I watched Ursula in particular. She's a good villian, and besides the dribble about the reestablishment of the patriarchy when it is Triton's powers that give Ariel her wish instead of having her act on her own accord, I actually agree with much of what the critics say. Yes. Ursula is absolutely the transgressive embodiment of voluptuous female sexuality. She is vast and sensual, and greedy and gluttinous. She is definitely impaled by Eric, and sure--let's call it a symbolic rape. I'm okay with that. Eric conquors her sexuality--and she self-destructs. We have evil sexualized females operating outside of the social order all throughout traditional fairy tales--and yes, Gilbert and Gubar have attacked all of that as well. But once we establish that, what do we do with it? If what you do is celebrate all manifestations of assertive female sexuality, then this will resonate as very bad. The "witch"--who represents what female sexuality is without so-called patriarchal control (which is to say, the woman who operates outside of what is acceptable to the social order)--is revealed as hyper-sexualized and grotesque, and is defeated by the prince. The reestablishment of the social order by marriage is celebrated, much as it is in Shakespeare's comedies. If you believe that there is something fundamentally wrong with the social order, then you will necessarily want to criticize this ending. However, traditional fairy tales do function to reinforce rather than to subvert the social order, and to criticize Disney for doing that is to misunderstand the function, and also to try to recreate Disney in the critic's own image. I have no problem, then, with Ursula's embodiment of unrestrained sexuality, or with her subsequent defeat.
However, to say that the patriarchy is all that it's cracked up to be in Disney's The Little Mermaid is not to pay attention. So let's take a look at Triton. He is not a strong king. He is not a strong father. His daughter defies him, gets out from under his thumb, and is rewarded rather than punished for her transgressions. But that's not where I want to go, either. Let's look at his self-giving sacrifice for a moment.
When Ursula is about to foreclose on Ariel, transforming her into a little worm-like creature that no doubt has some kind of sexual significance for the feminist critics (I don't get to lay into them too often, and I've got years of grad school to make up for), Triton appears to prevent Ursula's wicked scheme from coming to fruition. His first act is very manly--he simply blasts the glowing magical contract. Way to go, masculinity. Score one for the patriarchy. Ursula, however, is wise to the ways of the patriarchy. She knows that brute force is no match for legalisms. So as it turns out, the contract is legal. And though she will try to sabotage a contract--which is the only way Ariel did not "win" their bargain, incidentally--she agrees to be bound by them when the decks are stacked in her favor. So she offers the all-powerful sea king a deal. His own freedom in exchage for Ariel.
On the surface, Triton's sacrifice is noble. In fact, if you're not still in 16-year-old girl-power mode, you might notice that he loves his daughter more than his daughter loves him--rather like Cordelia and Lear (another ineffective monarch undone by his daughters/offspring). But what is he really sacrificing?
Triton is not simply a father. He is a king. So by sacrificing himself for Ariel, he is placing her above all of her sisters, his kingdom--oh, and by the way, all of the oceans, and humanity's travel, trade, shipping, couastline cilvilization--and placing them all into the hands of pure, voluptuous evil. Score another one for the patriarchy. But he loves his daughter, so it's okay. I'm not sure I can get behind that. Particularly when--is it really his daughter he is thinking of, or only parental insecurity? Is he making it up to Ariel for being a bad father by wrecking the whole world's oceans? Way to show you care, Dad.
When you add it all up, Ariel's freedom is not worth the sacrifice that he makes. After all, he is not godlike. He can't keep up with his own daughter, so we know that he is not concerned with every sparrow. But what should Triton have done? The contract was legal, right?
Maybe he knew that Eric would come along--but we've already established that he's not omniscient, so no. But it is worth noting that Eric kills Ursula--it was always his intent to do so (score one for the land-based patriarchy!) Why does Ursula deserve to die? (I mean, besides representing dark female sexuality.) She has drawn up two contracts, and rightfully secured possession of the ocean, which she will now proceed to destroy. So misuse of power. Standard Macchiavelli. She does rather expect Eric and Ariel to fall in line or be destroyed. But there was also the small matter of the original contract, which she sabotaged. And if Eric had the right to destroy her, couldn't Triton have indicted her on that account rather than trying to blast the paper? Why, yes. And he had evidence from Sebastian to condemn her for breach of contract. Heh. Score one for the incompetant patriarch who had to wait for the land mammal to come along and save the day.