Thread:ChocoholicNArt/@comment-1672596-20150131231508

Hi.

I just want to clear some things up for you: I don't hate Belle at all. Actually, I'm a forthright kind of person, so if I actually did hate Belle, I would state it to you and anyone else outright, have zero hesitation in admitting it. In fact, just to prove it, I will divulge which Disney Princess I actually do hate and have zero chance of actually reconciling with: It's Merida. I also am very vocal in my hatred of May and Dawn from Pokémon, and the girls from Love Hina, so don't think that I'm just saying it to snooker you, because I'm not. In fact, until Spring 2011, I actually liked, and more importantly, trusted Belle just as much as I do Ariel (and considering how The Little Mermaid was my first film and besides which I actually have a bit of a connection to Ariel due to us having similar pasts and struggles, that's not intended to imply I hated Belle at all), and after Spring 2011, although I do still like Belle, whether I actually trust her is an entirely different story, and it actually pains me to eve be against her, but as you can see, circumstances force me to not trust her. You can thank a long string of College professors who, simply because they have certification, they use their position as a bully pulpit to promote left-wing agendas on us, often lying to us as well (and the agendas they pushed specifically were more-or-less "Christians are misogynistic monsters who invented misogyny, men are basically perverts who can't even control their libidos and seek to put down women, women couldn't get an education at all until the 1960s, praising the decadence of the 1960s, particularly free sex and second-wave feminism, lamenting the Equal Rights amendment's failure of passing, Marxism is great, etc., etc.), not to mention the broken educational system thanks to radicals, especially in the literature departments, and the fact that people of the same intellectual caliber as Belle (like Voltaire, Diderot, Engels, Nietzsche, Marx, Rousseau, Sade, Robespierre, Lillian Hellman, Sartre, Foucault, Simone de Beauvoir, Hemmingway, etc., etc.) basically glorified extremely evil ideologies and people, even created some as well, were complacent in mass-murder of us Christians, heck, actually partook in it for my complete and total distrust of Belle, and I'll even elaborate on that bit later. In fact, the only ones in Beauty and the Beast I actually hate regarding production staff and relating to Belle are Linda Woolverton and Jeffrey Katzenberg for basically ruining her character for a needless "feminist twist".

With that out of the way, I will explain why I tend to focus on the negatives on Belle, and it's because there's barely any positives present with her, positives that actually are positives and not simply in the gray area (ie, something that's made clear to not be a bad thing. I can't use her love for her father as a truly positive attribute as much as I want to because I know plenty of people who love their parents yet are otherwise genuine monsters, both in fiction and in real life, like Margaret Sanger for example, or ). Probably the only true positive about her is her kind treatment of Chip.

Basically, in the beginning of the film, Belle came across in the opening song as an arrogant jerk who felt she was somehow superior to the other villagers, likely due to her intelligence, and made clear she pretty much hated the village life apparently because it was provincial (I count only one verse from her in the opening song that's actually dedicated on her love of reading and NOT a complaint about the town). There's also the problem that she basically acted like a hypocrite in regards to decrying Gaston as being rude and conceited (Don't get me wrong, Gaston was indeed that, but the problem is that she really shouldn't complain considering her behavior in the opening song.). There's also the fact that she basically shoved Gaston into the mud and then taking amusement in the action. Yes, Gaston was being a jerk there, but did she really need to behave that way to Gaston? She should have at least said no, and then tell him politely but sternly to leave, like in that song "Me" from the musical, and if all else fails, THEN try to actually throw him out, and even then, don't have her taking amusement at Gaston's humiliation when he fell into the mud. What's even worse is that she wasn't even being forced into a marriage at that time, this was something where she actually had the choice unlike Aurora, Jasmine, Pocahontas, and even Merida to some extent who were in arranged marriages, yet she still behaved like a jerk. At least those four (kind of with Merida) had an actual excuse for being upset and even taking some extreme lengths in the case of Jasmine, Belle didn't. We then get into Belle's actions during her stay at the castle, where she behaved like a jerk to the Beast, even when he at least tried to make amends for his admittedly vile behavior earlier to her dad (not to mention, she basically wasn't even treated that much like a prisoner. If anything, barring leaving the castle grounds and [initially] entering the West Wing, she actually had free reign of the castle, which is far better than what most prisoners get considering most prisoners can't even open doors without someone opening them for the prisoner). Now, I could understand why she was upset considering Beast thoughtlessly didn't let her say goodbye to her dad, but that was still no excuse for her jerkish behavior to Beast. Then we get into the scene where she disobeyed the Beast's stipulation of entering the West Wing. Considering she clearly knew thanks to Cogsworth that the location was the West Wing, and basically disobeyed Beast's stipulation for her stay to not enter the area, deliberately (and her tone when saying "so that's the west wing, huh?" implies spite was somewhat of a motivating factor in that decision), she did something very bad there. Then when she does enter the West Wing, she nearly destroys the Beast's literal lifeline out of sheer stupidity (yeah, I know, she didn't know that it was his lifeline, but the problem is that even if she didn't know it was his lifeline, the fact that a glowing levitating rose is underneath a glass bell jar should have made obvious that it was NOT meant to be touched, even to a kid, and especially to someone who not a few seconds before deduced the castle was enchanted just from casual observation.). Then she disobeyed Beast's OTHER stipulation that she remain in the castle, which is worse especially considering she not only gave her word to stay, but she's the reason the exchange occurred, stupidly tried to flee during a snowstorm, with wolves on the prowl, and nearly got herself and Beast killed, and then she doesn't seem to take ANY responsibility for her actions during that time, blaming the Beast for the entire thing and actually winning the argument, even though pretty much the whole event was largely her fault (pretty much the only thing Beast was actually at fault for during that event was losing his temper to such an extent that he started smashing furniture in a violent frenzy and scaring her away. Even his yelling at her was perfectly justified considering she nearly screwed him over due to her utter stupidity). Honestly, even Ariel when she messed up never blamed her father for what she did, not even when she went to Ursula, which in that case actually WAS her father's fault for the most part. I could think of plenty of ways for Belle to discover the West Wing and enter it, like Belle getting lost in the castle and stumbling upon it completely by accident, or heck, actually hearing a pained roar from the Beast and going in even after deducing that he was in the West Wing out of concern, yet they chose a manner that actually would make Belle the least sympathetic regarding what she did. There's also the problem with the fact that they apparently had Belle only starting to like the Beast after he gave her a library, which quite frankly is about as bad as or even worse than going for someone for their looks. I want to say she started liking Beast only after the latter saved her from the wolves, but the problem is that Belle gave a glare of suspicion when Beast requested that she close her eyes, only doing so after he explained it was a surprise, meaning it's unlikely she actually liked the Beast even after the wolf attack. Thankfully, by the second act, she actually did come across as nicer, but unfortunately, she then stupidly sold out Beast and his servants to a lynch mob, despite her deductive reasoning skills, despite especially the fact that earlier she actually managed to lift Beast and even Maurice onto Phillipe (and in the former case, also back up onto the balcony later after saving him from falling into the river with Gaston) despite their most likely being extremely heavy for her, meaning she definitely could handle Gaston and actually burn the paddywagon and then have them flee the village while they are distracted with getting water.

Most of the supplementary material (comics, books, the midquels, that shebang) fortunately give her a more positive light for the most part (Issue 8 of Marvel Comics does, however, get a bit wonky on continuity), but there was one exception: Disney Comics' New Adventures of Disney's Beauty and the Beast. I actually hated how they characterized her because she came across as an extremely unsympathetic jerk, even by the movie's standards, including having hints at hating men simply for existing. Even Gaston at least liked women enough to actually give them a chance, while from the Bothered Storyline Belle came across as not wanting to associate with any real life male (she'd rather spend time with fairy tale/King Arthur males than with the boys in her village, and even tastelessly implied that one reason she wouldn't even associate herself with them is because they aren't as intelligent as her.). It also doesn't help matters much that a New Fantasyland pin basically had Belle basically insulting males by referring to them as beasts (and her facial expression made clear she was actually insulting them).

Basically, in the film alone, and to a lesser extent the Disney Comics, even though it was supposed to be a promotion of true beauty comes from within, Belle came across as being extremely ugly on the inside from her behavior. What's even worse is that there wasn't any foils she actually had that would actually make her seem internally beautiful by comparison (and before you mention Gaston, no, he does NOT count, as he's Beast's foil, not Belle's. I'm specifically aiming for someone who actually is a foil for Belle). In most prior Disney Princess films that specifically deal with that theme, as well as the original tale and even the Purdum draft for this movie, they generally give a foil to the female lead specifically to show how the female lead is internally beautiful, or even externally beautiful if the case may be. Snow White had Queen Grimhilde, who while initially very beautiful on the outside was clearly ugly on the inside while Snow White was beautiful both in and out; Cinderella had Lady Tremaine, Drizella, and Anastasia, all of whom [in the first movie at least] were ugly on the inside, and while Lady Tremaine herself actually was very beautiful on the outside, especially for her age, Drizella and Anastasia were definitely ugly on the outside as well, while Cinderella by comparison actually had beauty on both ends. Even The Little Mermaid, which wasn't even intended to have that moral to begin with, still practiced this dynamic to some extent by having Ariel not only being beautiful on the outside, but also very lovely on the inside as well, while Vanessa was definitely stunning on the outside in a way that might rival even Ariel's beauty, but was clearly ugly on the inside, even ignoring the fact that she was actually Ursula in disguise. Belle never had any of that at all. In fact, the closest thing Belle actually has to a foil were those blonde triplets, and they actually came across from their little screentime and actions to be far more internally beautiful, at least in terms of traditional understanding of internal beauty, compared to Belle (ie, they came across, crush on Gaston aside, as being pure of heart more than Belle did), and I don't even like them (I do trust them more than Belle thanks to Spring 2011, but I still don't like them), so if I could admit they actually seemed more internally beautiful than Belle did despite their being the closest thing to foils and Belle's sisters, we've truly got problems with characterization relating to the moral. I could have given a blind eye to some of her unwarranted jerkish behavior, or even the fact that she was being labeled as the most beautiful woman in the village despite the triplets and arguably that redhead in the opening song who asked about a shopkeeper's wife actually looking far more beautiful than Belle, had they at least made sure to make female foils for her who were far worse than her in character, whether it be Aunt Marguerite from the original draft, the sisters she had in the original tale, heck, even actually GIVING the triplets actual internally ugly characteristics in the film if needs be, but they didn't do that. She basically through her poor characterization broke the entire moral on her half (thankfully, they got it somewhat right with Beast), all thanks to Jeffrey Katzenberg and Linda Woolverton deciding to tack on a needless feminist twist to the movie thanks to the fact that people made scathing reviews of Ariel that made clear they didn't actually watch the movie if closely looked at.

And that actually brings me to my next complaint about Belle: Jeffrey Katzenberg and Linda Woolverton basically ruined Belle's character by tacking on a needless feminist characterization for her that if anything just made her into a jerk and broke the moral, and then Linda Woolverton basically had the absolute gall to claim that the prior Disney Princesses, making particular note of Ariel, basically were insipid, weak, waited for their prince, didn't have any goals beyond marriage or love, and claimed that Belle was pretty much the first to not be those things, to actually have something other than marriage and love to strive for, even when, Princess Aurora aside, most of the DPs actually had goals beyond marriage and love to strive for, and Ariel and to some extent Cinderella and even Snow White didn't even need to wait for their prince to enact their goals (in fact, in the case of Ariel, it's pretty obvious that she formed her goals of becoming human before she was even aware of Prince Eric's existence, much less having actually met him, and Eric, if anything just gave the final push she needed to do so.). Probably the only ones who actually HAD to wait for their princes were Aurora and Snow White (and let's face it, they were in a coma, what else could they do?), and even then Snow White at least managed to flee from her stepmom when it became apparent her stepmom tried to murder her and thus enact her goal of getting away from her stepmom, and the prince wasn't even involved in this at all. And many Belle fans seem to use that as an opportunity to bash them, especially Ariel, and basically praise Belle as a goddess. Woolverton even basically was inspired to model her after the Women's Liberation Movement of the 1960s, which if anything did far more to actually hurt women than help them, especially since Simone de Beauvoir and Betty Friedan got involved in founding it.

They should have stuck with the Richard Purdum draft of the film. At least IT actually gave Belle and her family a sympathetic motive, actually gave Belle a foil to highlight her internal beauty (Aunt Marguerite), actually MADE Belle seem internally beautiful and pure of heart.

Lastly, and certainly not least, my main problem as I alluded to earlier is stuff I learned from College (the bully-pulpiting and domination of left-wing lies in the College system instead of pure raw facts), plus stuff I've researched throughout history about how intellectuals tried to desecrate Christianity, including especially the French Revolution. This is directly relevant to Belle because according to Glen Keane, this film took place during the late 18th century, and based on the fact that Adam's a prince or at least a marquis, alongside some other hints at the village, the French Revolution clearly hasn't even begun yet, meaning it has to take place between 1770-1789 (before Bastille Day). Belle, for her bookworm nature, was never demonstrated to actually be discerning of which books were good and which books were bad, in ANY of the mediums, whether it be the film, the comics, the midquels, the books, any of that shebang. Considering how books, especially those promoted by the Philosophes/Encyclopedists, played a huge role in the French Revolution and Reign of Terror in trying to desecrate Christianity, especially Rousseau, Voltaire, and Sade's works, and how the Jacobins, Cordeliers, and other factions clearly treated all those works as good, with Robespierre, Saint-Just, and Marat even explicitly stating they were modeling their actions on creating the world that Jean-Jacques Rousseau wanted in his philosophy treatises, to say little of how Joseph LeBon and his wife were using freshly decapitated Guillotine victims to be placed in obscene poses that were earlier used in Sade's 120 Nights of Sodom for the Batteries Nationales, as they were fans of Sade's works, that gives off very bad implications that Belle might backstab Adam again, this time willfully and deliberately, with no pretense of being caught off-guard, and join the Jacobins in ensuring freedom via terror, and committing atrocities to live out the Philosophes' mad dreams. It's times like these that I really wish that John Lasseter didn't cancel the DTV continuations. I would have at least favored a sequel to Beauty and the Beast taking place during the French Revolution and actually showing whether Belle could recognize the works and not join the Jacobins, or otherwise side with them because she didn't recognize the evil in their works, just like how most of the Jacobins didn't recognize the evil in the Philosophes' works. 