MovieChat Forums > Beauty and the Beast (1991) Discussion > People shouldn't take this movie serious...

People shouldn't take this movie seriously, but should also stop being in denial about how messed up it is

posted 8 months ago by MikeHunt12345 (947)
58 replies | jump to latest

It's just a fairytale based on a very old book, we should be able to look past it. Just like we should be able to look past the hero in Total Recall using an innocent man as a bulletproof shield, since it's just a silly action movie. But anyone who says the story isn't seriously messed up is in serious denial.

Just imagine in real life someone ended up voluntarily marrying their kidnapper. You'd say they were crazy. Belle clearly had severe Stockholm Syndrome.

It doesn't matter how kind Beast ended up being, or how well he treated Belle. He kidnapped Belle's father and then her. Any normal person would want nothing to do with him. Kidnapping is definitely a form of abuse, so that means Belle was in an abusive relationship. An abusive relationship is always regarded as abusive even if the abuse stops.

The most common argument against this is that she went back to the castle after escaping. Yes, that's the point. This is proof that she's crazy. Again, no normal person would want anything to do with Beast. Yet she clearly enjoyed being a prisoner.

People say at that point she was no longer a prisoner, she was a voluntary guest. Well even if that was true, again that doesn't make it much better, since she shouldn't have wanted anything to do with him. But she clearly still was a prisoner. She could've asked Beast to let her come and go as she pleases, so Maurice could know she was safe. No normal person would want to spend their entire life in a castle, no matter how big and luxurious. Yet she never asked to leave, even when she thought Maurice was dying. Beast told her he was releasing her. That clearly makes her a prisoner.

Also, if Beast never became human, it's clear that Belle still would've ended up marrying him and having sex with him while he was pretty much an animal. I know he was a human trapped in an animal's body, but that doesn't make it any less disturbing. Is there any scenario in which you'd have sex with a human trapped in an animal's body?

[–] Sapphirelight (396) 8 months ago

I admit you have good points but technically speaking the Beast didn't kidnap Belle or her father as Maurice found the castle by accident and just happened to go in. Belle also willingly traded places with her father.

[–] MikeHunt12345 (947) 8 months ago

Maurice did enter the castle voluntarily at first, but then Beast refused to let him leave, that's definitely kidnapping. It's hard to say Belle traded places with her father willingly. Beast was holding him prisoner, and she had no way of knowing whether or not he'd survive. Just imagine someone held a gun to your father's head, and said "get in my car or I'll kill him", so you got in the car. I don't think you'd say it was willing.

[–] Sapphirelight (396) 8 months ago

I think Belle did trade places with her father willingly, actually.

[–] MikeHunt12345 (947) 8 months ago

It depends how you define "willing". Beast didn't physically force her in the dungeon, but she didn't have much choice. She had to either trade places with him or risk letting him die. It was basically coercion.

[–] Sapphirelight (396) 8 months ago

Yeah, I guess. It's still a great movie, though.

[–] MikeHunt12345 (947) 8 months ago

I agree.

[–] Tina (725) 8 months ago

You're right. But it's still an awesome movie!

[–] MikeHunt12345 (947) 8 months ago

I agree.

[–] Tina (725) 8 months ago

Except for the kidnapping part. The beast arrested Maurice because he was traspassing on private property (the castle). When Belle arrived at the castle searching for your father, she told the beast that she would take her father's place as prisoner.

So Belle was a prisoner. She wasn't kidnapped.

[–] MikeHunt12345 (947) 8 months ago

Since Beast wasn't a law enforcement officer, it wasn't arresting, it was kidnapping.

[–] Tina (725) 8 months ago

Well if we are going to apply modern laws to an animated movie which setting is unknown, and basically a fantasy story.

A person can issue a citizen's arrest

Obviously the Beast couldn't contact law enforcement.

You know what? This is ridiculous.

Kidnap means: take (someone) away illegally by force, typically to obtain a ransom.

The point is that Belle and her father were not kidnapped. They were detained. It's right there in the plot. Beast didn't kidnap anyone.

[–] MikeHunt12345 (947) 8 months ago

I think we can assume it's set in 18th century France. Kidnapping was still illegal back then.

Beast had the legal right to temporarily detain him and turn him over to the authorities, not to hold him permanently. That's not a citizen's arrest, that's vigilante justice. And I think life imprisonment for trespassing is definitely overkill.

Beast definitely took Maurice by force. He didn't use physical force against Belle, but she was coerced by his physical force against Maurice, so I think she was kidnapped. It's like holding a gun to someone's head and saying to his daughter "get in my car or I'll kill him". I think everyone would agree that's kidnapping.

[–] Tina (725) 8 months ago

Hey when you break into someone's home, then whatever the owner does is self defense.

Beast didn't know why Maurice was inside of his castle. Maurice could have tried to steal something.

Since Beast was under a magical spell and his servants were animated talking objects, well that's why Maurice wasn't allowed to leave.

Cuz what happened next was once freed, Maurice ran to town and told everyone what went on. A beast with fierce teeth and a long snout! You know the rest. Gaston led an angry mob to kill Beast.

Maurice wasn't kidnapped. He was imprisoned. I can agree with imprisonment. Kidnapping is false.

[–] MikeHunt12345 (947) 8 months ago

So you think if you break into someone's home, the owner has the legal right to hold you there permanently? Because they definitely don't. They have the legal right to temporarily detain you while they wait for the police to arrive, but not to hold you there permanently.

I don't think Beast was holding Maurice because he feared for his life. If he did, he wouldn't have let him go in exchange for Belle, he would've held them both. Even if he did fear for his life, that doesn't make it OK to deprive an innocent person of their liberty.

[–] Tina (725) 8 months ago

"So you think if you break into someone's home, the owner has the legal right to hold you there permanently?"

Please keep in mind that this entire topic is ridiculous because Beauty and the Beast is about an animated fantasy kid's movie!

Did the witch have the right to put a curse on Beast because he wouldn't give her food?

Why is Beast on trial here?
Which Disney character will be put on trial next? Scar for conspiring to kill Mufasa?

[–] MikeHunt12345 (947) 8 months ago

I agree, that's why I said we shouldn't take it seriously, but that doesn't mean it isn't messed up. No, the witch didn't have the right to curse Beast, but that doesn't make what he did OK. The difference between Beast and Scar is Scar was portrayed as pure evil, whereas Beast was supposed to be portrayed as a flawed but good person. Just imagine if the lions decided to forgive Scar and allow him to be part of the kingdom, wouldn't you say they're crazy?

[–] Tina (725) 8 months ago

Beast was not a good person. Didn't you listen to the narrator in the introduction?

The Prince was cruel and unkind.

You can't argue with me. I've watched this movie at least 30 times! I know it by heart.

Be that as it may, most laws allow a home owner to kill intruders.

All Beast did was imprison the intruder. That itself is showing mercy.

[–] MikeHunt12345 (947) 8 months ago

That's why I said he was supposed to be portrayed as a flawed but good person. The point is supposed to be that he was always a good person deep down, but just didn't know how to show it until Belle came along. Most laws do allow people to kill intruders, or to temporarily detain them while they wait for the police, but not to detain them permanently. Even if Beast was a judge who was legally sentencing him for trespassing, and sentenced him to life imprisonment, I'd say there's nothing merciful about that, the punishment does not remotely fit the crime.

[–] Tina (725) 8 months ago

I don't know what country you are from but in my country, if someone breaks into your home and you kill them, you don't go to jail.

Maurice still had his life. Beast was being merciful. He didn't kidnap Maurice either. He detained Maurice forever.

The Prince was an unkind and cruel person. This wasn't a case of about being good underneath. He was a cruel and unkind person period. That's it. He wasn't misjudged. But he did learn to love and become a nicer person after his experience with Belle. Only because he fell in love with Belle. It was her love that broke the spell.

That was not without encouragement from his servants though cuz they didn't want to stay inanimate objects for eternity. Had Maurice had not been caught inside Beast's house uninvited, Beast would still have been a beast cause he refused to learn to love.

[–] MikeHunt12345 (947) 8 months ago

I agree, I said "most laws DO allow people to kill intruders". I suppose technically any punishment less than death is merciful. If he deliberately broke his spine to make him a quadriplegic, that would technically still be merciful, since he didn't kill him. But that doesn't make it remotely OK. What do you think is the difference between kidnapping and detaining? Couldn't you argue all kidnapping victims were detained?

[–] Tina (725) 8 months ago

Exactly what is your issue about the fantasy animated movie? It just seems like you're taking all of this too seriously and you're doing it for attention.

I'm done with this absurdity.

The point of the movie is that 1)people can change and 2) beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.

[–] MikeHunt12345 (947) 8 months ago

I already said we shouldn't take the movie seriously I just think it's a little annoying how people are in denial over how messed up the story is.

[–] AmeriGirl26 (15062) 8 months ago

I'd love to hear your commentary on "All-Kinds-of-Fur" (some versions call the tale "Donkeyskin," or "Princess Furball,") as well as "Bluebeard," and tell me those tales aren't far more F'ed up than this film was. I dare you.

[–] RockAway (1651) 8 months ago

Why are you bringing up other tales as though that makes the things that happened in this one okay just because others are worse?

[–] Stratego (31048) 8 months ago

The same can be said about you.

[–] blue1981 (8165) 8 months ago

I look at it as one of the last times a Fairytale was done right when making it into a movie. It was a big deal when it was nominated for Best Picture and it very much deserved it.

[–] WandererFromYs (2403) 8 months ago

I think the story is ok because it's a fairy tale. We can take it at face value that the Beast has been overcome by Belle's love, and he has made a real change.

But does it send the wrong message to people? Yeah probably. Most women want to believe that they are so special that can pick a bad guy and change them, but they will most likely end up on the receiving end of the abuse. Men are no better, a lot men have a hero complex, and think they can save damaged women. But that leads to getting taken advantage of, rather than being appreciated.

I'm not saying people can't change, I just wouldn't bet on it. But since this is a fairy tale, its all going to work out, and we will get a happy ending.

[–] AmeriGirl26 (15062) 8 months ago

Do you have a favorite Disney movie?

[–] MikeHunt12345 (947) 8 months ago

Maybe The Lion King.

[–] AmeriGirl26 (15062) 8 months ago

I can see you fell for every single stupid, shallow, ignorant misunderstanding that other morons have come up with about this movie.

If you truly want to see a good example of Stockholm's Syndrome, watch "The World Is Not Enough," with Elektra King and the bad guy.

Belle went back to the castle because she felt sorry for the Beast (because she's a compassionate person who can think about others besides herself), and because it really moved her that he put his life on the line to save her from the wolf pack that tried to kill her. She could have easily left him to die in the woods that night, but Belle had a good heart, even for someone who didn't deserve it. Plus I think she felt sorry for him. You'll notice he was not mean to her at all after that night.

I hate to break it to you, but 200 years ago, people with morals had a strong sense of "honor" when it came to how they conducted themselves. It was more common to see among the higher classes, but it still existed. She was willing to honor the bargain she'd made to the Beast and stay, but things changed dramatically between them after the wolf and arguing incident. The Beast treated her a lot better after that.

And for the record, if she had Stockholm Syndrome, she would have left Maurice to die in the woods and stayed with the Beast.

And no, their relationship was not based on Bestiality. That "honor" thing I mentioned kept them both from crossing that line, despite falling in love. You notice they didn't even kiss until the Beast transformed at the end? Once the Beast was human again, it was perfectly okay for them to get married and enjoy the bedchamber, because then he was normal, with a better attitude by then.

This is also not a story about a girl "changing" a bad guy for the better. The Beast changed HIMSELF because he wanted to be a better person for her. Her showing of some kindness and compassion inspired him to stop being a jerk. A lot of people don't realize that this is as much a redemption story as it is a love story, that love can help change people for the better.

If you wanted Belle to be in an abusive relationship, Gaston could have given it to her in spades. You gonna let what he almost did to her off the hook? Chances are, if she'd broken down and agreed to marry him, the scum probably would have betrayed her and left daddy in the looney bin anyway to keep her on a leash. And unlike the Beast, Gaston would have absolutely REFUSED to learn from HIS mistakes because he thought he was perfect. I'm amazed you never pointed out how abusive Gaston was.

[–] MikeHunt12345 (947) 8 months ago

Sure, he saved her life, but that doesn't make up for what he did, and her life was only in danger in the first place because of him. Just imagine someone kidnaps your father and then you, and then you escape, and are then almost killed by animals, and your kidnapper saves your life and is injured. I think most normal people would get as far away from him as possible and then call 911. I know 911 didn't exist back then, what she should've done was told the authorities what happened. He would've been arrested, like he should've been, and I assume they would've got a doctor to treat his wounds. How could Belle have known whether he saved her life out of compassion, or just because he wanted his prisoner back? I can understand feeling sorry for him, but wanting to be his friend is very strange.

Why should she feel the need to honour a promise she made under coercion? If someone held a gun to your father's head, and said "get in my car or I'll kill him", and made you to promise not to try to escape, would you feel the need to honour that promise?

How is the fact that he treated her well a valid excuse? He was holding her against her will. That in itself is treating her very badly.

Just because she had Stockholm Syndrome, doesn't mean she can't also care about her father. She went to help Maurice and then went back to help Beast.

I know they never did anything sexual while he was a beast. I'm saying they probably would've if he never became human again, but obviously I can't know for sure.

I never said Gaston wasn't abusive, and I never said the story was about her changing him.

[–] StrongRex (1319) 8 months ago

"Why should she feel the need to honour a promise she made under coercion? If someone held a gun to your father's head, and said "get in my car or I'll kill him", and made you to promise not to try to escape, would you feel the need to honour that promise?"

Did you even watch the damn movie?

That is not what happened.

Trading places with her father was BELLE'S idea.

Idiot.

[–] MikeHunt12345 (947) 8 months ago

Yes, I know it was her idea, that's not the point. The point is she was under no moral obligation to keep a promise she made to a dangerous lunatic to save her father from him. Just imagine in real life, someone's family member was kidnapped, so they offered to trade places with them, and promised not to escape, and then they actually chose to keep that promise, not out of fear, out of moral obligation. Wouldn't you say they were crazy? Beast was not legally or morally entitled to hold Belle or Maurice prisoner, so Belle was not obligated to keep her promise to him.

[–] StrongRex (1319) 8 months ago

No one is saying what the Beast did was morally correct.

We are saying he did not kidnap Belle and that she stayed out of her own choice.

As far as legally though? I think you forget that the Beast was a prince and royalty tends to do whatever they want. Not saying that's morally right or that it's a good thing.

[–] MikeHunt12345 (947) 8 months ago

It wasn't exactly a "choice", at least not a voluntary one, she had to choose between trading places with her father or risking letting him die, it was basically coercion.

[–] StrongRex (1319) 8 months ago

No it wasn't. Watch that scene again.

[–] AmeriGirl26 (15062) 8 months ago

He really isn't getting this at all, is he?

[–] StrongRex (1319) 8 months ago

I think he's either trolling or being purposefully obtuse.

[–] AmeriGirl26 (15062) 8 months ago

He's certainly succeeding in showing how little he understands the appeal of this story.

[–] AmeriGirl26 (15062) 8 months ago

If you watched the movie instead of shitting on it, you would have seen that it was BELLE's idea to switch places with her dad, not the Beast's, and she made a promise to him that she'd stay forever in that castle. Belle is obviously someone who honors her promises (unless the person she promised tried to kill her). The fact that he saved her made her realize that there was something more to this guy than just being a monster.

Think about this: if Belle didn't honor her promise, she knew that if she went back on her word, the Beast would probably hunt down her dad and put him back in the dungeon, and the Beast would never trust any more bargains she ever made again. Either that, or he might put her in the tower like he almost did. Did you ever think about that? Plus, as I said, she believed in honor and being the better person. That meant a lot more to people back then than it does now.

And for the record, they didn't exactly have law enforcement in rural areas of 18th century France. Only place you would find their equivalent of cops were in larger towns and cities. You would know that if you studied history, which you obviously didn't.

And no, she did not have Stockholm Syndrome. If you actually STUDIED that illness instead of bandy it around like a popular buzzword, you would know that a.) the Beast didn't abuse her enough or use the right methods, and b.) Belle didn't have the right symptoms. Try reading a psychology book sometime.

Interesting that you dwell on the idea that he could have possibly stayed a Beast. You know perfectly well that a fairy-tale doesn't end like that. Maybe alternate versions in novels, but not in a 90s Disney film. Frankly, I dislike stories like that because it completely defeats the purpose of the entire reason Beauty comes to the castle at all: to help the cursed Prince redeem himself and earn back his humanity.

[–] MikeHunt12345 (947) 8 months ago

I'll repeat what I said earlier: "Yes, I know it was her idea, that's not the point. The point is she was under no moral obligation to keep a promise she made to a dangerous lunatic to save her father from him. Just imagine in real life, someone's family member was kidnapped, so they offered to trade places with them, and promised not to escape, and then they actually chose to keep that promise, not out of fear, out of moral obligation. Wouldn't you say they were crazy? Beast was not legally or morally entitled to hold Belle or Maurice prisoner, so Belle was not obligated to keep her promise to him."

Again, how could she have known whether he saved her life out of compassion, or just because he wanted his prisoner back? Even if he did it out of compassion, that doesn't change the fact that he was a dangerous lunatic, and that any normal person would want to stay as far away from him as possible, and that her life was only in danger in the first place because of him.

Your second paragraph literally proves my point. Belle basically made her promise under coercion, she was under no moral obligation to keep it. I doubt Beast would've known where they lived, or would've gone to town searching for them, he was too ashamed of his appearance, and he likely would've been killed.

I don't know much about the history of France, so let's assume there was no law enforcement. I suppose I can understand her wanting to save him, not because he deserves it, just because letting someone die is a huge thing. She definitely didn't have to stay with him though. All she had to do was take him back to the castle and then run away again.

I'm not a psychiatrist, even if she doesn't literally have Stockholm Syndrome, that doesn't mean she isn't crazy.

I'm aware they wouldn't end a Disney fairytale with him staying a beast, that's not the point, the point is Belle fully intended to marry him regardless of whether or not he became human.

[–] AmeriGirl26 (15062) 8 months ago

Considering the Beast almost killed her and scared the crap out of her up in his room, of course she was gonna run away. And yeah, I think she felt guilty about not keeping her own promise, which could have also motivated her into showing compassion towards him after rescuing her. He didn't have to save her from the wolves. He could have let her go and let the wolves eat her.

And I was talking about Belle's compassion, not the Beast's. He was only beginning to start thinking about someone besides himself. In fact, you could see the guilt on his face when he saw her in the tower after sending her dad to the village, which was partially what motivated him into giving her a guest bedroom instead.

Considering Maurice didn't live in the actual village, just on the edge, it wouldn't have been difficult for the Beast to find him again. But Belle wouldn't have known the Beast would have feared going into the village. As far as she knew at the start, he was an unstoppable monster that would hunt until he got his prey.

So...you don't know anything about how people were in Europe back in the day? You don't understand the culture and the times? Why are you even questioning anything about this movie when you're covering an era you know nothing about? And judging using a current-day perspective? I'd say, until you've actually done your homework, you don't have any leg to stand on how to judge the way people were in the past.

You definitely didn't study psychology, or you wouldn't be making ignorant declarations about someone's mental condition. It's interesting that you never talk about how crazy Gaston is, how he suffers delusions of grandeur, narcissism, and megalomania, or that the Beast has serious selfishness issues before the fairy forced him to eat humble pie, or that Bimbettes were delusional about what kind of a man Gaston was, and that Lefou had some extremely misplaced hero worship.

Belle didn't even admit to loving the Beast until the very last minute. I doubt she was thinking about marrying him at all, and was even having trouble figuring out her feelings towards him until the battle between him and Gaston on the castle roof. It's one of those scenarios where you don't realize how much you care about someone until you're in danger of losing them, and seeing him bleeding to death probably made her realize how she felt.

[–] MikeHunt12345 (947) 8 months ago

Her feeling guilty about not keeping her promise is proof that she's crazy. No normal person would feel morally obligated to keep a promise they made to a dangerous lunatic out of fear. Yes, he didn't have to save her, but again, he could've only done it because he wanted his prisoner back.

Again, your third paragraph is supporting my argument, that Belle only made her promise out of fear, and was under no moral obligation to keep it.

I never said Gaston isn't crazy. The difference is Gaston is portrayed as a bad person from start to finish, and most viewers aren't in denial over it.

I don't think there's much more to say, let's agree to disagree.

[–] AmeriGirl26 (15062) 8 months ago

I'll only promise to leave you alone if you promise to stop bashing this movie. I love it, and I'll defend it to the bitter end, and there are more people like me who feel the same way.

[–] MikeHunt12345 (947) 8 months ago

You can do what you want, and so can I. Again, I'm not a psychiatrist, but maybe you should talk to one if you take it that personally.

[–] AmeriGirl26 (15062) 8 months ago

I'm not the one who tried to pretend to be an expert on Stockholm's Syndrome and make stupid criticisms of a film you apparently didn't know much about beyond your shallow observations. It's interesting that most people understand and appreciate this story. You are among the few I've seen who don't "get it" and think everyone else shouldn't "get it" either.

It's also interesting that out of all the Disney movies you could have criticized, you had to go after THIS ONE; one that's very popular and greatly loved by people around the world. Care to explain yourself?

[–] MikeHunt12345 (947) 8 months ago

I criticize every movie I feel deserves it, there’s not much more to it.

[–] AmeriGirl26 (15062) 8 months ago

So you don't think the crappier Disney movies out there don't deserve criticism? Because there are plenty out there you could dump on and nobody would disagree with you at all. In fact, we would even encourage it.

In fact, I'm amazed you haven't said a word about how crappy the live-action version of this movie was. Or do you believe it doesn't deserve any criticism?

[–] MikeHunt12345 (947) 8 months ago

Technically every movie deserves criticism, all movies have flaws. I wouldn't have much free time if I pointed out every single flaw in every movie. Yet some movies deserve it much more than others, like movies that encourage very unhealthy relationships. I don't remember the remake well enough.

[–] AmeriGirl26 (15062) 8 months ago

There are plenty of Disney films that have relationships you could complain about.

In the live-action remake, it turns out Emma Watson has absolutely NO on-screen chemistry with the guy playing the Beast. In fact, she spends more time being the angry little feminist who can't act to save her life when she's not Hermione, and there's nothing to suggest that she's in love with the Beast at all in that film, nor why she would have what it took to break the curse.

You could complain about how Snow White and Aurora shouldn't have been in love with their respective princes after just one chance encounter and then getting kissed without their consent while stuck under an enchanted sleep.

Or how about Tinkerbell having no reason to love Peter Pan because they could never be together, and he was a permanent, immature teenager who could care less about her if she didn't have fairy dust? Meanwhile, Wendy's taking a little too much grown-up interest in Peter for a girl her age. I mean how old was she? 9? 10?

I could name a number of characters in Disney lore that have messed up relationships that really shouldn't have worked, but only do so because the script and story demanded it.

You had no reason to go after THIS couple other than to get attention and stir the pot.

[–] MikeHunt12345 (947) 8 months ago

I don't remember those movies well enough to comment on them. But wasn't the purpose of kissing Snow White and Aurora to wake them up and save their lives? If so, it was basically like CPR. If you were in their position, wouldn't you want to be kissed without your consent? Or would you think death is better than a non-consensual kiss?

[–] AmeriGirl26 (15062) 8 months ago

I think an argument could be made about the CPR angle.

[–] Stratego (31048) 8 months ago

Ugh, I remember the countless discussions on the old IMDb boards about that whole Stockholm Syndrome nonsense. People hear the term somewhere and then think they know what it means.