The New York Times has caused an uproar online after it published a review of the new live–action version of “The Little Mermaid“ that complained the movie lacked “kink.”
The reference to the word “kink,” which in a sexual context can mean “unusual sexual preferences,” raised an immediate outcry given that the film is rated PG and meant to be enjoyed by children and families.
Movie critic Wesley Morris wrote in The Times review that the new version of “The Little Mermaid“ “reeks of obligation and noble intentions. Joy, fun, mystery, risk, flavor, kink — they’re missing.”
Political commentator Ian Miles Cheong was quick to criticize The Times for bringing up the word “kink“ with regards to a children‘s movie, tweeting: “The New York Times wants ‘kink’ in a movie made for children, and they’re sad that The Little Mermaid doesn’t have any of it.”
Director Robby Starbuck pointed to the definition of the word “kink“ to make his point, writing on Twitter: “The New York Times just put up a review of the Little Mermaid where the reviewer complains that KINK was missing from the film. The definition of kink: a person’s unusual sexual preferences. Same media denies the left sexualizes kids. The reviewer needs his hard drives reviewed.”
Morris, meanwhile, also noted the extensive diversity among the movie‘s cast, which included casting a Black actress, Halle Bailey, as Ariel and making the prince, Eric, the adopted son of a Black queen, Selina, and her chief servant.
“This is important, culturally reparative work from a corporation,” Morris wrote.
After the review initially sparked outrage and confusion, Vice President of Pedagogy at Higher Ground Education, Matt Bateman, offered a defense for the review, while not entirely defending “kink“ himself.
Bateman admitted that while he couldn‘t “completely defend the use of the word ‘kink,'” he was sympathetic to the idea that the romance in children‘s movies has become “more jokey and sanitized and sterile.”
The review has divided filmgoers online, with many asking why the word was mentioned at all. Disney, however, has remained silent on the issue.
The controversy also sparked a larger debate around the power of corporations in children‘s films, and how these companies can use their properties to promote diversity.
No matter what one thinks of The Times‘ review, it‘s clear that it has drawn attention to the larger issues around children‘s media and how that media shapes young viewers.
Only time will tell whether Disney or other corporations will take Morris‘s suggestions to heart and prioritize romance and representation in children‘s films.
