The Little Mermaid VS Ponyo-Which is Better?

The Little Mermaid is one of Hans Christian Anderson’s most-famous stories. Chronicling a young mermaid who leaves ocean life to live with humans, it currently has over 20 adaptations in various mediums. However, two adaptations stand out as the most-famous: The Little Mermaid, the 1989 Disney film, and Ponyo, the 2008 anime movie from one of Japan’s greatest living directors. These adaptations are as divisive as they are loved, and they’re also occasionally pitted against one another. Which begs the question: which one’s better?

As always, this’ll contain spoilers and is subjective. You’ve been warned.

Anyway, let’s start with the…

Story:

VS

Despite having similar setups, these films go entirely different routes.

The Little Mermaid’s so ubiquitous by now that you can summarize it without having seen it: a mermaid princess (Ariel) falls in-love with a human prince (Eric) against her father’s wishes (King Triton). After a falling out, she makes a deal with a witch (Ursula) to become a human and win his affections. Along the way, this witch secretly undermines her at every turn, forcing her to realize the burden that goes into love and humanity. It’s a simple story that’s endured for over 30 years, and it’s easy to see why.

In Ponyo, a fish with magical powers (Brunhilde) escapes the clutches of her overbearing father (Fujimoto) and travels to the surface, where she’s trapped in a glass jar and gets rescued by a 5 year-old boy (Sōsuke). After travelling with him to preschool, said fish is retrieved by her father and taken into solitary. But the fish has become enamoured with the human world, so, using her magical powers, she escapes and causes a tsunami. With the natural order now out of balance, the fish’s father has to make a difficult decision: give up his daughter and save the planet, or take her back and risk her despising him forever? It’s a more “out there” premise than The Little Mermaid, but it’s endearing.

Both movies have had their share of detractors and defenders. In the case of The Little Mermaid, critics point out how reckless and irresponsible Ariel is, putting herself in danger over a man she barely knows. Additionally, Ariel’s lambasted for never really learning anything, instead getting what she wants. The backlash is understandable, but I think it mistakes the forest for the trees. And it does so in a condescending manner.

See, The Little Mermaid was overseen by the late-Howard Ashman. Ashman, a gay man, left his mark through Ariel, such that the subtext of her journey could be read as a dysphoria narrative. Considering the movie came out during the height of the neoconservatism ushered in by the Reagan/Bush eras, when queer people’s lifestyles were frequently derided, Ariel feeling like her world isn’t right for her could be seen as a metaphor for the queer experience. The fact that Ariel has since become championed by LGBTQ+ Disney fans as an icon only proves that thesis.

Ponyo’s routinely attacked for being too childish and nonsensical. It’s especially scrutinized for putting its lead, a fish coded as a preschooler, in a situation that’s too adult to fully-comprehend. Additionally, the laid-back attitude of its side characters is cited as jarring, as is its rushed ending. While I understand these complaints, I feel they overthink what’s, ultimately, a fun story for children. Also, director Hayao Miyazaki has asked his audience to accept stranger…

It’s a tough one to pick a winner for. On the one hand, while not as strong as the Disney movies that succeeded it, The Little Mermaid was a trailblazer for the company and helped resuscitate their reputation. On the other hand, Ponyo’s much tighter and holds up better narratively, even updating its source’s premise, but it’s more-farfetched and isn’t as profound as some of Miyazaki’s other films. I like Ponyo more, but The Little Mermaid’s much more accessible to general audiences. So I guess, with everything being equal, that The Little Mermaid slightly edges out.

Winner:

But a story’s only as good as its cast, leading me to…

Cast:

VS

It’s here where these movies excel and falter simultaneously. Both have relatively small central casts and incredibly large secondary casts, and they have the same strengths and downsides for each. The main casts are fun and memorable, even occasionally funny. The secondary casts, however, are largely uninteresting.

With The Little Mermaid, the main cast consists of Ariel, King Triton, Sebastian, Flounder, Scuttle, Prince Eric and Ursula. In the case of Ponyo, there’s Brunhilde/Ponyo, Sōsuke, Lisa and Fujimoto. Both, essentially, fill their roles nicely. And while I’ve heard that Ariel and Ponyo are whiny/annoying, they’re a teenager and a little girl respectively. You kinda expect that.

Sadly, the secondary characters aren’t as interesting. In the case of The Little Mermaid, some of them, like the chef who tries to cook Sebastian, are actually annoying. Ponyo’s secondary cast might be largely uninteresting too, but they’re at least memorable. Ponyo’s mother, for example, feels majestic, while the old ladies at the Himawari Elderly Home are really quirky. Even the couple that Ponyo and Sōsuke encounter in the second-half are fun in their own way.

I have to mention the antagonists. With The Little Mermaid, it’s obvious that Ursula’s the big baddie, and she relishes it. In contrast, Ponyo’s Fujimoto starts out villainous, but then quickly becomes a sympathetic obstacle for Sōsuke and Ponyo to deal with once his motivations are made clear. I’ve heard complaints that Fujimoto resembles a drag queen, and is, therefore, impossible to take seriously, but remember that Ursula was actually based on one herself. So the argument feels hypocritical.

I’m giving this one to Ponyo. Why? Because while The Little Mermaid might have the more-recognizable characters, it also has the weaker ones. Even the ones that are developed, like Ariel and Triton, are flatter than Sōsuke and Lisa. Not to mention, Sebastian’s Patois accent is stereotypical in hindsight, as his VA isn’t even from Jamaica.

Winner:

How do these films look visually? It’s time for…

Aesthetic:

VS

Again we have a hard one, as both movies look amazing.

It’d seem, initially, that The Little Mermaid would win here: it’s beautiful for 1989 standards. It’s also beautiful for 2021 standards. And it’s the last Disney movie to be entirely hand-drawn and painted. Considering the amounts of painstaking labour that went into each cell, you’d think this’d be no contest.

Well, Ponyo was also hand-drawn, largely by Miyazaki himself. And the movie has a children’s storybook aesthetic, which compliments its story well. I actually like the animation here more than some of Miyazaki’s other films, as it demonstrates that he was willing to experiment with his style after decades of working in animation. You don’t see that a lot these days. Plus, its visual style is cute, something The Little Mermaid’s isn’t.

So yeah, I’m giving this to Ponyo.

Winner:

Speaking of which, how do these movies sound? This is…

Sound:

VS

Again, this is difficult, but for different reasons.

The Little Mermaid and Ponyo aren’t simply animated films. No, they’re animated films by Disney and Studio Ghibli respectively. That already gives them a one-up on most other animated films. It helps that both bring their A-game with their compositions. The former features a score and songs from Howard Ashman and Alan Menken, and the latter features an operatic score from Joe Hisaishi. So which do I prefer?

You’d think The Little Mermaid would win automatically, given its catchy songs. But I have a confession to make: I don’t like some of these songs. Sure, “Poor Unfortunate Souls” is excellent, as are “Under the Sea” and “Kiss the Girl”. But then you have the ever-obnoxious “Les Poissons” and the lame opening number where King Triton’s daughters introduce themselves. Also, “Part of Your World”, while nice, is overexposed. And I don’t mean that in a good way.

Ponyo, while not Hisaishi’s best score, is far more memorable. I especially like its homages to Wagner, making the score feel epic. Plus, the movie has moments of musical silence, ones where you can hear the sound design. The Little Mermaid’s never that brave musically, hard as it may try. I appreciate what both bring to the table, but I’m giving this to Ponyo.

Winner:

We arrive at the last category with…

Entertainment factor:

VS

This’ll be the most-controversial part of this piece. As much as these movies have problems, I also quite like them. The Little Mermaid suffers a bit in the music department. It might not be as visually appealing as Ponyo either. And many of its secondary characters are forgettable and grating. But its main cast is exceptional, and its general story is littered with queer-positive subtext.

Conversely, Ponyo has memorable music all-around. It looks really cute as well, which works in its favour. And it has some memorable secondary characters, something The Little Mermaid doesn’t. However, its story isn’t as compelling, falling apart slightly near the end. It even ends abruptly, being one of two Miyazaki movies guilty of that.

Despite any and all misgivings I might have with both, I’m giving this win to Ponyo. Is it cutesy and childish? Yes, but that works in its favour. Is it nonsensical? Yes, but so are most of Miyazaki’s movies. And is it the strongest entry in Miyazaki’s pantheon? No, but it’s also not the weakest. It’s a cute movie all-around, and that’s what matters for its target demographic. I also see myself coming back to it more often as an adult, despite over-watching The Little Mermaid as a child.

Overall winner:

Thanks again for sticking it out with this compare-contrast piece. As always, I’ll see you next time!

Soul Food Deux?

It’s no secret that I don’t get much of the hate directed at The Oscars. Not because I don’t think their voting system is flawed, I do, or even because I don’t mind their behind-the-scenes politics, I do, but because their choices boil down to personal taste. I may not agree with many of their yearly picks, but whenever people get mad, the most-common argument is that “they picked X instead of Y”. It’s tiring. However, since it keeps happening, I guess that tedium won’t subside.

I mention this due to a video from The Royal Ocean Film Society that was recently posted on YouTube. I’ve covered this channel before, but since he talked about Soul, and how it should be nominated for Best Picture this year, I figured I’d cover him again. Because, in some ways, I agree. However, in other ways, I wouldn’t be upset if it wasn’t.

See, The Oscars have only ever nominated 3 animated films for Best Picture. The first time it happened was 1992, when Beauty and the Beast received the honour. The second and third times were with Up and Toy Story 3 in 2010 and 2011. Despite the latter two being legitimately amazing, there seems to be a pattern with all three films: they were released at pivotal points, their nominations were a response to a predecessor getting snubbed (The Little Mermaid for the former, WALL-E for the latter) and they were all under the same, corporate umbrella. Essentially, and this could be me surmising, I doubt they’d have been nominated had they not had Disney’s branding.

That’s a problem. Far be it to demean these movies, but they’d have had a much harder time with a different studio. This is because The Academy of Motion Pictures, Arts and Sciences is incredibly biased toward Disney. You can see this in how they award Best Animated Feature annually, with the majority of trophies going to Disney or Pixar. And of the few exceptions, one of them, Spirited Away, had Disney as its distributor in the West.

Soul receiving a Best Picture nomination is hampered by it being another movie under the Disney umbrella. This isn’t to demean it, I thought it was brilliant myself, but having it there would lead to another “playing favourites” debate. Remember, if we’re talking movies that redefined the cinematic experience, all-the-while earning some of the highest accolades of their respective years, then why weren’t The LEGO Movie or Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse considered for Best Picture? More-recently, why wasn’t Wolfwalkers considered? And if you want to go back further, perhaps Spirited Away should’ve received that honour too?

I know I’m sounding petty, but it’s a slippery slope argument. Animation isn’t one studio’s sole expertise. Plenty of excellent animated films from around the world are released yearly, with a few rivalling the best of Pixar/Disney. The LEGO Movie only got nominated for Best Original Song in 2015, which was disappointing, but I was more impressed that year by The Tale of the Princess Kaguya than Big Hero 6. And I liked Big Hero 6!

But even outside of quality, I don’t think winning The Oscar is an automatic symbol of greatness. Plenty of great movies haven’t, and that’s fine! You don’t need a trophy to validate how you felt about a movie. Like I said about Black Panther in 2019:

“I think The Oscars are too subjective to be that excited. So Black Panther got nominated for Best Picture? Okay, does it need the nomination to be good? And will everyone be happy? The answer to both questions is ‘no’.”

There’s the problem: subjectivity. It doesn’t matter how good a movie is to some, others will find reasons to not like it. And some of them will be valid. After all, I’m the guy who liked Avatar and thought Mad Max: Fury Road was mediocre! And Birdman came off as pretentious nonsense, so I have experience with being contrary! Even with animation, personal tastes still apply.

Yes, animation has an unfair stigma. And nominating Soul for Best Picture could help with fixing that. But I doubt it’ll happen, though I’m happy to be proven wrong. Because the stigma against animation won’t automatically go away, irrespective of The Oscars. It’s unfortunate and extremely frustrating, especially as an animation fan, but it’s the truth.

And you know what? That’s okay. It’s okay for Soul to not be nominated for Best Picture. It’s okay for any animated movie to not be nominated for Best Picture, honestly! Because as long as at least one person finds them meaningful, that’s all that matters. That’s all that’s needed for them to be effective experiences. Is it unfortunate? Yes, but that’s how this works sometimes.

Then again, I’ve seen stranger happen. And given that we’re in the middle of a full-out pandemic right now, and The Oscars are a bit of a wild card this year, it’s currently anyone’s game!

The Disney+ Renaissance

A while back, I wrote a piece criticizing Disney for acquiring 20th Century Fox. I still hold by much of it, especially with them recently shutting down Blue Sky Studios. The only area I regret is my statement that their then-upcoming streaming service, Disney+, was bad. It goes to show how naïve I am in retrospect. To be fair, Disney+ had little to offer in original content that wasn’t The Mandalorian for a while. But even now that’s changing.

Originally, Disney+ was the service to own for its pre-existing material. It had some new shows, like The World According to Jeff Goldblum, but much of the content was from Disney’s past. Even then, going by MCU licensing, some of it wasn’t available right away. If you wanted the streaming service that badly, you were already a diehard Disney fan. Was that really enough to warrant subscribing to it?

Well…it depends on who you asked. For some people, like my cousin’s daughter, that was more than enough. For others, like myself, it wasn’t. Sure, I like much of Disney’s content, but not enough to pay $9 a month Canadian for the service. Any content that I liked, like Star Wars, The MCU and Pixar, I’d probably buy on DVD or Blu-Ray if I wanted it that much. It’s not like I didn’t already have a DVD collection...

It wasn’t until I received a year’s subscription as a 30th birthday gift that I considered Disney+ a viable competitor to Netflix. Yet even then there wasn’t much there that wasn’t The Mandalorian or the final season of Star Wars: The Clone Wars. It didn’t have what I wanted long-term, and its promise of “awesome content” felt like an IOU. It was frustrating.

All that’s now changing, though. Beginning with the controversy-mired Mulan remake, Disney+ has upped its game with enticing content. Since then, it’s seen a second season of The Mandalorian, a tease for The Book Boba Fett, the official release of Soul and now WandaVision. That’s ignoring the 50+ original shows and movies slated for release, as well as the 16 more that are in various stages of production. If anything, Disney+ is transforming from an IOU to an investment with high returns. It’s great!

You know what the best part is? It actually excites me. There’s the obvious, like the aforementioned The Book of Boba Fett and Raya and the Last Dragon, and there’s The Falcon and the Winter Soldier. And Ms. Marvel. And a reboot of Darkwing Duck. And a series of Pixar shorts. What’s not to love?

I’m beginning to regret ever doubting Disney+. It’s not only becoming a platform for content of all ages, but much of it seems tailor-made for me. And of the tailor-made content that’s already there, a lot of it’s held in high-regard by critics and fans. That’s hard to pull off, but they’ve done it…somehow.

It’s especially good with Disney+’s release system. Unlike Netflix, which opts for binging, Disney+ releases new episodes once a week, much like television. There are benefits to that, even though I prefer binging, and one of them is keeping shows in the public consciousness for longer. After all, what’s better advertising than hype? (Maybe word of mouth, but that only goes so far.)

Disney+ is now the go-to for content I never knew I wanted. If I crave an action show, I can get that. If I crave a cerebral series, there’s that too. If I crave a Pixar or Disney series, guess what? It exists! This isn’t only good for options, it’s good for business!

I’ve made my frustrations with streaming known before on The Whitly-Verse. I’d, honestly, much rather own physical media. Streaming also has the downside of relying on connection speeds, and those are fickle. In that sense, I’m not the biggest fan of Disney+.

That said, if streaming must be the future, then it should be worth my time. Especially with streaming platforms being so expensive. So Disney+ slowly becoming worth it is welcomed and exciting, and I regret ever badmouthing the service. That’s a big tick in its favour. It’s also me admitting that I was wrong about it.

I’ll still have plenty of issues with Disney as a company. Their anti-competitive practices are bad for the entertainment industry. Their monopolistic behaviour is too. And their draconian attitude on copyright is unfair to small-timers, especially given how they view intellectual property. All of this makes me want to tear the company apart, and I’ve barely touched the surface!

That doesn’t mean that I can’t recognize when they’ve done something right. And Disney+, while slow to start, is exactly that. Is it unfortunate that it took so long? Yes. Would I like for more original content to have been there from the start? Again, yes. But better late than never, especially considering that, while reasonable compared to its competition, it isn’t cheap!

"Congratulations: You're Cancelled!"

Last Summer, I wrote an angry piece on Harper’s Magazine’s attempt at engaging in “open discussion”. In hindsight, I’m mixed on it. On one hand, I didn’t articulate my thoughts well, striking where I shouldn’t have. On the other hand, I still agree with the sentiment of the piece: it was misinformed fluff meant to distract from some of the signatories. Especially in light of how they’ve behaved since then.

Still, I was willing to put it to bed and bury it. But then I saw a column from The National Post recently, one that decried Cancel Culture and used Rowan Atkinson to prove the underlying thesis. That got me thinking about Cancel Culture, its implications, and whether or not it’s as damaging as its detractors have made it to be. Because, in truth, it’s complicated.

What’s Cancel Culture? It’s tough to define it, but the best description is that it’s about de-platforming and shaming those we deem hateful, even without sufficient evidence. That’s the common sentiment. In fact, going by that, it’s almost an attempt to “shame people into compliance”. And I think that’s wrong.

The concept of “cancelling” someone isn’t new. Back in the early-2000’s, plenty of outspoken critics of The Bush Administration were “cancelled”. The Chicks, a popular band from Texas, had labels discontinued and received plenty of hate mail for it. Additionally, Bill Maher (yes, that Bill Maher) had his talk show pulled for criticizing the invasion of Iraq. Even Hayao Miyazaki had to wait several years to discuss his disdain of The Iraq War via Howl’s Moving Castle, lest it backfire.

So yeah, “cancelling” has been around for a while. But while some consider the current iteration to be “too extreme”, I think it’s lost its original meaning. I don’t feel that people understand what it’s about anymore. And that’s a problem. It’s a problem because it’s still applicable as accountability for bad behaviour.

Let’s look at one of its common misuses. In 2017, Harvey Weinstein was accused by several high-profile actresses of sexual assault and rape. This led to #MeToo going public, allowing people to come forward with names of their accusers. On some level it gave power back to the oppressed. Yet it also led to people claiming that their favourite (insert field here) was being unfairly targeted. And this manifested in Cancel Culture being weaponized as pushback.

I don’t think these individuals, many of them men, were victims of Cancel Culture. Were some of them unfairly accused? Yes, but only a small fraction. The rest either ended up going to court and being exonerated, going to court and being tried, or got away with it by downplaying the allegations or, effectively, going into hiding.

Essentially, they weren’t really cancelled. Or if they were, it didn’t stick. Cancelling usually comes with two components: de-platforming, and accountability. And the latter rarely, if ever, happened here. Alternatively, if it did, it was miniscule.

I think this gets overlooked. When someone’s “cancelled”, there’s a reason for it. And when the cancelling occurs, it’s to hold that person accountable. It doesn’t always stick, it rarely does, but it’s an attempt. And that’s what needs to be understood.

It’s also, unfortunately, based on the court of popular discourse. Unlike law, popular discourse is loose. What you might find worth cancelling, I might not. And vice versa. This subjectivity’s so heavily built in that it becomes impossible to objectively and entirely cancel someone.

Another issue is when the “cancelled” individual becomes radicalized. Remember that comic about the columnist who got let go for extremist views, only to claim he was being silenced to large crowds of people? This happens constantly. Remember when it was revealed that Louis CK had been masturbating in-front of his colleagues without their consent? Remember how he moved underground and became really nasty and bitter? I do.

Keep in mind that people get defensive about this stuff constantly. No one likes being attacked and criticized, it’s the lizard-brain’s defence mechanism at work. When we’re attacked, we either fight, or run. It’s helped us survive as a species. Add in the component of being socially ostracized, and you can see how messy this is.

Some of you might be thinking, “Well, some people DO get cancelled, but only for challenging the status quo!” And you’d be right…but that usually applies to those without power. Remember Bill Maher? He’s still around, even though he temporarily got pulled from television. If anything, he’s become more brazen since, picking on targets that never warranted his ire in the first place. Even well-respected individuals who don’t die from speaking out usually have enough venues to express themselves, venues they wouldn’t have if they were truly cancelled.

I guess my takeaway is that “Cancel Culture” has lost its meaning because we’ve warped it into something it’s not. Detractors also like using the “Freedom of Speech” clause to justify cancel-worthy behaviour, not realizing that “Freedom of Speech” doesn’t override “Freedom of Consequences”. Nor does it allow for “Freedom to Be Heard” by those who aren’t interested. It goes both ways.

Truthfully, there’s a two-pronged issue here. The first is that while Cancel Culture might not be the boogieman it’s been made out as, sometimes powerful voices need to be muted in favour of other, much smaller ones. The second is that while minor transgressions aren’t necessarily worthy of cancelling, especially when the transgressor’s shown genuine remorse, repeated patterns of bad behaviour should warrant it. These two points might seem contradictory, but they’re needed for true equity.

Also, the decriers of Cancel Culture need to get off their high-horses and recognize their ability to do harm. Rowan Atkinson’s a comedian and actor of great fame. Louis CK’s a famous comedian. Even JK Rowling, whom I’ve criticized before, is a well-known children’s author. All three have done real harm, and they need to understand that. Because they’re not being cancelled, they’re being held accountable. And they’ll never run out of venues to say what they want, despite claiming otherwise.