At the intersection of great animated films, great filmed stage musicals, and great fairy-tale romances, Disney’s Beauty and the Beast stands alone. Directed by Gary Trousdale and Kirk Wise, it is simply the quintessential Disney masterpiece, the perfection of everything that Cinderella, Alice in Wonderland, Sleeping Beauty and The Little Mermaid aspired to.
True, Disney’s great pre-war fairy tales, Snow White and Pinocchio, are no less perfect—but they belong, with Fantasia and Bambi, to a world of their own, and each of those early, experimental films stands alone, unique and untouchable. (Dumbo is a ringer, a slight effort that almost feels more like the “package films” that filled out the rest of the 1940s, from Saludos Amigos to The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad, than a bona fide feature.)
By the time Disney released Cinderella in 1950, the experimental phase was over, and formula set in. The Disney films from the 1950s onward, good and bad alike, all feel more like one another than any of them do like Snow White or Pinocchio (although Sleeping Beauty comes close).
Even The Little Mermaid, which snapped the post-Walt doldrums of the 1970s and 1980s and ushered in the Disney renaissance of the 1990s, represents a fresh reinvention of the Disney formula rather than a radical departure from it. Two years later, Beauty and the Beast came as less of a surprise—but it perfected what The Little Mermaid had done while avoiding its predecessor’s weaknesses.
Even more than The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast isn’t just a musical, but a Broadway stage-musical film of the best kind, drawing inspiration and creative energy from the disparate traditions of Rodgers & Hammerstein and Busby Berkeley, going beyond the stage as only film—and animation—can. Songwriters Alan Menken and Howard Ashman are as responsible as anyone for the Disney renaissance. The Little Mermaid’s “Under the Sea” and “Kiss the Girl” were a revelation in 1989, but on repeated viewings the set pieces in Beauty hold up even better.
The songs here don’t just illustrate the action, but develop and propel the story. The opening sequence, the smartly written and choreographed operetta-style “Belle,” establishes the heroine, the villain and their milieu. (Little throwaway moments—a boy alternately chasing and being chased by a pig; a vendor whose attentiveness to a buxom patroness earns him a knock on the head from his no-nonsense wife—enrich the scene.)
Belle (a winningly expressive Paige O’Hara) quickly emerges as the most sympathetic and endearing Disney heroine of the 20th century. Unlike the adolescent Ariel, Belle regards her “provincial” world with affection and appreciation even as she yearns for something more. She’s brainy and bookish, romantic but also imaginative, and not hung up on the thought that someday her prince will come. We also see that she’s devoted to her father, who may be a dotty, ineffectual comic figure like the fathers of Jasmine and Jane (Tarzan and Aladdin), but who at least has a gift that Belle believes in and respects.
Gaston (hilarious Richard White), whose raucous barroom anthem “Gaston” hilariously sends up his caricatured hypermasculinity, is likewise unique in the annals of Disney villainy. At first he seems merely the ultimate dumb jock, preening and vain, admired by the same mob that finds Belle tragically odd. Yet though a buffoon he’s a cunning one, with a mind that is limited but quick.
Gaston’s darker side—first glimpsed when he arrives unannounced at Belle’s house with a wedding party in tow, planning to pressure Belle to marry him on the spot—is obliquely developed further in his song: “No one plots like Gaston / Takes cheap shots like Gaston / Plans to persecute harmless crackpots like Gaston!” (His song is in the tradition of Oklahoma!’s “Pore Jud Is Daid,” not to mention “Captain Hook’s Waltz” from Peter Pan: “Who’s unlaughable? (You!) / Who’s unliftable? (You!) / Whose existence is quite unforgivable? (You!) / Who would stoop to the cheapest and lowest of tricks in the book? / Blame me, slay me, Captain Hook!”)
Why some enchantress didn’t come along and turn Gaston into a walking nightmare is one of life’s mysteries. At any rate, both the Prince (at the beginning) and Gaston (especially at the end) are monstrous, but the Prince has been visited by a sort of grace, and confronted with his monstrous condition made manifest. The Beast’s dilemma is a cruel one: The spell can only be broken if he loves another and to earn her love. He thus has a vested interest in trying to win Belle’s love—but as long as he’s only doing it in the hope of breaking the spell, it isn’t really love.
Unique as Belle and Gaston are, it’s the Beast (Robby Benson, digitally tweaked but with lots of character) above all that really raises the bar over the studio’s previous work. No previous Disney film depicted so profound a character change: Crucially, the Beast is really scary and menacing, with a violent temper and a selfish, cruel disposition, in the first part of the film, and only slowly develops the capacity for restraint, courtesy and self-sacrifice. The scene in which he heroically fights off the wolf pack, defending Belle at cost to himself, is a key turning point, but the real test comes when the Beast is faced with the choice of letting Belle go to her father, potentially giving up his hopes for her sake.
The difficulty with which Belle and the Beast hesitantly slowly open up to one another, ideally realized in the charming “Something There” as well as the Oscar-winning title number, does credit both to the emotional depths of the fairy tale and the strange mystery and magic of courtship. Both are strong-willed and wary, and if the Beast must learn to conquer his monstrous nature, Belle must learn to look beyond appearances and trust someone who has far more power than she does. They are in different ways equals and unequals, making for a much more romantic and intriguing pairing than, say, Pocahontas, which is way too P.C. to make John Smith a real match for the heroine.
Then there are the enchanted household accoutrements, from the fiery Gallic candlestick Lumière (Jerry Orbach) and the fussy British clock Cogsworth (David Ogden Stiers) to the warmly maternal Mrs. Potts (Angela Lansbury)—hands down the best supporting cast of anthropomorphic sidekicks in Disney history, perfectly integrated into the story without overshadowing the principals. Indebted to Jean Cocteau’s surreal 1946 version of the tale, with its eerie arrays of living arms emerging from the walls and doors that open themselves, the Beast’s enchanted castle takes full advantage of the advantages of animation, above all in the spectacular show-stopper “Be Our Guest.”
The trickiest part of any fairy tale is the climax. A good fairy tale has only one possible ending, one that perfectly resolves all of the story’s tensions, not always in the most cinematic way possible. (Further complicating matters, not all fairy tales supply a Disney-ready happy ending. The flubbed finale of The Little Mermaid, with the stupid death of the Sea Witch, is a good example of what happens when you try to tack a happy ending on a story that doesn’t want one.) Beauty and the Beast is note-perfect to the end. The siege on the castle, Gaston’s showdown with the Beast, Belle’s arrival at the last minute, the wounded Beast, Belle’s tears—it all works, time after time.
Before we had kids, Suz worked as a nurse at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, where she was forcibly exposed to the same children’s movies over and over and over. The acid test of excellence is how well a presentation holds up to repeated exposure. With sufficient scrutiny, even small flaws in decent entertainment become more and more glaring, while the luster of great entertainment shines brighter and brighter. Beauty and the Beast was one of the few that, far from palling, grew in her estimation. Nearly twenty years later, Beauty and the Beast is still unsurpassed in its ability to reward continued rewatching.
Comments
Post a Comment
I watch movies with my kids over and over, or listen from the other room while making dinner. They, of course, have their favorites. London has always been an Ariel fan and we have two of the three Ariel movies (the one with her daughter should be thrown in the trash). While we were watching The Little Mermaid in the car last night she started singing, “Little town, it’s a quite village, Everyday, like the one before.”
I think she has switched allegiance and after watching more Ariel than I can bear, I am glad.
TOP TEN MOVIES THAT HOLD UP
(It’s hard to think of 10 in the kid category, they are all so annoying.)
Wall-e
Toy Story 2
Beauty and the Beast (I still sing along, you can’t help it)
Pirates who don’t do Anything
Wizard of Oz
Joseph King of Dreams (not great but the key is it’s not annoying)
Prince of Egypt
Princess Bride (not a kid movie but it is so awesome I can’t help but list it as it gets better every time you see it.)
Finding Nemo (I have seen this movie more times that anyone should watch any movie and I still find parts of it very charming.)
Monsters Inc.
Honorable mention:
Enchanted
I’ll have to rewatch this one. I remember liking the early attempt at computer animation when I saw it in the theater, but I kept waiting for Ron Perlman to show up. Do the extra features make it worth picking it up, as opposed to renting?
Beauty and the Beast has always been my favorite ‘fairy tale’ and throughout my life watched as many versions as I could (George C. Scott from the Hallmark film was my favorite). When this version came out I was delighted to see (finally) a version that fit all my preferences together (the music pieces were superb) so wonderfully.
The beauty of this story, for me, is the analogy I can make with it and my life as a Catholic. I regularly make beastly choices, failing to live up to the promise of my own life time and again. It is only through the love of Christ and His sacrifice for me I become my true self again. Unlike the Beast of the stories and the movies, I will become a beast again and again, despite my best efforts. I become a beast very time I chose vice over virtue and myself over others but Christ remains by my side to always help me regain my true form through the sacraments.
Only in heaven will the transformation be complete and the beast be shed forever - may I have the grace to make it.
Slightly off-topic, but if you want a worthwhile book version of the Beauty & the Beast story, I recommend Robin McKinley’s “Beauty”. (My brief review: http://goodtoread.org/initial/b/beauty). I was reminded of it by your reference to an omitted “Romeo & Juliet” scene, as McKinley plays around with having Beauty—in a generic late-mediaeval milieu—find “Kim” & “Sherlock Holmes” in the Beast’s enchanted library.
My family loves this movie, but I would like to point out how much Disney did “that thing Disney does” by ripping off its own work.
Compare “Beauty and the Beast” to “Legend of Sleepy Hollow”. The scene were Ichabod wanders, seemingly oblivious, through the town (complete with nose in book ala Belle), or Brom Bones vs. Gaston.
You won’t believe it when you see it.
This is a comment in general…I have quit the movies…afew years back when every movie I attended ( regardless of the rating given) seemed
“obliged” to take in vain the name of our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ!
It was impossible to find a movie…even the PG13 category…without the blasphemy! I have not been to a movie as I said in years until this afternoon my husband talked me into using some free passes he’s had in his wallet for almost a year. The selection was not good…but we decided on
the newest Michael Douglas movie Wall Street, Money never Sleeps…it turned out to be an Oliver Stone conspiracy ..not my fare to begin with…
and sure enough, five minuits into the film it began…the blasphemy! I
would have walked out but the theater was so dark I was afraid of falling
so I just said a little ejaculatory prayer each time…and could not get
out of the theater when it was over fast enough! That’s it! No more…not
going to take the risk again. ( In retrospect I admit it was a very poor
choice but we have been waiting a year for something decent…not much out there) Maybe Beauty and the Beast is the rare exception but I am a bit old
for the Disney fare!
Shamrock: Please see “No Movies Please, We’re Catholic.”
If profanity is a deal-breaker for you, recent movies I would recommend to you include Babies, Bright Star, Summer Hours, Ponyo and Up (all on DVD). Also, I think that Secretariat, opening Friday, has no profanity.
God save me from ever becoming too old for Disney fare! :)
Thank you for the suggestions…will look into them but you must admit that as a Christian we have little to nothing to choose from…I do try
to support what does occasionally appear ( sorry, but most of Disney is
for the grandchildren) acceptable but I have been duped so many times that
I have given up movies. Hope you are right about Secretariat…it is out now so perhaps you can review for us who are apprehensive and gun-shy!
Again, thanks for the suggested titles.
Steven, Steven, Steven. I can’t believe you dissed Dumbo again. Dumbo is beautiful, simple, innocent, sweet. Some of the best music from Disney too. A piece of Americana. While Beauty and the Beast is….how shall I put this….beastly. I hated it from the moment I saw it in the theaters. The music I found so obnoxious and so American musical. Trying too hard. ick. It ruined the lovely story for me. Tisk tisk.
As far as Andrew’s comment on “Disney ripping off Disney”:
We have an old (pre-DVD) copy of “Ducktales” in which Donald’s Uncle Scrooge seeks and finds the magic lamp of Aladdin.
Disney’s Aladdin, released some number of years later, had several characters parallelling the villain and the villain’s henchman (comic relief).
Why should the Disney empire try to develop new movie plots or devices when even reworking copies of old but not critically reviewed or noticed films (like Ducktales!) gain nominations for Academy awards and reasonably large gate receipts?
TeaPot562
Okay, so the NCRegister review has a link saying “Read More at Decent Films” and the Decent Films review says “Continue Reading at NCRegister.com”, and there’s no one place where the entire piece can be read? This seems sort of silly.
Great review, though. Snow White and Pinocchio, Sleeping Beauty, and Beauty and the Beast are definitely Disney’s three high points, at least as far as fairy tales are concerned. It remains to be seen whether Pixar’s newest effort will be a worthy addition to this legacy, but I hope so. The world is, to say the least, not awash in good fairy tale animated movies.
I think Dumbo’s greatest strength lies in its music. If you ever come across the Bonnie Raitt & Was (Not Was) cover version of “Baby Mine” (it’s on the “Stay Awake” Disney cover compilation from 1988), don’t pass up a chance to give it a listen. Beautiful. And, as luck would have it, it turns out that it’s on YouTube.
Another stand-out on that album (from Dumbo): “Pink Elephants” as performed by Sun Ra and his Arkestra.
@Shamrock: Secretariat opens tomorrow. My review is already up here at NCReg.com for subscribers (you are a subscriber, yes?!). I do agree that if you’re looking for mainstream Hollywood entertainment for grown-ups with zero profanity, choices are few and far between. I don’t think that Christians need to write off every film in which characters use profanity, although I appreciate your sensitivity on that point and your wish not to be exposed to it.
@Carol: Dumbo makes Suz actually ill. She can’t stand it! The whole maternal separation thing is just way too much trauma with way too little catharsis in the end. It’s mean, mean, mean. And while it may me simple and sweet, dramatically it’s thin gruel compared to the four masterpieces around it. And visually the animation is just plain boring compared to, say, Bambi (“Pink Elephants” aside). Sorry, but I stand by my critique. And while we may be in the minority on that one, you are definitely the voice in the wilderness on the “ickiness” of Beauty and the Beast!
@Pachyderminator: Thanks. FWIW, the whole review is here at NCReg. The “Read more” content at Decent Films is the Blu-ray/DVD product content note ... and of course the related links to other reviews. It may be a little silly, but it was the best solution I could think of.
Steve…Thanks for the update re Secretariat! Am hoping I will be able to
take my eldest grand-daughter as she is a budding equestrian!.That said
I must disagree somewhat about the issue of profanity in all adult Hollywood movies…if it were only occasional,and only in keeping with the character in order to portray a type…but it is not. It is always there
at least in 99% of film. Nor do I think I am being overly-sensitive about an issue that is not important. It is a commandment that all Christians need to adhere to and to minimize this is playing with fire in terms of our eternal souls. We all agreee murder is wrong, stealing is wrong, etc etc thru the commandments. But somewhere along the line we have forgotten the Biblical command that at the MENTION of His Name every knee should bend in Heaven, on earth and under the earth! Hollywood has certainly not either heard this ( our fault) nor have they obeyed. Who is to remind them if not Christian movie goers…or would be movie goers! Why is this such an insignificant matter to Christian movie goers that they can sit thru movie after moveie and tolerate this blasphemy? Do they not hear this?And for those of us that do hear this, shall we just overlook? If Muslime movie goers had to tolerate the blasphemy Christians seem to accept do you really think Hollywood would not hear from them? Steve…I would love it if you would write to this matter in your movie reviews…perhaps bringing this to the forefront of Christians minds where it ought be. Thanks for letting me blow off steam here but it has long been a huge issue for me..and the fact that as Christians we tolerate once again something in our culture we could/should do something about!
I’m a bit confused. Didn’t you have a different review of this movie posted on your site a while back? Why did you write a new one?
Emily: Nope, this is the first review of Beauty and the Beast I’ve ever written—it’s been a long time coming! I’ve certainly praised it in other pieces though.
Shamrock: Don’t misunderstand, I absolutely agree that profaning God’s name is a serious sin. In practice, I suppose many people who unthinkingly use casual profanity are not sinning gravely, but it is certainly grave matter, and one we should not take lightly. But I don’t think the depiction of characters who use profanity (or who commit other sins) is necessarily sinful, and I don’t think that the occurrence of depictions of profanity in a movie that has moral and/or artistic value need prevent Christians from enjoying and benefiting from the film, as long as they are not led toward apathy regarding profanity.
Thank you for putting into words all of the wonderful aspects of Beauty and the Beast! I have loved the movie since I saw it in the theatre. I can’t count how many times I’ve seen it, but almost every time I notice something new or gain a new insight into the characters. There is a depth and beauty to the film that is so rare.
Steve…thank you for taking the time to respond to my concerns about the excessive use of profanity coming out of Hollywood. In your last paragraph you make the exact point…excessive use leads to complacency re this
what I think is a most serious commandment..which leads to the apathy of which you speak…The point you make is valid…it is used so widely
and habitually that often it is done w/o the thought to make it a serious sin…but isn’t this how all small sins un-checked become vice? Again, why are
we not protesting its excessive usage…in film and entertainment…and it is even now in the news media. The other night while watching the Ed Schultz show (MSNBC) a guest commentator in opining about the Mosque controverserey plain right out used the blasphemy of Jesus Christ! in order to express the vehemence he felt re the situation.
I complained ( to no avail )to the FCC and also ( to no avail )to the Catholic League ( Bill Donahue). Is the second commandment really of
no importance to anyone? Well, I have to believe it is to God. I feel like a voice crying in the desert on this issue…had hoped you might see your way to bring attention to this via your reviews. Am convinced that the over-the top usage of our Lord and Saviour’s name by Hollywood is not just
incidental ...nor un-intentional. You may think me paranoid about this but
if you read both the OT and the NT you will find some disasterous consequences for those who blasphemed against the Lord. And ask yourself ..Why the name of Jesus? Why not some other name like Buddha ...or Mohammed? It is because of the power that is released every time His Name is mentioned. Recall how the ancient Hebrews would not ever
mention outloud the name of God…so sacred a commandment to them. I do’t agree that this is making a mountain out of a molehill ( no pun intended!)
I’m confused. If misusing God’s name is inherently grave matter, what makes it okay for an actor to do it? The only explanation I can think of is that if profaning God’s name is not what they actually intend, then it doesn’t matter what they say. But if that’s the case, then profanity of this type is almost never a serious problem, because in almost all cases, the person doing it is not thinking of God at all. How do you work this out?
I’m not saying it is necessarily okay for an actor to read a line that contains profanity, but I think that it can be in principle. In principle, profanity, like other speech acts, is a matter of intention. It is true that many people using profanity are not consciously abusing sacred names, and if so their sin is probably venial, not mortal, but the matter is grave and in many cases they know in principle that such language is offensive to God, or at least they have the idea that it might be.
As an analogy, the Jewish leaders who said to Pilate “We have no king but Caesar” probably didn’t mean to disown God as their king, but they knew in principle that God was to be their only king. How serious their sin was is for God to judge. But when the faithful during Holy Week recite those same words in the liturgy—“We have no king but Caesar”—we are not sinning at all, because we are not making the words our own, but enacting them in the drama of the Passion Week liturgy.
Likewise, an actor who recites lines in a drama doesn’t necessarily make the words his or her own. Rather, he enacts a fictional character whose words they are. For instance, an actor who says “I hate you” or even “I hate God” isn’t personally culpable of the sin that those words entail. Likewise, an actor who uses ethnic slurs isn’t guilty of the offense that those words entail.
This doesn’t automatically make it all right. Profanity is different because sacred names are sacred. The actor who recites a profane line isn’t necessarily being profane in the same way that his character is, but he may be misusing divine names in a more subtle way, as gratuitous props in a drama. Maybe. Perhaps even often.
But not always, I think. Sometimes such language can contribute to an overall depiction of a character’s moral state that is accurate and illuminating. In principle, it can even illuminate the offense that such language entails. My favorite example of that is from Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, in which Indy misuses the name of Jesus Christ—whereupon his father, Sean Connery, slaps him hard across the face, admonishing, “That’s for blasphemy!” A scene like that can actually help to heighten audiences’ awareness that such language can be offensive to some people.
Both in drama and in life we should, I think, be aware of the extent to which human forgetfulness and ignorance can mitigate the real offense of such language, in principle to almost nil. So many people use such language as empty syllables. Their sin is often very slight, I think.
Of course we should try to raise awareness when possible. Depending on the social context, I don’t hesitate to ask (politely of course) people using profanity in my presence not to do so. And I agree that moviegoers should be aware of the issue of profanity in film, and bringing the issue to filmmakers’ attention would also be a good idea, if it can be done effectively. But in my book even if it is possible to criticize a given movie on this front doesn’t necessarily trump whatever positive moral or artistic value may commend it.
Steve ...Those are excellent points…about an actor blaspheming “in
character” is not guilty of sinning grieviously. However to allow for
“forgetfulness” or “habit” to excuse the sinner…WOW! is all I can say !!
One who “becomes” forgetful…or builds up bad habits into vices is culpable ....I never heard “forgetting” let one off the hook as in Oops!!
The commandments were not suggestions…nor were they to be taken lightly. But enough! This really misses MY point which is the FACT that in 99% of films made today ( and I have pointed out previously even the news media) blaspheming is taken lightly BECAUSE we Christians are so non-reactive and
blase about it! In other words they have been getting zero criticism ( I
mean Hollywood here)and so they don’t make any attempt to LIMIT the amount of its usage. I don’t expect Hollywood to care if Christians don’t care and demand limits. It does seem we had wonderful films decades ago when the
actors did not have carte blanche when it came to blasphemy..There was a
Legion of Decency ( I know..nobody wants that again)that told Hollywood
in no uncertain terms what the public would tolerate and what was verbotten. I think Christian movie-goers have been wayyyyy too tolerant
and it is time to speak out…and proclaim what is truth! I am not saying never, never but we are way past what is acceptable when I ( who do know
the difference)cannot go to most films because almost EVERY film will use the name of the Lord in vain. If this is because that’s the way MOST people are expressing themselves today ..all the more reason to make an
issue of it. On the personal level, years ago when I was growing up my
maternal grandfather ( who had been in the Merchant Marines) was known for
his “salty” tongue! However when the grandchildren started coming he made
a conscious effort to refrain from using “bad langauge” in front of us. We knew from a young age what was acceptable and what was not! In other words
an example was set ...to go along with the commandment! I still think it
would make a wonderful topic for one of your articles…and perhaps start the ball rolling towards “cleaning up” the constant flow from Hollywood.
Christians are to turn the other cheek…but that does not mean we should tolerate the amount of blasphemy being lightly bandied about! It hurts my ears and strikes my heart when I keep hearing it in the movies…and I don’t think or agree that is being overly sensitive. You don’t tolerate it in conversation with friends you say…goood for you! Why should we not ask Hollywoood to start cutting back AT LEAST! It is not coming off the lips of everyone in the world ...but it is always part of the Hollywoood script. WHY do you think that is??????????????????????????????
There are subtle nuances in “Beauty and the Beast” that make me very nervous. Gaspar is made a ruthless villan, and snuck into his evil song is a reference to Belle giving him 6 or 7 strong sons “like me”. The implication is that Belle is a smart progressive female and would never consent to being a mere baby machine…she wants far more out of life than that role.I consider “Beauty and the Beast” to be a very apple with a worm flick, and have discussed with my older grandchildren the hidden propaganda in this “sweet and modern” fairy tale as rewritten by the Disney studios.
I, too, have a couple of qualms with Beauty and the Beast. I also didn’t like that it is implied that Gaston’s desire for many children is wrong, if not downright evil.
Also, Belle seems a bit disdainful of the townspeople, even though they have affection for her (witness the book seller giving her a book because she likes it). I also thought that the original tale was about the Beauty realizing that the Beast was lovable thus redeeming Beauty as much as Beast was redeemed by her love. I don’t know if that is clear, but in the movie it was all the Beauty saving Beast and not following the original in which the Beast also redeemed Beauty.
On the whole, I don’t think any of this is enough of a problem for me to not let my children watch it, but after repeated viewings these things stand out.
Katherine and Buttercup make very interesting and astute observations. Thus it is hoped parents have time to discuss these fine and very valid points that might not be so apparent on the surface…I too recall when
reading this story as a child ( or having it read to me ) a greater emphasis on the moral of the tale..how it worked both ways..bringing out perhaps more clearly that all are in need of redemption. Disney and Hollywood are out to make $$$$...and sometimes some important values are overlooked…even absent in that endeavor. Parental guidance is always important and necessary if the lesson to be learned is taught! Good points from both commentators!
On the subject of Gaston’s attitude toward children: Suzanne and I watched that scene very carefully on our last viewing of the film, because we are both very sensitive on this issue.
Actually, there is one very brief moment in the film—only a few seconds, but it still matters—that I find unfortunate with respect to its depiction of family and children. It’s a moment during the opening number (“Belle”) in which we have a glimpse of a mother struggling with a brood of children saying rather too desperately to a street vendor, “I need ... six eggs!” The next line, which is a cut to an unrelated exchange, has a man saying, “That’s too expensive.” It should be noted that the two lines aren’t narratively related; however, one could still construe an editorial or subliminal connection between having too many children and having a hard time affording the food to feed them. I find that bit unfortunate, and it’s the sort of thing I would point out to my kids to teach them to think critically about these things.
That said, regarding Gaston visiting Belle’s house, it is very clear to me that the scene is not at all prejudicial toward children or childbearing in themselves, and does not portray Belle as a feminist who regards childbearing as beneath her. Gaston’s attitude is just as contrary to the Christian feminism of John Paul II and to the dignity of women in Catholic teaching as it is to worldly feminism, and Belle is right to find his vision of family life completely unappealing.
Gaston’s attitude is reprehensible, not because he wants a large family, but because he is only interested in Belle bearing him a brood of strapping boys in his own image (he would have no interest in daughters), which Belle would have to raise with no meaningful paternal involvement on his part while also waiting on Gaston hand and foot. For that matter, without any real spousal love and support toward herself. Gaston doesn’t love Belle with a sacrificial love, like Christ loves the Church—or like the Beast comes to love Belle when he even allows Belle to depart to go to her father. Gaston sees Belle only as a prize to be won and, indeed, as a baby-making machine. To be a mother is not to be a baby-making machine, but Gaston’s attitude toward maternity does reduce it to that, and Belle is right to reject it.
I find it unconvincing to read Beauty and the Beast as a feminist tract in the worldly sense, in part because the story emphasizes the Beast’s embodiment of positive masculine traits as well as the potential for disordered masculinity. The Beast saving Belle from the wolves is the most obvious example. The Beast is strong and powerful, and Belle is helpless before him—yet his power is part of the package that draws Belle to him. A lot more could be said about this.
I’ll be back later to continue my exchange with Shamrock. Cheers!
The thing that has always bothered me about Disney’s Beauty & The Beast is that in one scene Belle breaks her word by leaving the Beast’s mansion. (She promised to stay there in order to save her father’s life.) In a fairy tale you just don’t DO that! Because if you do, there are very, very bad consequences. But in the film there aren’t any. Nevertheless, your review makes me interested to see the film again—I haven’t since it originally came out.
Catholic Bibliophagist: But ... but she does it with the Beast’s explicit permission!
I don’t mean when she goes to visit her father. I seem to recall that earlier in the film she stomps off in a huff. Let me go check… [Visits YouTube] Yes, after she sneaks into the west wing and the Beast roars at her because she was about to touch the enchanted rose, she goes running downstairs and says, “Promise or no promise, I can’t stay here another minute.” Then comes the scene with the wolves in the forest and the Beast rescues her. Although the Beast did shout at her to get out, he meant from the west wing of the mansion which she seems to acknowledge with her remark about “promise or no promise.” There is no repercussion for breaking her promise, in fact, things get better between them from this point on. As I said, this bothers me from a fairy tale point of view. Otherwise, I do like the movie. How often do we bookworms find a heroine we can identify with?
Of course there were repercussions. The repercussions were that the wolves would have killed her. She is only saved by the Beast sacrificing himself for her, making him (in a specific, limited sense, at this point in the story) a Christ figure. Naturally things get better from there - this incident is the beginning of the redemption of both of them, the point where they start caring for each other (as seen in the scene following, where Belle tends the Beast’s wounds). I’m no expert, but this seems to me to follow the laws of Faerie one hundred percent.
What Pachy says. The Beast takes the repercussions on himself. That’s why things improve from there on.
Do you all here think that the children viewing this film get any of this
sub-rosa meaning being applied by the adults? Cannot a story be just a good story w/o all this ulterior motive? So you think its author intended
to enter into the world of double entre or do you think he was just writing a story that children could enjoy while perhaps at the same time lean a “lesson"that might make life more enjoyable or better on some level?
Leave it to the adults who have forgotten there is a land of make-believe
to mess up a good tale with their insistance that things be always ABOUT something other than! Tis a pity!we ever grow up! That’s why I would only go to a movie like this with a grand….they simply know how to enjoy a
story ...without trying to make it another thing entirely.
Shamrock, I’m not sure I understand what your latest comments are directed to. At any rate, I’m a great big kid when it comes to make believe, but I also understand that make-believe is serious business, especially for children. Far from mere fanciful diversion, it’s part of growing up, part of learning about the world. Fairy tales are not an idle pastime. They’re about life. Tolkien and C. S. Lewis understood this very well. If I thought stories like Beauty and the Beast were just supposed to be cute and entertaining and that was the end of it, I would write 3 paragraphs about them, not 15.
Children don’t necessarily think analytically, but they can be surprisingly perceptive at intuiting the emotional logic of stories. For example, it makes perfect sense to children that when Belle trespasses in the west wing the Beast is at his scariest, but when she is threatened by wolves he becomes heroic and self-sacrificing—and that this makes Belle begin to care for him and tend his wounds when she had been about to run away.
As for Gaston’s proposal to Belle, I think even very young children understand all they need to from the way he keeps muddying her precious book (putting his muddy feet on the book on the table, etc.). Gaston is mean. Of course Belle doesn’t like him. A bright three-year-old would understand it.
I am happy to hear that you realize one must re-enter the world of the child to enjoy this story ....as a story…as the author intended his readers to do….ENJOY! and find within a kernal of wisdom intended to teach those who are just at the beginning of life…something that will aide them on their journey…and to grow! Yes, I think children absorb
this, depending where they are in life…while they can still imagine that an animal can “talk”, trees can “walk”, whole worlds out there that will
soon disappear as they “grow” into what appears as the real world around them. Many adults cannot enjoy any longer “the story” as it seems to conflict with the real world. Thus they find a greater need than the child to “tear” apart the story…to give meaning other than and even un’intended
as they “re-tell” the story…without the fantasy that was so much a part of the story….thus destroying the world of “make believe” with the reality of life. In order to enjoy Beauty and the Beast (or any fairie
tale) one needs to be able to suspend the real ...and enter into the fantasy..like a child! That’s what I was earlier trying to say about all
this “over-analyzing”...interesting but not the way a child views a fairie
tale…totally different.
I like to think of it this way, Shamrock. Food is meant to be enjoyed and savored, but it is also meant to be assimilated, digested. After the enjoyment of taking it in, there is a process of appropriation by which it it broken down (analyzed) and becomes part of you. (Hopefully, the parts that are less helpful are eliminated ... otherwise it’s bad for you! Sometimes it’s better to spit something out, or not to put it in your mouth in the first place.)
Young children assimilate stories as they do food: unconsciously, by gut instinct. For adults ... well, we speak of ruminating for a reason. It’s an apt metaphor. A thoughtful adult movie watcher, and certainly a thoughtful film critic, is like a cow. (There’s a sentence for you!) Long after the meal is eaten, we like to bring it back up again and chew on it some more. Not so appropriate for human digestion, but excellent for cows and film critics. This is not something contrary to the enjoyment of savoring the food in the first place, but a natural extension of it.
Many readers of film criticism are themselves thoughtful movie watchers who enjoy the same process, and even those who don’t may enjoy reading about it, and the insights they gain from it. If they don’t, they probably don’t care for film criticism per se. (Those who read movie reviews only to gauge the level of objectionable content and so forth are not the kind of readers that motivate critics to write searching reviews.)
Really, what children do isn’t so different. Someone told me this weekend, I think, about their young child watching Beauty and the Beast saying of the Beast, “He’s scary now, but he’ll be nice later.” Gaston was different: “He’s bad.” That is excellent film criticism for a child.
sI am NOT saying a child is sitting in front of a film as a vegetable, and not absorbing anything! I just FEEL that a child views a story like this
enveloped in the fantasy of it..totally different from the analytical
experience of an adult. Adults are perhaps unable because of life experiences to enjoy it any other way…they have left the world of make believe….and cannot go back again! Try as I might I cannot view this story in the same frame of mind as when I was first introduced to it..which was the book, not the film, at a very young age, maybe four.
Growing up is inevitible…normal and natural…healthy. These fantasy stories aide children in expressing and experiencing life on their level..
through innocent yet profound eyes.. vastly different from the jaded adult. I think maybe it’s like (since you used the food analogy)eating your very
first ice cream cone…if you can remember…is vastly different from eating
the same ice cream today,many cones later. I still recall my first
soda…7-Up…I had at a friend’s house and trying to describe it to my
Mother when I got home…telling her it was the BEST water I ever had!
I seldom order, if ever, that today. Same thing I recall with first orange popsicle! Can tell you today the place and time of that common treat that at that moment was so uniquely enjoyed. Absolutely impossible to get that same thrill out of a popsicle today! Age does make a difference regarding
how we experience something…including fantasy!It’s ok with me if adults
want to analyze and pull-apart the story…quess that can’t be avoided. But I think chidren want to LIVE the fantasy more than DIAGNOSE its
inner levels intended or not by the author…who probably just enjoyed weaving this tale…that only children could really appreciate ...a story for the simple sake of entertainment and delight!
And here is how I see it: Children love fairy tales because they instinctively understand that fairy tales are true. How they are true is the provenance of thoughtful grown-ups and critics, but that they are true is instinctively understood by every child—and by every adult with a childlike heart. They are wonderful and magical and overwhelming to young emotions and imagination, but their power is inseparable from their essential truth.
While I appreciate your ice cream example, I would propose an alternate gastronomic analogy in this case: A story like Beauty and the Beast is like a rich, zesty Pasta Provencale. The appeal is obvious to kids and adults alike, but it sticks to your ribs. It’s complicated. Lots of ingredients. Al dente. Anyone can enjoy eating it, but grown-up connoisseurs will savor the blend of seasonings and balance of one taste against another that makes it exquisite. It is not just for kids, and a child’s simple enjoyment is not the one best way to appreciate it—although the way a grown-up enjoys it certainly includes the same simple pleasure of a child’s enjoyment.
FWIW, I’m 42 years old (last Friday). But I am also 35 years old, and 20 years old, and 12 years old, and five years old. I am, so to speak, all of me—to date, at least!—and not just the sliver of me intersected by the present moment.
I allow that the intensity of a child’s experience of a movie like Beauty and the Beast (or Babe, Wall-E, or Bambi) can be quantitatively different from mine. But I also think that when I watch a movie like that, on some real level I do watch and enjoy with a child’s eyes. See the climax of Ratatouille, when Anton Ego’s first bite of Remy’s chef d’ourve zapped him right back into childhood. Obviously a rare experience for Ego ... but not for me! (And note that it didn’t prevent him from writing critically about it later!)
This is especially the case being a father, since I experience movies vicariously through my own children’s eyes, and their experience resonates with and reinforces my own inner child’s. Does growing up mean leaving childhood behind? Yes—but also no.
I enjoy Beauty and the Beast for the immersive fantasy that it is. That I also analyze and ruminate on it neither negates nor detracts from my simple and childlike enjoyment of it, any more than my ability to analyze the qualities of a terrific meal detracts from my enjoyment of the meal. On the contrary, it enhances it.
What you’ve written on how adults can enjoy fantansy film ( in this case a fairie tale story) on multiple levels is not refutable. I like your analogy of Pasta Provencale because it illustrates my point exactly…the depth of YOUR appreciation..even appreciaton itself..is specific to your age and experience. Most kids I know (children and grands)of a young age ( age appropriate to the film)would not touch it..let alone have a great appreciation for “PP”. This is why I chose as an example, an ice cream cone, totally irristable food for any kid…or a first taste of soda pop
as well as a popsicle…food of the gods when you are this age! Without getting into the health issues, or the rare kid that grows up in a gourmet
household appreciating adult food at an early age, I think my example of simple kid food better illustrates the point I was trying to make. You have used as an illustration of your point(s)a very sophisticated and complicated entre. By doing this you really help my point..being
that how we approach experiences (in this case viewing B&B)is largely dependent on where we’ve been or not been on the journey of life. To further substantiate this point, look in any public library. There is a juvenile section and an adult collection…totally separate. The adults can read (and some do) from the juvenile section and enjoy the selection as much as any they might
read in the adult area. However the lack of sophistication and wisdom that comes from experience will likely result in a total different reading experience for the juvenile. I think most authors will agree (and this also supports my premise) that juvenile fiction is much more difficult to write as it writing from a perspective most adults have since lost.
Maybe I am altogether out in left field here (perhaps that is why you are
a successful film critic and I am not)all alone. I offer this as a bit
different perspective on the child movie-goer..that the adult movie-goer
when they try to analyze a simple fairie tale get caught up in areas the
child would never go and fails to appreciate from a child’s viewpoint the value of just STORY with all its magic and fantasy sans psychological and complicated moral implications.
FWIW, SDG, I agree with everything you’ve written, but it seem to me that the pasta analogy fails in this way: Shamrock’s point seems to be that the person who first made up the story may or may not have cognizanced or intended the meanings we are now reading into it, whereas the person who made the pasta, or at least the person who wrote the recipe, was certainly aware of the various interplay between flavors, etc., that made the dish work, and could explain it if asked. This difference would seem to indicate that this kind of “rumination” on a fairy tale is external to the story and extraneous to the full enjoyment of it, in a way that full understanding of the complications of the Pasta Provencale is not external to the food, or extraneous to enjoying it simply as food. In other words, the complexity of the pasta dish is an inherent part of it, included and intended from its inception, but the same is not true of reflections on the meaning of fairy tales.
This is not to suggest, of course, that the deeper meaning we can draw out of a good fairy tale is merely an accidental property, since I think it’s ultimately this deeper meaning that makes the story work. I’m just suggesting that a critic analyzing a story has a much more indefinite task than a pasta connoisseur savoring a complicated dish—and, unlike the food critic, no one will ever be able to pronounce him right or wrong. (Note: I’m not saying the food critic’s taste can be pronounced right or wrong, only his analysis.)
Okay, maybe Pasta Provencale was a bit of a reach (I wanted the conceit of a French example). But we all know kids who like spaghetti, right? Tortellini, fusilli, lansagne? Granted that there are dishes that few kids would enjoy and kid meals that few adults would bother with, surely all food doesn’t bifurcate like that! I would be surprised if a good chef couldn’t prepare a Pasta Provencale that would appeal to both young and adult tastes. Or substitute some other dish. It was only an example.
The underlying point is, Beauty and the Beast is a family meal—not dessert, and certainly not simple kid food. It’s easy to enjoy, but offers nourishing substance, not just entertainment—and kids love it in part because of its substance. They don’t get “caught up” in it in a critical sense, but it affects them nonetheless. I don’t think that my seven-year-old daughter’s experience of Beauty and the Beast is totally unlike mine.
Likewise with books. There are books that are only for adults and books that appeal generally to children, but there are also books that are beloved by both children and adults: Lewis Carroll, Beatrix Potter, Mark Twain, E. B. White, The Velveteen Rabbit, The Chronicles of Narnia, The Hobbit. Even in the simplest picture books I have found astonishing artistry. Rosemary Wells’s Max’s Dragon Shirt, Frank Asch’s The Last Puppy and Sam McBratney’s Guess How Much I Love You are among the most perfect stories I have ever read. In particular, the last lines of the last two stories are among the best last lines ever written. And kids know it as well as I do.)
Pachy, I really don’t think that the substance of the meaning we perceive in Beauty and the Beast is accidental. The shape of the story and the stature it has in our culture reflects the creative influence of storytellers who understood very well what they were doing.
Their understanding may have been emotional and intuitive rather than analytical, as a musical prodigy weaves a melody without necessarily being conscious of all the musical theory that a critic might use to explain it. But the intuition and the theory grapple with the same realities.
I have to confess, I don’t remember the details exactly, but I remember that the first time I saw the amount of cleavage that the female characters in Beauty and the Beast exposed, and the not-the-least-bit-subtle sexual advances that one of the lesser characters (was it the candlestick?) made towards one of the others, I yanked the tape from my kids’ film library, and it’s been rotting in a dank corner of my basement ever since. Be careful parents, on the margins of an otherwise lovely story, there are often elements that are completely inappropriate which ruin the overall production.
Characters in Beauty and the Beast wear perfectly appropriate period clothing.
Shall we throw out the Vatican list film Fantasia because the centaurettes briefly appear topless? How about the Danny Kaye classic The Court Jester, with Glynis Johns and a very young Angela Lansbury in sometimes revealing but appropriate period garb? (Fabulous film! More families should know it.) And did you ever notice how much leg some of those Emerald City dancers show in the Vatican list film The Wizard of Oz?
As for the brief depiction of Lumiere’s advances on the feather duster—behind a curtain!—I really can’t see how this will corrupt children. For one thing, they’re anthropomorphized household objects. For another, the scene illustrates that Lumiere is acting in an untrustworthy and unworthy way (he was supposed to be watching Belle’s door). This would be an appropriate place for a parental editorial comment, like “He really shouldn’t be doing that, should he?” As parents, we do have the right and the ability to shape how our children understand ambiguous elements in films. Is the scene so subversive that it would override your parental input?
The male-female interaction that matters, of course, is between Belle and the Beast, where true love and self-sacrifice are emphasized. The idea that a little cleavage or a candlestick getting frisky with a feather duster behind a curtain are so inappropriate that they ruin the loveliness of the overall production and make it something we must shield our children from is an outlook I just can’t understand.
Oh, come on, Steve, tell me you disagree with my perspective, but don’t tell me it’s an outlook you just can’t understand. It’s obvious and we see it all the time. There’s an otherwise lovely or entertaining film like Beauty, but the producers slip a little ringer in there, one or two objectionable scenes, and figure people will tolerate those little bits of pollution in consideration of the overall beauty of the production. Kids then grow accustomed to the cleavage and the hanky-panky, and learn that there’s nothing wrong with it, or parents have to give 15 year-old’s answers to 5 year-olds’ questions. It’s desensitizing. The centaurettes in Fantasia were appearing in their own natural environment, and were not alluring, provocative, or anatomically detailed. The Emerald City legs were, as you say, in revealing but appropriate period garb. Sorry, my film library isn’t extensive enough to carry The Court Jester. The costumes the characters wear in B&B may be “perfectly appropriate period clothing” but it’s not appropriate for the under-12 crowd the film is aimed at. At worst, some of us (parents disgusted at Disney once again sneaking sleeze into children’s films) will dump the film and go on to others that have NOTHING objectionable in them (hard to find). At best, even you might be good enough to recognize that the scenes that I found objectionable add nothing positive, and that it would have been a better film without them.
I cannot for a minute agree with your rating for this film, Mr. Greydanus. Disney’s anti-family, anti-Christian agenda (common among most movie producers these days) is easy enough to see for the discerning Christian.
For anyone interested, I would recommend reading Michael D. O’Brien’s ‘A Landscape With Dragons: The Battle for Your Child’s Mind’, which can be found at http://www.catholiccompany.com
Jim
Patrick,
Sorry, I didn’t mean to suggest that I didn’t understand the principle of objecting to a few elements in an otherwise unobjectionable presentation. I also accept that reasonable people may disagree about the pros and cons of particular films. I like How to Train Your Dragon and don’t like Happy Feet, but I can understand someone disagreeing with me on either of those films. I can even understand someone disagreeing with me on Beauty and the Beast. It’s just making Lumiere with the feather duster behind the curtain and a bit of cleavage the grounds for leaving the movie to rot in a dank corner of the basement that I find hard to sympathize with.
Has it been awhile since you watched Fantasia? “Alluring” is an excellent word for exactly what the centaurettes are. It’s low-key while they’re topless, but once they get dressed and the male centaurs show up they really turn up the heat.
Jim,
Michael O’Brien makes some defensible points about Disney’s Beauty and the Beast, but I don’t agree with his take overall. O’Brien misleadingly suggests that the original fairy tale presented the Beast only as “deformed” and “grotesque”: In fact Marie Le Prince de Beaumont’s version presents him as a “frightful beast” and a “monster” with a “terrible voice” (O’Brien specifically objects to the Beast’s terrifying voice) and whose appearance is so horrific that Belle’s father nearly faints on first seeing him.
I think O’Brien overreaches and exaggerates to make his points. He’s got a point about the fleeting but unfortunate portrayal of the clergyman, but is the term “clown-like” really justified? Why does he change the word “enchantress” to “witch”? Is it really convincing that the transformation of the Beast isn’t justified because “no truly person does harm in order to bring about a good”? Would O’Brien equally apply that standard across to board to any fairy-tale transformation that reveals what a person truly is? The enchantress arguably hasn’t “harmed” the Beast at all, only revealed what he was in order to bring about his redemption. O’Brien seriously oversimplifies in saying that the Beast “has a heart of gold”: Not in the first act, when he locks up Belle’s father, then keeps Belle a prisoner against her will, he doesn’t. I could go on, but I’ll leave it at that.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.