People seem to be pretty divided about Beauty and the Beast. Some people say it’s a little problematic and Stockholm-syndrome-y; others say that it’s alright, and just a sweet but unconventional romance where a lot of things could’ve gone wrong but the pair made it work. I guess that also depends on what version you’re thinking of, because there are approximately a thousand. You probably know the main plot of the story: clever and kind Beauty (or Belle) has to go live with a monstrous Beast, but they fall in love. You probably know all the story beats too, because the Disney film is just that ubiquitous.
But as with most fairy tales, there are many, many versions. In terms of prose, there’s the original French novel from 1740, or the abridged and more famous version from 16 years later, and some people draw a connection to the tale from even Cupid and Psyche, written in the age of the early Roman Empire. In film, you’ve of course got 1991’s Disney adaptation, its 2017 remake, and stretching all the way back to 1946, Jean Cocteau’s cult-classic adaptation. Like most fairy tales, you can find versions of it from all over the world, from Russia to India to Japan. And naturally it’s been adapted into different genres too, from science fiction to dark fantasy (which does seem to be a favourite).
I watched Jean Cocteau’s film version recently. It was made at a time of many constraints and limited materials/budget; of course, the Second World War had just ended and France was struggling. Even so, it seems to have been iconic, because it looks like Disney was greatly inspired by it. For one, Gaston wasn’t in the original tale from the 1700s, but Cocteau added a character named Avenant in his film: a narcissistic hunter who fancies Belle. Imagine that. That said, Cocteau kept three other characters: Belle’s two sisters and their brother. Disney, of course, cut all that. Why?
I think we have to go back to the old version from 1756 — the shortened version of the original novel — to find out. That version was written by Jeanne-Marie Leprince de Beaumont, a French governess and educator of children, especially young women. She was keen on teaching young women about the world, and her version of Beauty and the Beast is often described to be a tale addressing the anxieties of young women who had to go along with arranged marriages. The Beast, being a sort of unknown and frightening entity that Belle has to live with, does lend to that interpretation. However, it’s clear even in this version that Belle does have a sense of dignity about her person. She’s bookish and enjoys it, she’s kind to others, and especially cares about her father. This contrasts starkly with her sisters, who only value looking good and getting what they want. Their three other brothers aren’t really too relevant because they leave for the army, though they do care about Belle.
The Beast in de Beaumont’s story is, well, complicated. He does seem to be manipulative: he gets Belle’s father to bring one of his daughters as punishment for taking some of his roses (in this version, Belle’s father asks his daughters what they want as gifts for when he returns from out of town — Belle arbitrarily asks for a rose because she’s not too bothered about gifts). In other words, the inciting incident is the Beast’s idea, because he knows that his curse will be broken once a beautiful woman agrees to marry him. Once Belle arrives at his home, this Beast asks her to marry him every night, which is a little uncomfortable for her and for us, the readers. In fairness, the Beast sees these proposals as extremely important for his life; he really doesn’t want to be the Beast any longer than he has to be. Importantly, in this original version, there’s no reason given for the Beast’s curse; he wasn’t evil and had to be taught a lesson or anything. It just seems that he’s unlucky. So we can have a little sympathy for him in that respect, BUT he’s still using Belle for his own ends.
It's rather difficult to support such a ‘romance’ story. Perhaps this was de Beaumont’s message for all the young women she hoped to educate through this story: it may be that your new husband only sees you as a means to an end, and that sucks. However, de Beaumont still wrote this as a romance. Maybe it’s more like “you may be seen as a means to an end, BUT here’s how you can still be happy.” Belle really does seem to love the Beast despite his troubling character: she does reject his proposals for over three months, and she seems to be comfortable doing so. She even values him as a friend, showing that she doesn’t hate him. Perhaps de Beaumont is teaching her readers that you can be free to love the most imperfect people, though I may be too charitable in that interpretation.
In any case, Disney in 1991 absolutely didn’t want to tell a story about arranged marriages. That version’s writers wanted a more straightforward (and healthy) romance, and so a lot of changes were made. For one, the Beast is no longer conniving; he’s just a little dumb, and he can’t articulate himself well. He can occasionally veer into possessive territory, but Belle sets him straight — sometimes in a more ‘motherly’ way, which can be questionable, but then maybe not. This Beauty and the Beast story is more interested in the Beast’s flawed character, and being sympathetic to him. It sets up his arc very clearly at the beginning: he was self-centered and uncaring, so he has to learn from someone selfless and caring. Now, also, we have Gaston: a character who’s very much self-centered and uncaring, whom we can compare the Beast with. One of them learns their lesson, and the other doesn’t.
Remember: in de Beaumont’s version, the marriage of Beauty and the Beast was crucial to the Beast’s transformation back into the Prince that he really is. In Disney’s version, it’s not as rigidly-defined: Beauty and the Beast must love each other. In other words, there’s some magical force that will take effect when the two love each other, but what ‘love’ means is up to them, right? Perhaps it will look odd and even problematic sometimes to others, but they are both okay with it — they both love each other. “Bittersweet and strange; finding you can change; learning you were wrong.” That’s how Disney’s song goes, and that sounds pretty genuine to me, as far as love goes.
I really like Beauty and the Beast; the Disney one, anyway, not the others where the Beast is manipulative and clingy. But I think there’s absolutely still some wiggle-room for interpretation as to what’s problematic or not. That’s the case with all media; different people are going to interpret things differently. I’m always inclined to want the more positive interpretation, I suppose, for better or for worse. All I’m saying is this: if I met Beauty and the Beast as a married couple 20 years after the events of the Disney movie, and they told me how they got together, who am I to consider it problematic then? Maybe I like Beauty and the Beast too much.
Add comment
Comments