The end goal is to get the Trident. That’s the most important thing to Ursula as it is her ticket out of the exile. To get the Trident she needs to get to Triton and the best way to him is through his daughter, Ariel. We have to surmise that this Trident won’t work if it is stolen and that it must be willingly given for its power to be accessed the bearer. For some reason, it appears that this mythical fork is bound by some kind of oceanic legal standard. (you can read more about that in my very first post on this blog!)
So she makes a deal with Ariel. This deal is pretty foolproof too and heavily weighted in her favor. Ariel has to get true love’s kiss from a dude she hasn’t technically met. That means Eric has to know he is in love with her for the kiss to work…a regular smooch won’t cut it. It’s often tough to get guys to acknowledge they are in love after many years of dating let alone 3 days so Ursula should have been fine. However, she gets a little antsy and casts a spell on Eric. To me, this seems like overkill since she had Ariel’s voice already and apparently it’s the only thing Eric is in love with anyway. But this was her big moment and one can’t be too careful. So she plays a pointless charade which does help her complete her main objective, but also ends up contributing to her undoing. So I ask: why didn’t she just kill Eric instead of entrancing him? With him gone, there’s no kiss for Ariel and no one to pilot the ship into her gut. I mean, she had no problem having her cronies attempt to drown him once her plan was completed so we know she wasn’t against murder. And there couldn’t have been anything in the contract that would have legally inhibited her from it could there? Why would Ursula have put something like that in there in the first place knowing she would cheat if she needed too? But, we do have to hand it to Ursula, she was queen of the sea for the 5 minutes before she became calamari…or would it be a poor, unfortunate sushi roll?
Image Credit — fanpop.com
This question takes me back to my childhood. Like most boys, I was never really fond of taking baths. I remember actually going a full week without one and I didn’t even bat an eye. I also used to think the act of water coming into contact with my skin was good enough to take care of any visible or invisible dirt that I had interacted with. A bath was equal to a swim, even if that swim was in a pond or lake. Water equaled clean. I have since reformed, but with that as a backdrop, I ask the question that many people have probably asked over the years: do those that live in the sea need to take a shower or bath? And to stay on topic for this blog, did Ariel or any of her merfolk feel the need to bathe? Don’t answer to quickly as there are a few angles in which we should review this query.
In the human world, we take showers for many reasons. Obviously cleanliness helps us remove filth from the world we live in. It removes things that we willingly put on our body like make-up, hair product or sunscreen. It helps us eliminate bacteria and other sickness causing agents that attach themselves to our skin. Outside of sanitary concerns, it also helps us from a social perspective keeping our own personal musk from going to far beyond our skin borders. And of course it feels good to take a shower, right?
So I ask again, do you think that Ariel, while in the ocean, ever took a ‘bath?’ I would assume while flipping her fins, she would surely come into contact with something grimey or slimey. Maybe some small sea bacteria would attach themselves to her while she swam around the reef. But we know that a shower would not be possible due to their complete immersion in the liquid. So, did she have specific brushes to scrape off the barnacles? And soap? How would that work? I guess she could use bar soap but you would think it would be hard to get it to apply itself underwater.
And if she had no concept of this human practice, why was she not completely confused by the bath she receives when she becomes a human. Sure the bubble are interesting, but were bubbles really something new to her? Every time a mermaid moved underwater, thousands of bubbles would appear around them. Maybe she was just remembering her till-recent former life and hearing Sebastian’s words echo, ‘we got no troubles, life is the bubbles, under the sea.’
I’ve already discussed how I think the punishment did not fit the crime in regards to the curse placed upon The Beast and his servants. So I won’t go into that again here. (If you want a refresher, read my Enchantress: Beautiful or Terrible post). However, regardless of the fairness of the sentence, the real question is did the Beast learn his lesson? I offer that he couldn’t have. And here is why…first we need to go back one more time to the stained glass prologue that opens the movie. The Beautiful Enchantress disguises herself as a haggard, old woman to perform her test upon the Young Prince. There are two really important adjectives about her that inform us as to the the nature of experiment being conducted: OLD & HAGGARD. From these critical descriptions we must believe that the appearance of the enchantress is of the utmost significance in understanding the nature of the Beast’s heart. He was ‘repulsed’ by her appearance and is even warned by the woman right before he fails that beauty is found ‘within.’ When this doesn’t sway him to see through her unattractiveness, he is cursed with becoming the thing he despises–ugliness. So it would make sense if he is cursed because he can only see beauty on the outside, the way to undo that curse is to be able to look past something that repulses him and see inner beauty, right? Wrong. He simply needs to find someone who is both beautiful on the outside AND the inside and get her to look past HIS ugliness. WHAT? So the the main character flaw that the Beast was being punished for has no bearing on how he finds redemption?Now, don’t get me wrong. I’m not going to say that both lifting the curse and not learning his lesson at the same time would be easy. He may have had to break a few laws like kidnapping and imprisonment and maybe even need to feign innocence by pretending he didn’t remember how to use a spoon. But surely by the time Belle fell for him and lifted the curse, he would be able to see from her shining example how he should treat others? Unfortunately, that makes no sense. I am sure that the Young Prince was a beast to everyone around him long before he was physically turned into one. There were probably numerous people who were able to look past his horrible nature to love him and that never changed his heart back then. So why would this time be any different? Maybe if the Enchantress would have just appeared in her natural blonde-bombshell state and seen past his human-beastliness it would have saved everyone 10 years of pointless cursedness….
More to come. Follow me here: @DadsQuestions
Image Credit: disney.wikia.com