The
tenth film in my continuing analysis of The Films of Hayao Miyazaki is the
sweet and enchanting aquatic fantasy Ponyo. An adaptation of the classic tale “The
Little Mermaid” by Hans Christian Anderson, and a critique of the 1989 Disney
film of the same name, Ponyo is a tasting menu for everything Miyazaki
is known for. All the elements of a Miyazaki film are represented in Ponyo:
from a precocious young female heroine, hand drawn cell animation, sequences of
high drama, brilliant Joe Hisaishi score, and a splash of wonder that makes a
film quintessentially “Miyazakian. Yet, this is also a film that, in the face
of mounting criticism during production, re-establishes the overall technical
mastery of Miyazaki himself.
PLOT
Brunhilda,
plucky eldest daughter of the sea King Fujimoto, travels to the surface and
accidently gets caught in a jar while escaping a commercial fishing net.
Released from her glass prison by a young 5-year-old named Sosuke, who renames
her “Ponyo”, the two unlikely strangers develop an inseparable bond. After
“Ponyo” is taken back to the sea by her father, Ponyo realizes she is in love, and
decides to become human to reunite with Sosuke. Her determination to that end,
may spell doom for her and everyone on earth, if Sosuke does not reciprocate
her affection.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT
After the financially successful, but
critically tepid response to his previous film Howl’s Moving Castle,
speculation began to rise, as to if Miyazaki’s best work was behind him.
Miyazaki, unsure what to do next began to contemplate retirement. Around the same time, Hayao Miyazaki’s son,
Goro, had just released his film, The Tales of EarthSea to wide acclaim.
Suddenly, there was buzz around the question if the son had surpassed the
father. These rumors, speculations and
questions pulled Miyazaki back to his literal drawing board. Taking the
comments to heart, Miyazaki set out to create a story that would dazzle
audiences using techniques that had not been seen in years, and a consolidation
of mythologies and folklore from many different countries.
Production
Once
it was decided that Miyazaki would write and direct his tenth feature, Producer
Toshiro Suzuki suggested that Miyazaki develop another story for children. Looking for inspiration, a neighbor allowed
him to borrow Han Christian Andersen’s “ The Little Mermaid”. Miyazaki was horrified
that the titular mermaid in the original tale was soulless, and at the end, was
transformed into sea foam. This discomfort was exacerbated when Miyazaki finally
watched the Disney version of Andersen’s story; after which he decided to make Ponyo.[1]
Even
during the pre-production process, many could tell that Miyazaki was setting
everything up to flex his animation muscles; to show the industry the beauty
and majesty that hand drawn animation, when done with care and attention, could
not be surpassed. Therefore, Miyazaki
decided to go back to drawing on traditional animated cells. In the opening
sequence of the film, featuring the school of fish, over 1613 storyboard
sketches were created, and a total of 170,000 hand drawn images make up the
completed film. He wanted Ponyo to have solid simple lines that could convey motion
like no other medium. To ensure this, Miyazaki decided that he alone would draw
all the waves in the film, a laborious process. Additionally, to draw the movement of the city
and the ships moving in and out of port, animation at the time would move a
single frame of the boat across the screen. Instead, Miyazaki decided to draw each
of these ships frame by frame, another arduous procedure.
Along
with resurrecting fruitful, but grueling animation techniques, Miyazaki was
inspired by geography, art, and music creating the world of Ponyo. The setting of the cliff side sea town was
inspired by Tomonoura, a seaside port city in Fukashima in the Hiroshima
Prefecture. Miyazaki stayed in the city in 2005 and drew production stills and
reference points for Lisa and Sosuke’s town. Miyazaki was also inspired by a
painting of Shakespeare’s Ophelia (for the depiction of Ponyo’s mother) and
Wagner’s Opera Die Walkure, from which Miyazaki took Ponyo’s original
name, and had composer Joe Hisaishi write a musical homage for the film.
The animation techniques, references and music
all culminate in one of the most amazing and breath-taking animation sequences
ever put to film. When Ponyo escapes from her father, with the help of her baby
sisters, she uses some of her father’s elixirs to transform both her sisters
and the waves, into a school of fish shaped Tsunami. Once they breach the
surface, Ponyo runs and skips across the giant waves as she chases down Lisa
and Sosuke in their car. It is in this
sequence, that the care and detail of the hand drawn animation, along with the framing,
adds to the crispness of the image, and the fluidity of the overall scene (no
pun intended).
At the time of
production, Disney still had exclusive distribution rights to all Ghibli films in
the US. Together with the Kennedy/Marshall Company[2], they brought Ponyo to
a record breaking 925 screens in its first initial release in the US in August
of 2009. Grossing 209 million dollars worldwide, it became the fifth highest
grossing film of all time, behind Miyazaki’s other work such as Spirited
Away, and Princess Mononoke. The film was also adored by critics,
putting to rest the critical rumblings of his Progenical usurpation.
Of Gods and Monsters IV[3]
Like the rest of his most
recent work up to this point, the Miyazaki mythology is an amalgamation of
different ideas from Japanese mythology with a flair that is all his own. Ponyo
is first referred to by Sosuke as being a “goldfish”. This is both a reference to a type of Japanese
goldfish, and the mythical “Ningyo”, a Japanese Mermaid often depicted as a creature
with a fish body but a human face. Additionally, Ponyo’s mother, Granmamare,
the goddess of the sea, is a reference in likeness and size to Kana, the Patron
saint of sailors. This makes sense because it is the sailors out at sea, that
first encounter Granmamare after Ponyo creates the Tsunami to go after Sosuke.
What seems to set Ponyo apart from the
other films is its source material; because the film is based on the Hans
Christian Andersen’s characters, and other western mythological influences.
Firstly, Ponyo references their counterparts in the original story; specifically,
the characters of Brunhilda and her father Photon. Like Photon, Fujimoto “disguises”[4] himself as a gardener to
retrieve his daughter, and has an open distain for the human race. Whereas Brunhilda
is just as rebellious as Ponyo, but where Ponyo has the ability to choose to
become human, Brunhilda is cursed with humanity. The film also creates a rendition of the
flood myth, and while there is a version of the flood myth in every culture,
the depiction of Sosuke and Ponyo trolling the flood waters of the town is
reminiscent of the Christian flood myth representing Noah and Naamah.
Environmentalism being
important to Miyazaki, he has always anthropomorphized aspects of the earth. Ponyo
thus rests in the pantheon of Miyazaki’s Mythology as the sea folk. This
expands on the world that Miyazaki began with Totoro being guardian goblins of
the forest, and joining the bestiary along with the tree nymphs, boar and wolf
gods in Princess Mononoke, and the Ghostly getaway in Spirited Away.
Ponyo is
not only an expanse of the Ghibli cannon, in regard to the Miyazaki film
timeline, this is the moment that a huge portion of humanity is wiped out, thus
beginning the war referenced in Nausicaa. The moment in Ponyo that
gives credence to this idea, is the dialogue spoken by the elderly women in the
Nursing home after it is completely consumed by water. Looking at the sea life
around them, one woman asks, “Is this the other side?” Without a clear answer,
all of the women are rejuvenated, able to walk out of the flooded building
under their own power, without the need of assistance. This implies that this
is a “Jacob’s Ladder situation”[5] where the people in the
nursing home died in the flood, and everything after that was a dream or a
version of purgatory/the afterlife. This
would keep with Miyazaki’s consistent message throughout all his films that
humanity is the problem, and the ultimate enemy to the eutopia the earth could
create.
SOCIAL ANALYSIS
The film Ponyo is an
interesting converging point for Disney and Studio Ghibli. Since Princess Mononoke, Disney has
taken over US distribution of all Studio Ghibli films, especially those by
Miyazaki. Yet, Ponyo intercedes in “the Princess Culture” more than any
other Miyazaki film[6];
adapting the source material for one of Disney’s most beloved Princess tales,
during the famed “Disney Renaissance”
period (between 1989-1999).Yet, it is Miyazaki’s greater focus on agency, representation,
and authenticity while presenting a similar story, that exposes the sexist, pro
capitalist machine of Disney with utter clarity.
The Monoculture of The
Mouse
It
might be difficult to imagine, given that Disney today fluctuates between the first
and third media conglomerate in the world, but in the early 1980’s the company
was going bankrupt (Giroux and Pollack 2010). This staggering fact is only
seconded by what it reveals: that Disney went from near bankruptcy to a major
producer and owner of media content in only 36 years. As of this writing, Disney
holds around 30% of all media, alongside 3 other companies (At&T, Viacom, and
Comcast). This huge turnaround into bureaucratic
capitalism, exploitation, and the profit motive above all else was the work of
two men. Michael Eisner, and later, Bob Iger. Under the supervision of Eisner
and (later) Iger, Disney became more than just a household name, they became the
producers of culture. A culture that normalized irrational bureaucratic
policies that dehumanized and exploited both workers and consumers.
When
Eisner came on as President of the Walt Disney Corporation in 1984, he was the
first to recognize that “pop culture was soft power” and that Disney should
center itself as a major producer of US culture; thereby educating and
entertaining children to become lifelong customers of the Disney brand (Giroux
and Pollock 2010). This is what is known
as Brand Loyalty, a marketing term identifying the desired psychological
state producers want in their consumers; a commitment to buy their products.
This commitment is created by the status that is attached to the brand, the
social belief in its superiority regardless of its contents, and for nothing
more than the name recognition of the brand itself.
Under
the yoke of Eisner and (later) Iger, Disney became “ the new face of corporate
power” shaping the companies identity as the “ paragon of virtue and childlike
innocence” with the social and
historical context of each age, through cutthroat corporate policies and
perspectives (Giroux and Pollock 2010: 27).
Since the 1990’s, Disney has been acquiring companies and folding in
their content into their ever growing stable of intellectual property, media
distribution and Property. Currently,
Disney is worth 130 Billion dollars encompassing
Parks, content, and companies leading to one of the biggest
Monopolies in the US. This happened, in part due to a political and economic
shift in the 1980’s and the apathy of a consumer culture.
The
election of Ronald Regan in 1980 began the intense deregulation of corporate
control. The process of Market Globalism,
by Regan and Thatcher allowed corporations (including Disney) to use other
countries as their own personal labor farms.
This specifically led to the exploitation of the labor force in the
development of sweatshops; factories with unsafe, unhealthy working conditions
where the workers are worked to death for slave wages. This is a common practice in several
industries; many which Disney are involved in. Additionally, through their
corporate pedagogy of complete control, Disney shapes the understanding of the
countries and cultures their workforce represents, for the patrons of their
parks (which are normalized to be white)[7].
Through
its theme parks, produced content, and products, Disney participates in a
revisionist history. It continually presents racist aspects of the past as
folksy and charming, while mining the history, values, and norms of a variety
of non-white cultures, as well as whitewash and sanitize them, for the
consumption of white middle class America.
Whether this is openly having racist caricatures in its films ( Song
of the South, Lady and the Tramp, Dumbo, Aladdin etc.), lack of
representation (many characters of color being played by white actors) and acquisition
misfires (trying to trademark Dia
de los Muertos); to non-diverse themed areas in parks (Main
Street USA, Adventureland, Frontierland and Tomorrowland) which “implicitly
proclaims the triumph of white culture”, and sanitizes the experiences and
history of people of color from their presentation, organization or operation (Giroux
and Pollock:41). This is the successful recreation of the myth of the 1950’s (and
its false imagining of the future), an oversimplification and commercialization
of the past that couches everything in an American ideological spirit, that only
reflects the experiences of middle-class white folk, Disney’s target audience.
According
to Giroux and Pollack (2010), through these actions, Disney has contributed to
the collapse of history in the public discourse, and replaced it with entertainment
and commercialism to the point where we cannot tell the difference anymore.
This is a part of the transformation of reality to “Hyper Reality” (Baudrillard
1994). We generally think of Disney,
regardless of what it is, and where it is located, to be its own continuous
entity. One can recognize that they are
always in the presence of something that is Disney. There are particular
sights, sounds, and even smells that become quintessentially associated with
Disney; regardless of what these things were before being incorporated into the
Disney brand (words like “magic”, “Mickey” and “wonderland” ). According to Baudrillard (1994), these are
representations of the simulacra and simulacrum. Nothing Disney has, or what is
represented in its theme parks, is real. From the interactions “guests” have
with “cast members”, to the street they walk on, the buildings they patron, or even
the air they breathe, is fake; all while not recognizing that they are still in
the state of either Florida or California…they are at Disney. Yet, the relationships
customers forge with their family and the experiences they have are real.
Therefore, the image of reality that Disney presents, is one that is more
desired and embraced by the public rather than the seedier reality of a global
corporate monolithic monstrosity. “Disneyland is more than fantasy because it
now provides the images and narratives based on which America constructs itself
(Giroux and Pollock 2010). That is, unless
you’ve worked for Disney.
Historically,
Disney not only underpays and creates unsafe working conditions abroad, but
continues these practices domestically in its stores and specifically its theme
parks. Giroux and Pollock (2010) note
that Disney disseminates an authoritarian ire to many of its employees,
requiring standards of quality and behavioral control that encroach on personal
freedoms, and borders on human rights abuses. “Every behavior and action, from
how one dresses to how one responds to questions raised by guests, is scripted
by someone of higher authority” (Giroux and Pollock 2010:49). Additionally,
there have been several reports of Disney employees having to be on government
assistance due to the Disney practices
of union
busting and lobbying to maintain a low
minimum wage. On top of which, Disney
furloughed over 32,000 (minimum wage) workers due to a
“loss of revenue” during the COVID-19 Pandemic.
Disney and The Princess Culture
Since
their first animated film, Snow White, Disney has been a major purveyor of
what Peggy Orenstein (2011) identifies as “The Princess Culture”. The Princess
Culture can be defined as the patriarchal framing of gender roles that encourages
girls to embrace a passively subservient role to men. To that end, girls are
encouraged to focus on the care of their male partner , completing domestic
chores, and only developing their identity in regards to achieving erotic
capital within society. Orenstein (2011) chronicles her
daughter’s descent into this abyss of glitter, pink and acquiescence that,
because of the monoculture of Disney, and its far-reaching manipulation it has
over gender socialization, seems unavoidable. This becomes so ubiquitous that
the words “girl” and “female” begins to equate to subservience and
superficiality that results in internalized forms of sexism. And, since the
target age demographic for the princess culture is several years younger than
the ages depicted, this internalization happens early. The classic examples of the princess culture
are from Disney (particularly the Renaissance period) and have completely
consumed how girls feel about themselves, and how they should interact with the
world around them.
Ariel
vs. Ponyo
Since
Disney’s The Little Mermaid and Ghibli’s Ponyo are stories that
are adapting the same source material, it is beneficial in this sociological
critique to look at the differences in the gendered messages presented in each
film. Yet to do that, we need some
sociological and historical context.
Gender socialization is the process by which
individuals learn what it means to be male, female, masculine, feminine, and
trans, within a particular society. The understanding and implementation of the
existent gender spectrum is variable based upon the cultural, institutional,
and political dynamics of a particular country. Indelibly, some cultures are
more progressive than others, and as the case in the US, “progress” is mainly
optical and always at a cost, for profit.
As
previously mentioned, since the “monoculture” corporate direction was charted
by Eisner in the 1980’s, Disney has been interested in controlling the culture
and development of children to create lifelong consumers, who will spend
hundreds of thousands of dollars throughout their lives on a variety of Disney
products. Therefore, Disney has purported to not just sell their image of
childhood innocence, but provide models for social groups and identities,
especially gender (Giroux and Pollock 2010). Yet, many of these retrograde gender
messages outside of an academic critique, have either been ignored, explained
away or rationalized rather than taken seriously in the public discourse.
Disney’s Ariel, the titular “Little Mermaid”[8] is depicted in line with
Orenstein’s (2011) critique of the princess culture. She is a young, white,
cisgender heterosexual who is, at the beginning of the film, an adventurous
scavenger with a wonderful singing voice. With this set up, Disney had the
ability to craft a coming-of-age story where Ariel struggles with creating space
for herself, while learning how to be part of a royal maritime family. Instead,
under the patriarchal framing of the princess culture, in rapid succession, she
sees a man[9], falls in love with him (without
ever meeting him),[10] trades her voice for legs[11] and tries to win him over. Now, even with this cringey sexist set up,
the creators could still give this film more progressive messaging of how changing
fundamental parts of yourself (especially your favorite parts) for someone else
is wrong, that love does not exist before you interact with someone, and girls
and women should not silence themselves in hopes that a partner might like
them. But the film does not do these
things. They do not present Ariel’s actions as a cautionary tale[12], they present it as a
guide.
1989’s The Little
Mermaid, and the Disney princess culture more broadly, has continued to
recreate the typical gender messages that girls receive in our culture. These
messages are usually coming from a limited binary understanding of the gendered
spectrum framework. Girls constantly get
the message that their value is in their bodies; either as a sex object[13] for male pleasure[14] or as a vessel for the
next generation (reproduction) in which, during said gestation, a woman’s body
is forfeit. While some of this gender
messaging has changed, presenting girls and women with an alternative, more
agency focused representation in recent years; that does not eliminate the
princess culture itself. Additionally, a lot of that “more progressive” messaging
happens much later than one’s introduction into the princess culture, so there
is an amount of “deprogramming” that must go on. This is of course if those
“progressive messages” aren’t tropes in and of themselves, which maintain the
delineation between the various dichotomous cages girls and women find
themselves in. Whether that be: the virgin/whore, wife/mother, “strength”/compassionate,
to “have it all”/ sacrifice. Then, set women up to fail, by requiring them to
do and be all of it.
Ghibli’s and Miyazaki’s Ponyo
avoids a lot of the sexist traps by skewing the ages of the characters in their
“little mermaid” to be considerably younger[15]. The love that develops between Ponyo and
Sosuke is never interpreted in a crassly sexual way; but in the way that a
child’s innocence allows for full emotional investment and acceptance. However,
regardless of the age difference, Miyazaki still gives Ponyo more agency, drive,
and determination than Ariel ever had. Ponyo and Sosuke meet and share a whole
day together, cementing their bond when Ponyo is still a goldfish. She actively
expresses her affection for Sosuke (and ham). Her rebellion begins when her
father takes her away from Sosuke; at which time she not only decides that she
wants to be human, but she escapes to be with Sosuke. At every turn Ponyo’s actions are her own, and
Miyazaki shows her parents not trying to regress this rebellion but accept it, allowing
Ponyo to make her choice as long as she knows the overall consequences. This is a princess story, like the other “Ghibli
Princess” stories, rewards the determination, anti-establishment rebelliousness
of its heroine. It does not minimize her desires or encourages her to be less
than herself for the attention and affection of someone else. It is the antidote to Disney’s poison.
Half-Hearted, Transparent
attempts at Reconciliation
Recently, Disney has made attempts to rectify some of their sexist and racist imagery in the name of inclusion and focus on diversity. This change is less about equality and more about the commodification of social justice for profit. Philosopher Savlov Zisek (2009) discusses this tactic as “cultural capitalism” in which a person buys a product and included in it is the ability to not feel like a consumerist. Thus, through the process of purchasing a product you ultimately become a philanthropist, because through “ethical consumerism” your money can be used to support ideas, causes, and people you believe in. Feminist and Cultural Critic Andi Zeisler (2016) takes this a bit further when she recognizes how social movements like Feminism, anti-racism and environmentalism becomes commodified in a series of identity displaying products; (think of BLM hats, Che Guevara shirts, environmentalist pins, etc.) reducing the overall discourse around activism to be nothing more than a shopping spree. This disrupts social change, that might be a danger to the monolithic corporate control, while still allowing corporations to profit off the individuals that are protesting them. Disney has repeatedly done this with issues surrounding gay rights, representations of race, feminism, disability, and religious and cultural diversity. These changes that are made, are not because they believe in the cause of these social groups, but because they find it lucrative. Therefore, they only make the change if they believe said change will be profitable, the minute it isn’t, the messaging again becomes regressive.
Additionally,
Disney has also attempted to deflect criticism from its Princess Culture by having
newer characters point out their own sexism, while still reproducing it. The
latest example of this is in the character of Vanelope Von Sweets of Wreck-It
Ralph and its sequel Ralph Breaks the Internet. At the end of the
first film, Vanelope is revealed to be a Princess, but rejects all the
trappings of “the princess culture” that Disney has peddled for decades. This
acts less like an indictment of the culture, and more like Disney trying to
capture the attention and money from girls that have never identified with the
princess culture itself. Disney
continued this faux deconstruction of its brand by having Vanelope meet all of
the other Disney Princesses and comment on the sexist misogyny in their stories.
This again plays more as a deflection through humor rather than actual
contrition. In this short 10-minute sequence, Disney gives their princesses
more agency and action than in any of their other solo films combined. This
also does not change the fact that they are still profiting off of and
reinforcing all of the sexist misogyny in the previous Princess films. They,
like any corporation, are trying to have their cake, and eat it too.
CONCLUSION
Ponyo
is
a celebrated masterpiece of animation. It is Miyazaki confirming, yet again,
the benefit of two-dimensional hand drawn animation in storytelling. The care,
craft, and artistry of this film are unmatched. Additionally, this is the best
adaptation of the “Little Mermaid” story I have seen, allowing for more
positive gender messages than the regressive gender norms touted by Disney’s
version (even at the time it was created). For this reason, the overall track
record of Miyazaki, and the monolithic entity of bureaucratic corporatism that
Disney has become over the last 35 years, if anyone needs to see a “Princess”
film, I am more than happy to recommend a “Ghibli Princess” over the morally
dubious Disney versions.
REFERENCES
Baudrillard, Jean 1994. Simulacra and Simulation
Michigan: University of Michigan Press.
Giroux,
Henry A. and Grace Pollock 2010. The Mouse That Roared: Disney and the End
of Innocence Updated and Expanded edition. New York: Roman and Littlefield.
Orenstein,
Peggy 2011. Cinderella Ate My Daughter: Dispatches From the Front Lines of
The New Girlie-Girl Culture. New York: Harper Publishing
Zeisler,
Andi 2016. We Were Feminists Once: From Riot Grrl to Covergirl, the Buying
and Selling of a Political Movement New York: BBS Public Affairs
Zizek,
Slavoj 2009. First as Tragedy, Then as Farce. New York: Verso Publishing
[1] I
would like to think it was a lot of the misogynistic and sexist tropes in
Disney’s Version of The Little Mermaid that was what pushed Miyazaki
over the line. A Sort of equivalent of: “We’ll what Disney did was a sexist
piece of trash, and everyone thinks my son has surpassed me. “Hey Suzuki, hold
my Tea, I am going to take all of these people to school
[2]
Yes, Kathleen Kennedy which would later go on to help the Disney Branch of Star
Wars.
[4]
Shout out to David Sims of the Blank Check podcast who, in their Ponyo
episode quips that Lisa (Sousuke’s mother) see Fugimoto and immediately assumes
that he is a pedophile ushering Sosuke into the car as quick as she can.
[5]
Phrase often used on the Podcast How’d this Get Made?
[6] Nausicaä,
Sheeta, San, and Poyo are Ghibli royalty
[7] EPCOT
World Showcase
[8]
The use of the word” little” in the title is pejorative by itself; when you are
talking about a teenage “girl” it also adds a level of creepiness to it.
[9] Eric
is like 26 right?
[10]
Though we could all argue she is just horny
[11]
Analogous to plastic surgery
[12]
Yes I did have the urge to write “tail”.
[13]
Do not look at Ariel deviant fan art
[14] Female
pleasure including masturbation is rarely part of the narrative
[15] For
comparison Disney did the opposite of this for their animated feature on Pocahontas
aging up the 12-year-old historical figure to someone in their twenties
