We saw "Beauty and the Beast" last night. I'd seen the headline to this earlier in the day, but didn't read it until my husband mentioned it last night.
Oh my goodness, what the heck?? Why do people want to be mad?
First of all, I'm "just" a domestic woman. I don't have a job. I am a dreamer. I haven't done anything remarkable. And I feel like a feminist, anyway. This movie didn't make me ashamed for who I am. Oh, and I use my words, as the article mentions, but I don't always use "soft" "kind" "vulnerable" words, nor do I spend an inordinate amount of time sobbing into my sheets. Still consider myself pretty much full on lady girl type person.
Second of all, I do not think that Emma Watson is an amazing actor as much as I think she's a capable enough actor, and an amazing person. So some of the "vulnerability" or "feelings" they might miss from the cartoon might be a function of her just not having the range to express those things.
But, anyway, the gist of the article is that "Emma Watson" (meaning, collectively, this movie and all involved in developing the character of Belle) has ruined Belle, and Olivia Friedman is going to tell you why.
So here are some excerpts from the article, and the issues I have with her hypothesis:
"To that end, Belle does not follow the path of the original Disney movie." How? The exact same things happen. There's not a real departure.
"She is thoughtful, sweet-natured and touchingly vulnerable." Really?
"In the original film, Belle wants more than her provincial life, but she is a dreamer." Yeah, true. Have you listened to the words of the opening song, "This Provincial Life"? Belle is haughty and elitist. Even in the original film, she talks (sings) about how she has "more" than those tedious province-dwellers have in store. She's destined for more. She sees herself as not like them, even as she seems to blanche at being seen as strange. She herself feels she's "other," and, one gets the impression, somehow better than they are, bless 'em.
"In contrast, the Belle of 2017 does not vow. When the Beast won’t come into the light, she swings a candlestick at him, catching him in its glow so as to reveal him against his will. Similarly, she forces her father from his prison, locking herself into his cage after whispering into his ear that she is not afraid and that she will find a way to escape. When Lumiere unlocks her cell door, she hits him with her dungeon stool. As soon as she is in her room, rather than sobbing on her bed, as the Belle of the original film does, she starts tying sheets and ribbons together in an effort to escape from the castle. At first, she has only disdain and hatred for the beast, spitting defiant words at him through her locked bedroom door and standing up to him rather than retreating into herself."
Ugh. Where to start with that one. So what, she wants to see her captor? So what, she knows her father would never let her trade him places? She does what she does out of FEELINGS (which they go on to pontificate she does not have and this is what makes her an offensive uber-feminist butch-y ass-kicker instead of "vulnerable") for her father, knowing him and that he, too, would sacrifice himself for her.
Also, she spat defiant words at him through her locked bedroom door in the cartoon, too. Here's a clip that's been over-dubbed by a fan, but Disney is super protective of their products and it's not easily/legally available online in its original iteration. But anyway, here she refuses him multiple times. She doesn't say, "I'll never have dinner with you," but she says "I'm not hungry," a tense, forced, "No, thanks," and then finally, "NO!" So she doesn't just "retreat into herself." She refuses. Strongly.
"The message is that the original Belle is not sufficiently heroic. She reads Jack and the Beanstalk, loving magical tales, instead of being familiar with Shakespeare and Romeo and Juliet. She blows dandelion spores into the wind. She uses words, not violence, to save her father."
OH MY GOSH. STOP. "She blows dandelion spores"??? That's so important to the feminine ideal, what brutes they were to cut that! And, honest to God, I don't see the difference in Jack and the Beanstalk and Romeo and Juliet. Even Beast kind of mocks her for loving romances. Sounds fairly dreamy to me.
And who says the message is that the original Belle wasn't sufficiently heroic? Any time a movie is remade, there will be some additions and changes. I personally liked the tying-fabric-together scene, because... well, she's not using VIOLENCE or "stereotypical masculine" behavior; she's not using words, but she's using her freaking brain. So that makes it offensive? To whom??
The article talks a lot about how the original Belle "sobs" onto her bed, and, again, feels all the sad lady feels... but I'm guessing the person who wrote this never saw the Broadway musical? Because if they're mad she's so defiant to the Beast, then they can't have heard the TWENTY-THREE-YEAR-OLD lyrics, "Yes, I've made the choice: for Papa I will stay, but I don't deserve to lose my freedom in this way, you monster. If you think that what you've done is right, well then you're a fool; think again... Build higher walls around me; change every lock and key. Nothing lasts; nothing holds all of me." (And then I feel all the sad lady feels.)
The article talks a lot about how Belle has to be "fearless." "To be a 21st century heroine means that it is not enough to be afraid and still choose to be brave — no, one must be fearless." When her father encourages this of her, I don't think he's saying, "Don't be scared" like, "Don't be a little baby scaredy cat." I think he means, "You might be scared, but do it, anyway, because you're awesome." I think it's semantics and lots of splitting hairs to argue that bravery in the face of danger and being fearless are hugely different. If someone truly has no fear, they're probably psychotic.
"And it is that vulnerability that the 21st century heroine version of Belle — Emma Watson’s Belle — does away with. To be a 21st century heroine, we are taught, means to stand up for oneself, always choosing to be active rather than reflective, to be defiant rather than vulnerable, privileging logic over emotion."
I think that might be the second most offensive part of the article. I don't think we're "taught" this, but I also don't think there's anything wrong with it. If I were locked in a castle by a scary monster, I might cry a little bit at first, but I'd also be spinning my wheels, trying to figure something out. And women SHOULD stand up for themselves in times of oppression, if they can. Everyone should. If I am unjustly arrested and jailed, should I take the time to parse it out in my thoughtful mind wanderings, blowing dandelions (or whatever they have in jail), or is my time better served calling a lawyer and figuring out what to do about the injustice?
"And in the iconic scene after the dance where the Beast lets her go, we loved the fact that she told him she was happy with him but wished to see her father again because she missed him so much. This allows the Beast to do the right thing on his own. This, as opposed to the 2017 version where, when asked if she is happy, Belle prompts the Beast, asking, “Can anybody be happy if they aren’t free?”"
HOW CAN YOU LEVY THIS AS A CRITICISM?? I have nothing to add to that.
"Yes, she wanted more than her provincial life, but living happily with a man she loved, respected and who understood her was sufficient." I don't see how that's any different in this movie.
"She was an idealist, someone lost in books and fairytales — not an inventor, or someone logically sorting through how to break the curse, or consistently fearless. She valued the Beast’s being gentle and kind because that’s who she was."
I'm going to go out on a limb and say she valued the Beast's being gentle and kind because people don't like it when others are mean to them. I can't believe I'm having to point that out.
And I can't believe a woman wrote this article. "Someone lost in books and fairytales..." Okay? So, how is that better than being logical? I think those are moral-neutral things to be. Why are we having this conversation?
"The Belle of 2017, with her strong, defiant, stoic attitude — choosing anger over sadness — sets us back. It says that a woman of today is not impressive if she does not do something, such as become an inventor, or if she feels too much — crying rather than creating escape routes. It takes much of the Boy Code that makes our culture of masculinity so toxic and applies it to women, arguing that heroism is linked to toughness and stoicism."
This is the most offensive paragraph, along with the bit later about how Belle acts in "stereotypically masculine" ways.
I don't think the movie said any of these things, first of all. But secondly, DID YOU WATCH THE FIRST MOVIE?! Belle wasn't just a doe-eyed dingdong crying and floating through the story.
After Gaston's marriage proposal, she said (sang): "He asked me to marry him. Me, the wife of that boorish, brainless..."
That sounds pretty angry and not really "kind."
Anyway, I thought the movie was beautiful and, armed with reasonable expectations, I enjoyed it. Of course, it's the first movie I've seen in a theater in 2 years, so that was something.
Conservative corners are mad about the "big gay storyline" (which wasn't, actually; even though LaFou did have every LOL line in the film); LGBT corners aren't thrilled that the first portrayal of an openly gay character in a Disney film is someone literally named "fool;" and now this. Man, they're just supposed to be fun flights of fancy, and I enjoyed mine.
As a bonus, this is my favorite song from the Broadway show. That was one slight disappointment I had: they added some mini songs to string together the new scenes, but I would have loved to see some of the music from the play in the new movie. They did hint at "Home" a couple of times when Belle was in her room.
But overall, a pretty non-controversial, sentimental retelling of a Disney classic. Can I get an "amen"?
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for leaving a comment! We love to hear from you!