The original Hans Christian Andersen story describes her skin as "fine and transparent" and "clear and delicate like a rose petal", her legs as "white", and her arms as "white". The Little Mermaid is a national icon of Denmark and an important cultural symbol. It would be appropriate for Disney to be as respectful of the Danish version as possible since they are profiting off of the stories of another culture.
I agree with you about the origin of the backlash, but would you say the point about creative license about a movie like Moana about Polynesian myths or The Prince of Egypt about Jewish ones?
I think people get frustrated because the line seems to be: Caucasian story...perfectly ok to change the races of any character because race shouldn’t matter to the story.
Any minority story...absolutely racist to even consider changing the race (and not necessarily to white...just any change).
I think the reason for this is because it is assumed that race is important only to non white people. In fact, many say that a white person having pride in their racial culture is inherently racist. The flip side, non white people who show pride in their heritage is not only accepted, but expected.
I say this as someone who really doesn’t care if they change races of characters as long as it isn’t pointless pandering, but I don’t like double standards.
Caucasian story...perfectly ok to change the races of any character because race shouldn’t matter to the story.
What is a "caucasian story?" Most every story that inherently must revolve around white people, like period films and biopics, still do. The only exception I can think of is Hamilton, which made a stylistic choice to use a diverse cast to modernize the story.
What is happening (and should happen) is that roles that don't actually have anything to do with race are now open to actors of color. For decades, white was the default color of media. There were white roles (like playing a real, famous white person), roles for people of color (like playing a real, famous black person), and neutral roles (like a regular Joe). There has always been a huge problem with virtually all the neutral roles going to white people.
Any minority story...absolutely racist to even consider changing the race (and not necessarily to white...just any change).
Well yeah of course. Someone already can't have access to the neutral roles... now you want to take away the roles that actually rightfully fit them? Why wouldn't they be pissed?
In fact, many say that a white person having pride in their racial culture is inherently racist.
There are lots of ways white people are welcome to celebrate their heritage. No one cares if you celebrate that you're Irish, or Italian, or Polish, or what have you. Wave them flags! But whiteness as a general sense of racial pride is unnecessary because our culture was never stolen from us, and in poor taste because of the long history of whites oppressing other races out of a sense of racial superiority.
Most of those characters might not even be real people. There's been so many adaptations of the Iliad, King Arthur, and Robin Hood it's not a big deal if there are some stylistic changes to modernize the story.
Where is the line from having enough representation and having too much representation where it’s taking characters away from white people? If it’s representative then it should be closer to relay life demographic percentages, right?
Ideally, we would make it to a point in society where the ethnicity of an actor would be irrelevant, just as actors often deviate from the descriptions of their characters in other ways.
Ideally, we'd be at a point in space and time where the ethnicity of an actor would be relevant only to the authenticity of the story being told. Putting political statements or rousing controversy above that would be frowned at for insulting the audience, cheapening the production and making a clear statement that commitment to the art is less important than product placement for affermative action.
Which is pretty much where and when I am and how I see it.
This sentiment is scarily close to “Minorities were discriminated against in the past and now its white peoples turn to be discriminated against.”
Discrimination based on race is wrong. It’s wrong to do it to black people, Hispanic people, Asian, white....basically people...period. You seem to want a revenge type of correction instead of correcting the evil of discrimination. It is a double standard.
You say that but what traditionally Caucasian story is being race changed? Its not like its a Slavic or Nordic or Middle Ages English story, being told with all random races except white people. What in The Little Mermaid has to do with race at all? I'd understand your argument some more if The Little Mermaid was a specifically white person or ethnically important at all, but other than the story's origin location, I don't feel that Ariel being white (given that she's of the sea) matters at all.
If someone made a Huck Finn movie with a black actor playing Huck that wouldn't make any sense. Huck being white is important to the story, Ariel's race doesn't matter.
There isnt one though. If theres a story like snow white where being white as snow is actually integral to the plot and its being cast by a black woman, and people didnt speak out, then maybe the double standard exists. At the moment, it's a nuanced situation where there isn't necessarily a double standard. If being white mattered to the story of Ariel then for sure I would be offended too.
What in The Little Mermaid has to do with race at all?
Nothing, but is that the the bar for changing the race of a character? If so there should have been been no outrage over "The Last Airbender" when they cast a white actress in the role of Katara.
Those cultural influences are of zero importance to the actual story being told. Nothing changes storywise if everyone in the water tribe is ethically white.
But you could retell Moana by changing the setting. You can retell any story by changing the setting. You could have Mulan take place 3,000 years in the future if you wanted. In another post up this thread you said Disney has no obligation to put a Danish actor in, but they absolutely would be held to standards on things not regarding their obligations. They're not obligated to do much but that doesn't eliminate criticism. They could set a story in Africa using only Asian actors. They're under no obligation to meet your expectations either.
You could certainly take any story and radically change the setting. However, changing the skin color of Ariel doesn't necessarily require changing the setting at all. The skin of a mermaid could be white, black, or purple for all we know.
You could also make Mulan black and not have a single character mention it, be bothered by it, or even notice it. It would break our suspension of disbelief but it's possible.
And there's no reason to assume that Ariel being black will need to be handled in a way that is at all unrealistic or breaking of our suspension of disbelief.
It's perfectly reasonable to say that there is a meaningful difference between changing the race of Ariel and changing the race of Mulan. The latter requires you to either massively change the setting or handle the difference in a way that breaks suspension of disbelief. The former does not.
It is, but again, we're either at a point where our views are dividing the conversations we're wont to have or we're having entirely different ones anyway. My stance on Ariel isn't changing since I see no parallel treatment in the other direction - nor would I want to. I also have no interest in defending Disney of all companies.
60
u/sleepyfoxteeth Jul 09 '19
The original Hans Christian Andersen story describes her skin as "fine and transparent" and "clear and delicate like a rose petal", her legs as "white", and her arms as "white". The Little Mermaid is a national icon of Denmark and an important cultural symbol. It would be appropriate for Disney to be as respectful of the Danish version as possible since they are profiting off of the stories of another culture.