a tale as old as 1991

Liking the 1990s Disney Beauty & the Beast is about as controversial an opinion as liking bacon or puppies. But, well, I like the 1990s Disney Beauty & the Beast. And also bacon. And also puppies. Because I’ve kind of got to the stage in my life where movies are out on DVD/streaming services before I’ve really noticed before they’ve stopped being in the cinemas I didn’t get around to watching the new live action re-make (is it really a re-make if it’s effectively in a different medium, and to what extent is live action cinema a different medium from animation? I have the answer to none of these questions) until comparatively recently.

I wasn’t sure entirely sure what to make of it at first. The problem with the current wave of Disney re-inventions is that they sort of start with the assumption that you’re familiar with the original (I mean, I’m sure there are legitimate small children who went to see the live action Beauty & the Beast without having seen the cartoon first but I’m sure they were also surrounded by 30-somethings, and indeed 40-somethings, and 50-somethings watching the film with a keen awareness of how it stacked up against their memories of 1991). This makes it a bit hard to evaluate them as entities in their own right, which his difficult because I really don’t like using “fidelity to original” as a yardstick for any adaptation.

I think the thing that most struck me was what a difference it makes to be looking at real people instead of cartoon characters. Well, inasmuch as you are. After all, one of the defining features of the story is that most of the significant characters are under an enchantment that requires them to be rendered using various levels of motion capture and CGI. But it does mean that there are things that you can sort of gloss over in the cartoon that you can’t so much when you’re dealing with live actors. Like how utterly messed it up it is that the people worst affected by the Enchantress’s curse were the Beast’s servants and their families, despite their being in no way responsible for, or indeed able to control or challenge, his actions.

Film very much isn’t my medium. But I think it’s fairly safe to suggest that when you covert from a cartoon to traditional cinematography you need to, as it were, paint with a smaller brush. You can still lean to some extent on tropes, expectations and assumptions but you can’t rely on montages and Angela Lansbury to sell your whole relationship. And perhaps it’s the romance novelist in me but my first thought after watching the film was how strange it was that they put more effort into selling the romance between Belle and the Beast, but that it nevertheless came across as less convincing. And I should stress that this is no criticism of the writers, actors, director or, well, anyone else. It’s just that you’re faced with turning story based on fairytale archetypes, in which it’s natural to assume that the male lead and female led will fall in love just because, and in which love itself is a very abstract concept, into a proper film with an emotional arc.

But, in retrospecti, I think a big part of it is simply that the Disney Beauty & the Beast isn’t actually especially interested in its love story. And, to an extent, Disney movies never are. They’re usually about the protagonist going on some kind of journey (literally in the case of Moana) and the Prince or Prince-analogue is primarily a symbol or an unlockable bonus.  Actually, check that. I think it might be better to say that there are some relatively identifiable eras in Disney.

Your really classic films (your Snow Whites and Cinderellas) are, and I’m trying to think of a way to express this without sounding disparaging, not really interested in being much more than beat-by-beat retellings of traditional fairytales. And that’s not a bad thing, and there’s a lot of interesting stuff going on in those films—the animation is often beautiful, the stories are very well captured, well imagined and well realised, but, say, Sleeping Beauty isn’t trying to be anything except Sleeping Beauty. It is, I think, quite telling that the breakout character from that movie is Maleficent because Aurora is just a fairytale princess and Philip is just a fairytale prince, and the film doesn’t seem to have been made with any sense that those characters could be about anything except the archetypes they embody. Everything they do they do because that’s the sort of thing that sort of character does in that sort of story—up to and including falling in love with each other.

Then you get to what you’d your second golden age films. This basically starts with The Little Mermaid and, weirdly, doesn’t include that many actual princess movies. The really big names of 90s Disney canon are Aladdin, The Lion King, Beauty & the Beast, and The Little Mermaid. Pretty much all of these films (and, all the other 90s Disney movies that aren’t quite as famous or as good) are about a young person who is in some way discontent with the life they are living who goes out, has an adventure, learns a moral lesson, and eventually settles down into a life that is better than the one they had, but probably not quite the one they thought they wanted. Thinking about it, The Lion King is a slight exception in that Simba starts off perfectly happy being heir to the Pridelands and gets actively chased away by his wicked Uncle.

The third era of Disney (by my own personal canon, I’m not like a proper Disney scholar or anything, I’m sure proper Disney scholars exist) roughly coincides with the rise of Pixar and can almost be characterised as post-Disney. The films get much more self-aware, not only of the social context in which they exist but also of the wider meta-text of the Disney brand. Hell, there’s a line in Moana where Dwayne ‘The Rock’ Johnson explicitly says “If you wear a dress and have an animal side-kick you’re a princess.” They still have most of the beats that you’d associate with a 90s-era Disney film but will tend to be more interested in what they can do within that framework and will often deliberately challenge or subvert your expectations. I spent the whole of Frozen nebulously concerned that this story, which so clearly and consistently centralised a relationship between two sisters, was going to end with one or other them getting rescued by the misunderstood romantic interest. I was really pleased when it didn’t.

Anyway, post-90s Disney isn’t really my concern here because I’m talking about Beauty & the Beast, and especially about why I think it doesn’t especially work as a love story, and doesn’t especially have to. When you get right down to it most 90s Disney movies (and pretty much all post-90s Disney movies) are coming-of-age stories. Which, well, of course they are. They’re pitched at an audience for whom that is the most relevant sort of narrative. But it does mean that when romance features in a Disney film it is rightly and necessarily subservient to personal growth. So, Ariel winds up married to Prince Eric but it’s not really about him, it’s about her desire to make her own choices about who she’s going to be. Aladdin winds up with Jasmine, but only as a side-effect of his realising that he doesn’t need magic or bling to be valued as a human being.   Simba gets together with Nala but only as part of a wider story about homecoming. And, in (very retro) retrospect what’s interesting about the love story in Beauty & the Beast is that it doesn’t really reflect Belle’s personal growth, it reflects the Beast’s.

I said earlier on that first era Disney movies were pretty much beat-by-beat re-tellings of the original fairytale, right down to the bits that make no sense, and occasionally shonky morals (apparently the stated moral of the original Sleeping Beauty is “lucky people are lucky even when they are asleep” and, honestly, it’s a bit harder to take any lesson apart from that away from the Disney version). Of course, Beauty & the Beast (fairystory version) has a really simple moral: you shouldn’t judge people by their appearances, because someone who looks like a hideous monster could actually turn out to be a member of the hereditary aristocratic and, therefore, innately superior to you and above reproach in all regards (seriously, when you think about it, it is fundamentally problematic that we use the phrase ‘a prince’ to mean a uniquely kind, generous and charitable person. We have real princes in my country. They’re just guys. Sometimes they cheat on their wives or go to parties dressed as Nazis). And one of the things that’s interesting about the 1991 Beauty & is that people tend to watch it assuming it has the same moral as the fairytale, even though, on a moment’s reflection, it absolutely does not.

Yes, when Belle first meets the Beast she’s frightened of him. But then she’s in a legitimately frightening situation and he’s behaving in a legitimately frightening way. Although she is quite hostile to the Beast when they first meet that’s because he behaves like a total arsehole. And at no point does she really object to anything except his behaviour. I mean, okay, there’s slightly ambiguous line when she refuses come to dinner because “he’s a monster” but, in context, it seems fairly clear that she means “because he abducted my father, forced me to exchange myself for him, and is now holding me captive against my will” not “because he has horns and a cute fuzzy beard.” Similarly, she is completely uninterested in Gaston right from the word go. He’s a dick, and she knows he’s a dick, and she hates him. And the fact that he’s the size of a barge and has a swell cleft in his chin in no way endears him to her. “Don’t judge people by their appearances” isn’t a lesson Belle learns because she never shows any sign of having to learn it.  In fact, she doesn’t really learn anything. She’s basically great at the start of the movie and she’s still great at the end of it. The character who gets the arc in Beauty & the Beast is the Beast. In a very real sense, the moral of the 1991 Disney version of Beauty & the Beast isn’t “don’t judge people by their appearance” it’s “don’t be a colossal dick to everybody.”

Which, after a mere one thousand, seven hundred and ninety six words, brings me to the actual topic I wanted to talk about: the recent live action remake and its, perhaps slightly surprising, themes. Because live action cinema is an inherently more nuanced medium than, and here I’m a bit stuck for a name for a genre. I don’t want to say ‘animation’ because while classic 2D animated Disney movies tend to be slightly broad strokes I’m not sure you can say the same about all animated movies ever. What about the Ghost in the Shell? What about Belleville Rendezvous? In fact I’ll just have to stick with that. So “because live action cinema is an inherently more nuanced medium than classic 2D animated Disney movies” the film’s exploration of its central “don’t be a dick” theme is itself more interesting and nuanced than the exploration of that same theme in the 1991 original.

To put it another way, for a Disney princess movie, the film says a remarkable amount of subtle and challenging things about cultural attitudes to masculinity.

I should stress that I am in no way suggesting that my reading of the live action Beauty & the Beast is the one that the actors, screenwriters, directors or CGI animation crew intended. Or that it’s any more valid than any other interpretation. But the lens through which I think about the movie makes sense of some choices that the movie made, by which I was initially puzzled. Those choices being the weird dead mothers thing, the bit with the library, and what the heck was up with Gaston?

Belle and the Beast both get more backstory in the live action film than they did in the original. In particular, it’s made explicit in the film, where it was sort of implicit in the animation, that their mothers both died when they were young, leaving them to be raised by their fathers. This is partly, I think, presented as a point of similarity between the characters as a way of suggesting to the audience that they have things in common over which they could bond, and through which they could develop a deeper understanding of each other.

In the Beast’s case, however, it also serves to explain why he’s, well, such a dick. Not, I should stress, that it suggests that everyone whose mother dies grows up to be a dickhead. But in the sense that is very specifically stated that after the Beast’s mother died his cruel and emotionally distant father raised him within a very specific model of masculinity, in which there was no room for grief or, indeed, any particular emotion except pride or anger. When we first encounter the Beast, he’s dressed in the height of 18th century fashion, complete with powdered wig, white make-up and gold brocade frockcoat. And, again, I don’t want to read too much into what might just be an aesthetic choice for the opening shot of the movie, but I couldn’t help but notice that the way the Beast presents himself in his original human form involves nothing authentic. Every inch of his body is concealed, covered up or painted over. And he seems to be throwing this almost cartoonishly decadent party, as if he’s trying to cut himself off completely from anything that is not under his control or part of his creation.

Then, of course, the Enchantress shows up. And, let’s be clear, the Enchantress is a dick. You don’t curse a castle full of people just because the guy they work for was mean to you.

The film is a bit unclear about what the Beast actually does in the intervening, um, well the live action film doesn’t specify. But the cartoon says ten years. Of course, the cartoon also says that the curse must be broken before the Beast turns twenty-one, which means that the cartoon version of the Enchantress put the whole castle under a punishing and genuinely dangerous spell because of the actions of a nine-year-old. And, also, by the way, made a condition of that spell that this nine-year-old persuade somebody to fall in love with them. That is so messed up on so many levels.

Anyway, the film is silent on what the Beast does in the intervening time, but given the state of the castle it seems pretty clear that he spends most of it raging and smashing shit (he may also have taken some time out to commission some new gargoyles but I think we can assume they were the consequence of magical transformation, rather than the Beast’s keen eye for neo-gothic architecture). By the time Belle arrives he is seven kinds of fucked up because he has spent the past hopefully not a decade expressing the only emotions he’s ever been taught were acceptable. Those being anger and nothing else (given that pride kind of went out the window when he got turned into a buffalo monster in a cape). His relationship with Belle, then, becomes less about his learning to love in the generic Disney sense that he learns to love in the 1991 animation and more about his learning that it’s okay to feel shit and shit.

This is where the bit with the library comes in. One of the differences between live action Beauty & the Beast and animation Beauty & the Beast that most puzzled me on initial viewing was the different context in which the Beast takes Belle to the library. In the cartoon, it’s your textbook big romantic gesture. It’s the first time he makes an effort to win Belle’s affections, which is important in two ways, firstly because it shows that he has paid attention to who she is and what she wants, but also that he has started to care enough about the other characters in the castle to actually have a real go at breaking the curse for their sakes as much as for his own.  Not only that but in the animation it seems quite explicit that the Beast can’t read (slightly surprising for somebody who would have access to an aristocrat’s education but, as we’ve established, cartoon Beast was already living alone and in charge of the castle when he got turned into a giant slavering monster at the age of nine) and Belle teaches him to read as part of the falling in love with each other montage that encapsulates their whole relationship.

In the film, the Beast is a highly literate man. Because of course he is. He’s a fucking aristocrat—although he apparently has little Greek. Honestly, call yourself classically educated? He takes Belle to the library because they have a conversation about Shakespeare in which it becomes apparent that her access to literature has been somewhat limited by the fact that she’s, y’know, a peasant in 18th century France. An interesting detail is that, whereas in the cartoon the village library is implausibly overstocked (although Belle has still read everything in it), the library in the live action film is a shelf in a church. In the cartoon the library is a gift that the Beast gives to Belle. But in the live action film it’s something he shares with her almost casually. And, in a strange way, that’s a lot more moving.

To put it another way, in the cartoon, the Beast gives Belle the library knowing she’ll think it’s brilliant and then feels validated because she thinks it’s brilliant. In the live action film, he takes her to the library because it’s there and then is surprised and touched by her delight in it. It’s the first time in the movie that the Beast recognises both his own privilege and his own limitation. Not only does Belle take delight in something that he has clearly always taken for granted, but she also responds to something in a way that has never himself been able to. In essence, it’s his first inkling that his worldview is damaging. It’s a nice counterpoint to Belle’s opening number. She starts the film lamenting the fact that her circumstances mean that she has to live a life that is less than what her imagination can encompass. While the Beast, it becomes apparent, has limitless resources but remains caged within the masculine role defined for him by his father and the society he lives in (and also, y’know, by the magic castle with a spell on it, but I think that’s what we call a metaphor).

Similarly, on first viewing I wasn’t sure how I felt about the fact that Belle no longer teaches the Beast to read. I initially was concerned that it took some of the reciprocality out of their relationship but, in hindsight, I’m not totally convinced that the cartoon’s setup of “you save me from wolves, I save you from illiteracy” is a particularly strong basis for a marriage. Also, there’s something quite problematically gendered about the way in which he physically rescues her from wolves by fighting, and then she emotionally or metaphorically rescues him by doing something nurturing. And so, actually, despite the fact that making the Beast the more literate of the two would seem to take power away from Belle and give it to the Beast it instead makes their relationship feel more balanced (Belle is also much less helpless against the wolf attack in the live action version).

What we get in place of the teaching the Beast to read Romeo & Juliet sequence (sidebar: I am really annoyed that movies always treat Romeo and Juliet like it’s a romance when it definitely isn’t) is a scene in which Belle’s reading a poem on a bridge and the words combine with the landscape to show the Beast the beauty of his world as he has never been capable of seeing it before. And this starts a sequence of events that lead to the Beast taking Belle to Paris (and also possibly back in time?) through a magic book (I’d say it made more sense in context, but it doesn’t entirely) which allows her to experience some closure about the death of her mother and which, in turn, allows the Beast finally accept his own grief at the death of his. Thus we arrive at a Beast who we can see as a complete human being, no longer constrained by his father’s expectations.

Of course, in the live action film, as in the animation, the Beast is contrasted against Gaston. And, in some ways, real-person Gaston is less successful than cartoon Gaston because he’s more nuanced and, therefore, less coherent. Cartoon Gaston is basically just an embodiment of the provincial attitudes that Belle seeks to leave behind. He uses antlers in all of his decorating, and envisions a future of Belle rubbing his feet in a rustic hunting lodge, surrounded by their six or seven strapping boys.  He works well as a foil but he’s almost impossible to take seriously as a threat. It’s quite hard to be frightened of somebody once they’ve had a pig on their head.

Gaston, in the live action movie, is at once more sympathetic and more threatening. There’s this whole thing where he’s fairly explicitly a war veteran and it’s sort of played for laughs (Lefou will often remind Gaston of all the war and the blood and the killing as a way of making him calm down and go to his happy place) but there’s also this weird PTSD undercurrent. He veers between uncontrollable rage and deep depression. He sometimes seems to genuinely scare Lefou, who often seems to think that Gaston is not thinking rationally or is spiralling out of control. At the risk of a comparison that the text can’t quite bear, he’s almost like Coriolanus: a warrior who finds himself returning to a society that no longer quite needs warriors.

Perhaps the strangest Gaston sequence in the live action film is his interaction with Maurice. In the cartoon, this is very straight forward. Maurice comes into the inn, talking about a Beast, Gaston finds it hilarious and dismisses him, then evolves his plan to blackmail Belle into marriage by having her father committed to an asylum. Having a father is a real liability in Disney movies. In particular, though, cartoon Gaston’s plan relies on the fact that, because he is literally the embodiment of his society, he can basically say anything and people will go along with it. There’s never any indication that he might lack the power to have Maurice locked up. Or, having had him locked up, to have released.

In the live action film, things go very differently. When Maurice talks about the Beast, Gaston seems to genuinely take him seriously. You could reasonably interpret this as him attempting to humour the old man in an effort to win his favour as part of the whole woo and marry Belle extravaganza he’s got going on. But, to me, it feels more like he either believes him or wants to believe him. Again, maybe I’m over-analysing or over-reaching but the impression I got was that live action Gaston has spent his whole life fighting and jumps at the chance to turn his current problem into something he can shoot at with a gun. Almost tragically, it seems like he seriously wants to rescue Belle from the Beast because that is the narrative that he will clearly have been raised to believe in. This is his role as a man in his society. And, ironically, also kind of his role as the young attractive guy in a Disney movie.

When Maurice is unable to find his way back to the Beast’s castle and starts to sound more like he’s delusional and less like he saw a real monster (specifically the point where he starts claiming that a tree that is now perfectly fine had previously been struck by lightning), Gaston legitimately flips out and tries to kill him. And Lefou reacts to this not the way a comedy Disney sidekick would react to it but the way you might react if your best mate who you were also kind of in love with flipped out and tried to kill an old man. Or, even more interestingly, the way you might react if your best mate who you were also kind of in love with flipped out and tried to kill an old man, and you’d been lowkey suspecting for quite a while this might be the sort of thing he’d try to do. He’s not shocked. He’s clearly got a strategy for calming Gaston down. But the impression is very much that Gaston has been seriously emotionally damaged by his experiences and that Lefou is, to some extent, fighting to save the man he used to know. Again, I might be reading more into it than is actually there.

In the end, Gaston leaves Maurice tied to a tree for the wolves, which Lefou is not super happy about. When they get back to the village (because the focus is mostly on Belle and the Beast, we have quite a lot of time away from Gaston between the tree-tying and the return) it turns out that Maurice has been rescued and the villagers are genuinely upset that Gaston tried to kill him. There’s a moment when it seems that the village might actually side with Maurice and put Gaston in jail (or the nebulously historical French peasant village equivalent) for attempted murder. It’s only when Gaston persuades Lefou to lie for him (which Lefou really doesn’t want to do) that they’re able to sell the “crazy old Maurice” story, which, in the cartoon, everyone accepts without question.

In the cartoon, Gaston embodies cultural norms that, in different ways, reject both Belle and the Beast. In the live action film Gaston feels much more like—and I’m really sorry to use this language—the Beast’s dark reflection. They’re both ultimately men who come from positions of privilege who have been raised to accept a very specific and narrow definition of masculinity that expresses itself entirely through anger, violence and cruelty, and that has no mechanism for responding to defiance, disempowerment or disappointment. They both go through a crisis in which they realise that they can’t have Belle because she has other priorities and is a real person with agency. And they both articulate their reaction to this crisis through song. The Beast’s song is ‘Evermore’. Gaston’s song is ‘Kill The Beast’.

Evermore‘ is a really interesting song because it’s not a song that male characters usually get in musicals. It has far more in common with numbers like ‘Green Finch and Linnet Bird‘, ‘On my Own‘ or ‘As Long As He Needs‘ me (songs in which women sing about how they will wait for, remain true to, or otherwise put up with men who either mistreat them, aren’t interested in them or haven’t got around to rescuing them yet) than songs like ‘Maria’, ‘Joanna’ or ‘I Won’t Send Roses‘ (songs where men sing about how they going to get with girls despite the fact that they are forbidden to, uninterested in or bad for them). Essentially the Beast is coming to terms with his own powerlessness, and committing to wait passively for Belle to choose him if she so desires.

Gaston, meanwhile, sings about burning everything the shit down. And, ultimately, he falls down a big hole to his death because, even at the final moment, he refuses to accept a narrative in which he is not the hero and violence is not the solution. He basically pulls a Javert, putting himself in a situation where he’s definitely going to die, because the alternative is to live in a world that needs mercy and kindness more than it needs an unbending servant of the law or a man who is especially good at expectorating.

And I should probably acknowledge that it is kinda problematic to have written a 4780 word essay arguing that a Disney princess movie starring a modern feminist icon is primarily about the dudes. But, well, I think it’s an interesting way of looking at the film. And I guess I do find something weirdly subversive about a Disney princess coming-of-age story in which the Disney princess is fine and in which it is the job of her society and the men around her to adapt to her standards rather than the other way around.

musing

25 Responses to a tale as old as 1991

  1. EmmaT says:

    This was brilliant. Really, I loved every minute of reading this essay. I

  2. Adira August says:

    Feminism is always about the dudes. Unless we all arm ourselves, you still have the power to kill us.

    But Belle is the Alpha female. What the dudes don’t get is: becoming the Alpha male only brings one reward–first access to the Alpha female. Still, they only get her IF she accepts them.

    Except, yanno, H. sap invented rape so all evolutionary bets are off. (see: D.Trump)

  3. LeKat says:

    First things first. I love this post with a big squishy cartoon heart.

    One of the things that struck me the most about the new film was the way it, I think, shines a light on toxic masculinity. I don’t know whether it was intentional by the makers, or if it being live action allowed for more nuance and therefore interpretation, but I found how both The Beast and Gaston were presented super interesting.

    With The Beast, I think it’s quite overt in the way it shows how and why he came to be the person a dickish Enchantress randomly decides to curse: there’s a small amount of filling in of the back story concerning his relationship with his father, the servants express regret about not doing enough to stop what happened to Prince Adam. (As an aside: the guilt they felt about their role in what happened to him was misplaced and REALLY bothered me.) And all of that together is designed, I think, to show deep down The Beast is A Good. Because only a person without an ounce of compassion wouldn’t feel sympathy about someone suffering from abuse.

    In contrast, Gaston’s back story extends to occasional mentions about the war. And the lack of detail with his back story is, I suspect, something that was quite deliberate and what actually makes me think he’s probably seriously more misunderstood out of the two. Maybe my Gaston views are influenced by the fact in a wrestling match no one bites like him and he’s especially good at expectorating totally does it for me, but he went to war, he survived it, and there’s no way his experiences there wouldn’t have impacted him. So I’m willing to die on the hill that the new version of Gaston is suffering from PTSD but it wasn’t openly acknowledged because it wouldn’t entirely fit in with the narrative that he’s meant to be A Bad.

    So there’s possibly been some gentle manipulation in order to get the audience to root for the so-called “right” person.

    Basically I think they’re two sides of the same coin because they’re both products of their (respective toxic masculinity) environments, and they behave in ways that is either expected of them, or in which they’ve learned.

    My other take away from the film is how legit upsetting I found the servants story. Obviously we’re all aware of them being unfairly punished. The almost too-easy-to-miss moments of Cardenza and Madame Garderobe reuniting because previously they were separated due the their type of furniture not being conducive to going up and down stairs, Mrs Potts lamenting about not seeing her child grow up, plus the realisation that Mrs Potts’ child is literally at risk of smashing into a million pieces, really showed what it is they’ve suffered and through no fault of their own. And things were confounded for me the moment The Beast essentially condemns them (albeit he didn’t know for sure Belle would come back) to a lifetime of being furniture people. I know it was meant to be seen as a noble gesture on his part because he was willing to sacrifice his own happiness to make Belle happy. But I kind of wanted him to sit on a rusty spike because it was never a decision he morally wrestled with.

    Okay. I think that’s everything 😀

    • Alexis Hall says:

      Wow, get out of my head you 😛

      All the the weirdly unexamined classist furniture stuff really upset me too, it’s just there wasn’t really space in this blog post to talk about and so I concentrated on the toxic masculinity stuff instead. I think it’s difficult because the palace is clearly a microcosm of the society in which the Beast lives so there’s an extent to which the servants’ realisation that they failed to stop Prince Adam growing up to be dickhead Prince Adam is supposed to represent the way in which people in general are responsible for reinforcing the cultural norms and expectations that created the Beast and Gaston.

      I did, however, find it really upsetting because in practical terms a chambermaid can’t tell her master how to raise his kid or how the kid should himself behave.

      I do agree that the Gaston has a tragic backstory interpretation is only really danced around by the film and, although I think there’s an extent to which that doesn’t do him in an justice, given that it is still primarily a fairytale about good versus evil it was probably right the call. On a more practical level, I think it’s also important to recognise that you can condemn someone’s behaviour while understanding where they’re coming from. I mean, by my (and I think your) reading of the film Gaston and the Beast are basically like Boromir and Faramir: yes you can understand why Boromir felt he had to take the ring, but the dude still tried to murder a hobbit.

  4. Lennan Adams says:

    I love this post <3 I really loved this movie (and the soundtrack and now have Evermore stuck in my head.) Really good analysis, you are so smart. I've been wondering what you thought of it. Gaston was the toughest character for me (vs 1991 Gaston) and yeah that is because he's not just suffering from toxic masculinity, he's got some form of PTSD. He felt unpredictably scary and I didn't love that but this explanation makes perfect sense.
    Anyway thanks, this is amazing. I adore *Board Game and Movie Reviews by AJH*

    • Alexis Hall says:

      Aww, thank you. So happy you enjoyed this.

      Like I say, the Gaston has PTSD thing sat really weirdly with me for a while because it made him feel at once more sympathetic and more frightening. And, on some level, it’s lowkey problematic if you’re casting a person with what could be read as legitimate mental health problem in the role of cartoon villain.

  5. Pam/Peejakers says:

    Oh, man, this is amazing; I really *love* your take on this! First, you’ve articulated some vague feelings I had about both the Beast and Belle in this version, but hadn’t quite formulated into thoughts. The masculinity stuff. And the way Beast is centralized in this, just to name a couple. Though, in a way, I think I always felt this fairy tale was more about Beast than about Beauty, unless maybe that was just me 🙂

    I didn’t react to Gaston in the same way at all though. But as I was reading what you wrote I was essentially going, oh wow, so it’s like he’s the negative reflection of Beast, even before you actually said “dark mirror”, so yeah, I agree, I think that’s very legit.

    I have to confess that I’ve always had a built-in prejudice against Gaston that goes beyond his obnoxiousness; I just dislike his presence in the story at all. I also confess I haven’t always been the biggest fan of the more modern “Disneyfications” of fairy tales for being exactly as you say “more than beat-by-beat retellings of traditional fairytales”, because that’s what I *wanted* them to be. I guess this is called being a purist, or something? But, typically what I want from the movie version (animated or otherwise), of almost any book – assuming I liked it – is for it to be, basically, the book brought to life, exactly as written. Which is virtually impossible, but the closer they can get to that, the better I like it.

    And also, I’ve always really liked that archetypal feel and the almost austere spareness of fairytales, so at first I wasn’t crazy about trading that for lots of quirkiness and humor and cuteness and spunky personality.

    I’ve mostly gotten over that since, and managed to adore the Disney animated Beauty and the Beast especially, because almost everything about it is just irresistible. But I’ve always been deeply annoyed by the Gaston character. Partly just because he doesn’t exist in the fairy tale, or not the version I read, at least. But also I really disliked what his presence does to the story. How it introduces this competition for Belle’s affections. And I hated the whole “Kill the Beast” thing, rousing the angry villagers like something from an old Frankenstein movie 😛 But worst, for me was how it led to a battle scene where Beast lies dying of an ordinary wound. That scene from the fairy tale, of him lying in his garden, *literally* dying of a broken heart, was one of the most iconic moments in the whole story for me, second only to the one where she tells him she loves him. I was angry at Disney for changing that, which I felt ruined the scene.

    I always wondered if they did that because they thought it sent an unhealthy message about romantic love, i.e., “I can’t live without you”.

    But I think I always read the story as more of an allegory of unconditional love, despite the romance trappings, even when I was too young to articulate that. I thought it was about LOVE personified, in Beauty, seeing value, someone worthy of love, at the core of someone who appeared “monstrous” to everyone else, even to himself. I guess I felt the introduction of Gaston’s character sort clutters up the allegory. So Gaston has always been a fly in the ointment as far as I was concerned. I didn’t want the story to be an adventure, I wanted it to be this gentle tale of compassion and growing trust and redemption and transformation through love.

    But one thing (among many) that I love about your analysis, is it sort of gives me a framework for seeing this version of it at least, in a way that has additional meaning I think is really valuable. And it doesn’t necessarily disrupt that allegory, it just adds more layers.

    So, really cool, you 🙂 You are, as always, the best :*

    • Alexis Hall says:

      I can see where you’re coming from with Gaston. I think he does a couple of things that are prosaic but necessary in the original movie, like providing a source of external conflict when there otherwise wouldn’t be any, and (admittedly slightly crudely) reinforcing the underlying point of the story (d’you see, because the Beast looks bad but is good, and Gaston looks good but is bad).

      I think even the original animated version is a very different story to the fairytale because even though animated movies can be more like fairytales than live action movies it’s still ultimately a different medium. And I think you do need a bit of conventional movie stuff, especially in something that’s aiming for a mass market, which Disney movies obviously are. I think if you’re making a srs art film you can have something that just focuses super intensely on the relationship between two characters but if you’re making a family movie then you kind of need a conventional villain. I think Frozen is quite a good example here. More than any Disney film I can really think of, that’s very much about the relationship between its two leads, but it still felt the need to give the piece a villain–even though it’s arguably a bit distracting–just because something has to tie the whole story together into a hundred minute movie-going experience.

      • Pam/Peejakers says:

        “reinforcing the underlying point of the story (d’you see, because the Beast looks bad but is good, and Gaston looks good but is bad).” Haha, yes, good point! Also good point about the need for a villain.

        Which makes me think. Y’know I never really thought about the fact the original B & the B doesn’t actually have one, per se. Maybe I saw the curse itself as the villain. Or else the Enchantress (or whatever she’s called in the story). She’s certainly pretty villainous in some ways!

        Probably doesn’t work tho if the story is meant as a morality tale tho, the curse on Beast justified by his lack of compassion. I think I glossed over that aspect as a kid, or the version I read did so. Or maybe I just didnt buy her as a moral figure. I think I saw her as having cursed someone who offended her, more in a “How dare you?! I’ll teach you to mess with *me*!” kind of way, less because he deserved it & more just because she had power 😛 Hmm. Kinda how I view punishment in general, come to think of it …

        Eep. Sorry! Overly thinky thoughts!

  6. I have to admit I’ve never been a big fan of the Disney fairy tale adaptations – not even when I was little (possibly because they tend to be rather different from the Grimms’ tales). I think the only Disney fairy tale film I enjoyed back then was Snow White. But I loved The Jungle Book (which, according to Wikipedia, is the most popular Disney film in Germany, and I’m actually quite sure that I must have seen it in the cinema at some point in the very early 1980s), The Fox and the Hound, and, of course, Robin Hood!!!!

    But as somebody who loves revisionist fairy tales (OH MY GOSH, the film adaptation of Roald Dahl’s Little Red Riding Hood, anybody?), I quite liked Tangled. 🙂

    As Beauty & the Beast was never really a big favorite of mine (despite the library), I haven’t watched the new version, with the exception of hte ending (I was curious about it after you tweeted about it — gosh, transformed-back-into-dude beast in the live action movie is even worse than transformed-back-into-dude beast in the cartoon version!!!! GAH! Poor Belle!). But that said (about not having watched the live action film thingie), I really liked your analysis of it. 🙂

    You highlighted one of the things that make live action fairy tale films so tricky to pull off: inevitably, the characters are drawn with more depth, and also inevitably, some things that work in fairy tales and cartoons become rather problematic in live action films — like the enchantment of the servants, which you mentioned, or, indeed, the violence (think of all the classic animated short films such as Tom & Jerry, Sylvester & Tweety, etc.). By definition (Max Lüthi!), fairy tale characters are depthless characters, which means they don’t have an inner life and they lack physical substance – which is a characteristic they share with many classic cartoon characters. Thus, the little girl in the Seven Ravens can simply cut off her finger and use it as a key to open the glass mountain – and there’s no pain and no blood. Now imagine doing the same in a live action movie! That wouldn’t work quite as well!

    And now I better shut up or I’ll be waxing on and on and ON about fairy tale theory. 😀

    • Alexis Hall says:

      Obviously I can see why you’d be bothered by the Disneyfication of classic folk stories although weirdly I think that becomes less of a problem as they get further from the source material. Disney’s Snow White is a somewhat sanitised and arguably cynical re-packaging of a traditional folk tale. Frozen, on the other hand, is basically an entirely original 21st century movie that is only peripherally inspired by a Hans Christian Andersen story.

      I think the issue with Prince Adam is that even though he’s technically the same person it feels like we’ve only just met him. Which sort of undermines the whole “it’s the person inside that counts” theme that the story’s supposed to have. I think it also doesn’t help that in live action version it’s just the bloke from Downton Abbey (not that he doesn’t do a great job as the Beast, it’s just that’s always going to be a downer). In the cartoon, he just looks like a generic Disney Prince which is, at least, neutral.

  7. willaful says:

    You actually make me want to see this, which I never expected to happen.

    Not really disagreeing with you, but jumping on my own hobby horse… I think Disney cartoons have always been about more than beat-by-beat retelling; they’re about putting their specific stamp on a story, making it *the* version. I think they just discovered they could accomplish this even more by giving their main characters actual personalities.

    • Alexis Hall says:

      You might be right – I think there was definitely brand awareness, even back in the day. And perhaps part of the reason that, say, Snow White just looks like a straight version of Snow White is that Disney so successfully pitched that as THE canon version of Snow White.

      What made you wary of seeing the live action Beauty and the Beast?

  8. Des Livres says:

    Very fine analysis. You’ve made me want to see all these films, which I did not expect.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *