Written by Tom
People seem to really like the 2017 remake of Beauty and the Beast. I don’t; it was my least favourite film of 2017. Seen as I’m in the minority though, I suppose I should justify myself.
When the credits starting rolling at the end of Beauty and the Beast, I shouted “Thank fuck!” and little more than stormed out of the cinema. I was furious. I still am. Because Beauty and the Beast is a vile, classist piece of work whose political subtexts are nigh-on indefensible in the current political climate. This is not the usual reading of this film though, so I’m probably going to have to justify myself a bit here. And before I can accuse it of classism, I firstly have to accuse it of sexism.
You see, the Beast is a horribly abusive man. He kidnaps Belle’s father, imprisons Belle, becomes angry and aggressive when she isn’t immediately receptive to him trying to be nice, and just generally acts like a terrible human being. I mean, his whole backstory is that he was a privileged asshole who a witch put a curse on because he was such a prick. The guy’s not nice.
But that’s his character arc, argue the people who are overly invested in Beauty and the Beast because it formed a large part of their childhood; he starts off as a prick but only needs the love of a good woman (Belle) to bring out his nicer side. Which is fair enough, but does Belle need to put up with the Beast’s asshole behaviour long enough for that good side to come out? Let me remind you: he locked her father in a dungeon and imprisoned her in a jail cell he has in his attic. If there is a moral line beyond which someone stops being an acceptable romantic prospect, then the Beast crosses over that line pretty much immediately. Once Belle first escapes from her cell, her priority should be to run as far away from this monster as she can.
I have heard it argued that the reason Belle stays with the Beast is because he hurt himself protecting her from the wolves. This shows that he has a more caring side to him and justifies her sticking around a bit longer to get him back into good health. So OK, you repay the man who locked you in a cell for saving you from some wolves by taking him back to his house, nursing his immediate wounds and making sure that there are people around him to keep making him better. Having done all this, then you run away from the scary man who locks people in prison cells and can kill wolves with his bare hands! Run away from him!
I mean, just consider this plot as a metaphor that’s meant to apply to people’s lives for a few seconds. The proper reaction to an abusive partner is to stick with him because he’s actually a good person inside and you can change him? This is the exact same logic which makes women stick with their abusers for years. It absolves the man from all responsibility for his actions and blames his victims for them – apparently the guy couldn’t help it, the women around him were just insufficient enough to stop him becoming an asshole. It’s ugly and vile and the idea of this being a love story makes me sick to my stomach. (more…)