The true villain of Beauty and the Beast [Archive]

BiblioRook

2017-03-23, 09:36 AM

Watching the new Beauty and the Beast movie something always just really bothered me, not just with this new version of the movie but going back to the original as well; it's really hard to shake the thought on how the Enchantress is the real villain of the story.

She must have deliberately sought the Prince out to make him an offer she KNEW he would never accept and for that she curses not only him but those who just happen to be around him at the time? Oh it's hand-waved away in that fairy tale way of she was trying to teach him a lesson in humility or something and it's it's all fine because it worked out in the end but I have a hard time believing she had any foreknowledge on how events would turn out when she did the curse and was fully willing to doom a castle full of people who really weren't even really bothering anyone (because while the Prince was a bit of a **** to be sure it hardly seemed like he was actively oppressing anyone with his vanity). If anything it's suggested that, despite his personal flaws, the Prince was still rather well liked in the vicinity.

The live action movie even elaborates certain aspects of the curse that were left vague or unmentioned in the original... almost all of which were worst for Beast's servants then for him, namely how if he fails to break the curse while he just gets stuck forever in Beast form his servants get stuck not as their enchanted forms but rather get turned into inanimate objects. There is also the extra layer of the curse where everyone affected by the curse is erased from people's memory. This seems especially cruel in the movie considering how such a thing would mean nothing to a loner like Beast but would probably have meant a lot to his servants who many had family and loved ones in the nearby town (which is explicitly shown to be the case in the live action movie). That's all not even going into some of the more minor unnecessary aspects of the curse such as making the castle all spooky and Gothic or enchanting the surrounding area to be locked in perpetual winter (it's pointed out that the movie takes place in June) and infested with wolves... All seems rather elaborate to try to make someone learn the lesson of loving someone other then yourself.

One last thing to top it all off, it's interesting to note that in the live-action movie the Enchantress has a bit of an extended role.
The Enchantress is shown to be living in Belle's town as a beggar woman that seems to exist just to show how Belle isn't the only one in town that is mocked or scorned. In fact considering that basically the entire town scorns her while acting as a beggar woman (much less Gaston, who makes a point to do so repeatedly) she certainly doesn't seem to be very inclined to curse any of them despite any number of them probably being more deserving of such or showing her far more disrespect then Beast ever did. Did she just use up all of her curses already on Beast? It certainly doesn't lend to suggest that she merely had a change of heart in that you can't just go around cursing people for personal slights (because if that's the case nothing was really stopping her from going back and lifting the curse already placed on Beast and his castle...).
Actually in the end she is even shown to be just casually hanging around the castle after the curse is lifted and somehow no body minds this, but I guess that can be explained easily by just no one really recognizing her for what she is as the only one that really acknowledges her is Maurice who more acknowledges her in respect as the woman who once saved his life and not as a powerful Enchantress that could doom them all on a whim.

Edit: I almost forgot to mention but I actually have a theory. In the live-action movie they make a point (even if very briefly) to mention how the Price's father was just an utterly heartless monster of a man (largely to explain how the Prince grew up to be like he ended up after the passing of his mother). While there's not really any evidence to support it (as honestly the references to the Prince's parents are minimal to nonexistent) part of me really suspects that the curse had nothing to do with anything the Prince might have done but was instead some sort of displaced revenge the Enchantress had for the Prince's father. Ether his father did something her to make her want to seek revenge or maybe she merely didn't like the idea of the Prince to grow up into another version of his father and decided to take measures to do something about it.

Starbuck_II

2017-03-23, 09:58 AM

Watching the new Beauty and the Beast movie something always just really bothered me, not just with this new version of the movie but going back to the original as well; it's really hard to shake the thought on how the Enchantress is the real villain of the story.

She must have deliberately sought the Prince out to make him an offer she KNEW he would never accept and for that she curses not only him but those who just happen to be around him at the time? Oh it's hand-waved away in that fairy tale way of she was trying to teach him a lesson in humility or something and it's it's all fine because it worked out in the end.

But I have a hard time believing she had any foreknowledge on how events would turn out when she did the curse and was fully willing to doom a castle full of people who really weren't even really bothering anyone (because while the Prince was a bit of a **** to be sure it hardly seemed like he was actively oppressing anyone with his vanity).

If anything it's suggested that, despite his personal flaws, the Prince was still rather well liked in the vicinity.
The live action movie even elaborates certain aspects of the curse that were left vague or unmentioned in the original... almost all of which were worst for Beast's servants then for him, namely how if he fails to break the curse while he just gets stuck forever in Beast form his servants get stuck not as their enchanted forms but rather get turned into inanimate objects. There is also the extra layer of the curse where everyone affected by the curse is erased from people's memory. This seems especially cruel in the movie considering how such a thing would mean nothing to a loner like Beast but would probably have meant a lot to his servants who many had family and loved ones in the nearby town (which is explicitly shown to be the case in the live action movie). That's all not even going into some of the more minor unnecessary aspects of the curse such as making the castle all spooky and Gothic or enchanting the surrounding area to be locked in perpetual winter (it's pointed out that the movie takes place in June) and infested with wolves... All seems rather elaborate to try to make someone learn the lesson of loving someone other then yourself.

One last thing to top it all off, it's interesting to note that in the live-action movie the Enchantress has a bit of an extended role.
The Enchantress is shown to be living in Belle's town as a beggar woman that seems to exist just to show how Belle isn't the only one in town that is mocked or scorned.

In fact considering that basically the entire town scorns her while acting as a beggar woman (much less Gaston, who makes a point to do so repeatedly) she certainly doesn't seem to be very inclined to curse any of them despite any number of them probably being more deserving of such or showing her far more disrespect then Beast ever did.

Did she just use up all of her curses already on Beast? It certainly doesn't lend to suggest that she merely had a change of heart in that you can't just go around cursing people for personal slights (because if that's the case nothing was really stopping her from going back and lifting the curse already placed on Beast and his castle...).

Actually in the end she is even shown to be just casually hanging around the castle after the curse is lifted and somehow no body minds this, but I guess that can be explained easily by just no one really recognizing her for what she is as the only one that really acknowledges her is Maurice who more acknowledges her in respect as the woman who once saved his life and not as a powerful Enchantress that could doom them all on a whim.

Yes, think about the beginning.

She steals one of HIS roses and gives it to HIM as a payment to be at his ball unannounced.
Is she crazy? How is that a gift. He already owns it.
I totally understand how he was angry and told he to leave. She stole, broke into his place without a invite, etc.

Basically, she has all the power so she gets to choose who she curses and who she doesn't.

BiblioRook

2017-03-23, 10:04 AM

Yes, think about the beginning.

She steals one of HIS roses and gives it to HIM as a payment to be at his ball unannounced.
Is she crazy? How is that a gift. He already owns it.
I totally understand how he was angry and told he to leave. She stole, broke into his place without a invite, etc.

Basically, she has all the power so she gets to choose who she curses and who she doesn't.

It's especially ridiculous in the live-action movie compared to the original. In the original she merely knocks at his door and asks to be let in where in the live-action movie she literally just forces herself in and barges in right into the heart of a party in full swing that then gets brought to a screeching halt...

Keltest

2017-03-23, 10:04 AM

How old was the prince when he was cursed in the new one? because in the original disney movie, he was a whopping 11 years old at the time.

BiblioRook

2017-03-23, 10:16 AM

Vogie

2017-03-23, 11:22 AM

I think it goes unmentioned, but he's clearly show to be an adult (or at least, adult looking) in the beginning. Generally I think it's implied that everyone affected by the curse, Prince and servants both, had their age suspended while under it (as they make a point to show Chip pre-curse too).

That's true - he could still very well be an early teen when the curse started, approximately between Sansa and Joffery's ages (from the GoT tv show). Thankfully, they did flesh the curse and reasoning behind it out a bit more. The new movie did indicate that the Prince's wickedness was 1) brought upon by his father after his mother's death, as the OP mentioned, and then 2) after the death of the father, the servants kept encouraging (or, at least, not opposing) that behavior.

Now, they did gloss over the obvious issue of point 2 - that servants don't really have that much sway over their master, save someone in a tutor role - but in the new movie it does give that corollary, rather than original's arbitrary-sounding "curse upon you and your house" feel.

GloatingSwine

2017-03-23, 11:38 AM

It's especially ridiculous in the live-action movie compared to the original. In the original she merely knocks at his door and asks to be let in where in the live-action movie she literally just forces herself in and barges in right into the heart of a party in full swing that then gets brought to a screeching halt...

Even leaving that aside, the punishment for one individual in a position of power being unwelcoming is extended to their entire staff and their families, including clearly very young children (Chip). This despite those others clearly having no authority or ability to affect the original perpetrator's behaviour.

BiblioRook

2017-03-23, 11:59 AM

Even leaving that aside, the punishment for one individual in a position of power being unwelcoming is extended to their entire staff and their families, including clearly very young children (Chip). This despite those others clearly having no authority or ability to affect the original perpetrator's behaviour.

Not just children but pets too (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/e6/be/94/e6be9439e63b044c35b6cbf21a5ac4c4.jpg)

Dienekes

2017-03-23, 12:14 PM

Are you suggesting that a witch may be portrayed in a negative, capricious light? In a Disney movie?

Who ever heard of such a thing?

Now there is a secret villain of Beauty and the Beast though. One no one thinks about.

Beast lives in a castle estate, near Belle's village. But the villagers do not know about its existence even though its only been gone for 10 years.

These estates get their wealth from taxing the townsfolk in their territory as Belle's village clearly is. Tax collectors do not live in a castle estate, and I think we can assume they don't drop off their collection to the cursed castle anymore. And since the villagers have no clue about a monsterous cursed castle and aren't curious about their lives I think it's safe to assume that their interaction with government and taxes has not changed since the curse.

This means for the last 10 years a tax collector has been gathering the wealth of Belle's village and presumably other villages nearby and keeping it for themselves.

Grey_Wolf_c

2017-03-23, 12:18 PM

in the original disney movie, he was a whopping 11 years old at the time.

No, he can't have been. He claws a painting of himself pre-curse (http://geekxgirls.com/images/beautybeast/disney_beauty_and_the_beast_06.jpg), where he is clearly grown up.

GW

Legato Endless

2017-03-23, 12:23 PM

I'm not as sold on this version. Whereas the Jungle Book took a deliberately subversive attempt to escape the colonialist spin of the original novel and film this feels too slavish in its nostalgia.

It's polished enough, but part of the greatness of the original was how it redefined the story. A lot of the added content is either completely unnecessary, 'How did Bell get Beast on her horse?' or it opens up further more noticeable plot holes, or narrative dissonance. At the very least with the advent of modern computers it's irksome the Beast's design is so...pedestrian.

The Enchantress already came off as ambiguously evil, or at least excessively vengeful in the Disney original. Which was fine, as she's only in there to set up the plot and leaves room for the audience to think she might be a call back to older versions of the tale where she's simply an evil fairy.

Here we get all of this argumentation that somehow the curse was just desserts for everyone involved, but it falls completely flat and makes her seem more hypocritically malicious.

BiblioRook

2017-03-23, 12:29 PM

Are you suggesting that a witch may be portrayed in a negative, capricious light? In a Disney movie?

It's more I always wondered why she is never seen as a villain in a bigger scope. She's basically mentioned briefly but then she and her curse are just accepted as an inevitability and she's never so much as thought of again while Gaston is the one that goes down in the history books of villainy. In fact I would go on to say that the Enchantress is actually portrayed to be some sort of positive force (or at least more positive then she should be) in a 'Yes she cursed those people, but she really did it for their own good" kind of way.

Also a bit of a side-note but something just occurred to me...
Long blond hair? Dresses in green and wears a crown? How has this never been pointed out before, after all they even share the same name! (http://www.writeups.org/wp-content/uploads/Enchantress-asgard-thor-marvel-1960s.jpg) Hell, they are even both owned by Disney.

Grey_Wolf_c

2017-03-23, 12:46 PM

It's more I always wondered why she is never seen as a villain in a bigger scope. She's basically mentioned briefly but they just accepted as in unavoidable inevitability while Gaston is the one that goes down in the history books of villainy. In fact I would go on to say that the Enchantress is actually portrayed to be some sort of positive force in a 'Yes she cursed those people, but she really did it for their own good" kind of way.

That's what the trope is. Many stories in folklore involve a haughty person being cursed when they are mean to a random person (usually poor) which turns out to be a godmother/witch/fairy in disguise. The moral is clear: just because you're rich and they are not is not reason to believe yourself to be better than them.

The problem in B&tB is that the lesson is missed, because the curse extends to the servants who don't deserve it (Edit: IIRC, the original story has the servants fleeing the castle, and the actual furniture becoming alive to serve the beast). I haven't watched the live action, but if the description of the witch's actions is accurate, yes, I agree it fails to completely deliver any kind of moral message, and the trope is a different one: that of the evil witch cursing the prince, who needs True Love to break it.

GW

BiblioRook

2017-03-23, 12:59 PM

That's what the trope is. Many stories in folklore involve a haughty person being cursed when they are mean to a random person (usually poor) which turns out to be a godmother/witch/fairy in disguise. The moral is clear: just because you're rich and they are not is not reason to believe yourself to be better than them.

The problem in B&tB is that the lesson is missed, because the curse extends to the servants who don't deserve it (Edit: IIRC, the original story has the servants fleeing the castle, and the actual furniture becoming alive to serve the beast). I haven't watched the live action, but if the description of the witch's actions is accurate, yes, I agree it fails to completely deliver any kind of moral message, and the trope is a different one: that of the evil witch cursing the prince, who needs True Love to break it.

GW

Thing is the situation is still always viewed heavily as "Shame on the Prince for not showing kindness to this random old stranger" and never as "What a horrible witch for tormenting these undeserving people". In universe at least. Disney, if no one else, still seems to like to lay the fault of the situation with the Prince, not the Enchantress. In fact, I'm pretty sure the word 'witch' is never even ever used to describe her and is always depicted as 'beautiful and fair', hardly being portrayed as a villain in any means.

Keltest

2017-03-23, 01:08 PM

No, he can't have been. He claws a painting of himself pre-curse (http://geekxgirls.com/images/beautybeast/disney_beauty_and_the_beast_06.jpg), where he is clearly grown up.

GW

He was cursed 10 years before his 21st birthday.

BiblioRook

2017-03-23, 01:18 PM

He was cursed 10 years before his 21st birthday.

I think it's fairly accepted that this was a bit of a blunder script wise and while the 'cursed for 10 years' part is held up I'm pretty sure the 'cursed 10 years before his 21 birthday" part isn't...
Almost every portrayal of the Prince pre-Curse (http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/disney/images/8/89/Beauty-and-the-beast-disneyscreencaps.com-18.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20140730175659) shows him already as an adult. I think the only time suggested otherwise was maybe with the 'Enchanted Christmas' midqual thing (but I'm willing to bet that Disney kind of wishes that didn't actually exist).

Traab

2017-03-23, 01:35 PM

You know, I havent seen it yet, but it occurs to me that it might have been SLIGHTLY more understandable if it had played out like this. Beggar woman bumps into the prince on his royal gardens or other grounds and asks for food or whatever. Prince orders the beggar woman given the boot, the servants comply fully, not even doing something like say, "Here is a loaf of bread, now get you gone." Just blindly obeying the mean spirited and rude prince even while out of his line of sight. So while the main punishment is to teach the prince a lesson, it splashes on the servants because they saw nothing wrong with how he acted. I think setting it up like that would have made the whole curse far more acceptable as a whole.

Ruslan

2017-03-23, 01:39 PM

She must have deliberately sought the Prince out to make him an offer she KNEW he would never accept and for that she curses not only him but those who just happen to be around him at the time?
This my interpretation:
1. The Prince was already a wicked person. The offer of a rose can be interpreted as his absolutely last chance to show he can still do good. He screws up his last chance.
2. As for those around him sharing his fate, according to the morality of the time the fairy tale was written (1740), servants only exist to serve their master. They are not independent entities. Punishing the servants by association was acceptable and even expected at that time.

Dr.Samurai

2017-03-23, 01:40 PM

When Maurice finds the castle after being led astray by the storm and the wolves, he enters thinking he is receiving the hospitality of the host. He even expects it. He sits down to a meal that he presumes has been laid out for him, a perfect and complete stranger showing up unannounced seeking shelter from the storm.

I think the idea is that when an unfortunate arrives at your doorstep, you take them in and help them. You do not judge their worth or ask what value they are to you or can provide you with in return for their help.

When the enchantress showed up, she should have been treated as Maurice had been (as far as the servants did in place for the Beast at least). But instead she was spurned for being ugly and offering little more than a rose.

In the movie, Mrs. Potts explains that the servants stood by and did nothing to prevent the Prince from being ruined by his tyrant of a father. This speaks to their duty, and failure to help another unfortunate, a child that is mostly powerless against their parent. But, it also serves as an admission that the Prince is not fully to blame for his character, and it spreads the responsibility among everyone involved. It also gives the servants a motive to change their behavior and act in the bests interests of the Prince, which they had failed to do in their human forms. Prior to the Enchantress, there was nothing at stake for them to allow the Prince to be selfish and vain. Now, their literal lives depend on it.

The curse is worse for them in part because as adults they should have known better/done more to help the Prince when he was most vulnerable. Similar to how the Prince should have taken in an old woman from the storm. Likewise, it raises the stakes for the Beast, who has the fate of his servants in his hands as well. This is seen toward the end of the film when he laments that he cannot set them free as well, just as he had set Belle free. He is sorry, not because he can't be with Belle, though there is that too. But he is sorry because he can't break the curse specifically for his servants. It shows how his character is changing.

Just my thoughts. I can totally see how the Enchantress can be perceived as evil, but I think that would go for a lot of characters in these types of stories.

BiblioRook

2017-03-23, 01:57 PM

I think the idea is that when an unfortunate arrives at your doorstep, you take them in and help them. You do not judge their worth or ask what value they are to you or can provide you with in return for their help.

But even that doesn't really hold up I think. Compare to how the town treats people like Belle and her father, most notably when Maurice comes back to the town looking for help to save Belle from the Beast. I mean I guess you can get into the town thinking he's crazy but that's really something of a stretch I think because it involves everyone ignoring the fact that Belle is potentially in very real danger even if they think the part about a literal Beast being involved to be made up or exaggerated. This all was within just 10 years of the time the curse happened so I can't imagine stuff like what is considered polite etiquette would have changed very much, especially in a tiny little town where everyone usually needs to rely on each other. The same community I might add that largely populates that of the castle...

This my interpretation:
1. The Prince was already a wicked person. The offer of a rose can be interpreted as his absolutely last chance to show he can still do good. He screws up his last chance.

Problem here is the Prince, while certainly not a saint, didn't seem that bad of a person even pre-curse. On a slippery slope to becoming something worst? Maybe, but he didn't seem to be quite at that point yet as if the narrator was to be believed he was actually still fairly liked despite his flaws (or at the very least, not hated).

Traab

2017-03-23, 02:23 PM

I think the rules are different between a stranger showing up and needing hospitality and a long time lunatic spouting off something crazy again.

BiblioRook

2017-03-23, 02:33 PM

In the original he certainly was set up to be considered eccentric and odd, but not in the live-action movie. If anything live-action Maurice was very quiet and mild-mannered (where Belle specifically was considered the eccentric one here) so barging in raving about being attacked by a monster seemed like it would have been wildly out of character for him. They certainly were open to believing him when he claimed Gaston tried to kill him (until Lefou spoke up in Gaston's defense) which honestly seems like a far more outlandish claim.

Another thing now that I think about it, how is it possible that Belle and Maurice could really have zero friends in town that would ether come to their aid or help convince others to do so? I mean Belle was pretty close with the local priest (replacement for the book-seller), wouldn't he have some clout in a small town like that in that sort of time period? Also Maurice wasn't just some loony inventor who live off isolated on his own like in the original but was more like the local clock-maker.

Mordar

2017-03-23, 02:34 PM

I think the role of the enchantress/witch/cursegiver/whatever is really just a personification of fate/karma/justice.

If you're a jerk (focusing on the jerkiness that is specific to the given tale), you and those around you will suffer for it in the long run. The fact that the implement of suffering in the stories is often an old woman (nee hot young woman) is as much the fault of the centuries-long symbolization of fate as an old woman.

The enchantress/witch/cursegiver is really no more a villain than is the volcano or flood in a disaster movie...I think questionable elder care and horrific behavioral health care are the true bogeymen in B&B!

- M

Dr.Samurai

2017-03-23, 03:02 PM

But even that doesn't really hold up I think. Compare to how the town treats people like Belle and her father, most notably when Maurice comes back to the town looking for help to save Belle from the Beast. I mean I guess you can get into the town thinking he's crazy but that's really something of a stretch I think because it involves everyone ignoring the fact that Belle is potentially in very real danger even if they think the part about a literal Beast being involved to be made up or exaggerated. This all was within just 10 years of the time the curse happened so I can't imagine stuff like what is considered polite etiquette would have changed very much, especially in a tiny little town where everyone usually needs to rely on each other. The same community I might add that largely populates that of the castle...
Well, hang on. Maurice comes in ranting and raving, and his claims can't even be mistaken for Belle being attacked by a wild animal. He specifically says she is being kept in a dungeon at a hidden castle, experiencing Winter in June, by a Beast. Everyone laughs, which is a pretty normal reaction to something unexpected and ludicrous. Especially when they were just performing a song and dance routine. And half of them are probably drunk. Then Gaston takes command of the situation and tells them he will help Maurice and they let him. Because he's a soldier and a hunter and the most able to help in this situation. Ok, I don't see anything too unusual here, except maybe the singing and dancing.

Now, cut to later, and Maurice comes back claiming that Gaston tried to murder him. Notice that this time, the people take him a little more seriously. Seriously enough to question Gaston about it. But they aren't going to side with Maurice just because he's a "good guy". They require proof, and proof isn't forthcoming. To the contrary, Gaston has a witness saying otherwise. They feel for Maurice, and think he needs help. Not necessarily an asylum, where Gaston condemns him to. But given his previously claims, which bore no fruit as far as they know, and his current claim, which is directly contradicted by a witness, they conclude that Maurice is not well.

Problem here is the Prince, while certainly not a saint, didn't seem that bad of a person even pre-curse. On a slippery slope to becoming something worst? Maybe, but he didn't seem to be quite at that point yet as if the narrator was to be believed he was actually still fairly liked despite his flaws (or at the very least, not hated).
I think the Prince is worse than the movie let on. I do agree that the live action version, in an attempt to make the Beast not so bad, made it seem like the Prince was just kind of egotistical, and that in turn makes the Enchantress' actions more egregious.

Murk

2017-03-23, 04:06 PM

Oh, it's too bad the enchantress stays to live in the village. I once heard the (comical) theory that the enchantress from Beauty and the Beast is the same evil fairy as Maleficent from Sleeping Beauty, seeing how they both show up at parties uninvited and then puts a convoluted and long-term curse on innocents for imagined insults (the Nale of Disney Movies, so to say).
I quite liked the backstory of it, with Maleficent just travelling around the world, visiting all castles she can find and cursing entire households left and right just because she can.

Traab

2017-03-23, 04:38 PM

Maleficent had plenty of provocation for cursing aurora in the original tale. The king and queen basically insulted the ever loving heck out of her in various ways. Its just something that is "Not Done" tm to beings of great power. Its basically fairy tale politics. Lets say the UN got together for a great party. Here comes russia showing up, only to be told they get the stool in the corner by the bathroom to sit in. Everyone else eats off of fine china, they get a paper plate. When its speech time everyone roasts russia, and not in the dean martin celebrity roast style either. Im talking nasty insults. And russia doesnt even get a chance at the mic. Are you going to be surprised when they storm out of there and declare a horrible vengeance for that kind of mistreatment? Of course not. You dont treat a foreign power that way, even if you dont like them. Well Maleficent doesnt have an army. She doesnt have a trade route to blockade. What she does have is tremendous magical power and the ability to use it to punish the people who wronged her.

Kantaki

2017-03-23, 04:47 PM

Ruslan

2017-03-23, 05:04 PM

Here's something I just realized (belated fridge logic ...)

The Prince's parents are dead. Should that not make him the ... King? So, isn't Belle romancing the King of France?

Rynjin

2017-03-23, 05:09 PM

The way I remember Sleeping Beauty- the fairy tale, not the Disney movie -the evil fairy wasn't invited precisely because the king doesn't have enough appropriate plates.
Well, she finds out anyway and barges in incredibly angry over the whole thing and immediately curses the little princess with death.
So yeah, in the original tale she overreacted a wee bit.

Even in that case you'd think you'd disinvite Baron Whomever of Nobodygivesa**** in favor of letting the fickle, nigh-godlike creature come and be happy.

Kantaki

2017-03-23, 05:18 PM

Even in that case you'd think you'd disinvite Baron Whomever of Nobodygivesa**** in favor of letting the fickle, nigh-godlike creature come and be happy.

As far as I remember they required very specific plates (and cutlery and stuff) for the fairies.
Pure gold or something like that...
Anyway, the problem was they only had enough for twelve of the thirteen (I think those were the numbers) local fairies.
Don't ask me why they couldn't get another set, but it seems it wasn't a option.

And inviting them all and serving one her food on „lesser” plates would have been worse.
So they „forgot” to invite her and the rest is history.

Legato Endless

2017-03-23, 05:35 PM

Here's something I just realized (belated fridge logic ...)

The Prince's parents are dead. Should that not make him the ... King? So, isn't Belle romancing the King of France?

No. Prince is a pretty expansive term. This being 17-18th century France, he could either be merely nobility or the ruler of a principality in the ancien regime.

BiblioRook

2017-03-23, 05:54 PM

Well, hang on. Maurice comes in ranting and raving, and his claims can't even be mistaken for Belle being attacked by a wild animal. He specifically says she is being kept in a dungeon at a hidden castle, experiencing Winter in June, by a Beast. Everyone laughs, which is a pretty normal reaction to something unexpected and ludicrous. Especially when they were just performing a song and dance routine. And half of them are probably drunk. Then Gaston takes command of the situation and tells them he will help Maurice and they let him. Because he's a soldier and a hunter and the most able to help in this situation. Ok, I don't see anything too unusual here, except maybe the singing and dancing.

It's less the fact no one believes his story that stands out to me and more the extent that no ones comes forward to help him. He could have been raving about purple wombats from the moon trying to steal the town's cheese and I would still expect someone to come forward to at least see what might have gotten him so worked up. Gaston only helps out eventually and even then after careful consideration over the fact that Maurice happens to be the father of his obsession, I find it hard to believe that he's the only one in town (or even that bar) that was qualified to help an old man look into what was probably at minimum a young girl lost in wolf infested woods. After all, Maurice is an artist, maybe people would consider him prone to colorful exaggerations and hyperbole but I would be surprised if they would question the most key point of his story: "Belle is in danger, please help".

Also not really a huge point but still one that stuck out to me, while Gaston is complaining about the lack of confirmation to his story when looking for Belle and goes to leave him for dead he mentioned frostbite as one of the dangers one could face, but the point about winter in June was clearly a point of disbelief with what Maurice claimed. Wouldn't this provide at least some validation to what he was talking about? Not that this couldn't be easily explained just by Gaston and LeFou not being very deep thinkers and having the connection just fly right over their heads.
It does raise a curious thought though. Less a hole in the characterization and probably more a hole in the script but scoff at all the stuff Maurice was going on about it seemed pretty clear that the town had a lot of skeptics of the supernatural, but it takes just a rather hard to see image on a presumably magic mirror to sway both Gaston and through him the the entire town not only that magic exists and that the Beast exists but both are immediate danger to the town and the well-being of those in it.

Anyways it's kind of here nor there as my point wasn't to deeply analyze the townsfolk of Belle's village but just to use them as a metric that the Enchantress would possibly use to gauge the Prince and his servants on on just how is or isn't an acceptable way of treating a person in need.
Or, in another way of thinking about it and going back to a different point, how it's a small wonder that the Enchantress didn't just go ahead and curse the whole damn town while she was at it as it really seems they were for the most part equally deserving to such as the Prince was, if not more so.

Traab

2017-03-23, 07:38 PM

As far as I remember they required very specific plates (and cutlery and stuff) for the fairies.
Pure gold or something like that...
Anyway, the problem was they only had enough for twelve of the thirteen (I think those were the numbers) local fairies.
Don't ask me why they couldn't get another set, but it seems it wasn't a option.

And inviting them all and serving one her food on „lesser” plates would have been worse.
So they „forgot” to invite her and the rest is history.

Ah see, I thought they HAD invited her and given her the crappy plates and such. I also seem to vaguely remember the other fairies kind of egging things on a bit. But its been a very long time since I looked into the old versions of the fairy tales.

Dr.Samurai

2017-03-23, 08:33 PM

It's less the fact no one believes his story that stands out to me and more the extent that no ones comes forward to help him. He could have been raving about purple wombats from the moon trying to steal the town's cheese and I would still expect someone to come forward to at least see what might have gotten him so worked up. Gaston only helps out eventually and even then after careful consideration over the fact that Maurice happens to be the father of his obsession, I find it hard to believe that he's the only one in town (or even that bar) that was qualified to help an old man look into what was probably at minimum a young girl lost in wolf infested woods. After all, Maurice is an artist, maybe people would consider him prone to colorful exaggerations and hyperbole but I would be surprised if they would question the most key point of his story: "Belle is in danger, please help".
I think, had Gaston not intervened and Maurice was allowed to impose himself further, people would have responded differently. But keep in mind that... I don't think the movie establishes that Belle and Maurice are well liked. To the contrary. They dumped her laundry on the street for the crime of... I don't know, teaching a girl to read? Inventing a washing machine? Belle is clearly an outcast and thought weird by the rest of the town. And we don't see Maurice interact with anyone before he returns from the castle raving about Belle being captured. If anything it seems he keeps himself indoors obsessing about his dead wife. At the very least, the cartoon version established him as somewhat of an odd person and not someone that is taken very seriously.

Also not really a huge point but still one that stuck out to me, while Gaston is complaining about the lack of confirmation to his story when looking for Belle and goes to leave him for dead he mentioned frostbite as one of the dangers one could face, but the point about winter in June was clearly a point of disbelief with what Maurice claimed. Wouldn't this provide at least some validation to what he was talking about? Not that this couldn't be easily explained just by Gaston and LeFou not being very deep thinkers and having the connection just fly right over their heads.
It does raise a curious thought though. Less a hole in the characterization and probably more a hole in the script but scoff at all the stuff Maurice was going on about it seemed pretty clear that the town had a lot of skeptics of the supernatural, but it takes just a rather hard to see image on a presumably magic mirror to sway both Gaston and through him the the entire town not only that magic exists and that the Beast exists but both are immediate danger to the town and the well-being of those in it.
I think this is veering into "overthinking" territory. Considering their tech level, I'm not sure that a photo-realistic moving image in a mirror shouldn't be considered convincing. At this point, you have Maurice claiming there is a beast. Belle claiming there is a beast. And an image of a beast. At this point I think there is reason to consider it a possibility. I think Gaston was more convinced to kill it more out of jealousy than anything else, having been totally rejected by Belle and seeing her defend the Beast as kind and not someone that would harm anyone.

Would the townsfolk immediately turn murderous? I don't know. But it's a Disney movie. What's the alternative? Condemn Maurice to an asylum anyways? Face Belle in the aftermath of that? Not know for sure if there is or isn't a Beast in the surrounding wilderness? Instead, they get to vindicate Maurice, "save" Belle (who had been captured by it) and face/kill an ambiguous threat to their town. Do I believe the town hero can lead them to do this? Yes.

If you're saying that all of this could have been done better... I can agree with that. But I think we know what the movie is aiming at.

For my part, I would have liked a more shallow Beast. One that clearly hates himself and doesn't believe anyone could care for him. One that hates his servants for making him attempt something so foolish as convince someone to love him. There's a tiny bit of that in the story, but mostly the Beast is entitled and has a short temper. I'm not sure that the story as is would really help him change in that respect.

(As an aside, I really do like the line when they enter the library and he just says casually "Maybe you can find one or two [books] in here that you like" as they enter one of the biggest libraries probably in the world. I think there should be more of that unawareness of what he has in the movie. But the delivery was great, made me laugh.)

JCarter426

2017-03-23, 08:41 PM

Grey_Wolf_c

2017-03-24, 08:38 AM

The enchantress was the villain in the original story. She was not a passing stranger but rather then prince's fairy godmother, and cursed him as part of a power play. The Disney film was based on a later version that omitted this part of the story. So for once, it's not strictly Disney's fault.

To be fair, given what the "moral" of some of those "delightful" "children" stories are, you cannot really blame Disney for doing their best to adapt them. Are they still running a bit behind modern sensibilities? Yes, certainly, and they definitely need to improve a number of things. But they do improve the stories they adapt, even if they might not go as far as one would want them to.

Asimov has a great essay where he tells of the time when he was at a Parent-Teacher meeting and a mother in attendance asked "Is there a way we can get our children to read proper children stories instead of that awful science-fiction?" to which Asimov stood up and essentially told the story of Hansel and Gretel, pointing out all the child abuse, violence, cannibalism and murder in the story, and how if science fiction writers put that into their stories, they'd be run out of town.

Grey Wolf

Quild

2017-03-24, 09:04 AM

You can always suppose that the enchantress knew all along both the future she prevented and the future she allowed.
She seems pretty sure of her timing in the fight scene.

Kyberwulf

2017-03-24, 09:58 AM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lzlz12zws1I

You should watch this.

You aren't the only one.

JCarter426

2017-03-24, 02:28 PM

To be fair, given what the "moral" of some of those "delightful" "children" stories are, you cannot really blame Disney for doing their best to adapt them.
Yeah, yeah, that's fair. But there are cases like Pocahontas and The Lion King.

SaintRidley

2017-03-24, 09:23 PM

That's what the trope is. Many stories in folklore involve a haughty person being cursed when they are mean to a random person (usually poor) which turns out to be a godmother/witch/fairy in disguise. The moral is clear: just because you're rich and they are not is not reason to believe yourself to be better than them.

The problem in B&tB is that the lesson is missed, because the curse extends to the servants who don't deserve it (Edit: IIRC, the original story has the servants fleeing the castle, and the actual furniture becoming alive to serve the beast). I haven't watched the live action, but if the description of the witch's actions is accurate, yes, I agree it fails to completely deliver any kind of moral message, and the trope is a different one: that of the evil witch cursing the prince, who needs True Love to break it.

GW

Eh, it works in a "French Revolution coming soon" context for the servants to be punished as well. The entire point is to punish the aristocracy and all their enablers. If she has foresight, the enchantress is trying to save them by making sure they learn about compassion before the revolution happens. Maybe they wouldn't lose their heads.

Anthony222

2017-03-29, 01:21 PM

I think the discussion can be continued forever as people are different and tastes differ. Anyway, I watched it with my son, and we liked it.

Starbuck_II

2017-03-29, 01:57 PM

Grey_Wolf_c

2017-03-29, 02:03 PM

Yeah, yeah, that's fair. But there are cases like Pocahontas and The Lion King.

Pocahontas I've never watched, so I won't comment on its issues, but if anything, the Lion King is adapted from a story even older than the others, and therefore whose morality is going to be even more alien. That said, what is the issue you see with the story of Lion King? "Life gives you responsibilities, and you can't run away from them" is not really that problematic.

Wait, a fairy godmother curses an 11 year old (in origonal Disney Movie)?

Again: no, she does not. One line suggests that (cursed until your 21st birthday), but far more evidence (the portrait, the opening narration glasswork, the very logic of the plot) suggests that he was an adult at the time of the curse.

GW

Starbuck_II

2017-03-29, 05:42 PM

Pocahontas I've never watched, so I won't comment on its issues, but if anything, the Lion King is adapted from a story even older than the others, and therefore whose morality is going to be even more alien. That said, what is the issue you see with the story of Lion King? "Life gives you responsibilities, and you can't run away from them" is not really that problematic.

Again: no, she does not. One line suggests that (cursed until your 21st birthday), but far more evidence (the portrait, the opening narration glasswork, the very logic of the plot) suggests that he was an adult at the time of the curse.

GW
But in the cartoon, he is stuck for 10 years. 11+10=21.
While, in current movie we know he was stuck in same age, nothing suggests he was stuck same age in cartoon.
Plus, there is much evidence: he acts like he wasn't taught manners since he was child (like the dinner where he slurps).
Maybe he has forgotten his manners since he didn't need them for ten years. Maybe. But it seems more likely he never had them.

In fact, there is a video about this similiar theory I saw on youtube that gathers more evidence in same idea.

Grey_Wolf_c

2017-03-29, 06:54 PM

But in the cartoon, he is stuck for 10 years. 11+10=21.
Which means nothing without the sentence I quoted. If you switch to, for example "until you are 31", the fact that it's 10 years becomes irrelevant. While assuming that sentence is correct leaves you having to explain the portrait & other things I mentioned.

Plus, there is much evidence: he acts like he wasn't taught manners since he was child (like the dinner where he slurps).
Maybe he has forgotten his manners since he didn't need them for ten years. Maybe. But it seems more likely he never had them.
No, he loses the ability to hold a spoon because of his claws - as we see in the same scene. 10 years of not using cutlery + hands unsuited for the task = "poor" manners.

Also, I'm not sure what 11 year olds you've met, but every one I've ever seen had better table manners than the Beast, so the idea he has the table manners of an 11 year old is ludicrous.

GW

JCarter426

2017-03-29, 07:08 PM

That said, what is the issue you see with the story of Lion King?
My issue is the legality of the adaptation. Although I think there are some sketchy ethical issues, overall they're not so bad for a Disney film. But that's a separate matter.

Wait, a fairy godmother curses an 11 year old (in origonal Disney Movie)?
No, he was an adult in the original story. At least, what was considered adult in pre-revolutionary France.

In the original Villeneuve novel:

The prince is left in the care of his fairy godmother. When he is an adult, she tries to seduce him in order to marry into the throne. He refuses her, and she curses him. He's transformed into a beast and he can only be restored to his original form by the power of love.

In the plagiarized Beaumont version, upon which the Disney film was based:

The prince is cursed by a stranger because of his lack of hospitality. The prince's age is, as far as I can recall, unspecified. He has to find someone to love him in that form, etc. I believe the time limit was invented in the film adaptation for drama.

Rynjin

2017-03-29, 11:45 PM

My issue is the legality of the adaptation. Although I think there are some sketchy ethical issues, overall they're not so bad for a Disney film. But that's a separate matter.

Shakespeare plays are open source and have been forever. Anybody can do an adaptation of them should they please. Not sure what problem there is with legality.

JCarter426

2017-03-30, 02:15 AM

That may be the case, but the works of Osamu Tezuka were and are not. But as I said, that's another matter. I only brought it up because it's part of Disney's pattern of irreverence for source material. And Beauty and the Beast is actually an exception to that, since the oddity of the enchantress's role was not something the film adaptation introduced. They chose to adapt the more famous version of the story, and they stuck rather closely to it, apart from elements like the time limit and Gaston, which were understandably added for drama.

Incidentally, while I think the original storyline had a bit more depth, I find the conclusion rather contrived. So even if you were to view it as a typical Disney alteration, I'd say it was probably for the better in this case.

Simetra Irertne

2017-03-30, 10:05 AM

Vogie

2017-03-30, 10:38 AM

Going back to the timing question, I think that he was around 21 when he was cursed. All evidence seems to point to already being grown up at the time of cursing. I think 10 years was just the cutoff on the curse. 10 years sounds like a standard storybook limit, and a reasonable amount of time to learn his lesson. As proven by Chip's transformations, the people trapped in the castle don't age. The beast was cursed at age 21, and given a time limit before which he has to be loved by someone. The only issue is the fact that the town ages. 10 years isn't an unreasonable amount of time to recognize someone, but a gap that long would be more than enough to ruin a family. The end of the movie kind of ignores that, though. Does anyone know how old Chip is supposed to be?

That is an interesting idea - We do see that the staff, including Chip, don't seem to age during the transformation. One could quite easily say that it also included the Beast, so he was cursed at age 21; then, although ten years have passed, he was still physically 21 when the curse was broken.

One of the Carlin Brothers on Youtube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYLgWaf_-Go)had an interesting theory on those ages.
Basically, that Belle's mother was highborn, and needed to wed her daughter into royalty for reasons. She becomes the enchantress, and curses the prince in a Xanatos Gambit - either

The Prince becomes a beast and Belle doesn't have to marry him,
The Prince finds love elsewhere, and Belle doesn't have to marry him while being significantly younger, or
The Prince finds love in Belle, and they choose each other, while being the same age.

While the video was posted PRIOR to the live-action movie being released, the new movie also includes some additional information. Namely,

The enchantress has the ability to remove the memories a target from others. So her removing Maurice's memories of her isn't out of the question.
Maurice never saw Belle's mother die, just knowing that she had plague when she sent him & Belle away.
Maurice was ex-machina rescued by the local hag, who happened to be the enchantress, who just happened to find him when he was left to the wolves by Gaston when they couldn't find the castle.

LughSpear

2017-03-30, 10:55 AM

When you are an all-powerful Enchantress you DON'T NEED logic.

She can do whatever she please and she may be able to see the outcome of such actions with her magic, that's the reason she cursed the prince and not the townsfolk, she KNEW the price would learn a lesson and his life WHOULD improve.

Red Fel

2017-04-01, 08:37 PM

I'm going to disagree with the OP. The Enchantress wasn't the villain here.

No, the villain was the vocals.

I loved the music of the original animated film. Those Ashman/Menken pieces still hold up, and if anything, the music in this film was as good as, if not better than, the original. The sweeping strings and those great crescendos instantly took me back to my childhood. Absolutely breathtaking.

And then Emma Watson opened her mouth and I'm magically transported into an autotuned episode of Glee.

Honestly, the only two songs where I found the vocals tolerable were "Gaston" and "The Mob Song" (aka "Kill the Beast"). Everything else, I kept waiting for the singers to shut up so I could listen to that beautiful music. Audra McDonald, particularly, was criminally underused. Criminally.

The villain was the vocals, people. New Disney villain: Singers.

Bohandas

2017-04-01, 08:57 PM

I think I've get it figured out. The moral of the story is "when the **** hits the fan everyone gets covered"

NovenFromTheSun

2017-04-04, 04:24 AM

Even without bringing his servants into it the deal was still rigged. Even if the Beast became an outright saint his fate would still be in the hands of a third party.

Quild

2017-04-04, 04:45 AM

I have an issue with the speed at which the rose loses petal in both the movie and the cartoon.
It seems that there are many left when Belle finds it, but it takes only a few months for the last petal to fall. If the curse lasts years, shouldn't they fall slower? Or maybe it accelerates at the end?

Even without bringing his servants into it the deal was still rigged. Even if the Beast became an outright saint his fate would still be in the hands of a third party.

The Enchantress seems to keep him under survey, though. If he had become a saint without finding love, maybe she would have changed her mind. But it did not. It's not easy with the curse.

Hopeless

2017-04-04, 04:54 AM

Out of curiosity who ruled the area in the absence of the prince or his family?

Maybe he was cursed to protect him, it's just that the people assigned to the same fate completely misunderstood what was going on?

I'm more inclined to believe Belle's mother was the librarian and it's her books Belle is reading.

Unlike the others because Belle's mother wasn't present when the curse happened it meant both her and her father could enter the grounds of the castle.

It's only when Belle showed incontrovertible proof of the Beast that the curse began to unravel enough they could storm the castle that Gaston's attack and Belle's proclamation finally broke the curse restoring the prince and healing his injuries...

Given how little effect his disappearance had on the surrounding population makes me think it was actually to protect and guide him it's just far too easy for this to turn into a true horror story imagine if the prince succumbed to lycanthropy instead?!