We took Ariel and Caroline to see the newly opened “Little Mermaid,” the musical that’s been crucified by just about every NY critic. It seems there’s no element of the show that they haven’t found bìŧçh-wørŧhÿ.
We loved it.
Personally, I think that for a show like this, critics should be required to take a small child with them so they can see it through their eyes.
Caroline was literally on the edge of her seat, goggle-eyed at the splendor of it all. Ariel (my daughter, not the mermaid) was likewise entranced. I thought it was a lot of fun.
The theater was packed beyond all belief. I’m hoping that people vote with their feet and wallets.
PAD
• 
As I recall, the critics said “Les Miserables” turned the book into “The Glums.” I therefore trust your opinion first.
The critics probably didn’t like it since there were so many people there to see it. Every critic knows that a show can’t be good if ordinary people are flocking to see it.
For what it’s worth, Roma Torre’s review for NY1 (http://www.ny1.com/ny1/content/index.jsp?stid=238&aid=77412 )seems to share your general take on the musical, noting a few criticisms here and there but generally praising the show. Torre’s always struck me as a tough but fair theatre critic, so her review coupled with your experience puts a couple good marks on the plus side of The Little Mermaid ledger, IMO.
I still have not seen the film, and probably never will. Basically, what i have read since its initial release (and my affection for the original Andersen story keep me away.
I also, after reading reviews, was refusing to see Disney’s “Beauty and the Beast”, too, till a friend persuaded me to watch it.
Only the fact that the VCR and the tape belonged to my friend, who obviously loved it, prevented me from ejecting the cassette and stamping it to pieces.
And, from what i’ve read, “Little Mermaid” takes even greater liberties with the original. But, at least with “Beauty and the Beast”, there’s a *good* production – Cocteau’s 1947 b&w film – that i could watch to take the taste of Disney’s *thing* out of my mouth. No such version of “Little Mermaid” exists…
Actually I think there is a “Fairy Tale Theater” version of the Little Mermaid that is true to the book.
I remember watching it as a child and she dies at the end, or rather turns to sea foam.
It depressed me incredible.
It may not be a 1 hour 30 minute production but it’ll have to do.
I loved faerie tales as a kid, and I understand your reluctance, Mike W. Particularly regarding Andersen’s version of The Little Mermaid, as that is a personal favorite.
However, I also love most things Disney; and let’s face it, not many kids will go see movies with sad or tragic endings. Old Yeller possibly being the one exception.
The key is to accept the Disney movies as completely different stories. If you expect to see one of their movies/musicals to stick to the original, then you will be disappointed.
PAD, I’m glad you and your family enjoyed the musical. How would you rate it versus the other Disney productions?
mike weber, you should stick to Disney’s historical documentaries.
Like ‘Cool Runnings’.
My playwright friend seems to share the same opinion of New York theatre critics. “Brainless Ben Brantley” is a proper noun for him. And a theatre critic plays a key role in his last play…not in a good way.
However, I don’t share many people’s views on the “authenticity” of adaptions. That seems to miss the point of folk tales (and stories in general), many of which have various versions, with their own value in the telling. Trying to “honor” the original seems to me too close to cultural embalming to bother with…
Ah, they’re just a bunch of pikers who have no sense of scale.
I consider myself an effete snob when it comes to theater, art and food. but even I think the current crop of NY Times critics usually hit the mark. I often feel “What play or artist did they see, or place they ate?”
I think the critics should be allowed to judge shows as they wish, despite the disagreement of certain involved fans. Readers have some history with them and understand their prejudices. Just because you or I like something does not put it above criticism. As far as the question of the show’s fidelity to the original story goes, “The Little Mermaid” is a very different matter from many folktales – because it isn’t a folktale, but a short story written entirely by Hans Christian Andersen in 1836. In the case of this “Little Mermaid” show, I expect it is very enjoyable for many children and their parents, and I’m glad it is there for their entertainment, but it really ISN’T “The Little Mermaid,” but “WALT DISNEY COMPANY’s Little Mermaid.” While the resultant show is great entertainment for modern children and their parents, it is a complete corruption of Andersen’s original work, intent and theme. Although (sad to say) you wouldn’t be around to comment on it, suppose that in 2177 children were treated to a show of “Walt Disney’s Fallen Angel” in which the protagonist is a non-religious old man from Turkey, the characters you killed lived and the characters you saved died. If you felt that was a misappropriation of your own intellectual property that might be justified.
I enjoyed a lot of Disney material when I was a kid, but it is galling to know how much the company has absorbed, digested and spat out previously conceived characters and stories. You may remember in 1989 when Disney executives said with a straight face that they owned Snow White and no one else could use the character. That would have come as a surprise to the Brothers Grimm, who knew the story was old when they printed it about two hundred years ago.
Peter, you may be heartened to know that while the NY critics may have hated it, there was a very positive piece on it in this past Saturday’s Philadelphia Inquirer.
I quote the most eloquent speech by Anton Ego (Peter o’toole)…
“In many ways, the work of a critic is easy. We risk very little yet enjoy a position over those who offer up their work and their selves to our judgment. We thrive on negative criticism, which is fun to write and to read. But the bitter truth we critics must face is that, in the grand scheme of things, the average piece of junk is more meaningful than our criticism designating it so.”
Tell the NY Theater critics to swivel on it.
Bob A
J.M. Barrie solved that problem by bringing orphans to see the debut of Peter Pan, as seen in Finding Neverland. Once the kids laughed, the audience got it.
Were the sea creatures done in the same puppet styles as The Lion King?
David
Meh. Cultural embalming is cultural embalming. It preserves the form while losing the essence. Embalmers at times think they know the story better than the original authors or the story itself.
Jeffrey wrote: I think the critics should be allowed to judge shows as they wish, despite the disagreement of certain involved fans.
The critics are and do. In addition, the fans (“involved” or not) should be allowed to disagree with and criticize the critics.
Just because Roger Ebert (much as I like to hear his opinion) loves a movie, it doesn’t mean I have to think it is Oscar worthy.
Just because you or I like something does not put it above criticism.
Nor does it mean that we cannot suggest that the critic should consider a different angle – like who is the target audience.
Christine–everyone–please don’t bother. Jeffrey’s need to pick apart anything and everything I say informs just about everything he writes. It would be nice to see JUST ONE ÐÃMNÊÐ THREAD not derailed by either Jeffrey or Mike or both.
PAD
As I recall, the critics said “Les Miserables” turned the book into “The Glums.” I therefore trust your opinion first.
Funny thing. When “Les Miserables” was first published, a number of critics were scathing in their assessment. But it was a huge hit with the readers. So now it’s a different century and reviewers were scathing in their assessment of the musical, claiming it was an insult to that great classic that their predecessors in the art of criticism lacerated over a century earlier. Yet the musical was a huge hit with theater goers.
Personally I think nothing gets critics more incensed than knowing that people aren’t going to give a dámņ what they write.
PAD
Meh. Cultural embalming is cultural embalming. It preserves the form while losing the essence. Embalmers at times think they know the story better than the original authors or the story itself.
I doubt that, but there’s always the chance that they know current audience tastes better than people who wrote books a hundred years ago know them.
The fact is that no matter what Disney, for instance, does to Pinnochio or Bambi or, yes, the Little Mermaid, it doesn’t change the original material one iota. The original books remain perfectly intact, ready to be enjoyed by readers who quite possibly would never have heard of the characters if Disney hadn’t done their adaptations.
Most youngsters these days ONLY know Pinocchio or Bambi or Mary Poppins because of their Disney incarnations. Which means that if those adaptations had never been done, youngsters would likely be completely unfamiliar with them. But because they are, the original versions have the opportunity to reach audiences that they never would have.
The simple fact is that interpreting and reinterpreting stories is a tradition that goes back…God, as long as humans have been telling stories. To hold Disney up for criticism for revising and retelling stories when it was good enough for the likes of the Bros. Grimm and William Shakespeare strikes me as just a bit ridiculous. If in the 22nd Century, someone is finding my stories so compelling that they want to reinterpret them for a future generations, who might then be so intrigued by what they see that they seek out the source material, God bless ’em. Go for it. Were I alive, I’d be honored that my work achieved that measure of timelessness.
PAD
There’s probably no more common a cliche than the movie that was hated by many top critics when it first came out and is now held up as the standard by which they bash NEW movies.
The Wizard of Oz, Bonnie and Clyde, The Wild Bunch, Blade Runner, 2001, Fantasia, It’s a Wonderful Life, The Thing, Dark City, Fight Club, Vertigo, so many others…
Critics and box office results have their place but after a while one ought to get a sense of whether or not something will appeal to them. I’m seldom disappointed by any movies I see because I usually am able to correctly gauge the quality beforehand and adjust my expectations accordingly. About the only critic I trust is Ebert because I’ve read him long enough to tell when he is disliking a film I’ll like.
One of the funniest “criticisms” of a film I ever saw was Julia Louis-Dreyfuss as a cheerleader movie reviewer on an old SNL “Weekend Update.” Apparently, despite all logic, she had JUST seen “The Wizard of Oz” and was dismissing it as being a rip off of “Star Wars.”
PAD
Christine–everyone–please don’t bother.
You got it.
I did have a question for you above though… How would you rate this production vs the other Disney shows on Broadway?
Thanks 🙂
PAD wrote: “Which means that if those adaptations had never been done, youngsters would likely be completely unfamiliar with them.”
Very true, and not just of the fictional stories. As an early teenager I saw on TV a couple of the Disney movies about Francis Marion, a brigadier general in the Revolutionary War. Staring Leslie Nielsen when he was a young, dramatic actor. They started off with Walt himself giving a little history lesson about the Francis Marion, aka ‘The Swamp Fox.’
I thought these were fascinating. Then I read a book about the real history. Ouch. The Disney movies had more in common with the Dukes of Hazard than the actual history of the man. I couldn’t watch any more of them because they were so incredibly wrong, driven by overly simplistic plots and attempts to sell hats with fox tails on them to kids.
But as soulless as they were, they got me to read the actual history. I found the real life of Francis Marion even more fascinating. So it accomplished something very real.
I did have a question for you above though… How would you rate this production vs the other Disney shows on Broadway?
I actually liked it better than the Lion King and Beauty and the Beast, but that’s probably because of my affection for the film. I’d rank LM first, followed by Lion King just because of its ingenuity, if nothing else, and then Beauty and the Beast. I’ll never forget taking Ariel when she was five years old to see B&TB. At intermission she turned to me and said, “Daddy…why isn’t this on ice?” It sent everyone in the audience within hearing into hysterics. And I had no real answer for her.
Never saw “Tarzan.” Just wasn’t interested: I was lukewarm on the songs when I saw the film, so listening to even more songs by the same composers kept me away. Haven’t seen “Mary Poppins” yet.
PAD
Ah, Francis Marion. When you’re a guy with two first names and they’re both girl’s names, you better be dámņëd good at fighting.
PAD
“NY Theater Critics Needlessly Carp About Little Mermaid” is the thread topic PAD chose for this string. His argument is this: A. The critics dislike “The Little Mermaid”; B. Peter David and some people whose identities are usually off-limits on this site like “The Little Mermaid”: C. Therefor, the opinion of the critics is needless carping. Of course, he would never stop them from expressing such foolishness, but c’mon! He likes it, and that’s much more convincing than the opinion of professional theater critics, those curs!
He has every right, and according to attendance figures may be in the right, to disagree with the critics – perhaps to ridicule their standards or criteria – but is on shaky ground calling reviews different from his own opinion needless carping.
PAD – I’ll say this part with as much respect as possible (some – not a whole lot, maybe). I don’t believe you when you say it makes no difference to you if future generations “reinterpret” your work. I can’t predict whether they will want to, but I would imagine you have enough pride in your work to think you usually got it about the right way. Future generations are free, perhaps, to retell your stories differently, but then they really won’t be your stories, but different ones recycling your titles and some of your characters. If someone, say, published “Peter A. David’s Fallen Angel,” In which the protagonist became Satan’s older sister, engaged in a millennia-long plot to ensnare the souls of singing and dancing crabs, that might be interesting to somebody, but it wouldn’t bear any relationship to what you had created. Disney’s “The Little Mermaid” is a thoroughly enjoyable story, and one which is much more easily digested by modern children than Hans Christian Andersen’s original. The original film made excellent money and is very well-respected, but it isn’t H.C. Andersen’s “The Little Mermaid.” He had a story he wanted to tell, a tragic ending he selected, and no singing crabs whatsoever. The original story remains in print and readable by anyone who wants to read it, but its image and reputation are rewritten by Disney’s joyous romp. H.C. Andersen wrote a good story; Disney made a film which appropriated that story’s title but almost none of its substance. That doesn’t make it a bad film or Broadway show: It makes it not “The Little Mermaid.” Forget for a moment that I am not your hugest fan and consider this: If you saw the 1995 Roland Joffe/Demi Moore “The Scarlet Letter,” what was your response to the liberties it took with the Nathaniel Hawthorne-written plot? Beyond the fact that the film was terrible, it was also a complete lie that it WAS “The Scarlet Letter.” Everyone is sure to value each work of literature differently, so the magnitude of the offense of totally changing the plot of an adaptation may seem different in each case – but it is still a lie.
I saw Little Mermaid and would, like Peter, rate it as the best Disney musical I have ever seen. It has the ingenuity of Lion King, but has much more heart and better music. The numbers are almost all showstoppers, including much of the new music material, which greatly surprised me since Disney doesn’t have the best history with incorporating new songs into established pieces. The entire audience was on their feet at the end of “Part of Your World,” “Under the Sea” and “Kiss the Girl,” and I’ve only seen so much applause at the end of a show for “Wicked.”
I highly recommend it, keeping in mind this is how I rank all the Broadway Disney shows:
1) Little Mermaid
2) Lion King
3) Beauty and the Beast
4) Tarzan- which wasn’t as bad as everyone said, the staging was amazing even if the songs were mediocre in quality.
5) Mary Poppins- the house rocked. Nothing else did.
Everyone should also remember that “B&TB” was eviscerated when it first opened, and went on to run for 12 years.
Well, I have a distaste for cultural embalmers. To me, they’re antithetical to the spirit of artists. To take a related case, there were heated complaints about MULAN and how Disney was desecrating the Fa Mu Lan legend. However, if you look at Chinese literature, you can see the basic legend has different permutations, and each of these permutations have spawned modern day reinterpretations by Chinese authors. I’m not that much of a purist to say that Disney can’t do what Chinese artists are free to do. Disney may not be as successful in reinterpreting the story, but that’s a different argument.
(And I’ve mentioned this before, but I got really pìššëd øff at the cultural embalming influence when they started moaning and groaning about the revised version of FLOWER DRUM SONG a few years back, saying that it desecrated the original Rodgers & Hammerstein musical. Hmmm. Rodgers and Hammerstein themselves deviated greatly from the original novel. And the original novelist approved of the new version. Who or what is being authentic here? What and where is the lie?).
I’m not sure that “The Wizard of Oz” got such bad reviews when it premiered in 1939. “Time Magazine” wasn’t very impressed with the Munchkins, but thought the special effects were marvelous. “The New York Herald Tribune” thought it was “amusing and spectacular.” “The New York Daily News” was impressed with Judy Garland and the film’s music. “The New York Times” was very impressed. “Bonnie and Clyde” and “The Wild Bunch” did receive many negative reviews, although there were more positive reviews for “The Wild Bunch” than for “Bonnie and Clyde.” Leaving myself open for derision, I am less impressed by the latter picture than are a lot of people. Warren Beatty’s performance seemed no more than average, although Faye Dunaway’s was quite good. I’m not very much in favor of making degenerate criminals romantic, which the film sometimes did. The contemporary reviews of “Fantasia” which I have found are uniformly ecstatic, so I’m not so sure it was panned, either. As for the others, it seems to be the case.
(And I’ve mentioned this before, but I got really pìššëd øff at the cultural embalming influence when they started moaning and groaning about the revised version of FLOWER DRUM SONG a few years back, saying that it desecrated the original Rodgers & Hammerstein musical. Hmmm. Rodgers and Hammerstein themselves deviated greatly from the original novel. And the original novelist approved of the new version. Who or what is being authentic here? What and where is the lie?).
Well,that’s really the point. Either they’re all lies, or they’re all different truths.
People ask what art is. My feeling is that the definition of art is something that is able to speak to generation after generation. That it has such fundamental truths that new audiences can connect with it on some level.
Me, I never heard of Fa Mulan until the film. Neither had my daughter, Ariel (not to be confused with the character) but she immediately started getting books about her and read up on her. So, again, not really seeing the harm.
PAD
Critics view art for the purpose of having something to say about it. I view art for the purpose of seeing what it has to say to me. Those are very different reasons for viewing art, and that’s why I find that even though some criticism can be interesting, it seldom does much to sway or inform my opinions.
PAD, after reading your story about Ariel asking why a show wasn’t on ice, I have to ask something. What’s the appeal of an ice show?
Yeah, skating is neat, but it doesn’t seem like an inherently better way of telling particular stories. I remember liking ice shows as a kid, but I can’t remember why they were *that* big a deal to me. Now all I can think of is the scenes in ‘Death to Smoochy’ where the agent kept saying that he *had* to do an ice show.
So why is it that something like a stage production of “Beauty and the Beast” seems like such a natural fit for an ice show?
I don’t know that it’s a natural fit per se. It’s just that all the previous live versions of Disney movies she’d seen were on ice, so she didn’t understand why this one wasn’t.
PAD
“What’s the appeal of an ice show?”
Can’t speak for Ariel, obviously. But when I saw the Ice Capades or somesuch when I was eight, the appeal was simple: spectacle.
Glenn Hauman wrote:
Ah, they’re just a bunch of pikers who have no sense of scale.
Maybe I’m just being crabby, but are you fishing for applause? Or did you just do that for the halibut?
(I can just hear everyone now, groaning, “Please, spear me the puns!” To which I reply, “Don’t be so shellfish about things – it gives me a haddock!”)
Robert Taylor wrote: 5) Mary Poppins- the house rocked. Nothing else did.
I really wanted to see the musical up until they performed “Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious” during the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade. As a kid, I loved that song and to this day have it memorized from the movie. The Broadway cast sang it with different lyrics, and there went my desire to see it. Picky of me? Sure, but so it goes… Not to mention, I cannot picture anyone but Ðìçk Van Ðÿkë in the role of Burt. 🙂
Meh. Critics are what they are. I thought that The Simpsons episode where Homer became a food critic nailed about 99.9% of the reviewers and critics dead on. You can’t give give reviews of popular stuff or you’re just not doing it right. Hëll, our local jáçkášš wrote up a review for one of the Potter films (I think the third one) that was hilarious. He grudgingly, and he wrote just about those words, gave it a good review for about 1/3 or his write up. But then, so desperate was he to be negative, he spent the remainder of his review talking about how sad it was that this film had maintained the quality, if not improved on it, that its predecessor had achieved because that would only make the inevitable decline of the series so much worse. Yeah, he spent the majority of his review discussing how awful the future films in the series would likely be rather then making himself suffer the indignity of writing a review full of praise for a popular film. And yes, the jáçkášš is still employed today as the local paper’s film critic.
The only professional ones I’ve heard in the last few years that liked have been Max & Mike on the Movies (http://www.maxandmike.com/podcast.html) because they, most of the time, review a movie the way I’ve always felt a reviewer should. Unless a movie just drives them up all wall, they usually look at the movie’s structure, internal logic and stuff like that and, evening when personally panning it, will point out that fans of such-and-such would probably like the film.
And even with them, I don’t use them as a guide to what I will or won’t watch as much as just getting general information on what I should likely expect from a film. Besides, their genre specialty shows are always a blast to listen to. I just wish their new distributor would get them back on the air in this area or at least on XM.
Ok, I admit that I have issues with all things Disney as a rule. I get annoyed that everything requires a song AND needs to be sung by animals, furniture, and various knick knacks. I get even more annoyed when the source material is mutilated.
However…
Disney is a business first and foremost. Their business model has raked in enough money to pay all our debts AND get us pizza and soda for the party afterward. At least.
Also if Disney’s productions lead people to the source material that can only be good. Honestly, though, I don’t know many people who care to expand themselves all that much. Evidently it’s too much effort to crack open a book when there’s a picture box and beer handy.
This is actually one of the measuring sticks by which I determine who I’ll hang out with.
And it’s not as though Disney is the only one to do it. Look at any book made into film. Source material is always hacked to fit into a different medium. This almost always sucks for the fan of the source material, and even moreso when it’s a result of the lack of creativity on the part of those transfering it to a new medium. The examples of this are so numerous that I’m having trouble picking just one.
Something I both understand and don’t: If the changes tou the source are so significant why retain the title? That’s the part I don’t understand. The pat I understand is that keeping the title is good business. It’s a selling point for the production. “The Little Mermaid” may not have gone over as well if it were called “The Fish Girl and the Singing Crab.”
As for critics…
To Hëll with them. It’s almost a universal constant that critics don’t get it.
Hey, wouldn’t it be a fun job to criticize the critics? That would be a fun article to write.
Here’s to you,
M
As a rule of thumb for me, whenever the characters who live or die in the original do the opposite in the adaptation, it’s a new story. When there’s a singing crab where there was none, it’s usually a new story. When tragedy becomes feel-good, sing-along uplift, it’s a new and different story. When a story is traditional and told in varying versions, there is more leeway than when the story and original text are identified. There’s nothing wrong with telling the new story, but it shouldn’t be identified as the old one. I’ll admit that I am predisposed to suspect Disney, because it has a history of appropriating existing material and claiming it as its personal property. In 1989 Disney attempted to convince a court that it owned Snow White and could prevent any other usage of the character – which was centuries old when the Brothers Grimm recorded the tale in 1812. To the argument that Disney at least owned the usage of the character in cinema, it had been filmed in 1902, 35 years before the Disney animation – when Walt Disney was less than one year old, and with not a speck of his participation.
Jonathan (the other one):
“Glenn Hauman wrote:
Ah, they’re just a bunch of pikers who have no sense of scale.
Maybe I’m just being crabby, but are you fishing for applause? Or did you just do that for the halibut?
(I can just hear everyone now, groaning, “Please, spear me the puns!” To which I reply, “Don’t be so shellfish about things – it gives me a haddock!”)”
Stop that. Stop that NOW.
;}
M
I won’t criticize Jean Cocteau’s “La Belle et la Bete,” because it’s so good that it should be forgiven its liberties. In any case, I think it is quite faithful to the ancient tale. Disney’s “The Little Mermaid” strays much further and is of less excellence.
The Wizard of Oz was not universally panned but some of the more influential critics of the day disliked it. My favorite is from the New Yorker: “”Displays no trace of imagination, good taste or ingenuity.. It’s a stinkeroo.” It also lost money. It’s reputation quickly grew, however. In that way, it reminds me of Bladerunner, which got some harsh reviews and poor BO but is now seen by most as a classic.
Fantasia was roasted by a lot of the critics for daring to mix “low-brow” animation with “high-brow” music and didn’t become a success until decades later, with a boost from those looking for a psychedelic experience.
At any rate, these were just off the top of my head and there are doubtlessly better examples.
Mitch: “And it’s not as though Disney is the only one to do it.”
True, true. The biggest thing that got me into mythology as a kid was reading Thor comics. I thought he was cool, so I read up on the myths. Then I went back to the comics and wondered why the handle of Mjolnir wasn’t shorter and why Thor talked with all the “thees” and “thous”. It didn’t keep me from reading the Thor comics, unlike some of the Disney stuff that was just too Disneyized.
Bill Mulligan – When it comes to films losing money, I suspect you are correct; Anyone can cherry-pick reviews, so this is a bit harder to nail down.
Jason M. Bryant:
“True, true. The biggest thing that got me into mythology as a kid was reading Thor comics. I thought he was cool, so I read up on the myths. Then I went back to the comics and wondered why the handle of Mjolnir wasn’t shorter and why Thor talked with all the “thees” and “thous”. It didn’t keep me from reading the Thor comics, unlike some of the Disney stuff that was just too Disneyized.”
Verily I say thee yea.
Sorry, I couldn’t resist.
PAD:
“People ask what art is. My feeling is that the definition of art is something that is able to speak to generation after generation. That it has such fundamental truths that new audiences can connect with it on some level.”
I agree, though many claim this only applies to “classics.” Some of which are merely classic examples of how to bore the Hëll out of Mitch.
But what you have written here begs a question. If a work of art is able to speak to generation after generation, that it has such fundamental truths that new audiences can connect with it on some level, then why rework it to a degree that it’s no longer the initial work of art?
I’m not trying to pull a Mike or Jeff thing, so I hope I don’t come off as such. Just interested in your perspective.
Regards,
M
The critics seem to be…criticy. Critics don’t get people to read their columns by praising every movie that comes along. Either they’re looking or getting paid to say something that can be used as an ad, or they’re looking to move papers by saying something controversial or provocative.
I much rather prefer a reviewer, who’s not concerned so much with a final up or down conclusion, but more commenting on the work in part and in whole.
As for griping that Disney’s Little Mermaid differs from the HC Anderson version, or whether an artist really cares whether someone comes along and tells the story differently, I think that’s pretty much bunk. First off, it’s clearly and always has been Disney’s Little Mermaid. Way back when the film came out, I was vaguely aware that it was based on some old tale. Frankly, I didn’t care how it differed. I wasn’t interested in seeing the older version, and I still haven’t been tempted to go back and encounter it. I like the Disney version just fine.
And if Disney takes a tale and updates it for a particular audience today…why does that bother anyone? They haven’t gone back and changed or destroyed all the written versions of the older story, nor do they claim that older version got things wrong. Most of the time, they don’t even claim to be a version of the older work, usually using an “inspired by” or “based on” credit.
And I bet in many cases, if you went back the original source and could ask them questions, I bet they’d tell you that their version was based on something they’d encoutered somewhere along the way.
I find this entire discussion interesting in light of the recent erruption of discontent over Marvel’s OMD/BND event and Spider Man. Marvel has essentially cleared the way for the main Spider Man book to update and…most likely…re-tell key moments of Spider Man Mythos. Like the Ulitimate Spider Man line before it, the BND stories give Marvel the ability to tell the same stories, updated for today’s audience. Granted, I think much of the resentment over BND is because it’s not just an alternate telling…it’s Marvel saying the older stories were wrong, and here’s how things really happened.
But Disney, whether in film or stage, generally doesn’t do that.
We really loved Lion King on the stage, in a way I never thought would happen. Of course the story is primed for the stage…but the costuming was the issue, and all who have seen it fairly know they pulled that off. It seems that the critics of Little Mermaid focus on the trappings of stage and costume. What I don’t understand is how does on manage to convey a submerged setting where fish and crustaceans play major character roles. At least with the lions, hyenas, and other savanah characters from Lion King, everyone is still a mammal, and shares many of the same features. Fish and such are very non-mammal, and no amount of costume is going to be able to change that.
From May 1994 to Oct. 1995 I wrote a weekly movie review column for a local newspaper. In a review, I would summarize the plot of a movie; give some background information (such as whether the film was based on a book and whether it might differ from the same in any significant way (without giving anything away)); then say what I liked or didn’t like about it; and why. Then I’d give it a grade of A to F.
In one instance, I went to review a film expecting to hate it. I ended up enjoying it. I said so in my review. In another instance (when reviewing The Shadow) I admitted that I wanted to give the film a higher grade than I did, mainly because of my affinity for the character, but had to be honest with myself: it didn’t deserve the higher grade.
If someone is going to review (or criticize, if you prefer that term) a movie, play, book, concert, Broadway show, whatever, I believe he or she should state why he or she likes or dislikes it. Beyond the obvious fact that just saying either “it’s fantastic!” or “it stinks!” and not elaborating is a cop-out, it gives readers/listeners/viewers an honest review, and also provides them with a point of comparison. If you know a reviewer absolutely hates, say westerns, then you can take his ripping apart of 3:10 from Yuma with a grain of salt. On the other hand, if he sings its praises, despite hating westerns, then it might be worth seeing.
That depends, I suppose on how informative his or her reviews are, overall. If you’re left wondering whether he or she saw the same film you did, that’s probably not a good sign.
In the case of my reviews, like I said, I tried to let people know what they could see at the local theatre, and why, in my opinion, they either might or might not enjoy a particular film. Maybe some people agreed with my reviews; maybe others disagreed, but either way they knew why I felt a particular way about a film.
Rick
P.S. Speaking of stating why one likes or dislikes something or someone, I once read a piece, presumably by a film reviewer/critic, in which he excoriated Keanu Reeves’ acting, but never once gave an example of why he felt Reeves’ acting was so bad. To my way of thinking, that inability and/or refusal to give a reason undermined his criticisms, and made him look petty.
P.P.S. PAD is right about the criticism of Disney. Stories have been told and re-told for generations, especially fables and fairy tales. On the other hand, I really hope Disney gets past this phase of putting songs- especially current songs- in their animated films. They’ll only date them that much faster.
Evidently it’s too much effort to crack open a book when there’s a picture box and beer handy.
This is actually one of the measuring sticks by which I determine who I’ll hang out with.
You only hang out with people who have a picture box and beer handy? 🙂
(Hey, at least I stopped punning – for now… [insert evil chuckle here])
Evidently it’s too much effort to crack open a book when there’s a picture box and beer handy.
This is actually one of the measuring sticks by which I determine who I’ll hang out with.
You only hang out with people who have a picture box and beer handy? 🙂
(Hey, at least I stopped punning – for now… [insert evil chuckle here])