If you’ve been following my blog for awhile, you know how I feel about The Little Mermaid. (This is the original post I wrote about the movie in case you missed it the first time.) I think the movie is more feminist than immediately meets the eye because the female characters drive the action of the story, Ariel and Eric seem to be equally matched in terms of bravery and the amount of effort they put into the relationship, and the film uses Ursula to subvert stereotypical gender roles. In terms of feminism, it’s a pretty neat kids’ movie, and I get very annoyed when The Little Mermaid is reduced to the same tired “she changes herself for a guy!” complaint.
So, you can imagine how I felt when I got a look at this picture:
What Disney princesses teach you
I have mixed feelings about this artist’s representation of the Disney princesses. I entirely agree about Snow White, Cinderella, and Aurora. I somewhat agree about Jasmine – she’s justifiably angry that she’s reduced to being a “prize to be won,” but she never gets to overturn the marriage rule, so the ending is a little hollow from that perspective. On an intellectual level, I agree about Belle; on an emotional level, I have a soft spot for her because she liked books, so this still makes me switch.
But I look at the description of Ariel and I see red, and not just in her hair color. I wrote a whole feminist defense of Ariel and The Little Mermaid almost a year ago, and now it looks like I have to do it all over again, because this description of her character seems to be an epic case of Missing the Point.
Let’s break down this description of Ariel phrase by phrase.
1. “It’s okay to abandon your family.” Ariel is sixteen years old – the youngest in her family, but if we were to judge her by modern American standards, she’s the age of consent in all 50 states. If Ariel were a human (and, you know, real), she’d be a year or two away from attending college. Ariel is abandoning her family by doing what most teenagers naturally do – and want to do – by the time they reach her age? That doesn’t seem very fair.
(Of course, if the artist is arguing that Ariel is abandoning her family because she is choosing to live with fish-eaters when mermaids go by the “fish are friends, not food” philosophy, then I recant this argument completely.)
2. [“It’s okay to] drastically change your body…” I feel like the standard feminist perspective of The Little Mermaid is that she undergoes cosmetic surgery to please a man. It might interest people to know that Ariel’s journey can be a metaphor for a transgender woman. Read Consulting pop culture while trans: Disney’s The Little Mermaid.I’m not transgender, but this piece made a lot of sense to me and I found it quite moving.
When growing up with The Little Mermaid, I never thought Ariel was wrong to question her place in the mer-society. She knew she didn’t quite belong with the other merfolk even though she loved them and they loved her. She knew she was meant to be human. Her friends and family didn’t understand. By the end of the movie, King Triton has accepted that being human is something that Ariel wants, something that she is and always has been.
If Ariel was perfectly content to be a mermaid her whole life and suddenly changed her mind because she met a hunky guy, I would feel quite differently. But she sings “Part of that World” before she meets Eric. Before!
3. “…Give up your strongest talent.” I discussed the issue of Ariel’s voice at length in my first post on The Little Mermaid. (To sum up: “Poor Unfortunate Souls” works because Ursula is lying to Ariel when she [Ursula] claims that men only like silent, demure women, and Eric disproves that theory by only showing interest in Ariel when she gains her voice back.)
But I want to look at Ariel’s voice from a different angle. Is her voice her “strongest talent?”
King Triton thinks so. Sebastian thinks so. They think she has the prettiest voice out of all of King Triton’s daughters. They want to showcase her in the “Daughters of Triton” song. Unfortunately for them, she doesn’t show up to the performance because she’s busy exploring an old, abandoned ship.
Now, I like King Triton well enough. He’s a well-meaning person who loves his daughters. But the “Daughters of Triton” song indicates that he’s exploiting his daughters to a certain extent. He’s showing them off for his own bragging rights. He wants his daughters to serve him. Ariel, however, is more interested in pursuing her own goals and interests no matter what everyone else says.
How is that not a feminist statement?
I also take issue with the idea that Ariel has to pursue singing and performing because it’s her “strongest talent.” Yes, she’s a good singer. That doesn’t mean she has to make singing the focus of her life. I don’t remember anyone complaining that Zac Efron’s character in High School Musical should have made basketball his main priority just because he was good at it. His passion was singing. Well, Ariel likes singing, but she enjoys exploring even more, and turning human was her primary goal.
In conclusion: I have made the feminist case in favor of The Little Mermaid. I think that someone else could easily made a convincing case against The Little Mermaid and prove that the movie is anti-feminist. But quit it with the “Ariel just wants to change for a guy!” arguments. It’s simply not true.
Articles
Blog Posts
Interviews
Novels, Fiction & Silliness
I thought Jasmine’s dad DOES change the marriage decree. Doesn’t he say that the princess can marry whomever SHE chooses? “I choose him – Aladdin.”
I completely with everything you say about “The Little Mermaid.”
She’s allowed to choose her husband, but the Sultan (and movie) still implies that she has to marry, period. She doesn’t get to choose to be single.
It would seem rather rude to tell someone they could just stay single while the person they loved was standing a few feet away. I’ve always seen it as the Sultan giving up on tradition and giving his blessing to his daughter’s decisions.
First time commenter, BTW. I’ve been deeply enjoying reading this Blog ever since I stumbled on it a few months ago via Ars Marginal.
Thanks for the kind words. I’m glad you enjoy reading it 🙂
True, that would have been an awkward conversation. “Jasmine, you don’t have to marry at all!” “Thanks, Daddy! But, um, I really like this guy…”
Interesting article! This movie was always a childhood favourite of mine.
One point though:
“and Eric disproves that theory by only showing interest in Ariel when she gains her voice back.”
Wait, wasn’t he about to kiss Ariel before the boat got turned over during “Kiss the Girl”? She hadn’t gotten her voice back by then, so I think he was interested in her even when she was mute.
I think there was some interest because she was pretty and, well, there, but he needed to hear an entire song encouraging him to “kiss the girl.” He liked her, but seemed to go after her because he was resigned that he’d never find the woman who saved his life. I don’t think it compares to his eagerness when he realized Ariel was, in fact, the woman who saved his life.
I think it’s also worth arguing that The Beast doesn’t seem particularly attracted by Belle’s beauty alone. The song that serves as the turning point in their relationship (“Something There”) doesn’t have any mention of how pretty she is nor can I recall any point in the film which the Beast makes any comment or shows any particular reaction to Belle’s physical attractiveness (aside from the ballroom scene which I think could easily be seen as a reaction to the fact that she’s dressed up). The villains of the movie (Gaston and the townspeople) are clearly obsessed with Belle’s beauty as her only real quality of worth while the Beast and the castle servants like her because she shows self-sacrifice and kindness. While Disney is certainly not the most progressive studio ever, I think virtually all of their princesses since the beginning of the Disney Renaissance of the late 80s are at least reasonably positive. Attacking Jasmine over the marriage rule seems an awful lot like attacking Mulan for having to dress up like a man or Tiana for having to work hard but still needing some help to achieve her dreams (and/or recognizing that sometimes you need to also see what is most important to you). The misogyny is a central conflict for those characters that they have to struggle against and clearly portrayed as a negative. The early princesses are still problematic holdovers from the culture of the time of course.
The villains of the movie (Gaston and the townspeople) are clearly obsessed with Belle’s beauty as her only real quality of worth while the Beast and the castle servants like her because she shows self-sacrifice and kindness.
Excellent point. That’s why Gaston has always been one of my favorite villains. He’s closer to a real-life asshole than any of the others, making his sense of entitlement and possessiveness of Belle all the more creepy.
Attacking Jasmine over the marriage rule seems an awful lot like attacking Mulan for having to dress up like a man or Tiana for having to work hard but still needing some help to achieve her dreams (and/or recognizing that sometimes you need to also see what is most important to you).
I can’t speak for the original artist of that cartoon, but I’m not attacking Jasmine herself. Her unfortunate circumstance is not her fault. It’s just a shame that it’s the only role she plays in society AND in the story.
I’ll always hate Gaston because of my being antagonized by people like him. Hell, he reminds me of how much of an asshole Triton was to Ariel and how my dad was to me.
I agree 100% with every word you said.
Also to note: I think I like Belle better than the other princesses because she craves adventure and wants to escape her “provincial life”. She wants to travel and experience things like the people she reads about in stories… but it’s kind of a let down because ultimately, she settles down in the castle with Prince Adam (or so we can infer). Bleh. Inherently Belle is a free-spirit though, and that’s why I like her 🙂 (Sorry for that little rant, haha)
The prince has a name?!
But yes, that was something that always bugged me a little. She wants adventure in the “great wide somewhere,” and then settles down.
On the other hand, the man gave her the biggest library in the world, which makes the ending a little more palatable. 🙂
I saw it more as her wanting to get out of her little town, where all the people do the same things every day and nothing is ever as exciting as in the books she reads. Throughout the movie she got what she’d been dreaming of–adventure, mystery, love–and we don’t know that she necessarily craved more of that by the end of it all. But I would imagine being a princess affords her more opportunity to go to new places and have new experiences than she ever thought she’d get as a girl living in a little town.
God, I love when you get all Disney on us. I’m forwarding this to several students right now. : )
Good point on the Little Mermaid but I just have to question the artist’s (and other Disney critics’) slamming of other Disney heroines (I won’t address Ariel because I can’t think of a point that you haven’t already made). While I admit that Disney is far from perfect, they gave me (and millions of other girls) strong, smart, kind female heroes to look up to when we were too young for Jane Austin, Buffy etc.
How do the actions and behavior of any of those heroines make them poor role models or send a poor message to girls? As stated above, Jasmine’s circumstance is far from feminist but the way she handles her situation shows extreme resolve and strength on her part. Belle loves someone despite their unattractive appearance, shows extreme self sacrifice and bravery yet is a poor role model because she happens to be outwardly beautiful as well?
I’ll even address the pre-Renaissance heroines. Snow White (never one of my personal favorites because she happens to talk in rhyme) is caring, hard working and sweet, gaining the love and admiration of the dwarfs and forest animals and not just the prince (same case with Aurora and Cinderella) and although both Snow White, Cinderella and Aurora are more naive and not as pro active as we modern feminists might like, their portrayals of selflessness, patience, hope, kindness, and purity epitomize what I like so much about the female gender; that women can be just as emotionally, mentally (and often physically) strong as men while maintaining an empathetic and nurturing attitude towards the human condition and natural world which too often gets neglected and seen by some “feminists” as “weak.” The kick ass female heroines of today (I’m talking in general not necessarily about Disney) occasionally lack these qualities which deprives young girls of the nurturing, gentle role model they often need and dehumanizes female heroes thus hurting the general population’s view of what feminism even is . Sorry for that long sentence.
I think I have to address this comment in a post of its own (eventually) because it’s inspiring a lot of thought, so thanks for writing.
If there’s equality between Ariel and Eric, why does she have essentially trick him into kissing her? Why can’t she just kiss him? Because she’s fails at achieving human womanhood if she fails at seduction. That doesn’t strike me as being particularly fair.
I agree with the idea that her “strongest talent” argument is bogus. After all, she never even mentions that she LIKES singing. But as far as wanting to change into a human… she’s fantasizing. She doesn’t even understand the mechanics of the human body. And that’s relevant, if she’s suddenly going not only to become human, but to make her first task upon becoming a human MATING with a human. You know how I feel about a culture that implies sexual assault is ever a woman’s fault, but I fear that Ariel is just setting herself up for a wedding night of absolute horror. At best, she gets to be the perfect virgin, completely ignorant of any sort of sexuality. A blank canvas for her husband to cultivate. A pliant, instructable barely post-pubescent child. And that to me seems to rob her of a great deal of her own power.
Is Ariel a hell of a lot better than the majority of Disney heroines? Oh yes. Is she great? No. She’s a perpetual victim.
In fact, she has one line that sums up for me why she’s a dreadful role model. While King Triton is trying to destroy the contract with Ursula, she says, “I’m sorry daddy, I didn’t know!”
She knew perfectly well. She knew the consequences of not getting Eric to kiss her. She knew what happened to the people who didn’t keep up their ends of bargains with Ursula. But playing the helpless victim is all she knows. Yes, she had moments of bravery. Yes, she’s spunky. But how does she get Eric to take her home from the beach? By helplessly collapsing into his arms. How does she get him to *almost* kiss her? She doesn’t. Her older and wiser male cohorts take care of that for her.
And that is my position on Ariel. 🙂
Yay, you replied!
If there’s equality between Ariel and Eric, why does she have essentially trick him into kissing her? Why can’t she just kiss him? Because she’s fails at achieving human womanhood if she fails at seduction.
Ah, but that goes back to the brilliance of “Poor Unfortunate Souls.” Ursula feeds Ariel a lot of sexist garbage under the guise of helping her, when she’s actually doing everything she can to thwart Ariel’s plan. She’s purposely setting Ariel up for failure. That’s why I like this movie so much. Playing the helpless victim, being demure, doesn’t work. Eric is attracted to her after spending a day with her, sure, but his decision to go up and see her seems to be one of resignation, forcing himself to let go of a ridiculous fantasy. But when Ariel regains her voice, the distinguishing characteristic that makes him recognize her as the woman who saved his life, he can’t get to her side quickly enough. The whole point is that Ursula is wrong and a liar. If Ariel had shown up on the beach with her voice and spunky attitude in place, Eric would have married her right then and there.
She doesn’t even understand the mechanics of the human body. And that’s relevant, if she’s suddenly going not only to become human, but to make her first task upon becoming a human MATING with a human. You know how I feel about a culture that implies sexual assault is ever a woman’s fault, but I fear that Ariel is just setting herself up for a wedding night of absolute horror.
Oh. Ouch. Yeah, I hadn’t considered it from that angle before, but that’s a pretty compelling argument.
In fact, she has one line that sums up for me why she’s a dreadful role model. While King Triton is trying to destroy the contract with Ursula, she says, “I’m sorry daddy, I didn’t know!”
She knew perfectly well. She knew the consequences of not getting Eric to kiss her. She knew what happened to the people who didn’t keep up their ends of bargains with Ursula.
I didn’t think she was necessarily referring to the consequences, or people who didn’t keep their bargains with Ursula. I thought she was trying to say, “I didn’t know that Ursula was tricking me this whole time and using me as bait to get to you, Daddy.” She believed Ursula was on her side – which was pretty stupid of her, but I think she was sincere.
But how does she get Eric to take her home from the beach? By helplessly collapsing into his arms.
I didn’t see her as “playing” the victim in that particular case. She wasn’t used to walking yet, so her fall was legitimate.
Honestly, Ariel is one of my favorite Disney princesses. I just feel that it’s not exactly high praise to say she’s better than Snow White.
God, I could rant about that twit for days. >.<
Snow White…yeah, she’s annoying. The movie has some truly gorgeous animation. And I’ll just leave it at that.
On another note, I’m really annoyed that all the Disney Princess marketing material has Belle in her gold dress and worse, Mulan in her “I’m going to meet the matchmaker” China doll outfit. I don’t think of the gold dress when I think of Belle; I think of her plain blue dress and apron, since she wears it for most of the movie. And Mulan spent most of her movie dressed as a boy.
I went and checked the script over this because something about Ariel being perfectly aware about everything and intentionally victimising herself seemed horribly wrong. Ariel’s understanding is definitely that she’d be kept by Ursula – but just before “I’m sorry, I didn’t know!” Ursula then admits that she’s not after Ariel, she’s after ‘a bigger fish’ (which inevitably means Triton), which is what that line then refers to.
This part of the deal isn’t mentioned by Ursula to Ariel at any point beforehand – even Scuttle, explaining to Ariel that Ursula is forcefully breaking the deal, doesn’t include ‘the ocean will be mine’ in his recollection. In fact, looking over the film’s script, during the two characters’ only meeting before this point, Ursula doesn’t even bring up Triton or Ariel’s royal status – she keeps the focus purely on Ariel and her intentions for Eric. Even when Ariel brings up her family (omitting their titles) Ursula just changes the subject to Eric again.
Before this sequence, we know that Ariel knows Ursula is ‘the sea-witch’, but that’s all that’s established about her prior knowledge. We don’t know how much her father has talked about her or if he’s ever mentioned Ursula being in the royal courts. We don’t even know if she’s merely heard it on the grapevine and Triton has never said anything.
So, as far as Ariel understands it (and as far as we understand Ariel understanding it), the consequences of her deal being broken will be completely personal to her. Her lineage has nothing to do with it.
(yaaay late commentaryyyyyy)
As a man who enjoyed your post this morning…I am going to keep my mouth shut. LOL…Men typically end up saying the wrong thing when women start talking about feminisim in our society…
good post, though…
If you were keeping your mouth shut, you wouldn’t have commented at all. But then again, I don’t blog so people can keep their mouths shut. If I wasn’t interested in hearing what other people had to say, I would block all comments.
If a man wants to participate in a discussion with me about feminism and talk about how best to be an ally for women and women’s rights, I’d be interested in hearing what he had to say, as long as he also listened to what I had to say. I’m not going to verbally castrate a man for saying the “wrong thing” if he’s talking to me in good faith and willing to listen and hear me, and I doubt most feminists would. I only start mocking when people are outright jerks, or assume they understand my life and experiences better than I do.
I’m glad you enjoyed the post.
Your second and third points really made me think. Enough that I think I’m going to look at the movie a little differently than I did before.
However, as a girl who has had a VERY screwed up view of ALL love (romantic and otherwise) because most of my early social development was learned from fiction, I DO think that the message is “Ariel is ready to abandon her family for a man.” Yes, she wanted to leave before and yes, she’s at a point in her life where most kids are fighting for independence but she still is a kid and even if she was an adult, it’s not safe for most people in healthy families to run away because that family doesn’t or wouldn’t approve of their partners (I don’t think parents that wouldn’t approve of a gay partner are part of a healthy family fwiw)
I’m not sure the age matters, first of all. Young children don’t realize where a 16 year old is developmentallyl. The Little Mermaid came out when I was between kindergarten and first grade and I thought of Ariel as a bonafide adult. I certainly didn’t understand that all teenagers struggled for independence and to find themselves at this point. Yes, in the US a teenager at 16 IS only two years away from leaving home that’s STILL two years away. But the important thing to remember is that so many rebellious 16 year old girls ARE willing to remove themselves from a family that doesn’t think an abusive boyfriend is good for them. Some of those girls are from broken homes but some of them aren’t. And even those from broken homes aren’t necessarily in a situation that is worse than a partner that will abuse her. In real life situations a girl who is already fighting with her family and trying to make herself known as an individual OFTEN latches on to a partner that “understands her” and anything her family tells her is ignored. And there is a huge cultural precedent that this is the best thing to do because “love conquers all.”
Think how often you hear that message: “leave your family behind, it will work out with the dude! They just don’t understand you.” I mean anything based on Romeo and Juliet has this message at the heart of it to kids. There were tons of stories before and after TLM that told this same tale. Then Twilight came out and look at how big THAT got and how quickly Bella is willing to ignore everything her family tells her for true love. Yeah. Not the best thing for kids to hear.
I would argue that at the beginning of the movie Eric wouldn’t have been good for Ariel. Not with the information we or he had. Without the history of her saving his life or their mutual courtship he might NEVER had been a safe choice for her.
So yeah. I can see the other two points, I’m not sure that I am totally sold on that being the underlying message the creators meant it to have 😉 but I do like that point of view. It’s just the first point you made makes me really uneasy.
Oh, and for the record? I’m not sure the things this artist chose to slam Jasmine or Belle over are particularly fair or relevant to their situations. I mean, that IS the message of Jasmine’s story but I loved that she fought against it when I was kid. And Belle? Like another poster pointed out, I don’t think beauty mattered much in her situation. I DO agree with other people that there is something ultimately unhealthy about the repeated message young girls hear that the abusive (or at least dangerously mean) love interest in their lives is really a giant teddy bear who will change with enough of their love. But that wasn’t Disney’s fault, that storyline (Beauty agreeing to stay with the Beast in place of her father and then falling in love with him even though he has been shown to be not nice) is all there is to the basic Beauty and The Beast fairy tale. When you consider that, they actually did a decent job with what they had. That doesn’t mean it’s not a message that hasn’t harmed many a life though.
I saw another image about the princesses and the poor messages girls could take from them (I say could because I don’t think that’s all there is) that was a lot more spot on where Belle and Jasmine were concerned. I believe it was more or less the same with the other three.
I’m probably going to write a separate post analyzing Beauty and the Beast because I find it a pretty fascinating story all on its own, and I think “the abusive guy is really a teddy bear” is, perhaps, a simplistic reading of the text and it’s actually more complex than that – but I think the use of the Beauty and the Beast trope is often just as simplistic as that.
You made an excellent point about Ariel’s age, and thank you for bringing it up. Ariel is sixteen, but you’re right that movies like [i]The Little Mermaid[/i] are still targeted to a much younger audience, and younger girls could definitely get a bad message from that.
I don’t think the abuse parallel works with [i]The Little Mermaid[/i], though. There’s never any sign that Eric would be an abusive or controlling boyfriend. From the little we see of him, he seems to be a really nice, kind man who’s good to animals. That doesn’t mean he can’t secretly be a jerk, but we’re never given an indication that he’s anything but a good person. So I don’t think the abuse comparison works with Eric. The real problem is that Ariel runs off to be with a guy she [i]barely knows[/i], not that she latches on to an abusive partner. I don’t fear for Ariel’s safety in a marriage with Eric. The worst I would expect is for them to spend a week together and realize that, aside from mutual life-saving and love of music, they have nothing in common. 🙂
I entirely agree about [i]Twilight[/i], though not so much about [i]Romeo and Juliet[/i] (I’ll probably write a separate post about R&J at some point.) Bella and Edward are awful – then again, I pretty much hate every character in that damn series, except for Jacob at the beginning, and even he turned into an abusive jerk in a different way
this is slightly OT, but I was curious what your feminist take on Mulan is?
Mulan is pretty awesome from a feminist’s perspective. I like that she isn’t immediately a kick-ass fighter and has to work hard for it. I like that she uses both intelligence and physical strength to climb to the top of the pole. I also love that she and her friends ultimately use a lot of feminine, girly objects and disguises to defeat the bad guy at the end.
It’s a little annoying that she’s the only female character of note in the movie, though.
If you support Mulan as I do, why do you side with the sexist who’s known as Gaston? As far as I’m concerned, a true feminist would never like him.
Side with him? I don’t side with him. He’s despicable. But he’s still a well-drawn character. I enjoy watching him, but I don’t root for him.
This is a really interesting post! I wrote something similar about Cinderella earlier this year: http://strugglingsingletwentysomething.blogspot.com/2011/03/why-cinderella-rules.html. I have to admit that because I LIKE Disney movies, I really don’t want to find them anti-feminist, so it’s good to read something like this that digs a little bit deeper into the messages they portray.
Looking at Ariel from a feminist perspective is one thing, but you managed to describe Cinderella as more feminist than she seems, and do it convincingly. I’m impressed! Thanks for sharing.
I agree so much with this post. (Sorry, I’ve been jumping around and reading a lot of your blog posts the last day or two… I know that this is an old entry.)
One of the things that really annoys me about the way a lot of people seem to look at Ariel is that they treat not having a voice as being essentially the same thing as being dead. Yes, Ariel lacked a voice, yes, that’s a problem, etc… but it’s not like her personality wasn’t emerging regardless. You don’t actually need to be able to speak to show your personality, and even when she was trying to be what she thought he wanted… I dunno. Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t think she did a very good job. She couldn’t really mask who she was. IMO, that’s what Eric was attracted to, and not just her beauty.
That didn’t hurt, of course, but…
Pingback: Gaston, the Beast, and Choosing to Change | Lady T: Funny Feminist
I know I’m coming to this party late, I’m extremely glad to have stumbled across this blog.
I just started work as an usher and was lucky enough to have my first night on a production of Beauty and the Beast, having never seen the stage show. I’ve been a bit rekindled in my thinking of Belle as a female protagonist and then I find this discussion! (This is long, I got excited)
The Little Mermaid is my other favourite Disney film and I think the discussion has been pretty well covered so I won’t add to that.
There’s a point that I think has been missed in the Belle discussion above and definitely in the image above. Yes, Belle may be beautiful but the film makes a very specific point that she is also wrongly judged on her looks. In the song entitled “Belle” the townsfolk sing about she is beautiful, but this makes her non-conformist personality all the stranger:
“Now it’s no wonder that her name means “beauty”
Her looks have got no parallel
But behind that fair facade
I’m afraid she’s rather odd”
Not to mention the fact that appearance is here denoted as “façade” this song, and the ensuing film, addresses the fact that we associate and expect certain personality traits to align with certain appearances. A book should match it’s cover.
In this respect, Belle is just as maligned as the Beast, being reduced solely to her outer appearance. As mentioned above it is in the enchanted castle that she is valued for who she is, the fact that she is beautiful is referenced but all the characters gear towards relating to her as a person. I would suggest the reason she relates to them so well is because she relates to the feeling of the world judging her cover.
What I feel is especially important to mention here is that Belle’s situation encourages people whose biology coheres to our current perception of beauty not to let themselves be defined by their looks. I think in the debate, particularly in this image saturated world, around appearance and beauty this is an important side. If your genetic make-up leaves you slim or large chested or with big Disney eyes or whatever is deemed by the townsfolk as “looks [that] have got no parallel” it doesn’t mean that your personality need to conform. If you are deemed sexually attractive, you don’t have to be passive and conformist and seek the most attractive mate in town (as Gaston does). She actively rejects that because she is beautiful she should become the “little wife”. She guarantees it.
Belle is deemed to be odd in fact because she doesn’t conform – and this is in the film is championed. Be different, be strong in your convictions and your world will open up.
Granted it opened up to a princess-dom and a marriage.
This was also an issue I had with the stage version. Belle reunites with her father and sings about how there has been a change in her and she has given up “her childhood fantasies.” I’m still developing this idea, so bare with me. On the one hand, my initial response was annoyance and scoffing. She has fallen in love and that has warranted “not a change in heart, a change in me” an entirely transforming experience. On the other hand I like the representation that life changes, your goals and wants change it’s part of growing up. (Again part of reaching adulthood is posited mainly, as engaging in a heterosexual relationship).
Still, I don’t think that her want for “more than this provincial life” was all that childish. So ultimately I didn’t like this addition to Belle’s character in the stage show. I feel she is a much stronger character in the film.
Because she fights the conformity of the townsfolk, refuses to settle for a life she doesn’t want, refuses to be defined by her looks, she is equipped with the tools to relate to the Beast and the enchanted residents of the castle.
Finally, while scrolling down (and I’ll admit I haven’t read every single comment so my apologies if I’m rehashing someone else’s point) I somehow had never considered the point that the Beast is easily read as abusive “you must control your temper” (often temper is what dominant abusive partners hide behind in dangerous relationships). He locks her up and screams at her and physically imposes on her. But underneath all of that he ends up loving her and he is actually a good person. DANGEROUS. Abuse should not be tolerated and this could feed into an all too prevalent mentality.
However, while he acts abusive Belle considers him beast-like and doesn’t want to have anything to do with him. When he softens and stops being abusive that is when she starts to engage and develop feelings etc etc. She did not engage in a relationship and then put up with abuse that started later, she did not make excuses for the abuse.
Rather I read the film as the Beast is what someone can become when constantly maligned and judged and relegated to be nothing more than your outward appearance. (And in turn the once spoiled Adam is made to see how just how ugly his behaviour was, but only once he has had to deal with the physicalisation of it)
It makes an interesting argument about violence here. The Beast is violent because he has succumbed to societal reaction and treatment of him. He is in this sense a victim.
But does that excuse his behaviour?
I suppose his bark is worse than his non-existent bite. He intimidates Belle much in the fashion of a typical bully but never actually harms her.
Once SHE is able to show him that his appearance need not define his worth, he stops needing to bully. He has value he thought he had lost. His person has developed beyond the young spoilt boy that he was, he has grown more humble and appreciative.
Belle is the most active and strong character in the film. She is sure of herself and what she wants and steadfast and brave in her opinion. She refuses to be defined by the fact that she simply won the genetic lottery. She envisions a world beyond that and encourages others to do the same.
You’re right about the Beast. But still ,he makes me jealous for the same reason Shere Khan of The Jungle Book makes me jealous: roaring and animalistic characteristics.
Ever since childhood, I always wanted animal-like features and do things that real people don’t do.
As for Belle, you’re so right about her. Why, I can relate to her for more than one reason.