Response to Roberta Trites’ article “The Little Mermaid”

In this article, Roberta Trites offered a new perspective to the film The Little Mermaid, which was even more negative than my own interpretation of the film.  After re-watching the film, and reading Hans Christian Andersen’s version, I realized how much the Disney film had changed the original story to make it fit into it’s own ideals for what a fairy tale should look like.  Trites’ first and main argument is that any signs of femininity that appear in the original story are not portrayed in the film.  This is very evident throughout the film.   For example, as Trites argues, “Andersen’s mermaid quests for a soul, but Disney’s mermaid, Ariel, quests for a mate.”  While Ariel wants the love of a man to bring happiness to her, Andersen’s mermaid wants much more, and uses man’s love to achieve that goal, which is much more empowering.

Although I do agree with a lot of what Trites is saying in the article, there were parts that I was not sure if I was completely on board.  For example, Trites argues that the palaces of Triton and Eric are built of “long, cylindrical towers,” whereas Ursula’s home is cavernous.  While these could be sexual symbols, I feel like castles have historically had towers, so it would only make sense that they did in the film.  As a juxtaposition, it would only make sense that Ursula’s palace is the opposite of those of the “benevolent” characters, explaining why they are cavernous.  All in all, this article is very detailed in explaining both how this film was altered from the original version, and how it was meant to send a sexist, non-feminist message to little girls and boys.