 |
| Scene from The Little Mermaid Live (2019) |
Welcome to a new column called Channel Surfing, in which I sporadically look at current TV shows and talk about them. These are not ones that I care to write weekly recaps for and are instead reflections either on the episode, the series, or particular moments. This will hopefully help to share personal opinions as well as discover entertainment on the outer pantheon that I feel is well worth checking out, or in some cases, shows that are weird enough to talk about, but should never be seen.
In the past year, Disney has acquired ownership of Fox and its back catalog of movies. While the idea of creating a monoculture is by itself maddening, the reputation that the studio has had in the months since with various Fox projects has been less than pleasing. They pretty much sunk X-Men: Dark Phoenix without any sense of confident marketing. In a recent report by Matt Zoeller Seitz, he even explored how Disney is keeping theaters from playing revues of classic Fox films so that the first-run Disney movies could have access to those screens to make the largest profit. Who knew that a studio that made a billion dollars in a weekend with Avengers: Endgame needed that money? While the future of Disney+ seems exciting and brings forth a ton of classics, the online discussion featuring debate over Disney/Marvel's superhero movies has become toxic thanks to many dismissing the likes of Martin Scorsese and Francis Ford Coppola for disliking the genre for not "taking risks."
Then again, it wasn't just The Avengers that could be accused of not taking risks. In what may be the darkest omen for Disney's lustful desire for a monoculture yet, The Little Mermaid Live took a beloved trend that has kept many network channels afloat and spat all over it. Remember how fun Grease Live and Jesus Christ Superstar Live were? Do you remember why that was? It was because it was a televised version of theater, bringing forth actors who felt passion for the work and presenting a performance that could be recorded and shared. It felt advantageous to an audience who couldn't afford to go out to the theater to see the modern classics. The format may be flawed and have produced few that truly capture the said experience, but they all have a sense of magic and purpose when at the moment, of seeing actors try and sustain their charisma for 2-3 hours of singing and acting.
To put it bluntly, the much-maligned trainwreck Peter Pan Live took risks. It played with set design, use of shadows, and casting Christopher Walken as a singing pirate. It left some form of an impression on the audience. The Little Mermaid Live couldn't even be bothered to take those risks, which is a shame given that they had an eccentric cast that included Moana star Auli'i Cravalho, Queen Latifah, Shaggy, and John Stamos to name a few of the marquee names. There was something exciting to performing a live version of this show, especially for a studio who, as I mentioned, bought Fox and made a billion in one weekend with one movie (so, OF COURSE, they have enough money) and could afford to make lavish sets. For those who don't think this is capable, just know that there was a Broadway version of The Little Mermaid that opened in November of 2007, over 12 years ago. In fact, I've seen a local youth group put it on a few years ago now and do a far better job. There is a way to make this under the sea adventure come to life with practical sets.
To Disney's credit, they weren't cynical enough to nakedly lie about what The Little Mermaid Live ended up being. Their press release did mention that it was going to bring to life the 30-year-old classic only like Disney could. What should've been understood was that "only like Disney could" in recent years has basically been carbon copying their past with less than stellar live-action takes. They exist solely to remind you how great the original version is. In a sense, that's what Disney delivered. Yes, you got to see Auli'i Cravalho sing "Part of Your World" and Queen Latifah bust out "Poor Unfortunate Soul." It was there, but so was the laziest adaptation of a live musical in this decade and possibly the whole of professional live theater productions. It felt entirely pointless.
In one of the more confusing notes, Disney decided to create the most disorienting experience they could. Instead of merely performing a concert where the actors got to vamp with a crowd excited to be there, the 8 P.M. broadcast featured the original Ariel (Jodie Benson) present the "special" performance before cutting to the movie. The orchestra sounded live, which automatically created something disorienting as the original film played. There was very little editing, save for seconds-long transitions to the live performances. If you've seen The Little Mermaid as it was released in 1989, then you have already seen 90% of The Little Mermaid Live, and it was all of the best parts.
It especially hurt because there was very little time for there to be a suspension of disbelief. For minutes on end, the film would just play. The live audience wasn't microphoned so there was no way to add flavor. The sensation of something being live was essentially gone whenever the film came on. There would be occasional cuts to the said audience to show how the set was changing, but that only took audiences away from the continuity. Not only was the film playing, but the voice actors were all the same from the film. King Triton, who factors heavily into the plot, couldn't be bothered to have more than a screen playing him yell "Ariel!" at any given time. The film is a lavish masterpiece, and there's no denying that Disney knew this. Who doesn't want to watch The Little Mermaid? Though that question gets muddled by the idea of who wants to watch The Little Mermaid get interrupted by inferior performances that have no tonal or visual consistency with the film. What magic was there?
If the point of the show was to promote The Little Mermaid's anniversary, it could say it achieved that because it at least reminded people that it existed. However, it failed to be a proper viewing of the film and the live performances weren't all that inspired. There was some deviation from the film as a few Broadway songs were used, but it felt mostly like it was there to emphasize how great their cast was. Then again, for those wanting to reflect how great the cast is, the best way to do it is not holding them to the standard of the movie. There is a musical that can be pulled from that can be done plausibly on stage. Don't just interrupt your movie with some cynical reminder that Moana was a great movie and Disney+ is a week away. Try and bring awareness to the legacy by putting on a show or memorandum.
Not only was showing the film misguided on the part that it was disorienting to pacing, but it made the live performances all that more difficult to appreciate. The film is a masterpiece, and as such is flawlessly detailed. Whenever the show cut to a live performance, there was a grandeur that couldn't be reached because there is no way to make it feel the same. At best there could be the use of puppetry and wiring, which was one of the better aspects of the show. However, as the "Under the Sea" segment proved, there's nothing to marvel if the audience has to compare constantly the film to the stage. Why not instead just dump the audience into the world of the theater so that the puppetry seems less jarring and that the performances can be more on who the more talented singer is. Again, it is possible because there's a musical that has been around for 12 years now and would do better to emphasize how The Little Mermaid has aged well than cutting out the whimsical animated musical numbers.
With that said, there was nothing wrong with Cravalho's performance as Ariel. She is still a great singer who gave it her all. However, there was no chance to act, to give her a dynamic that would make her interesting on the stage. Similarly, the standout Queen Latifah as Ursula was fun, but only reminded audiences that she could've given monologues and vamped in glorious and silly ways. There wasn't a missed opportunity that wasn't considered. Everything was missing. It would be one thing if this qualified as a loving concert where the stars performed music from the film, but that feels too logical for Disney. Instead of streamlining in a way that emphasizes the Live portion of The Little Mermaid Live, they play the film which cuts the pacing for the Live portion down to something blasted boring.
By the end, there wasn't much that could be called special. For a multibillion-dollar company to not try this hard really is a miracle. Why not show the film OR just do a concert? Why do you have to do both and ruin both aspects? It's an insult to live theater and an insult to the film. Never mind that the west coast feed had massive editing issues towards the end (especially during the confused staging of John Stamos' scene), the sound mixing was off and never recovered during key moments like "Kiss the Girl." There wasn't enough to revel in as a form of theater because this isn't theater. This isn't even a sideshow attraction at Disneyland. It's garbage that has an idea of something greater in its sparkling set design, but it doesn't give much of a reason to care. It's even worse than the live-action remakes that fail to add substance to the plot. It's just a reminder that we all love these movies and we'll buy the same product twice if they spin it the right way. Frankly, this merry-go-round spins so poorly that you're likely to fall off and suffer brain damage for making it through the interminable two hours running time.
And yet, this is the sad reality of what Disney will continue to do to entertainment so long as they have the money to buy everyone out. Sure, Marvel may seem like they're trying and Pixar will always have a hit every now and then, but Disney by itself is out to make money. It's their modus operandi. However, the Disney magic that has been elusive for close to a century now is missing in this fatal decision. There just isn't any risk in The Little Mermaid Live. It doesn't want to be theater. It doesn't want to just show the movie either. It's a confusing mess that is just selling us something that we already had but in a less exciting fashion. Considering that they're likely to put most of Fox's movies behind the theatrical version of a paywall (their "Disney Vault"), the chance to compete and cause creative decisions to be made feel like they're shrinking and future audiences won't know any alternative. It's sad, and The Little Mermaid Live embodies the worst possible fate for Disney's future, for everyone's future, in the world of quality entertainment.
Then again, it wasn't just The Avengers that could be accused of not taking risks. In what may be the darkest omen for Disney's lustful desire for a monoculture yet, The Little Mermaid Live took a beloved trend that has kept many network channels afloat and spat all over it. Remember how fun Grease Live and Jesus Christ Superstar Live were? Do you remember why that was? It was because it was a televised version of theater, bringing forth actors who felt passion for the work and presenting a performance that could be recorded and shared. It felt advantageous to an audience who couldn't afford to go out to the theater to see the modern classics. The format may be flawed and have produced few that truly capture the said experience, but they all have a sense of magic and purpose when at the moment, of seeing actors try and sustain their charisma for 2-3 hours of singing and acting.
To put it bluntly, the much-maligned trainwreck Peter Pan Live took risks. It played with set design, use of shadows, and casting Christopher Walken as a singing pirate. It left some form of an impression on the audience. The Little Mermaid Live couldn't even be bothered to take those risks, which is a shame given that they had an eccentric cast that included Moana star Auli'i Cravalho, Queen Latifah, Shaggy, and John Stamos to name a few of the marquee names. There was something exciting to performing a live version of this show, especially for a studio who, as I mentioned, bought Fox and made a billion in one weekend with one movie (so, OF COURSE, they have enough money) and could afford to make lavish sets. For those who don't think this is capable, just know that there was a Broadway version of The Little Mermaid that opened in November of 2007, over 12 years ago. In fact, I've seen a local youth group put it on a few years ago now and do a far better job. There is a way to make this under the sea adventure come to life with practical sets.
To Disney's credit, they weren't cynical enough to nakedly lie about what The Little Mermaid Live ended up being. Their press release did mention that it was going to bring to life the 30-year-old classic only like Disney could. What should've been understood was that "only like Disney could" in recent years has basically been carbon copying their past with less than stellar live-action takes. They exist solely to remind you how great the original version is. In a sense, that's what Disney delivered. Yes, you got to see Auli'i Cravalho sing "Part of Your World" and Queen Latifah bust out "Poor Unfortunate Soul." It was there, but so was the laziest adaptation of a live musical in this decade and possibly the whole of professional live theater productions. It felt entirely pointless.
In one of the more confusing notes, Disney decided to create the most disorienting experience they could. Instead of merely performing a concert where the actors got to vamp with a crowd excited to be there, the 8 P.M. broadcast featured the original Ariel (Jodie Benson) present the "special" performance before cutting to the movie. The orchestra sounded live, which automatically created something disorienting as the original film played. There was very little editing, save for seconds-long transitions to the live performances. If you've seen The Little Mermaid as it was released in 1989, then you have already seen 90% of The Little Mermaid Live, and it was all of the best parts.
It especially hurt because there was very little time for there to be a suspension of disbelief. For minutes on end, the film would just play. The live audience wasn't microphoned so there was no way to add flavor. The sensation of something being live was essentially gone whenever the film came on. There would be occasional cuts to the said audience to show how the set was changing, but that only took audiences away from the continuity. Not only was the film playing, but the voice actors were all the same from the film. King Triton, who factors heavily into the plot, couldn't be bothered to have more than a screen playing him yell "Ariel!" at any given time. The film is a lavish masterpiece, and there's no denying that Disney knew this. Who doesn't want to watch The Little Mermaid? Though that question gets muddled by the idea of who wants to watch The Little Mermaid get interrupted by inferior performances that have no tonal or visual consistency with the film. What magic was there?
If the point of the show was to promote The Little Mermaid's anniversary, it could say it achieved that because it at least reminded people that it existed. However, it failed to be a proper viewing of the film and the live performances weren't all that inspired. There was some deviation from the film as a few Broadway songs were used, but it felt mostly like it was there to emphasize how great their cast was. Then again, for those wanting to reflect how great the cast is, the best way to do it is not holding them to the standard of the movie. There is a musical that can be pulled from that can be done plausibly on stage. Don't just interrupt your movie with some cynical reminder that Moana was a great movie and Disney+ is a week away. Try and bring awareness to the legacy by putting on a show or memorandum.
Not only was showing the film misguided on the part that it was disorienting to pacing, but it made the live performances all that more difficult to appreciate. The film is a masterpiece, and as such is flawlessly detailed. Whenever the show cut to a live performance, there was a grandeur that couldn't be reached because there is no way to make it feel the same. At best there could be the use of puppetry and wiring, which was one of the better aspects of the show. However, as the "Under the Sea" segment proved, there's nothing to marvel if the audience has to compare constantly the film to the stage. Why not instead just dump the audience into the world of the theater so that the puppetry seems less jarring and that the performances can be more on who the more talented singer is. Again, it is possible because there's a musical that has been around for 12 years now and would do better to emphasize how The Little Mermaid has aged well than cutting out the whimsical animated musical numbers.
With that said, there was nothing wrong with Cravalho's performance as Ariel. She is still a great singer who gave it her all. However, there was no chance to act, to give her a dynamic that would make her interesting on the stage. Similarly, the standout Queen Latifah as Ursula was fun, but only reminded audiences that she could've given monologues and vamped in glorious and silly ways. There wasn't a missed opportunity that wasn't considered. Everything was missing. It would be one thing if this qualified as a loving concert where the stars performed music from the film, but that feels too logical for Disney. Instead of streamlining in a way that emphasizes the Live portion of The Little Mermaid Live, they play the film which cuts the pacing for the Live portion down to something blasted boring.
By the end, there wasn't much that could be called special. For a multibillion-dollar company to not try this hard really is a miracle. Why not show the film OR just do a concert? Why do you have to do both and ruin both aspects? It's an insult to live theater and an insult to the film. Never mind that the west coast feed had massive editing issues towards the end (especially during the confused staging of John Stamos' scene), the sound mixing was off and never recovered during key moments like "Kiss the Girl." There wasn't enough to revel in as a form of theater because this isn't theater. This isn't even a sideshow attraction at Disneyland. It's garbage that has an idea of something greater in its sparkling set design, but it doesn't give much of a reason to care. It's even worse than the live-action remakes that fail to add substance to the plot. It's just a reminder that we all love these movies and we'll buy the same product twice if they spin it the right way. Frankly, this merry-go-round spins so poorly that you're likely to fall off and suffer brain damage for making it through the interminable two hours running time.
And yet, this is the sad reality of what Disney will continue to do to entertainment so long as they have the money to buy everyone out. Sure, Marvel may seem like they're trying and Pixar will always have a hit every now and then, but Disney by itself is out to make money. It's their modus operandi. However, the Disney magic that has been elusive for close to a century now is missing in this fatal decision. There just isn't any risk in The Little Mermaid Live. It doesn't want to be theater. It doesn't want to just show the movie either. It's a confusing mess that is just selling us something that we already had but in a less exciting fashion. Considering that they're likely to put most of Fox's movies behind the theatrical version of a paywall (their "Disney Vault"), the chance to compete and cause creative decisions to be made feel like they're shrinking and future audiences won't know any alternative. It's sad, and The Little Mermaid Live embodies the worst possible fate for Disney's future, for everyone's future, in the world of quality entertainment.
Comments
Post a Comment