"Beauty and the Beast" is literally a "tale as old as time," telling the story of a unique young woman and her creative, loving father in a village too small for their love and individuality… All is usual until they stumble upon the Beast. We all know how the story ends --- Beast returns to the form of the man--both inwardly and outwardly--he once was and lives happily ever after with Belle. However, while the story speaks of a beautiful romance, the story isn't made just to emphasize a romantic love, but to tell the truth about the world and the way we treat others.
The villagers, who we can all agree are close-minded and judgmental, represent our society. The ostracism of Belle and her father, Maurice, for their differences represents the way people who are different are typically treated. A perfect representation of this is exemplified by the new live-action itself. Shortly before the premiere of the new live-action Beauty and the Beast, Bill Condon, the director of the film, released a statement that Le Fou, Gaston's right-hand side-kick, is actually gay. In response, many spoke out in rage and disgust, mentioning how inappropriate it will be to show a gay man in a children's film and how they will boycott not only the film but also the Disney franchise itself. It's humorous upon reflecting on the behavior of the people who are boycotting, however, because little do they see that they are exactly the villagers portrayed in the film. Immediately upon hearing about the gay character, their response was anger and judgment, just as the villagers judged Beast, Maurice, and Belle for being different.
However, their judgment, similar to those criticizing the story to be about Stockholm syndrome and bestiality, clearly shows that they had not understood the true meaning of the story.
If the fact that the Beast is, well, a beast makes you believe that the film is advocating bestiality, I hope you not only get your dirty mind out of the gutter, but also realize that you're missing the entire point of the story. The Prince once had a heart built on selfish, materialistic and superficial desires. When one night he refuses to help an elderly woman, she casts a curse transforming the Prince into the Beast. The outer appearance --the claws, the tail, the mane, the hooves-- is simply the physical representation of the monster he once was inside. However, just as the people, even initially Belle and Maurice, were afraid of Beast for his looks, we, too, are quick to judge. As the story goes on, we find that Belle falls in love with Beast. However, it's clear that she doesn't fall in love with Beast because he was an animal, but because of his personality and his heart. The story isn't made to emphasize that Belle fell in love with a beast, but that we don't fall in love with what we simply see (at least I hope that's not the only reason) and that we "shouldn't judge a book by its cover." And if that doesn't convince you that it's not about bestiality… Beast may have been an animal physically, but he was still human on the inside, a fact acknowledged in the story numerous times. Not only did Belle know well that Beast was once human, but she also knew that there was a way to reverse the curse (though she did not know exactly how).
Additionally, we cannot deny that Beast kept Belle as a prisoner in his castle. There's also no denying that Belle fell in love with Beast. However, this is NOT Stockholm syndrome. Not only is labeling Beast and Belle's relationship as such wrong, but it also minimizes the very serious disorder for what Stockholm syndrome truly is. Yes, Belle was Beast's prisoner, but she did not fall in love with him because of that. As a matter of fact, Belle shows disdain and anger towards him and wanted to escape. However, after hearing from Mrs. Potts and the other characters about who he really is and seeing that truth in him through his changing actions, Belle began to understand him better. Not only is she treated pretty well --- shown by her relative freedom, her bedroom, her dining, her clothing, and the library --- but she also, in time, develops a friendship with Beast and learns more about who he is. To reemphasize the point, she falls in love with Beast for what was on the inside. Additionally, Beast tells Belle to return to the village and to save her father, realizing and understanding that she must be free.
Additionally, if one gay man (a character who is exemplified as he was in the original film) offends you so much and causes you to harass others (like Gaston), ignore all the other significant themes in "Beauty and the Beast," or boycott a film about a wonderful, entertaining and fictional story, maybe it would be best if you weren't a part of the Disney family. Because when you judge a story meant to symbolize individuality, romantic love, familial love, friendship, and hope, and then advocate it to become something as twisted and terrible as some of you criticize it to be, it says a lot more about the kind of person you are. And if you are still convinced that the story is at fault for having a homosexual character or revolving around bestiality or Stockholm syndrome, I hope you know that the villagers were also too blind to see their own faults.
