novelist Dorothy Sayers, the only "Christian" film is a good film, brilliantly done.A fortiori…If "The Little Mermaid" and many other Hans Christian Andersen stories have endured for almost 200 years, it's because they captured something so powerfully true that it didn't have to be stated in propositions. Indeed, it couldn't be said in propositions, not so powerfully as in a tale."The Emperor's New Clothes" is Orwell before Orwell.These "adaptations," however, are Stalinist after Stalin.