‘Little Mermaid’ Returns to Changed Playing Field

Has it really been only eight years since the Walt Disney Studio’s “The Little Mermaid” debuted? So much has happened in animation since 1989, when “Mermaid’s” upbeat mixture of traditional storytelling and contemporary sensibilities redefined what an animated feature could be (and how much money a quality animated film could earn), that it seems much longer.

The first collaboration between the Disney artists and the team of Alan Menken and the late Howard Ashman, “The Little Mermaid” established the animated feature as the home of the movie musical. It ushered in a string of hits for Disney that culminated with the Oscar nomination for best picture for “Beauty and the Beast” and the unprecedented box-office success of “The Lion King.”

Like “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs” in 1937, “Little Mermaid” showcased the energy and enthusiasm of a talented young crew stretching its wings. The animation of Ariel is not as polished as the work the same artists would do on Jasmine in “Aladdin” and on Pocahontas, yet the character has an irresistible appeal. She’s independent, adventurous and even a little bit spoiled, but she makes Meg in “Hercules” feel cold and brittle.

It’s not surprising that Ariel has become one of Disney’s most popular characters: “The Little Mermaid” has an abundance of that elusive quality heart, which has been curiously lacking in the last few Disney films. It’s difficult to imagine little girls--or anyone else--embracing the glacial Meg. Esmeralda in “The Hunchback of Notre Dame” was only slightly warmer, and Demi Moore’s vapid vocal performance did little to enliven the character. Pocahontas was beautiful and beautifully animated, but she seemed to inhabit some remote, elevated plane; Belle, from “Beauty and the Beast,” Jasmine and especially Ariel feel like friends.

In the films that immediately preceded “Mermaid,” “The Great Mouse Detective” and “Oliver and Company,” the songs were largely gratuitous and felt as if they’d been stuck in at random. Ashman’s lyrics advanced the plot and revealed the personalities of the characters. “Part of Your World” explained Ariel’s restless curiosity about humans more effectively than any speech, just as “Poor Unfortunate Souls” exposed the villainy lurking behind Ursula’s caring facade.

“The Little Mermaid” won Oscars for best score and song (“Under the Sea”), the first Disney animated feature to receive an Academy Award since “Dumbo” in 1942. The awards and then-record earnings of $84 million led other studios to copy the musical format, generally without much success.

*

The relatively lackluster performance of “Hercules” suggests audiences may be tiring of the musical format established in “Mermaid,” although “The Lion King” may have generated unrealistic expectations. No subsequent animated film has approached its $311-million domestic gross; no movie this year has earned that much.

Media commentators have dismissed the recent Disney features as failures, but no other studio’s animation has done comparable business. The producers of “Thumbelina,” “The Swan Princess,” “Fern Gully,” “Balto” and “Cats Don’t Dance” would be ecstatic about a “failure” with a domestic gross of more than $100 million.

Some animators have expressed impatience with the musical/fairy tale/adventure-romance formula. Executives at Disney and other studios seem to have forgotten that when “The Little Mermaid” came out, it was new and bold and a little risky--as “Snow White” and “Pinocchio” had been a generation earlier.

The talented artists currently working in animation should be animating new and different stories, stories that challenge their imaginations and explore the potential of the medium, rather than formulas and repetitions. The artists, the art form and the audience deserve nothing less.