History Headscratchers / BeautyAndTheBeast2017

[[folder control]]

[[/folder:folder control]]

[folder:Belle the Beastess]]

[[/folder control]]

[[foldercontrol]]
[[folder:Belle the Beastess]]

[[folder:What language was [=LeFou=] actually speaking when Gaston heard "Je ne sais qoui"?]]
* He could understand [=LeFou=] throughout the rest of the movie, but when [=LeFou=] goes "I don't know what" he misunderstood it as "Je ne sais qoui".
** The language is French as far as this troper's understanding, and I think it's meant to make Gaston seem more stupid... even though it seems to ignore the massive FridgeLogic seeing as they're in France...

* Belle makes plans to escape the castle almost from the moment she makes the deal with the Beast to take her father's place and makes good on the attempt at least twice (once after her meeting the Wardrobe and the second time after the Beast catches her in the West Wing). However, after the Beast saves her...she doesn't try to escape, even though she reminds the Beast after their big dance that she's still his captive. Why is she still there even though she could conceivably leave? In the original film it made sense as the only thing keeping Belle there is IGaveMyWord, something she was prepared to break when the Beast threatened her in the West Wing and was prepared to keep it after he saved her from the wolves. Here, it seemed they were trying to break the whole Stockholm Syndrome that the first film has been accused of...only to forget about it and unintentionally have it in the story).
** First can we drop the whole Stockholm Syndrome thing? The guy who invented the term has stated that at least Disney's version of Beauty And The Beast isn't an example of Stockholm Syndrome so I think we can put that to bed. As to the actual question after the Beast saves her she starts to like him and is less inclined to try a frankly rather desperate escape through hungry-wolf-infested woods.
** I don't mean to start an argument, I'm just asking...How is it not an example of Stockholm Syndrome? Adam claims Belle is his prisoner. She not only gains sympathy for him, but goes back with him to the castle when she could easily escape, and even ends up falling in love with him. When he lets her go, he specifically tells her "You are no longer my prisoner," implying that after everything they'd gone through, she still was his prisoner up to that point. All of this points directly to the definition of Stockholm Syndrome.
** This [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syYCO0QVkZo video]] explains it nicely.
** Right, I watched that video before hoping it would provide an answer. Unless I'm misinterpreting it, though, all it seems to say is that the film isn't a case of Stockholm Syndrome because Belle doesn't take a liking to the Beast until he starts being nicer to her, which still doesn't sound logical. Just because hostages are treated kindly by their captors doesn't change the fact that they're still being held prisoner, and it also doesn't seem like it would render a relationship between them as being any less unhealthy.
** Were we watching the same video? Among the things mentioned were:
*** "Captor dictates what the captive can or cannot do". Beast ''tries'', but Belle's reaction is pretty much "Eh, who cares".
*** "Captive is under threat of death or physical injury". More in this film than the animated one, I suppose, but she still manages to just leave the one time Beast really did threaten her.
*** "Inability to engage in behaviors that might assist their release." Bell is literally shown making a rope to run off, and the huge doggy door isn't secured at all. Beast tells her to eat dinner with him once, and other than that, it doesn't seem like Belle would be unable to stay away from him inside his castle.
*** "Small kindness/absence of abuse causes positive feelings". Okay, this one is true in a way, but not quite. Stockholm Syndrome isn't normally used for the captor genuinely trying to be nicer, it's used for genuinely ''tiny'' things surrounded by more abuse. Say, cutting you with a knife and then bandaging the cut, or beating you and then hugging you when you cry. The kindnesses are far, far smaller than the abuse in those cases, captives just tend to cling to what they can get.
*** "The captive is trying to make sure their captor doesn't get angry". Yeah, Belle's not trying that at all.
*** "Negative feelings towards family etc". Again, simple no. Belle isn't exactly happy with the townsfolk trying to get her committed into an asylum and killing Beast, but it's not exactly her being angry they'd try getting her out of the castle.
** Now, "unhealthy" might be true, but that's not the same as "Oh she has Stockholm Syndrome". And, honestly, in the end the relationship seems... Mostly okay-ish. Beast is trying to be a good person and there's no real power difference between them.
** That's fair enough, but it's still annoying for people to act like there are no issues just because the relationship doesn't reach the level of Stockholm Syndrome. Even if the people complaining are conflating two different things, there's still something worth complaining about, however small.

[[folder:What language was LeFou actually speaking when Gaston heard "Je ne sais qoui"?]]

* He could understand [[=LeFou=]] throughout the rest of the movie, but when [[=LeFou=]] goes "I don't know what" he misunderstood it as "Je ne sais qoui".

[[folder:What language was LeFou actually speaking when Gaston heard "Je ne se qoui"?]]
* He could understand [[=LeFou=]] throughout the rest of the movie, but when [[=LeFou=]] goes "I don't know what" he misunderstood it as "Je ne se qoui".

** Simply put, just because he was in the castle at the time the curse took affect. Cadenza and Garderobe were not servants of the prince, they were only performing there. But they were caught up in it too. The curse isn't going to skip over Chip just because of his age. It may not be fair, but it ''is'' a curse and all...

** Still, the film's depiction is a gross (and somehow misleading) overrepresentation: Censuses give the number of about 5000 so-called "coloured people" in Metropolitan France in the 1770's, most of which were settled in Paris and in coastal cities. In rural parishes, colored people were rarer than hens' teeths : for example, in the province of Poitou, which had 1.1 million inhabitants in 1770, only six of them were black. Moreover, the colored population was mostly male, as they were brought in France mainly as laborers. As they were not allowed to marry, the presence of mixed-race people in this context is an utter improbability. Also, no need to say a black vicar is no more probable : In RealLife, the first ones, David Boilat and Arsène Fridoil, were ordained in 1840, and such remained a very rare occurence in Metropolitan France until the very end of TheNineties.

* I get the idea of people wanted a better reason WHY the Enchantress did what she did, but in the attempt they actually made things worse story wise? I mean she blames the servants for not raising the Prince properly...forgetting they are SERVANTS to ROYALITY, if they tried to disobey the Prince's Dad; at best they are unemployed...worse they are killed. She hides the castle from all...solving the problem of nobody knowing about it but also greatly reducing the chances of a girl finding the place to break the spell till she makes sure Maurice gets there and Belle following. Not to mention all the shattered families (Mr. Potts, Cogsworth's Wife). Its getting to the point the more you look at it the more the original version's "Stupid Idiot refusing Sacred Hospitality and getting punished" makes more sense.

Why does Belle remember her mother and Paris? Belle speaks of her mother fondly, and keeps refering to "The Paris of my Childhood" and yet when shown in the film, we can clearly see that she's at most two years old. so how does she remember all this so clearly/fondly?

** “Now I know she’ll never leave me” is an ironic line; he doesn’t literally mean he believes she will come back, he means that her memory , her place in his thoughts, will never leave him. He’s going to be haunted by the thought of what could have been. “I’ll fool myself,” is bitter and sarcastic, he’s not actually sincerely trying to fool himself, he’s acknowledging that he’d have to fool himself to believe she’d come back, but he can’t, he’s too aware of the loss.
** The "Now I know she'll never leave me" lyric represents emotional context rather than the physical context. In his mind, she's never returing, but he'll remember her forever. He's not gonna forget the only woman he's ever loved, even he never sees her again.

** I don't mean to start an argument, I'm just asking...How is it not an example of Stockholm Syndrome? Adam claims Belle is his prisoner. She not only gains sympathy for him, but goes back with him to the castle when she could easily escape, and even ends up falling in love with him. When he let's her go, he specifically tells her "You are no longer my prisoner," implying that after everything they'd gone through, she still was his prisoner up to that point. All of this points directly to the definition of Stockholm Syndrome.

** Retorical question. Lefou KNOWS Gastons hunting isn't fair and that he doesn't care. He's just trying to help emphasize a fact. Like all the other things mentioned in the song.It should be noted that these lyrics were writen for the song in orginal, but made the cutting room floor for some reason.

** Maybe "lifelong danger" was the improper way to put it, but them both becoming bestial monsters would've put significant strain on their ability to live anything resembling a normal life. Everyone in the village is still terrified of the Beast, so Belle and Adam wouldn't be able to go out in public. What's worse is that they would have to find a way to live at the castle without the restored servants, whose families in the village probably wouldn't want them living and working in a place where not one but ''two'' beasts are known to reside. Also, Belle loves Adam ''in spite'' of his looks, not ''because'' of them. Just because she's willing to look past his startling outward appearance doesn't mean she would prefer it over a human form like her own or that she would choose to ''become'' a beast, as well.

If this movie solves plot holes from the animated version, why didn’t it solve the hypocritical ending that the movie says “true beauty is found within,” but yet the Beast changes back into a human? Why didn’t they just have the Beast STAY a Beast or have the Enchantress turn Belle into a Beastess? This troper would have LOVED to see Emma Watson as a Beast.

** Simply put, just because he was in the castle at the time the curse took affect. Cadenza and Garderobe were not servants of the prince, they were only performing there. But they were caught up in it too. The curse isn't going to skip over Chip just because of his age. It may not be fair, but it *is* a curse and all...

** Retorical question. LeFou KNOWS Gastons hunting isn't fair and that he doesn't care. He's just trying to help emphasize a fact. Like all the other things mentioned in the song.It should be noted that these lyrics were writen for the song in orginal, but made the cutting room floor for some reason.

*** To quote LindsayEllis on a similar question :

** And then, it could be just a simple plot hole caused by lazy (re)writing.

Ok, so Maurice is [[spoiler:tied to a tree by Gaston, intending for the wolves in the forest to devour Maurice in the night]]. But the next time we see him, it's morning, and there's no evidence that he was actually attacked, when [[spoiler:Agathe]] comes to save him. So, what happened that night? Is this something that can all be chalked up to [[AWizardDidIt the Enchantress' spell]]?