This article was written by Rebekah Brannan as part of the Breening Thursdays series.
PEPS has decided to start off the new year with a splash by breening The Little Mermaid from 1989. This family classic, the first film in the genre known as the Disney Renaissance, has been loved and revered since its release in 1989. However, like the subject of my last article, Beauty and the Beast, this film includes many vulgar, inappropriate, and potentially offensive elements. When watching this film again as a self-regulator, I was surprised to find that, although it has a generally lighter feeling than Beauty and the Beast, this film has far more unacceptable elements. Although it features lovable characters, catchy songs, and a charming storyline, when you watch this film from a breening standpoint rather than that of a typical viewer, the amount of unacceptable elements and scenarios is shocking. As a start to this new year, I will be showing you how even a beloved family film like The Little Mermaid is riddled with problems without the guidance of the PCA. Now, the lights dim, the theater hushes, and the screen bubbles to life! Get ready for a journey of breening under the sea, because here comes The Little Mermaid!
1. The first problem occurs within the first minute, showing that the film is going to be riddled with problems. We see Prince Eric’s ship out on the ocean with Eric at the bow. He asks Grimsby, his advisor, if sailing isn’t great. Grimsby sarcastically replies, “Delightful,” as his face turns green and he quickly leans over the side. Discussion of someone getting sick is vulgar, and making a joke about seasickness could be offensive to many people who suffer from it.
2. The next problem, although I will only mention it once in this article, is an ongoing problem which arises every time a mermaid is shown. All the mermaids in the film, Ariel in particular, wear skimpy shell tops which leave practically all of their torsos bare. Also, the tops of the mermaids’ tails, which are high enough on the back and the sides, dip down right at the front so that the navel is exposed. The tops must fully cover the chest, and the tails must come up high enough to cover the navel. Also, when Ariel is shown from the shoulders up, she looks as though she is not wearing a top. This is not entirely unacceptable, but I would recommend that her top have straps and a wider band in the back.
3. The next problem occurs after Ariel and Flounder trap a shark that has been chasing them. Flounder sticks his tongue out at the shark and makes a raspberry sound. Raspberries are forbidden by the Code, so this must be eliminated.
4. The next problem is also an ongoing one which presents itself every time we see the villain, Ursula. She is an octopusmaid, rather than a mermaid, and her tentacles connect to a skin-tight, low-cut black top. This top must cut higher in the front and back and be loose enough that her entire anatomy is not visible through it.
5. The next problem also involves Ursula. In one of her early scenes, as she laments her life as an outcast, she picks up a live shrimp with prominent eyeballs and eats it alive, in a close-up! This is horrible and disgusting and must be eliminated. If she must eat something, it should be dead and not have eyes. Perhaps she could have a plate of aquatic shrimp hors d’oevres.
6. The next problem takes place during Ariel’s big song, “Part of Your World.” When she says, “walking along….” she pantomimes walking by exaggeratedly shifting her hips from side to side. Although she does have a tail and therefore doesn’t technically have hips, the shape of her tail suggests the shape of legs, thus making this exaggerated hip movement suggestive.
7. When Ariel is watching Eric on his boat, a shot of the dog, Max, shows him slobbering excessively. This excessive slobbering is slightly vulgar and should be toned down.
8. The next problem occurs when Ariel has rescued Eric from drowning. She asks Scuttle the seagull if Eric is dead, and Scuttle checks by pulling Eric’s eyelid open so that you can see his eyeball. The manner in which he does this is rather vulgar and could be offensive. If he must check by looking in his eye, he should gently push up his eyelid without letting the audience see his eye, as doctors in Code films do.
9. The next problem is another ongoing one relating to Ursula. She has a garden of horrible little creatures called polyps, who are really transformed merfolk. The polyps should be made less grotesque, since their appearance could be offensive or frightening to some people.
10. Ursula’s short, unfeminine hairstyle, when combined with her low voice, makes her seem slightly mannish. Her low voice may remain, but her hairstyle should be made softer, longer, and more feminine.
11. The next problem takes place during the song “Under the Sea.” In this song, Sebastian says, “the blackfish, she sings,” and a black fish with rather large lips sings in a stereotypical African-American way. This fish could be offensive, and its appearance and voice must be made less stereotypical.
12. In this same number, a fish that looks like Carmen Miranda is shown dancing and rubbing her posterior with a piece of seaweed. Although this character is a fish, she is personified as a woman, so this vulgar movement must be eliminated.
13. The next problem occurs during Ursula’s song, “Poor Unfortunate Souls.” At one point in the song, she says, “on the whole I’ve been a saint,” putting a strand of seaweed over her head in a slight replication of the Virgin Mary. This is offensive to Christians and must be changed.
14. In the same song, just a moment later, Ursula comes toward the camera, now rubbing her posterior with the afore-mentioned seaweed as her chest jiggles right in front of the camera. She should not rub her posterior or dance in a way that causes her chest to jiggle. Of course, she would jiggle less if she were wearing a proper outfit with proper support.
15. Later in this scene, when Ursula is describing her spell to Ariel, she shows the little mermaid a silhouette of herself as a human, which appears to be naked. It must be made quite clear that the silhouette is wearing substantial clothing.
16. In this same scene, Ursula rolls across her cauldron as her tentacles swirl; this seems rather suggestive and should be eliminated.
17. When Ursula is trying to convince Ariel that she doesn’t need her voice to win Eric, she suggestively says, “And don’t underestimate the importance of body language,” while suggestively swinging her hips. If less accent is put on the italicized words and the accompanying movement is eliminated, the lyric may remain.
18. When Ursula begins making the brew for her spell, she throws multiple bottles holding strange creatures with prominent eyeballs into the cauldron, where they explode. This is violent and potentially disturbing and must be changed. The bottles should merely contain liquid, sand, plants, etc.
19. When Ursula casts the spell to take Ariel’s voice, two green hands made of smoke reach down her throat and pull out her voice, which is shown as a glowing golden ball. This is rather horrible and disgusting and must be changed. Instead of hands, a stream of green light should swirl around Ariel, draw her voice out of her, and sweep it into Ursula’s locket.
20. When Ariel transforms into a human, she writhes inside a golden bubble, and we see her tail split before the two halves turn into legs. This is rather violent and should be toned down. As with the removal of Ariel’s voice, the less morbid details shown, the better. A swirling golden light should surround Ariel’s tail for a few seconds before swirling away to reveal legs.
21. When Ariel transforms into a human, it is evident that she is not wearing anything but her shell top. There is not even any attempt to hide this fact, since multiple shots give us glimpses of the area below her waist. It must be quite obvious that she is wearing suitable bathing suit bottoms which cut low enough to cover her posterior and high enough to cover her navel.
22. Later, when Scuttle fails to guess what has changed about Ariel, Sebastian says that she’s got legs, exclaiming, “Jeez, man.” Jeez is a forbidden expression and must be changed to gee or some other acceptable exclamation.
23. When Scuttle dresses Ariel in an old sail he finds on the beach, the dress he makes out of it has a large slit which reveals too much of her legs. The slit must be either lowered or eliminated so that her new legs are not unduly revealed.
24. Later, when Ariel is taking a bath in Eric’s palace, the bubbles do not quite come up high enough to cover her chest completely. The bubbles must come up as high as a decent neckline so that she is not unduly exposed.
25. When Sebastian, who is hiding in Ariel’s makeshift dress, gets dunked into a washerwoman’s tub, he crudely burps. Burping is unacceptable and must be eliminated.
26. After her bath, Ariel enters the dining room in her famous pink dress. The neckline of this dress exposes too much of her chest and must be brought up. The dress will be just as beautiful and flattering with a higher neckline.
27. When Sebastian stumbles into the palace kitchen, he sees the chef, Louie, cooking a variety of seafood. Disgusted and horrified by the sight, Sebastian looks as though he is about to be sick. Just as in the opening scene, this is vulgar and must be eliminated.
28. As he cooks, Louie sings a happy little tune, “Les Poissons.” Among the song’s lyrics are the words, “I pull out what’s inside,” which Louie sings as he pulls something out of the fish he is butchering. This is rather vulgar and should be eliminated.
29. This song also features the unacceptable lyric, “God, I love little fishes, don’t you?” This is blasphemous and must be changed to a different exclamation.
30. In this same scene, Sebastian runs into a fish head with very prominent eyeballs. These prominent eyes are rather disgusting, since the fish is dead, and should be made smaller and less prominent.
31. In a later scene, when Sebastian is coaching Ariel on how to make Eric kiss her, he says, “You’ve gotta pucker up your lips like this.” He demonstrates by puckering his lips as he speaks, causing some spit to fly from his mouth. This is vulgar and should be eliminated.
32. In a later scene, Sebastian once again uses the forbidden expression Jeez. Like before, the exclamation must be replaced with gee or some other acceptable exclamation.
33. Later, Ursula, disguised as Vanessa, is singing a vindictive song about her wedding. As she sings, she throws a pin at the mirror frame, where it hits a carved cherub between the eyes. This is rather violent and should be eliminated.
34. The clergyman who marries Vanessa and Eric, who seems to be a bishop, is rather clumsy, confused, and overall comical. Comedic members of the clergy are entirely unacceptable, and the character must be made completely serious.
35. When Scuttle assembles some animals to crash the wedding, a flock of birds fly under Vanessa’s skirt, causing it to fly up. This is vulgar and must be eliminated.
36. During this same animal attack, Max bites Vanessa on her posterior. This also is vulgar and must be removed.
37. When Ursula changes back to her true form, her ample flesh bursts the slim-fitting wedding dress. This is quite vulgar and must be eliminated.
38. Later, when Ursula has captured Ariel, Eric throws a harpoon at her, making a strange, dark purple slice mark on her arm. This rather violent and should be changed. If her arm must get cut, the cut should not be too disgusting, and her blood should be a natural red, not dark purple.
39. When Ursula tries to blast Eric with the trident, she accidentally blasts her two eels, Flotsam and Jetsam, and they float down into her hands as small bits of sea-drift. These bits and pieces are disgusting and should be removed. When Flotsam and Jetsam are blasted, they should merely disappear.
40. Later, when Ursula grows to tremendous proportions, her voice becomes very big and deep. Since she already has a very low voice, this change makes her a baritone. Her voice may get louder and larger, but it must remain a woman’s voice.
41. Eric finally defeats Ursula by stabbing her with a jagged board on a wrecked ship. You actually see the board pierce her skin and then see a shot of it sticking through the other side of her. This is unduly violent and must be changed. If she must be stabbed in this fashion, we must not see the board piercing her flesh or sticking through her.
42. The rest of the death scene is also too violent. A flash of lightning makes Ursula’s skeleton briefly visible. After she sinks with the ship, an explosion erupts in the sea, and small bits of tentacles and other debris float down to her lair. We must not see her skeleton, she should not explode, and no floating debris should be left. 43. When Eric and Ariel are at last reunited, they finally share true love’s kiss. This kiss appears to be open-mouthed, something which is forbidden under the Code. Their kiss may be loving and affectionate but not lustful or open-mouthed. 44. In the final shot of the film, Ariel and Eric kiss again. This kiss appears to be open-mouthed also. It must be made not to appear lustful at all, and their mouths must clearly be closed.
This concludes my breening journey under the sea. As you can see from this article, a beloved family film contains forty-four unacceptable elements. Although there are more surface problems in The Little Mermaid than in Beauty and the Beast, the latter contains more dangerous subliminal messaging. However, there are important dangers in The Little Mermaid, as well. The primary problem is the amount of clothing worn by the mermaids. This consistent lack of clothing, particularly on the heroine, makes young girls become accustomed to dressing inappropriately. Many girls grew up watching this film and saw Ariel as a role model. When girls grew up with a role model like this, no wonder today they walk down the street practically half-dressed. Problems like these in supposed children’s films must be observed for the protection of our youth. We must open our eyes and our children’s eyes to the dangers in these films so that they will not in any way be damaged by their flaws.
I wish you all a happy new year, and I hope that you will continue to come here for more breening in 2019!
Click the above image to buy this movie on DVD at Amazon and support PEPS through the Amazon Affiliate program!
Follow us to bring back the Code and save the arts in America!
We are lifting our voices in classical song to help the sun rise on a new day of pure entertainment!
7 thoughts on “Breening Thursday: 12. “The Little Mermaid” from 1989 by Rebekah Brannan”
Pingback: Breening Thursday: 18. “Pocahontas” from 1995 by Rebekah Brannan | pure entertainment preservation society
I very much appreciate your kind remark, and I will naturally be interested in your sister’s response in content and context. This is a very important project.
I have only just discovered this project and will check in for future breenings with great interest as I deeply appreciate the moral tone. I wanted to mention my support here, but also, I recently rewatched The Little Mermaid in preparation for deciding to let my nieces’ watch it (they will not be, at least not with me) and I was disappointed in how much more unwholesome much of it is than I remembered. There are just a few things you didn’t directly mention that I would be uncomfortable letting young children, especially girls, see and I am curious why they didn’t make it into this as I don’t feel that I am overreacting at all, and your work seems quite thorough. My complaints are two brief comments on Ariel’s clothing that you didn’t mention, and some further problems with Ursula’s Vanessa persona.
1: After King Triton transforms Ariel back into a human, her sparkly dress is inappropriate. I can tolerate the close fit up to a point, but the slit on that gown goes practically up to her hip.
2: Similarly, although less seriously, Ariel’s wedding gown is troublesome in terms of the neckline this time. While it’s not that low in the grand scheme of things, more of her chest is revealed than necessary, especially after Vanessa already wore a gown that did not reveal her chest.
3: I have a lot of deep reservations with almost all the Vanessa scenes beyond what you’ve touched on here (although I do appreciate the egregious moments that you do mention). I think I would be inclined to either scrap or drastically rewrite that whole character. In her case, particularly, several of these aren’t the biggest objections in the world, but coming rapid-fire, one after the other makes it hard to accept or overlook them.
3A: In the scene where Eric announces he wants to marry Vanessa, I do feel that the way she cuddles up to him is unnecessary — it’s innocent enough for a bride to be, but the heavy-lidded, lustful expression on her face is too suggestive.
3B: When Vanessa sings her song and climbs up onto the vanity to get to the mirror, she does so in an extremely unladylike manner, hiking her skirt almost all the way up her thighs, even close to her hips; I could maybe tolerate this animated a little differently, or at an angle that doesn’t clearly bare so much of her legs to the viewer, but even then, there’s no need for the skirt to be lifted that highly and she’s standing in front of a mirror which is inappropriately suggestive.
3C: The entire wedding scene is a bridge too far. I might even have been prepared to overlook the first two scenes if this one wasn’t so extreme, but coming one after the other, there’s no other way to look at it. In addition to her skirt flying up when birds fly under it and her rear end being bitten, I feel that the starfish clinging to her chest is suggestive to the point of vulgarity, seals bouncing her repeatedly up and down on her rear end is excessive, and the way she lands in the wedding cake is extremely distasteful. I am not a prude, I accept that for some slapstick, physical humor, these things can be funny, but in each case the specifics are either too suggestive or overtly vulgar. Aside from exposing too much of her legs, the entire implication of the birds flying under her skirt is distasteful and inappropriate, when they could have, for slapstick purposes, just as easily pulled on her veil or perhaps bouquet. The starfish could be funny, and most attention goes to the starfish on her face, but it’s possible to do that without them on her chest there’s no need for them to cling specifically there; at the very least they shouldn’t land on her chest dead center in a way that makes it look like that’s what they’re trying to do. The seals can even bounce her up and down once or twice, but it happens I think 5 or 6 times by which point it’s less of a sudden funny development and too pointed, that they’re targeting specifically her rear end. The cake is especially vulgar; perhaps even more so than the birds under her skirt. I can accept food based slapstick tastefully handled; if it was just a cake in her face moment (briefly) I wouldn’t complain. But she lands on the cake in a sitting position, with her legs spread far too far apart and the bottom of her skirt shown, fluttering suggestively open. While I suppose it’s a minor mercy that only her feet, rather than her legs, are shown at the bottom of the skirt, this is a completely unacceptable way to stage the slapstick. Again not all of this is equally questionable, and if the only inappropriate element were, say, even the flock of birds I might grit my teeth, but when they’re all put together moment to moment in the same scene, it needs to be completely redone.
3D: A final corollary to all of the above, but especially the wedding — again, for slapstick purposes I accept that Vanessa getting splashed with water, at her own wedding, could be funny. But her wedding gown goes from a slim fit (in general, I think all of her dresses ride a close line to being too tight, but manage to be acceptable) to skin tight; in a very inappropriate way, beyond her transformation back into Ursula which you touch on. Again, I could perhaps let that go if it was just a brief moment in the scuffle, but after she loses her necklace and begins to get back to her feet, her chest not only sticks through the fabric in a way that shows it to be completely unsupported, it visibly jiggles. Her knees show through her skirt a moment later too which is completely unnecessary.
It is particularly frustrating to watch these scenes with when they would be extremely easy to fix without altering the plot content. The wedding in particular is so excessive, birds don’t need to fly under her dress, they could simply pluck at her veil. Splashed water could muss her hair without sticking to her figure, and so on.
In any event, I apologize for going on so long, but I was happy to see this project and interested to read your conclusions. I do feel, however that there are a couple of points you might not have considered and, in particular, I was extremely put off by the Vanessa sequences. A character present for maybe 10 minutes of screentime should not be the repeated punchline of vulgar physical gags.
It is perhaps rude of me to ask, but I am curious if you came to a different conclusion on any of that? I don’t want to think that I’m overreacting, but I was astounded on rewatching this, especially with regards to the Vanessa character and finding and reading several of your “breenings” gave me a vocabulary to put my finger on it. Anyway, that’s my two scents, and I hope you don’t feel I’ve been out of line. Thank you very much for this project.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you for your thoughtful, detailed comment. My sister, Rebekah, who wrote this article, will respond to you more fully later today.
This is Rebekah Brannan. Thank you for taking the time to read my article and to give it such careful thought. It is so encouraging to find a reader who is so enthusiastic about the project! I am glad that my article led you to think so thoroughly about this film that you found some other points. Let me give you my thoughts on your comments.
1: I considered the slit, but I thought that it was acceptable in this case because the whole point of the scene is to show Ariel’s legs. However, perhaps it should have been made smaller.
2: I don’t find Ariel’s wedding dress to be inappropriately low-cut, since no cleavage is actually shown. However, I respect your opinion if you do, and I am impressed by how decent you are!
3A: In another situation, I think I would agree that such behavior is inappropriately suggestive. However, I don’t think that Vanessa’s reaction is lustful in regard to the marriage to Eric. I think that she is revealing in her wicked plot and the fact that she is going to take over the ocean. Maybe I’m wrong on this point. If you find something suggestive, that alone is a valid point.
3B: I thought about this but decided not to cut it out. After I read your comment, I rewatched this scene. I agree that her skirt should not be lifted so high. I am going to add a point about this to my article.
3C: From the very first stages of breening, I found this wedding scene slapstick to be full of vulgar humor. I wholeheartedly agree with you on most of your points, as well as the general feeling. As I’m sure you noticed, I made note that the flock of birds flying under her skirt and the dog biting her posterior must be removed. I rewatched this scene. I see your point about the starfish. I admit that I missed that, but you are right about the two starfish clinging suggestively to her chest. Also, the sea lion bouncing is excessive. I am going to make notes about removing those elements.
3D: You are correct that her chest is a little too visible and unsupported through the dress. That should be changed.
No matter how careful and thorough a self-regulator tries to be, it is easy to miss things or not see them in a way which could be unacceptable. If you have read my sister’s weekly 52 Code Films, you will notice that she acknowledges that not even all films from the Breen Era are completely free from objection. I appreciate your help with this film. I edited my “Aladdin” article a little after publishing it, so these articles can be a work in progress! Both my sister and I appreciate your attention to detail and your vigilance concerning the entertainment of your nieces.
Because of your excellent grasp of the Code and breening, we would like to invite you to write a guest breening article for our website! You can see guidelines on how to breen here: https://pureentertainmentpreservationsociety.wordpress.com/2017/09/21/how-to-breen/. A list of films we have already breened is here: https://pureentertainmentpreservationsociety.wordpress.com/2018/10/28/breening-thursdays/. You can send us the text in an email or a document to firstname.lastname@example.org, and we will republish it on the website, with pictures of your choice and full writing credit for you. We would be honored to feature your talented insight.
By the way, I would like to invite you to a blogathon I am hosting, “The Phantom of the Opera Blogathon.” Taking place on September 23-25, it will be dedicated to all things “phantom.” I don’t know if you are a “phan,” but we would love to have you join us! https://pureentertainmentpreservationsociety.wordpress.com/2019/08/14/its-here-the-phantom-of-the-opera-blogathon/.
I want to say first that I am so appreciative of your kind words and your equally kind reception of my thoughts. Even if we disagreed on certain particulars it is a relief to find someone who does agree about the nature of these films. I will look very closely at your “breening” standards and consider the possibility of a guest article very seriously.
Due partly to the age of my nieces, I am particularly concerned with children’s entertainment these days, and I did indeed note, and was delighted, that you had mentioned the flock of birds flying under Vanessa’s dress to make her skirt fly up above her knees and the dog biting her rear end. Your mention of these specific moments was what inspired me to share my opinions. Although there were many other disqualifying elements prior to that for me, it was in fact the flock of birds flying under her skirt that decided me firmly that the overall film was not appropriate. Now, I would like to briefly respond to your thoughts on my initial thoughts, to give you a full context on anything you are considering as perhaps a worthwhile addition to the “completeness” of this article.
1:I can respect a difference of opinion on this point. On reflection the animation is quite brief, and the frontal camera view limits the amount of visibility of Ariel’s legs . I am not at all convinced, though, that any woman needs a slit that goes so high up her leg.
2: This is also a fair judgement. You are right about the cleavage. In general I found the film’s animation inconsistent in this regard, that gown, and both Vanessa’s sundress and slip have cuts that come very close to exposing cleavage, which I considered mentioning at first, but declined to do so for the same reason you just mentioned. I additionally thought about complaining about Vanessa’s slip, both for being rather form-fitting and an undergarment, but didn’t find that to be the most essential point in that scene. In any case, I suspect that Ariel’s dress bothered me in the moment following so closely after Vanessa’s wedding disgusted me, when Vanessa’s gown had at least covered her completely. And they even found a way to get around that!
3A: I revisited this scene to consider your point and my initial feeling about it. I think, in itself, it may have slipped past me, or not seemed so lustful, if it wasn’t for the fact that Vanessa already was touching Eric’s chest, standing very closely pulled in to his side by their linked arms, and looking at Eric with a sort of possessive expression all before she snuggles up to his side and rubs herself against it with her sultry and heavy-lidded smile. Revisiting this scene carefully, I noticed that during the snuggling, her hand on his chest also strokes him. It all felt more femme fatale-esque rather than less after that revisiting. All put together it created a feeling or an atmosphere that, aside from her plan to take over the ocean, she was enjoying her current situation of being Vanessa and marrying Eric from a lustful point of view. I think this impression was also supported for me by the fact that Vanessa lustfully cuddles Eric after the conversation with Grimsby had ended, implying that he had probably turned around and was not there, so she was taking her opportunity to act lustful. Even the fact that she lustfully cuddles Eric immediately after watching Ariel run away crying adds to my feeling that it was lustful, that she was enjoying her ability to cuddle Eric when Ariel couldn’t for lustful reasons, not only because of the other reasons for her plans. In revisiting this scene, it also made me think a little differently about Ursula calling Eric “quite a catch” and then addressing him as “lover-boy” on the wedding ship, that those may have represented her genuine, lustful opinion. That, anyway, is my considered feeling about that scene with reasons, but I could understand disagreeing about it, it’s fairly subtle.
3B: I’m glad you agree on this point and don’t have much else to add other than that since the camera captures the moment looking at Vanessa’s profile, her entire leg is obviously sticking out in plain view. This is compounded by the unacceptable detail that her hiked up skirt is visibly bunched up around her hips, and as she holds it in place almost none of the bottom of her skirt flapping below her hips.
3C: And thank you for considering more of the entirety of Vanessa’s wedding scene. I agree that even the relatively inoffensive moments feel somehow tainted by the palpably vulgar tone to most of the humor and that with exception of the wedding march and the priest reading the vows, the entire feeling of the scene is fundamentally vulgar. I also revisited this scene in detail to consider more fully the context of why I noticed the other elements which you did not initially consider and may or may not agree with me about. As I said earlier, the flock of birds flying under Vanessa’s skirt was initially my biggest problem with the scene. It did strike me that even her efforts to maintain her balance while the birds fly under her skirt are vulgarized by being rather ungainly and unladylike movements. Of course, she would have had better balance if she was not wearing high heels. Reading between the lines, I think you may disagree with my feeling about Vanessa falling into the wedding cake, which I can respect, but I do personally feel that if this is included Vanessa should either fall into the wedding cake from a different direction or in a different position. As to starfish, upon revisiting the scene it became clear to me that I noticed them because they rather vulgarly flatten the shape of Vanessa’s chest when for most of the scene the shape of her chest is emphasized by her slim fit gown, and then overemphasized by her slim fit gown being splashed wet, and so it called attention to what exactly the starfish were suggestively doing. Similarly, the sea lions stood out by the repetition of bouncing Vanessa up and down on her rear end emphasizing that she was being bounced in a specific and deliberate way.
3D: This point, I am glad we agree on and there is really nothing much to add. While I realize that Vanessa’s chest jiggling at this moment is probably meant as a reflection of her having been doused in seawater, it is simply unacceptably vulgar for Vanessa’s, especially after Ursula in her ocean form already jiggles far too much, chest to be visibly jiggling at her own wedding ceremony in a wedding dress in front of all her wedding guests.
I apologize for seeming to have produced another small article here, but I did want to be sure to give a full accounting of the context and reasons for the points that I had made. If you are considering your own judgement on adding any of these points to your own “breening” I felt that it was important to equip you with everything that I was inspired to share after your own contributions of the flock of birds flying under her skirt and the dog biting her rear end. Also, as I have mentioned earlier, I will now be thinking very seriously about the possibility of contributing to your “breening’s” and I will be in contact with you regarding that.
Thank you so much for your kind reception of my thoughts, and I am honored and delighted with any contribution I may have indirectly made in this case.
Rebekah, I appreciate your thorough and caring breening of this film. It takes great courage to expose flaws in a family classic, and 44 unacceptable items is astounding! Any reasonable parent, or child for that matter, would have to agree with the changes you have recommended. Excellent writing, and great images! Thank you, and keep up the good work! Love, Daddy (James Brannan, President of PEPS)