Bit of a longer post this week, but if you know me, you know that The Little Mermaid has always been one of my absolute favorite Disney movies. Tiny Me was the target audience for its original release, and whatever the online discourse about it, I have continued to love it.
Is it a perfect movie? No, and I'd be the first to admit that. But I fear it has a chokehold on me that will never let up.
Luckily, there's always been a lot of Little Mermaid representation in the parks:
Opened in 1992 at MGM-Studios park, The Voyage of the Little Mermaid closed with the rest of Disney World in March of 2020 due to Covid. Over the next few years, there were reports of mold infestations and rumors that the show would be going away completely. Then, around the time of the live-action release in 2023, Disney announced that they were bringing back a refreshed version of the show -- and I have been counting down the days until I had a chance to go and see it.
Luckily, I had that opportunity this summer -- and I kid you not, I saw this show 3 times in one afternoon. Was it because this offered an air-conditioned respite from the Florida heat & humidity? Maybe. But did I also love it? Yes.
On the way home from the lake the other day, my husband and I were talking about Aladdin (yes, again). And one of the things we were focusing on was the criticism that Disney didn't do enough with the live-action version.
This is something I struggle with with retellings in general. But I suppose that's the thing, isn't it? Disney isn't really "re-telling" the story -- at least not in the sense that Gail Carson Levine was retelling "Cinderella" withElla Enchanted or Susannah Grant and Andy Tennant did with Ever After (these two are generally highly regarded when it comes to retelling a classic fairy tale. There are, of course, numerous others, but these are two of my personal favorites.). What Disney is doing is re-making their beloved animated films and occasionally updating them. The closet they've come to retelling is Maleficent, since there's really not much there in the original animated film and Maleficent is, arguably, the most dynamic part of that film. (For the record, I hate the way Linda Woolverton & Co. transformed the Good Fairies, as Merrywether is my icon.)
BUT ANYWAY.
The point is, I think expecting Disney to radically change the fundamental story is setting yourself up for disappointment. This was never going to be Jasmine's story, because the story is, after all, called "Aladdin."
That being said, I do think there are opportunities to do something new and different, without fundamentally changing the narrative of the story.
Case in point: The Little Mermaid live-action film. Y'all know how much I LOVE this film and don't care what the prevailing academic argument about this is a horrible story for feminists because she gives up her voice yada yada yada. Production for the film is rumored to begin sometime in 2020, probably because Lin-Manuel Miranda is a very busy man. BUT. He is on-board:
And leaving aside all of LiLo's pleas to be cast as Ariel (NO, DISNEY. JUST NO -- which, to be honest, I don't think would every happen, as Disney is probably well aware of LiLo's career after she jumped the good ship Disney Channel Child Star) -- I think Disney could be radical and different with this film, simply by diversifying the cast.
Hans Christian Andersen's "The Little Mermaid" holds a unique position in fairy-tale-lore, since it is, to the best of my knowledge, an original story written by Andersen in 1837. (Unlike, say, "Cinderella," which has an analogue in most cultures around the world.) So, yes. While Andersen's authorship firmly locates the tale in the European (re: white) tradition, it's also about mermaids. So we're not bound by any "scientific" rules here or anything, since, you know, mermaids aren't real. (Whatever some people might think.)
Zendaya has long been the rumored favorite for the role, although nothing has been confirmed. I've seen a lot of clamor for Lea Michele to play the part, especially after her performance at the Hollywood Bowl recently:
You're welcome.
And I've always been a fan, but girl should be busy with rehearsals for Wicked, because if she isn't cast as Elphaba in that remake, then I want nothing to do with it.
As should Dove Cameron who, despite the 10-year-age-gap between her and Michele is one of my picks to play Galinda -- which is still relevant, because my husband thought Dove Cameron would make a good choice for Ariel as well.
BUT. After watching The Greatest Showman -- because I aged out of Disney Channel before her show Shake It Up aired -- I'm a fan. And totally support this casting choice.
We decided LMM would make a great Grimsby -- we could age him down from the fuddy-duddy butler he is in the animated film to more of best-friend-advisor -- and we know he can rock that period-piece-ponytail:
For King Triton -- we'd cast The Rock. We first thought of Jason Momoa, but that's a little on-the-nose given that he was just Aquaman. But the more we thought about it, the more we were on board, because (1) he is the model for fatherhood we need these days -- and with three daughters, he could easily channel that into the role since Ariel has 6 sisters; and (2) Triton was always weirdly buff for a dude with a white beard, and Disney could save on their CGI budget by casting The Rock. Edit: After some thought, I might be okay with Terry Crews as King Triton. Can he sing? Broadway Triton sings, I think...
We agreed that Tituss Burgess should have a role somewhere -- casting him as Sebastian is also a little on-the-nose since he originated the role on Broadway, but I'd like to see him as Ursula. This is the potentially most subversive -- and thus the potentially most important -- role for Disney to cast. While Ursula was voiced -- iconically! -- by Pat Carroll in the animated film, the character was famously modeled on the drag queen Divine and that legacy should not be underplayed. Casting a gay man or a draq queen or a trans actor would be an incredible move by Disney -- Harvey Fierstein recently played Ursula at The Hollywood Bowl -- although I can see them going with a bigger name for the star power. I think Lady Gaga is the rumored favorite, but Rebel Wilson also slayed at the Hollywood Bowl. Maybe NPR's Pop Culture Happy Hour team would be happy if Billy Porter was cast in this role?
As for Eric...IDK. So long as it's not Henry Cavill, I think I'm okay.
Yesterday, when I was scrolling through Facebook, I came across this article:
TBH, I felt really old because I didn't know who Lizzo is and I totally had to Google her.
Okay, Disclaimer before I go any further: I am not opposed to Lizzo playing Ursula; this article just reminded me of another one I read a few weeks ago:
Now, this...this I have thoughts on. Lots of thoughts.
First: y'all know my love for The Little Mermaid runs deep, no matter how many critics -- and celebrities (I'm looking at you, Kiera Knightley) -- point out how problematic it is. (I'm more in-line with the authors of this article from Time.) Second: y'all know I'm super excited about the live-action remake -- especially because it means Lin-Manuel Miranda is teaming up with Alan Menken and if that isn't a match made in a Disney fan's Heaven, I don't know what is. (Plus, I'm hoping LMM will be nominated for an Oscar for ANYTHING he writes here and The Little Mermaid will be the film that makes him an EGOT winner.) Third: I firmly believe Ursula is one of the -- if not THE -- best Disney villains and "Poor Unfortunate Souls" is my go-to car-karaoke-jam.
But.
I take issue with The Mary Sue's post caption, and the article doesn't do much to assuage me. Chelsea Steiner's writing in response to the rumors -- emphasis on rumors -- that Lady Gaga might play Ursula in the live-action adaptation. Here's her argument:
"Sea witch, please: Ursula is a fat girl icon. In an animated world populated with slender princesses, Ursula has stood out not only as a legendary Disney villain, but as an unlikely role model for body positivity. Ursula is confident, clever, and able to run a successful business helping poor unfortunate merfolk solve their problems.
Ursula makes being bad look like a total blast, which is a shocking rarity for plus-size women in popular culture, who are too frequently portrayed as the butt of the joke. Ursula is not a dowdy shrew, nor is she a desperate wannabe seeking approval from King Triton and the rest of Atlantica. She marches to beat of her own drum fish, no matter how unpopular it may be.
Over the years, Ursula has become an unlikely icon for the LGBTQ+ community as well. It’s well known that the character was based on John Waters’ muse, the outlandish drag queen Divine, and was brought to life by the music of gay lyricist Howard Ashman."
To Steiner's credit, I kinda see her point. I do agree that she's become an "icon for the LGBTQ+ community" -- the character's connection to Divine and Ashman have been solidified over the years, and it's a piece of Disney Trivia that always blows my students' minds.
I also agree that Ursula "makes being bad look like a total blast," because I'm a sucker for a villain who enjoys being bad and doesn't have some broken-heart-backstory that "explains" her villainy.
But that's just the thing: Ursula IS a villain. Seeing her as running "a successful business" when she's actually manipulating merfolk, no matter how naive they may be, by preying on their weaknesses and insecurities because of some vendetta with Triton? That's a loose interpretation at best.
And, yes. Steiner's not wrong when she says that, "in an animated world populated with slender princesses, Ursula has stood out" -- but I don't think it's in a good way. There are so few plus-size characters in Disney at all -- only a handful come to mind. Russell from Up is one, as are Lilo and Nani from Lilo & Stitch and while Elasti-Girl is surprisingly hippy for an animated character -- as she should be! She's had three kids! -- she still has that impossibly tiny Disney waist. But narrow the parameters to princess movies? The only non-hourglass shaped females are older, benevolent females -- the Fairy Godmother from Cinderella; the Three Fairies from Sleeping Beauty; and Mrs. Potts from Beauty and the Beast.
And then there's Ursula. Her age is a little hard to pin-down, and even figuring out that she's a contemporary of Triton's isn't much of a help, since he's white-haired but surprisingly muscular. Plus, the guy's got a 16 year old daughter. But, like most-villains, she's probably middle-aged -- older than the teenage princesses but younger than the benevolent helper fairies.
So, here's my grief: when your most famous plus-size character is a villain -- when your only plus-size character is a villain -- that's not body positivity or empowering. That's problematic. There's a critic who, I think, says it more succinctly than I can. While I find Robert Trites' argument, as a whole, problematic in parts, I think she's accurate on the matter of Ursula's weight:
"The Disney-constructed conflict in The Little Mermaid is between an overweight, ugly woman and a doe-eyed heroine with a figure less realistic than a Barbie doll's. Once Ursula transforms herself into a rival love-interest for the prince, the conflict is between a dark-haired anorexic and a fairer one. The stereotyping of evil as dark and good as fair is traditional, but only recently has Disney associated corpulence with evil. Disney's villainesses before the 1970s look predatory because they are so thin...In the 1970s, Disney begins to reflect the cultural emphasis on weight consciousness.[...] The movie's portrayal of good as fairer and thinner than evil presents a bigoted distortion of the human body."
Because when Trites brings up Vanessa -- the "dark-haired anorexic"; this is the late 1980s, the era of heroin chic -- she makes a point about the dark vs. light aspect of her appearance, but neglects to consider a broader implication. This may be because Trites thinks Eric is "easily deceived by Ursula's disguising herself as the raven-headed ingenue who possesses the little mermaid's voice. Eric loves the imposter as he has loved the image in his mind: for her physical attributes and for nothing more" (148). To Trites, Eric dismisses Ariel once he hears Vanessa's sing--but Trites doesn't acknowledge the role magic plays here. Eric, with the magic smoke seeping into his eyes, is clearly enchanted by Ursula-as-Vanessa, as evidenced by his robotic behavior in front of Grimsby when he announces the marriage.
To me, here's the crux: if Ursula was really a body-positive character, why would she voluntarily choose to look like a "raven-headed ingenue"? After all, Eric is enchanted and she has Ariel's voice: it shouldn't matter what she looks like since she can simply enchant them to focus on her voice. Taking human form is a necessity, obviously, but the shape of that human form is important:
She chooses to slim waaay down -- when given the choice, she chooses not only a slimmer figure, but a thin figure. She is just as thin as Ariel, retaining nothing of her previously curvy, fuller-figured size. If she was truly a body-positive character, comfortable in her own skin and size, then that would translate to her human form, her victory ensured as it is through magic.
So, no. I can't get behind this #KeepUrsulaThicc movement. I'm sure Lizzo would do a great job -- as Rebel Wilson before her as done. Hell, I'd even support Titus Burgess in the role, although I don't think Disney would go that way for a variety of reasons. But you know what? I think Lady Gaga would kill it, too.
Because I don't think Ursula has to be "thicc" to be great -- not when a real-life person would be portraying her. I would much rather see a #MakeArielThicc movement start, as I think the body-positive movement would be impacted so much more significantly by a plus-size princess than a plus-size villain.
Confession: I have a t-shirt obsession. I think it started back in my swimming days when we'd get shirts from the different meets we went to, but all the free-shirts-as-bribes in college definitely didn't help. And now, today, it continues in the form of geeky/nerdy shirts that I wear whenever we go to Disney and to class sometimes.
One of my favorite sites is Tee Turtle, and they've had a little bit of a Disney drought lately. But maybe they renewed their Disney license recently or something because they've had a spate of new Disney shirts lately. These two popped up in my Inbox this morning:
Y'all know how I feel about The Little Mermaid *and* "Poor Unfortunate Souls" so....yeah. Currently coveting both of these shirts.
Last night, my husband and I had Date Night (rather a big deal when you have "two under two"). We're season ticket holders at DPAC, and last night was Disney's The Little Mermaid.
Now, y'all should know by now that The Little Mermaid is my favorite Disney Princess movie, so to say I was excited is probably a bit of an understatement:
But I was even more excited by the fact that, after seeing a regional production in Raleigh, I was pretty sure the Disney Powers-That-Be had their writers read academic criticism of The Little Mermaid and fix most of the issues critics had with it.
And after seeing the National Tour, I'm convinced of it. (There's a paper/conference presentation in here somewhere...) Here are some of the things I noticed:
The Broadway version (BV) establishes fairly early on that Eric feels more at home at sea than he does on land -- he specifically says that he'd rather be a sailor than a prince -- and he wants a girl who can swim/would feel at home on the ocean. Given that this is paralleled by Ariel's desire to be a part of the human world, I think it works to establish their similarities -- they both feel out of place in their world, and long to be a part of the other's world -- as well as emphasize how well-suited they are for each other. When they end up together, Ariel won't have to completely give up her family, because Eric feels so at home at sea.
Triton has more depth as a father. Whereas in the film he comes off as a domineering ruler first and a father second, here he's humanized a lot more. His role as the single-father-of-7-teenageish-girls is heightened, and you get to see that he's struggling with how to raise them -- especially the rebellious Ariel. He wants to do right by them, and protect them, but they're at an age where he just doesn't know what to do.
The whole play takes place over a year -- bookended by Eric's birthdays. IDK if that helps much, in the grand scheme of things, but it does make Ariel's decision to join Eric a little less impetuous.
The theme of tolerance-of-differences and prejudice is super-heightened: there's a lot more talk of "hating humans" and "all humans are evil" based on the actions of a few.
We do get an answer as to why Triton hates humans so much -- he believes they killed his wife -- so cross that off the list of criticisms.
We also get an answer as to why Ursula was banished and why she hates Triton so much -- and this is probably my favorite improvement from the animated film. While I still don't get why Ursula is an octopus if she's related to Triton and the other merfolk -- maybe it's like a Wicked thing, where Elphaba is born green? -- their familial connection does explain the tension and animosity. And "Daddy's Little Angel" is the best musical addition to the BV -- it's a whole song about how Ursula killed her 6 older sisters in order to inherit the throne, but forgot about her baby brother (Triton) who grew up to take it from her because, you know, she was intent on evil misdeeds. Sidebar: in the original version of the BV, Poseidon had just two kids, Ursula and Triton. Upon his death, he gave Ursula the shell and Triton the trident and told them to split the oceans and each rule half. Ursula got greedy, wanted to be sole ruler, so Triton banished her. Apparently, this wasn't well-received -- or well-conceived? -- so they tweaked the backstory. I gotta say: I like the tweaked version better. After all, it heightens the parallels between Ursula and Ariel -- the 7th daughter, different from her sisters, misunderstood by her father...
In the end, there is no melodramatic scene where Ursula steals the trident and Eric goes after her and they have the weird, dramatic sea battle while Ariel lies helpless at the bottom of the sea. It's a little clunky and rushed, but Ariel definitely has a more active role and saves herself: she steals Ursula's shell -- the source of her power -- and smashes it, breaking the spell and destroying her power.
Lots of improvements, at least based on academic criticisms. In fact, the only thing that I wasn't a huge fan of was this whole "Cult of the Good Mother" thing -- the idea that the dead mother is this pure, powerful figure who would make everything better if she were there and whose absence drives a surprising amount of character actions. Triton invokes her -- only by her role: he refers to her as Wife and Mother, not by her name -- when he's turning to Sebastian for help: he says something like, "If only their mother were here, she'd know what to do, what to say to her, how to make everything right." And then again, at the end, when it's revealed -- Spoilers -- that Ursula was the one who actually killed Triton's wife (why or how remains unclear), this is what motivates Ariel into action. Not being tricked by Ursula, not her father giving up his power -- the invocation of the dead mother.
Which...sure. On the surface not a bad thing...but I feel like I'm more aware of how mothers are portrayed in the media these days and anything that excessively glorifies motherhood as this natural, easy thing....makes me twitch a little. I appreciate movies like Bad Moms and TV shows like American Housewife because they de-romanticize motherhood and get at the idea that motherhood is hard. For some people, motherhood may come easily -- but the level of selflessness and self-sacrifice that parenting -- and especially motherhood -- requires is glossed over quite often. There is no magic moment that, once they put that baby into your arms, you suddenly know how to do everything and you have all the answers. So, sure. Ariel and her sisters probably would have benefitted from having their mom around, but that doesn't mean she would have had all the answers or known exactly what to say to Ariel or how to "handle" her rebellious nature. Maybe Ariel's mom would have been just as frustrated as Triton was. Maybe -- okay, probably -- she would have been constantly fighting over something with her SEVEN daughters: the only semi-perfect mother/daughter relationship I know is the one between the Gilmore Girls.
But, hey. This is Disney, so maybe Ariel and her mom would have gotten along just fine.
This fun video popped up in my Facebook feed tonight:
I don't think it's *entirely* accurate to say that they're singing in their "native languages" -- at least not all of them. Mulan for sure, because the film is clearly set in ancient China, even if it's not historically accurate; Meg in Hercules is pretty accurate as well, since the film explicitly mentions the Greek gods; and there are a few super subtle references to Germany in Snow White (namely the beer steins in dwarves' cottage). But Sleeping Beauty, The Little Mermaid and Frozen -- they're all set in kingdoms once upon a time in a faraway land. Sure, the original "Sleeping Beauty" is of French origin; and Hans Christian Andersen was Danish, but that doesn't mean The Little Mermaid is set in Denmark; and Arendelle is a fictional country inspired by Norway. I'm not even going to touch on the Aladdin one, because that's a hot mess that I've discussed before.
So when my husband asked me if I wanted to get out of the house for a bit and take our daughter on a Target run with my mom while he watched the newborn, I jumped at the chance. (And I don't care how #basicwhitegirl it makes me if I love walking around Target with my Starbucks macchiato. Or #suburbanmom. Or both.)
And I'll admit that one of the reasons I love going to Target -- and there are many -- is that there is always so. much. Disney. stuff. Disney is a marketing genius, and this extends to their ability to merchandize everything and anything.
In our house, we're a sucker for Disney Legos -- if only because Legos are my husband's Kryptonite. Combine them with Disney? There's no hope for us.
Nothing special -- I was actually more interested in the Moana sets on the shelf below -- but it struck me that this was kind of a "dark" scene for Disney to make a Lego set out of. (Aside from the fact that it's the scene with one of the greatest Disney songs, ever.) It would be having a Snow White set with the old crone and the apple or a Sleeping Beauty set with Maleficent and the spinning wheel.
And then I took a closer look at Ursula:
I'm not one to judge but...if Ursula weren't an animated cartoon character, she'd probably have serious grounds for a misrepresentation/overly Photoshopped lawsuit. She is, IMHO, surprisingly slender, given her original appearance. I mean, yeah. Maybe I'm reading too much into the design of a tiny Lego toy, but still. Part of Ursula's design -- and her appearance did evolve; in early concept art she was based on eels/manta rays/lion fish rather than her now-iconic squidlike similarities -- is her corpulence. The late 80s/early 90s was also the time for heroin chic in fashion, so it (unfortunately) makes sense that the heroine would be impossibly thin and the villainess would be the opposite. (Compared to, for instance, rail-thin Cruella De Vil in the 1960s.)
Again, I don't think Disney or Lego is making a statement about female body image through Lego characters...I just think it's really interesting that Ursula is so much slimmer -- and that she's even in a toy set at all. Just scrolling through the first few pages of the Disney Legos on Target's website, the closest thing to a villain in the other sets -- excluding the Star Wars ones because they make villains cool -- is Marshmallow from Frozen, and even then, he's not the uber-villain of the movie.
According to Deadline, Miranda will (1) co-produce the film (he's not writing the story but will "supervise" it) and (2) will write songs with Alan Menken.
The article mentions that it's an adaptation of Hans Christian Andersen's "The Little Mermaid" but...I'm pretty sure it's just going to be a remake of the 1989 Disney film (a.k.a. my first Disney love and obsession) as Andersen is a bit too dark for Disney. (Also, Chloe Grace Moretz is starring in that film -- and she's been adamant about it is darker and it's not the Disney version.)
All that being said...I have no idea what a "live-action" adaptation of a story about mermaids and evil sea witches and set largely underwater even looks like. I mean...I would imagine it's something akin to a "live-action adaptation" of The Jungle Book where by "live-action" they mean "largely CGI." Although, Annie Leibowitz made a bunch of Olympic swimmers look like convincing merpeople, so it could happen. (Still one of my favorites things EVER.)
I'll end with this final thought: I have complete trust in LMM. I know he's not writing the story (yet), but if anyone can pull off a live-action adaptation and make it new and fresh, it's him. After all, if you'd told me that Broadway's hottest ticket right now would be to a rap-musical based on the life of Founding Father Alexander Hamilton, I would have laughed and epically eye-rolled.
I absolutely love it when two of my favorite things -- swimming/the Olympics & Disney -- collide. It's even better when it's Michael Phelps and the Little Mermaid.
Congratulations to Michael Phelps, the Greatest of All Time. (And, with 5 Olympics, 28 medals, and 23 golds...that appellation is definitely appropriate.)
I know they're out there, and I kinda get it. I mean, I get the beef people have with the company. But the movies? C'mon. If Inside Out doesn't make you feel ALL THE FEELS, then I don't know what will.
Ever since it was announced that there would be a live concert of the music of The Little Mermaid at The Hollywood Bowl, I had been clinging desperately to the hope that there would be a live broadcast -- even if they did it at a theater and you had to pay admission.
Sadly, this did not happen.
But, luckily, we live in the age of YouTube. That way, even though I couldn't see it in person, I can at least watch the YouTube videos. (Sure the quality is less than stellar, but it's better than nothing.)
I think the casting choice I was most excited about was Rebel Wilson as Ursula. I'm not gonna lie -- "Poor Unfortunate Souls" is one of my all-time favorite Disney songs, and topping Pat Carroll is no easy feat. I'm not saying Rebel Wilson sings it better, but she does it justice.
Titus Burgess was Sebastian in the Original Broadway Cast, so you know he's gonna nail it.
I am excited that John Stamos as Chef Louie made it onto YouTube -- it's such a ridiculous character and song, but I love it.
While I'm not the biggest Star Wars fan, I still think these are pretty cool if only because the princesses seem super kick-ass and not at all like damsels in distress. I also like the little subtle nods to the other characters in the film -- although Pascal, Rajah and Flounder are not nearly as cute and cuddly in Berry's versions.
Rapunzel might be my favorite -- after all, she's using her hair as a weapon, freeing up her hands, so the bad-ass potential is pretty high here.
Runner-Up probably goes to Ariel -- probably because she's my favorite princess in general.
Berry rounds out his quartet with Jasmine and Belle:
For some reason, I'm not as big of a fan of the Belle one (to each his own!), mainly because if Beast wasn't there, I'd have a hard time knowing it was Belle. Her pose is also less active and striking, but maybe she's more of a strategist.
One of the big news stories this weekend -- judging from the amount of times it popped up in my social media feeds -- that wasn't about a major coffee chain and their alleged war on Christmas, was the news that Chloe Grace Moretz was cast as The Little Mermaid.
Notice I didn't say "Ariel."
Because she is most emphatically not Ariel--whatever the media would like you to believe in order to get you to click their links.
Exhibit A:
Exhibit B:
(Although, I honestly don't know what's going on with Ariel in this photo. Seriously.)
Even CNN seems to have missed the point of the story it's reporting, given this headline:
The initial article I read made it very clear that this is an adaptation of Hans Christian Andersen's original story by Working Title and Universal -- the latter of which is one of Disney's biggest rivals. Richard Curtis is allegedly working on the screenplay -- which, if he hadn't given me one of my favorite episodes of Doctor Who, I'd be a bit worried since he's more famous for his rom-com work; Notting Hill, Love Actually, Bridget Jones's Diary to name a few.
But the point remains, The Little Mermaid is somehow one of the only films that hasn't been rumored to have a live-action adaptation in the works. So it makes sense that Universal would be focusing on their adaptation -- fingers crossed it will be much more faithful to Andersen's original tale. Which would mean it would be a much darker, feminist story, but we'll see.
Leave it to Buzzed to have a completely random post about Disney princesses. Ah, the Internet.
This one is brought to you by the concept of "matching outfits with hair" -- which sounds really weird but, as the Buzzfeed headline points out, is oddly magical. (Mostly.)
