how beauty and the beast handles image
The movie teaches us that all that matters is what's on the inside. Or does it?
Perspective: Does beauty and the beast portray image well enough?
Through my video essay, I think it’s clear that I believe that Beauty and the Beast could’ve done better when it comes to its portrayal of image. For some people, though, the movie does do enough to enforce the idea that beauty is on the inside. My goal in this blog post is to examine these arguments and present reasons for why I disagree with them.
At one point in the video, I mention that Disney simplifies its characters into good and villainous characters to present a distinct dichotomy between what one should do (i.e. what the good characters do) and what one should not do (i.e. what the villainous characters do). This distinction is very apparent in Beauty and the Beast; Gaston is the villain while Belle and the Beast are the good characters. Therefore, one may argue that through this distinction, Disney makes it clear that people who care only about physical beauty (i.e. Gaston) are examples of who not to be while people who care about others as people instead of objects (i.e. Belle and the Beast) are examples of who to be. For people who argue that, they may be satisfied with this distinction, although I would argue that Disney does not make this distinction as clear as it could be.
One example where this distinction could be clearer is the excerpt from the video where the Beast laments that Belle is too beautiful for him. Although he doesn’t specify that this statement is about Belle’s physical beauty, that would make the most sense given that the only other reference to beauty in the movie is Gaston’s appreciation of Belle’s physical beauty (since he disregards her character and intelligence). Omitting these references or simply changing the adjective (i.e. “She’s so wonderful” or “She’s so nice” instead of “She’s so beautiful”, if the purpose was to emphasize Belle’s character) would strengthen Disney’s goal of emphasizing character over superficiality. To me, the Beast’s love of Belle would then be on the same level as Belle’s love of the Beast.
To some, this point may be nitpicking; it is a small detail in the overarching course of the film, but it is just one example. A more profound example would be the ending to the film where the Beast transforms back into a human (and a physically beautiful one at that). One may argue that this was necessary; that it would be impossible to justify Belle marrying the Beast as the Beast instead of a human, that this would represent some tragic sin and an assault on human character due to introducing kids to a relationship between a human and a nonhuman. While that is a valid concern, the ending could still have been different; as I mentioned in the video, Shrek is a wonderful counterexample. Shrek did not turn into a human; Fiona turned into an ogre. Similarly, Belle could have turned into some beast or animal, though this would raise similar problems for some viewers. Instead, the easiest solution grounded both in reality and practicality would be simply making the Beast’s human form not so beautiful. He is royalty, of course, being a prince; but he doesn’t have to immediately be beautiful. That is not required for the narrative to end in a logically succinct way, but Disney chose that ending.
I hope it does not come across that I think Disney did not make a point about beauty being on the inside; I do agree with that claim. I just believe that their point could be much stronger without these details and features which seemingly contradict their main message.
At one point in the video, I mention that Disney simplifies its characters into good and villainous characters to present a distinct dichotomy between what one should do (i.e. what the good characters do) and what one should not do (i.e. what the villainous characters do). This distinction is very apparent in Beauty and the Beast; Gaston is the villain while Belle and the Beast are the good characters. Therefore, one may argue that through this distinction, Disney makes it clear that people who care only about physical beauty (i.e. Gaston) are examples of who not to be while people who care about others as people instead of objects (i.e. Belle and the Beast) are examples of who to be. For people who argue that, they may be satisfied with this distinction, although I would argue that Disney does not make this distinction as clear as it could be.
One example where this distinction could be clearer is the excerpt from the video where the Beast laments that Belle is too beautiful for him. Although he doesn’t specify that this statement is about Belle’s physical beauty, that would make the most sense given that the only other reference to beauty in the movie is Gaston’s appreciation of Belle’s physical beauty (since he disregards her character and intelligence). Omitting these references or simply changing the adjective (i.e. “She’s so wonderful” or “She’s so nice” instead of “She’s so beautiful”, if the purpose was to emphasize Belle’s character) would strengthen Disney’s goal of emphasizing character over superficiality. To me, the Beast’s love of Belle would then be on the same level as Belle’s love of the Beast.
To some, this point may be nitpicking; it is a small detail in the overarching course of the film, but it is just one example. A more profound example would be the ending to the film where the Beast transforms back into a human (and a physically beautiful one at that). One may argue that this was necessary; that it would be impossible to justify Belle marrying the Beast as the Beast instead of a human, that this would represent some tragic sin and an assault on human character due to introducing kids to a relationship between a human and a nonhuman. While that is a valid concern, the ending could still have been different; as I mentioned in the video, Shrek is a wonderful counterexample. Shrek did not turn into a human; Fiona turned into an ogre. Similarly, Belle could have turned into some beast or animal, though this would raise similar problems for some viewers. Instead, the easiest solution grounded both in reality and practicality would be simply making the Beast’s human form not so beautiful. He is royalty, of course, being a prince; but he doesn’t have to immediately be beautiful. That is not required for the narrative to end in a logically succinct way, but Disney chose that ending.
I hope it does not come across that I think Disney did not make a point about beauty being on the inside; I do agree with that claim. I just believe that their point could be much stronger without these details and features which seemingly contradict their main message.
Interested in More?
Explore here to see how other movies handle the topic of image. Click a movie to learn more.
"Beauty is Good" Stereotype in Disney Movies Portraying Women Through Language in Disney Movies Gender Portrayals in Classic Movies |
Here are some resources on character portrayal in movies and archetypes. Click a topic to learn more.
Evolution of the Disney Villain Princesses and Royalty Character Archetypes in Movies (part 2, part 3, part 4) |
Here are some other videos and articles out there about Beauty and the Beast and its portrayal of image.
|