MovieChat Forums > The Little Mermaid (2023) Discussion > the problem with casting a black actress...

the problem with casting a black actress as Ariel is that the movie is trying to send 2 opposite messages

posted 2 years ago by RustyShacklefurd (2039)
20 replies | jump to latest

The whole idea behind The Little Mermaid is that she falls in love with a human and is willing to completely change her body in order to romantically hook up with him. She has no pride in her fin or her mermaid body. To her it's just totally disposable in her quest for love.

So then Disney comes and makes another version of The Little Mermaid and they cast a black actress. And that's not a coincidence. That casting is intentionally meaningful. In an interview with Halle Bailey she said her grandparents told her that she doesn't "understand what this is doing for us, for our community, for all the little Black and brown girls who are going to see themselves in you". So this movie is supposed to be all about instilling pride in little black girls.

But that message about racial pride completely obscures the message already inherent in the story about the disposability of your natural bodily form. The basic message of the story is that you shouldn't take pride in your natural bodily form. Disney's new message is that much more distorted by Bailey's red hair in the movie. How many little black girls have naturally red straight hair? Are they really supposed to identify with a straight red haired mermaid?

They could change the race of Prince Eric and it wouldn't be a problem. The story doesn't involve him making any changes to his body.

The Little Mermaid is all about what happens below Ariel's waist line but the casting for this film just focuses the audience's attention on what's above her waist line and that's clearly a cinematic failure in its own right. There's nothing wrong by itself with Disney and Halle Bailey wanting her to be a role model to young black girls but it really has no place in this particular movie. Trying to shoehorn that message into The Little Mermaid of all stories is just obnoxious.

[–] javie (2217) 2 years ago

Its ok, lets pray together. I wanna do somethign that matters.

[–] Kowalski (78914) 2 years ago

🤣

[–] AmeriGirl26 (15100) 2 years ago

It's interesting you should mention the mixed messages, because people had issues with the storyline back when the 80s cartoon movie came out. I mean, most people loved the story for a fierce, independent woman who practically moved mountains in her quest to be with her true love.

The problem is, like you said earlier, the movie also sends the wrong message about a lot of things; such as taking no responsibility for your actions, abandoning obligations to your family, dad is always the "villain" in your world, even when the real villain (who pretends to be your friend) is planning on screwing you over and turning you into a kelp zombie, you have to change who you are and abandon your family, your life, and your home for the person you love, and the rebellious teenager is always right.

I have no doubt none of that will change for this film, and honestly, if you're a movie studio that feels the need to destroy the look of a beloved character just because one part of your audience can't handle identifying with people who are a different ethnicity than them, then you're part of the problem, not the solution.

[–] Ranb (11275) 2 years ago

Actually, the whole idea behind the original Little Mermaid (Anderson's version) was that the mermaid was willing to risk it all for an immortal soul.

The 1989 Disney cartoon changed it to getting a man to love. We have yet to see how the 2023 is changing other than live action. Skin color is insignificant.

[–] RustyShacklefurd (2039) 2 years ago

Whether the mermaid got rid of her fin to hook up with a prince or to gain an immortal soul makes no difference. The point is that she gave up her fin for something that was more important to her. The point is that her fin was completely disposable to her. The difference in The Little Mermaid's skin color is clearly very significant. Everone involved with this decision has the politically correct belief that it's impossible to not see race. The movie's audience is supposed to be fully aware of the new Ariel's skin color. Thus, a movie that's supposed to be about what happens below the main character's waist line instead focuses the audience's attention on what's above her waist line. That by itself makes Ariel's skin color an issue of the utmost significance.

[–] Ranb (11275) 2 years ago

Why is the Little Mermaid's skin color very significant to you?

What is your proof for the claim that "Everyone involved with this decision has the politically correct belief that it's impossible to not see race"? What about the people who are color-blind? Why should they care?

I'm more aware of her skin color only because people like you are going out of their minds about it. I really do not care about the mermaid's skin color.

I can understand little girls being appreciative about a character that looks a bit more like them then others. Do you really want to take this away from little girls?

[–] RustyShacklefurd (2039) 2 years ago

I'm not saying that The Little Mermaid's skin color is significant to me. I'm saying that it's significant to Halle Bailey, everyone else involved in making this movie, the Disney leadership and the woke left. Perhaps not everyone involved with this casting decision has the politically correct belief that it's impossible to not see race but those who don't have it are merely going along to get along. You should realize that the current conventional wisdom is that no one is really color-blind. The woke left would say that you're a liar and racist to claim to be color-blind.

In general there's nothing wrong with little girls being appreciative of a character that looks a bit more like them than others but that's absurd when it comes to this particular character in this particular story. As I explained before, the whole point of the story of The Little Mermaid is that Ariel takes no pride in her natural physical form. Thus, the movie is sending mixed messages. The actual plot of the movie teaches kids to not take pride in their natural physical form. The movie's story itself takes the appreciation you speak of away from little girls.

[–] Ranb (11275) 2 years ago

You can't fool me. Her skin color is very significant to you.

[–] RustyShacklefurd (2039) 2 years ago

No, the reasoning behind the casting decision is significant to me. You assert the opposite as if there was any chance that I would actually see this movie even if Ariel were played by a white actress. I haven't seen a single Disney live-action remake of one of their animated films since 101 Dalmatians in 1996. I wouldn't break that streak even if Ariel in this movie was white.

[–] Ranb (11275) 2 years ago

You might enjoy the live action Beauty and the Beast. This is the only one of the live action remakes I've seen.

Casting decisions are important; that along with the script are probably the most important things to consider.

In the case of casting a black actress, it is a bit of a twist compared to the original 1989 version. It might make it a better draw for the non-white demographic. The non-racist demographic will probably not be turned off by the casting choice.

The racists will be drawn to the casting choice by voicing their outrage and bringing more free publicity to the film that the studio does not have to pay for.

[–] RustyShacklefurd (2039) 2 years ago

At least you now know I'm not trying to fool you. Who are you to say that the people upset about the casting decision for Ariel are racist but the ones okay with it are not? Recall the controversy over Scarlett Johansson playing what was originally an Asian character in Ghost in the Shell. The people upset over that didn't think that they were racist. The race of the actress now playing Ariel is clearly supposed to be significant for the reasons stated by Halle Bailey. And that's completely disingenuous because the movie's message is to reject pride in your natural bodily form.

[–] ChipDouglas (1607) 2 years ago

"of the utmost significance"

This sounds so ridiculous. Until the movie comes out you have no idea if ethnicity has anything to do with the plot.

[–] RustyShacklefurd (2039) 2 years ago

You clearly didn't understand what I was talking about. I'm not saying that skin color has anything do with the movie's plot. I'm saying that skin color is an issue of the utmost significance to the casting decision and the public's understanding of that casting decision. I'm saying that this casting decision takes attention away from the actual plot of the movie.

[–] ChipDouglas (1607) 2 years ago

You could say that about any franchise where the main characters are inevitably going to have to be replaced. For example the casting decision of Daniel Craig as James Bond was a huge ordeal to fans. It's still debated as to if he makes a good Bond or not. This is just the cycle of movies man.

[–] RustyShacklefurd (2039) 2 years ago

This is different. Casting Daniel Craig as James Bond was just an instance of one white actor being replaced by another white actor. It wasn't meant to be some kind of special statement about race. Casting a given white actress as Ariel might have made some people upset but completely changing the race of the actress playing Ariel is specifically meant to be a significant choice by itself. That is not "just the cycle of movies". Disney is purposely making a statement with this choice. As I said before, they're taking a movie that is supposed to be about what happens below the main character's waist line and instead focuses the audience's attention on what's above her waist line. That is what is so significant.

[–] ChipDouglas (1607) 2 years ago

I don't think anyone is debating that Disney's casting was a strategic one. It's kind of funny because people are up in arms over it which only plays exactly into their plan. The fact that we and many others on Moviechat are having this discussion I think is a success for them. It's a success for art in general.

[–] RustyShacklefurd (2039) 2 years ago

It sounds like you're now admitting that I'm right about this casting decision being very significant for the reasons I said it was. And that's not a success in any way for art because, as I said before, it's taking all the attention away from the actual plot of the movie.

[–] ChipDouglas (1607) 2 years ago

I get that you don't feel heard because you are upset about the casting choice. I'll admit, at first I felt similarly to you. Why did Disney cast a black actress? Isn't that just making a big deal out of nothing when they could have cast a white actress? Correct me if that's not how you feel.

At this point though, I really don't care. I can agree it was a stunt by Disney, but at the end of the day it doesn't matter to me who they cast. I'm not even going to see it. You said yourself you wouldn't see it. The movie and acting will speak for itself when it comes out. Then people can really debate whether or not it was the right choice. My guess is that there will still be people arguing over skin color rather than the quality of acting, good or bad.

It is making a lot of black people happy. Specifically little black girls as one user pointed out. Serious question, why do people want to take their happiness away?

One of the purposes of art is to promote discussion and encourage thinking. We're talking about it. Lots of people are. That's a success! :)

[–] RustyShacklefurd (2039) 2 years ago

It's not a matter of me not "feeling heard" since I almost certainly wouldn't see this movie no matter who was cast as Ariel. No one needs to wait for this movie to come out in order to debate this casting choice. As I explained, it completely distracts attention away from the story itself and it sends mixed messages. The movie has already spoken for itself. It's not a matter of the quality of the acting.

I don't fully understand why little black girls are so excited about a movie character with straight red hair. None of them have (naturally) straight red hair. And even if little black girls are happy now, how happy are they going to be after they see a movie that tells them that it's okay to change your natural bodily form? And if they're still happy after they see the movie what does that mean about their understanding of the movie's actual story?

Art isn't the only thing that promotes discussion and encourages thinking. Doing that doesn't make something art. And even then this isn't promoting a discussion or encouraging thinking that isn't already taking place. This whole discussion and thinking about race has been going on for many years and it's instigated by numerous events in our culture. This movie hasn't really added anything to it. It is not a success.

[–] tom8 (3119) 2 years ago

👍