The Pride of Prejudice

         A few weeks ago my best friend's daughter suggested that she and I have a playdate. She said she wanted to see the 2023 version of The Little Mermaid. I agreed because I figured that could be a fun outing and maybe my son might want to go as well. About two days later, I saw a social media post on Facebook where someone exposed all the racist images, memes, online petitions against the film. Those images got me thinking about a trend that I have noticed over the past year. Whenever a fictional character is portrayed by a person of color there seems to be a certain amount of casual outrage and controversy surrounding it. The question that I keep coming back to is why? Why is it that a fictional character can elicit such vitriol from seemingly normal and well balanced people? Moreover, why has the suspension of disbelief become such a hard act to comprehend? 

           For those who take the time to read this, which I always appreciate, I want to make sure that this is a legitimate question I have had for some time. This is not a "drop the race card" diatribe. I legitimately am curious because racism has never made sense to me in any form and I have seen it come from minorities and non-minorities alike. I am not saying that all people need to love each other or even like each other. That utopian ideal is unfortunately not possible on this planet. I simply think a more logical reasoning than the amount of melanin or lack thereof in one's skin is the basis for disdain. Intellectual capacity, personal hygiene, blissful ignorance, sadism, and even sports affiliations are far more logical reasons for caring not to spend your time around an individual.

           Let's start back with the first time I really noticed the loyal adoration to fiction. I have always loved the experience of going to the movies. Personally, I find the art of cinema and film to be therapeutic and, in the best cases, educational. One character I have always enjoyed was James Bond. I saw the later Roger Moore films and then Timothy Dalton films, but the first Bond film that I really identified with was Goldeneye and its lead Pierce Brosnan was the Bond of my generation. As beloved as Mr. Brosnan's interpretation was, his time came and it went. Then came a sub six foot tall, blonde haired gentleman named Daniel Craig. Before he became the revered icon he is today, his casting was meticulously scrutinized, and it was believed by many that he couldn't get the job done. But anyone who saw Casino Royale, knows how unwarranted the scrutiny was. Mr. Craig has recently given up the mantle of Bond and it is time for a new 007 to emerge. One of the leading candidates was Idris Elba, but many people were insulted that Mr. Elba was "too street" to play James Bond. https://variety.com/2015/film/news/idris-elba-james-bond-too-street-author-anthony-horowitz-1201582692/.

       I am very well aware that when Ian Fleming created the character he was written as a Caucasian man. But here is the concrete fundamental fact behind any fictional work. It does not really exist. There is no such person as James Bond. And James Bond can take any form that the particular artist framing the story chooses to take. I personally think Mr. Elba would have been a phenomenal James Bond but I think he should have gotten the role 10 years ago if it was going to happen. Unfortunately, I think his would be time has already passed. Plus I read the vitriol that Lashana Lynch received just for portraying a 007 in No Time to Die. I wish that on no one.

         Let's move on to more recent events, HBO's House of the Dragon is the predecessor to Game of Thrones and one of the characters introduced was Lord Corlys Velaryon portrayed by Steve Toussaint. Again, the Velaryons are only described in the novels by George R.R. Martin as being dragon riders with silver hair. They have no specific ethnic background and even Mr. Martin himself enjoys the fact that they are portrayed as black as to distinguish them from the Targaryens, which the show focuses on. Mr. Toussiant himself seems to be perplexed as to issue with his portrayal of Lord Velaryon. The show has mythical flying dragons, wizards, and incestuous relationships but the point of contention is a man of color being a rich sailor?

          There is another popular show called The Lord of the Rings: Rings of Power which streamed on Amazon Prime and just had its season finale. In that series there is a wood elf named Arondir who is portrayed by Ismael Cruz Córdova. The problem does not seem to be with the fact that there are elves or wizards or hobbits. There seems to be an issue with the fact that some of these fictional characters are portrayed by someone of color. The show and its producers seemed to be very deliberate in its casting because the show is very diverse. The cast has black, white, Latino, Asian, and Middle Eastern cast members. Sounds like a good thing, right? Unfortunately, some people do not feel that way and seem to be enamored with the blonde, blue eyed Adonises  that were seen in Peter Jackson's film trilogy. 

      Now, back to mermaids. For some reason, the world has always been fascinated with mermaids. I am of an age that I remember the film Splash with Tom Hanks and Darryl Hannah when I first became keenly aware of how much people loved these fictional fish. The movie was supposed to be a light hearted romantic comedy that kids like myself at the time could see. Spoiler alert; Splash is definitely not a movie for children. It actually has a lot of nudity and poor decision making under the pretense of love because the object of affection just happens to look like supermodel. But I digress. 

        Fortunately for Disney, they realized their miscalculation in what is actually permissible for children and readjusted their formula for man and mermaid cinematic bliss. This produced 1989's The Little Mermaid. For those Gen X and geriatric millennial (if you were born in 1980 as well, that abysmal terminology applies to us) individuals this movie was our childhood. Classic songs, a very convenient plot (Ariel does not talk for half of the movie, similar as to how Madison did not speak for a while in Splash), and a happy ending gave the world all the nice feelings.

      I do understand that Hans Christian Anderson did not write the book featuring a young lady of color. But the original book also features a much darker story with suicide, murder, and a failed romance, so it is possible for artistic license to take effect and alter some details. 

       If you still don't believe the world loves the romance between human and fish, 2017's The Shape of Water  won the Academy Award for Best Picture and it is about a woman who falls in love with a fish/man. So as implausible and unrealistic as the plots may be, people have been paying good money to see these stories for a long time. 

         This leads back to my original question. Why is the 2023 rendition of The Little Mermaid getting scrutinized so acutely? Memes have been created to depict the film and rename it The Little Slave. There is actually an online community called "Christians against The Little Mermaid (Halle Bailey)". So it has come to it that some people who claim to be followers of Jesus Christ, who was historically Middle Eastern, refuse to watch a movie about a fictional character because it offends their moral/religious fiber?

           I am not trying to say that everyone has to see the 2023 film. People are entitled to their opinions, but I am only asking why some people are so distressed over a character that does not exist, has never existed, and is the creation of someone's imagination? If someone would say they don't believe that Ms. Bailey's acting is up to par, that is perfectly acceptable. Maybe the story is silly? Maybe they don't believe that Ms. Bailey's voice measures up to Jodi Benson's from the 1989 animated film? Mrs. Benson has given her blessing and approval to Ms. Bailey but maybe that isn't enough? 

           I have heard some people contend that these actions are too "woke" and if a Caucasian person replaced a black character it would be an issue. Let me address this. If John Shaft was played by George Clooney, that is acceptable. Why? Because John Shaft does not exist in real life. Could Black Panther be portrayed by a white person? If he was written as South African, very possibly. (FYI, Patrick Stewart has played the character of Othello in the play Othello. And by all accounts he was brilliant and the play did not suffer because of this edit).  Now will these imaginary castings ever happen, probably not. And they probably would not be well received publicly, but they are possible and that is the key term. Do I believe in shifting ethnicities for every character, just for the sake of trying to be in vogue? No. Particularly if you are dealing with historical figures. Idris Elba should not play JFK. Meryl Streep should not play Harriet Tubman. Those people actually did exist. But works of fiction, by literal definition, are up to the interpretation of the artist.

          I will leave those still reading this with a thought from Stan Lee. He was asked in an interview what his biggest gripe was. He said it was when comic book readers question the motivation/rationale of the writer. "Why did Spider-Man defeat this character? Why is this character able to survive this? Why does this happen? You wanna know why? Because that's the way I wanted it to be! The artist does what they want to and creates the world/scenario they want to for their work. That's it." One of the greatest gifts that man has is his ability to create from his imagination. Fiction can be a beautiful and wonderous invention, but that invention does not give someone the right to criticize based on the interpretation of someone else's fantasy.