If we go by the speculated timeline where the prince was cursed as an eleven-year-old and had only ten years to get someone to fall in love with him by his twenty first birthday, then the Enchantress' curse seems pretty harsh for a child. Consider this: If the prince acted so selfishly at that age, think of what he could have been like if he was never cursed. He would have inherited his kingdom and could very well have become a tyrant due to his selfish, apathetic and temperamental nature. Now the Enchantress' actions make way more sense since she saved many people from being ruled by a potential despot (although there is still the matter on why the prince's servants were cursed when they didn't do anything wrong...)
I always figured they stayed frozen at the same age till the curse was lifted. For instance, Chip appears younger than ten, given when changed back he doesn't seem much larger than the dog. This would imply that Mrs. Potts would have given birth to a child while a she was a teapot.
If you truly think about it, only the servants and the servants children failed to age, not the poor Beast. The servants were all non-living objects that age in name only, not in look. Beast, as the only one cursed into another organic body could age. It makes perfect sense to this troper. Combine that with the fact the Beast has trouble reading. Even nobles back then had limited reading ability at the age of 11, and that's even if they get taught. Well, besides Belle, who's going to sit with the beast and teach him to read? Most of the servants doubtfully know how to read, and the Beast was too impatient before Belle to learn from the ones that did.
The Beast looks older than 11 in the stain-glass window introduction, so his aging was at least slowed if it wasn't stopped.
Not really - look at a few of the portraits of Edward VII. There's one painted when he was eleven that makes him look to be about eighteen. It was the fashion throughout a lot of history to make children appear older than they were, particularly children from powerful families.
If you take The Enchanted Christmas as canon though the Beast was probably twelve or thirteen when he was cursed and teenagers are notoriously difficult and moody in some of the best situations. This isn't an excuse for his actions (which could have lead to the death of another person), but it does help make him a bit more relatable. As for the reason why he's older once the curse is broken you can probably chalk it up to the fact that he's the only biological living thing in the castle and so ages normally while the transformed servants age much more slowly.
Even though the whole castle is in overdrive to make Belle welcome and happy, no one tells Belle that they need her to break the curse, or how. Were they forbidden? Trying not to cloud her feelings? After Gaston's pushiness, it was a wise approach.
Besides that, turning the servants into non-humans would ensure they couldn't just quit and leave and stop any servant girl from breaking the spell herself.
Given Belle's personality, if she heard that her host was under a curse, her kindness and Genre Savvy nature could drive her to trying to push herself to love him just to break the curse, instead of loving him anyway.
They act very secretively about the curse and given Cogsworth's reaction when Belle refers to castle as "enchanted", it seems they were probably forbidden to tell her. Belle most likely inferred a lot of what was going on, though she didn't know her role in breaking the spell.
Just as Gaston is the Beast's Evil Counterpart, so to is Lefou Belle's Spear Counterpart. If you think about their roles in the relationship with Gaston and Beast, while Belle doesn't take any of the Beast's crap lying down, Lefou is utterly dominated by Gaston, and barely even has a will of his own anymore. In the end, which pairing is better off for it? Also, what was the original meaning behind this series?
Add to that the fact that Lefou is very goofy looking opposite Belle's beauty the way Gaston is very good looking opposite Beast's beastly-ness.
Plus, one of Belle's virtues is her knowledge and intelligence. "LeFou" means "The Fool."
Also, the servants and the villagers are foils to each other. The villagers cheer on Gaston's horrible behavior while the servants try to help the Beast overcome his.
You know how people complain about how the human form of the Beast is 'ugly'? Well, isn't that exactly the point? That Belle came to appreciate, and eventually love, the Beast after he started showing more of his heart of gold despite his fearsome appearance? Why shouldn't the same thing hold true even after he becomes human? It would have been so easy and predictable to fall into the Beauty Equals Goodness trap after the curse was lifted, invariably shooting the message in the foot. The fact that it didn't, and that the human form of the Beast isn't exactly a looker, actually fits much better with the intended "seeing past the exterior" message, and the redemption isn't made cheap by turning him into a stunning Bishōnen.
In addition, the point isn't that he was rewarded with prettiness, he was rewarded by having his originally human state returned to him. A lot of people seem to forget that the Beast was a Prince to begin with, he isn't some hideous guy who was magically made beautiful through the power of love. Part of the Aesop is to learn to appreciate what you have, and the Beast only learned to do that after what he had was taken away.
Plus, not once in the movie does it ever say that the Prince was at all attractive. We're told in the prologue that he had "everything his heart desired" and was young, but his actual appearance was never mentioned.
It's not that the Beast's human form is "ugly", but like Word of God stated, "it's the Beast people fall in love with", hence they figured no matter how handsome they made his human form, people would still be disappointed. Some of the animators even made a joke when directing the scene where Belle sees his human form for the first time, discussing if they should have her touch his face and ask "Can you grow a beard?"
This shows up as early as the original fairy tale, in fact. Since Belle (and, by extension, the reader) only gets to know Beast, losing the big furry nice guy and being handed some nobleman in a suit is... well, jarring, to say the least. All the way back to the original, the Prince has to hurriedly explain who he was moments ago.
The Beast is very adamant about Belle staying out of the West Wing; initially we assume this is because she may damage the magic rose in some way, thus dooming the Beast without him ever having a chance to earn her love. If you look around, though, it's obvious that the West Wing makes up his personal chambers - and he's been using them to indulge his beastly urges. He doesn't want her to see how far he's gone and ruin any chance he has of breaking the spell, and he's also very ashamed of the fact that he's allowed himself to become more animal than man. Also, at the time the film takes place, it would be very improper for a woman to hang around unchaperoned in a man's quarters, especially if he were of the nobility. The audio commentary on the special edition DVD has confirmed this.
After the ballroom scene, the Beast has no qualms about taking Belle into the (cleaned up) West Wing to look at the mirror, signifying how things have changed and how much they've come to trust each other.
How about a simple one that also demonstrates Fridge Brilliance: A making-of video (watch it right here) reveals that if Mrs. Potts jumped on to the hard floor from a high place, she would crack/shatter. The animators resolved this by adding a soft cushion to support her fall. Problem solved!
I just realized an extra level or cruelty in the Enchantress' curse: His only window to he outside world is a magic mirror that will show him anything he wants, but in order to use it he has to look into it, seeing his reflection first. The Beast destroyed every other mirror in the West Wing so he doesn't have to look at himself. Every time he uses the mirror he has to confront what he's become.
The more anthropomorphic an enchanted servant is, the higher their station was in life. For example, Lumière, Cogsworth and Mrs. Pots (the former two especially) seem to the highest in the chain of command so they are able to talk and reason just as they would in their true forms, and their bodies are more human-like, whereas lowly footmen and parlor maids ended up more like actual coat racks and cutlery. There’s even a middle ground for people who seem to have been merely in charge of their specific area ( like the wardrobe and the stove.) Thus the people who had the most interaction with the Beast (likely the most influence over him) had more ways to continue doing so while they were still enchanted.
Actually it is my belief that not all the magical servants were human to begin with (and some of them, like the spoons and the dishes) were just enchanted objects...
For one it would suck to be turned into a spoon, secondly I doubt the Beast would need that many servants! Third if all those guys were humans before then, what cutlery was the Beast using before everyone was cursed?
Maybe they didn't really eat with utensils, in The Middle Ages it wasn't uncommon even for nobility to eat with their hands. And his table manners are atrocious- the question is if those table manners deteriorated out of lack of use as a beast, or if they were ALWAYS like that. Adding plates and utensils to the castle was another aspect of making him learn how to act like a human.
One must wonder why no one from Paris bothered to investigate when all contact from the Beast's castle ceased due to the Enchantress's curse. The main story is clearly set around the late eighteenth/early nineteenth century France- which possibly meant the Beast was cursed around the time of The French Revolution. The royal government in Paris would have much more to worry about, they would likely assume people in the Beast's castle fell to the Revolutionaries.
This also implies the Enchantress inadvertently saved the Beast's life, since the Revolutionaries, instead of simply slaughtering everyone therein, avoided further attacks on the cursed Castle itself- even if they had only encountered the Enchanted Furniture, instead of the Beast himself.
I don't think its set in the LATE 18th century or that its all that clear at all. Gaston's gun suggests to me an earlier time than that, such as the 1600s or early 1700s at the very latest. It appears to be his only firearm (I don't see a musket in the tavern, which I sometimes suspect he owns). Such a great hunter, in my opinion, would want something more accurate than that thing (the barrel's flaying out, while useful for a good spread while shooting birds, throws accuracy out the window). Of course all this is just speculation, but I don't see any signs of it being right before the French Revolution.
The clothes of the servants, the fancy dresses and the jewelry were historically accurate for Louis XVI's reign, if a bit simple and undecorated for Versailles' standards (this◊ is what passed as everyday dress at Versailles at the time). As for Gaston's gun, he either enjoyed the challenge, couldn't afford a rifle (at the time guns cost a lot) yet, or simply we never saw him in a situation warranting him to use a rifle and he wasn't stupid enough to keep the gun that cost the most to replace where someone could snitch it (I repeat, guns cost a lot, and a rifled musket cost much more than a blunderbuss).
Why is Gaston so obsessed with marrying Belle despite the fact that other there are other - and very attractive - women fawning over him? Easy - other women provide no challenge and therefore no glory, but Belle's carefree spirit makes her a challenge to conquer and thereby prove his manliness. In other words, Belle is just another Trophy wife for Gaston's own collection.
A minor one- when the wolves are going after Belle and Phillipe, it seems as though they're just attacking mindlessly, since Phillipe is far bigger than them. However, one wolf deliberately goes for the horse's neck, and the pack later coordinate to cut Belle and her horse off from going any further. The animators seem to have learned a bit as to how wolves hunt: they coordinate to put themselves at the best advantage, go for the neck to quickly take down their prey, and are known to be able to bring down large prey like elk and bison. Those touches certainly add to the suspense and terror in the scene.
It's a stretch but consider that in the beginning of "Belle" Belle is singing about how bored she is with life in her poor, provincial town. Belle is seen making a cameo during the "Out There" sequence in The Hunch Back Of Notre Dame. The brilliance comes from the fact that if the latter scene is taken as fact, Belle and her father originally lived in Paris during Frollo's mad burning rampage. They moved away to the setting of Beauty and the Beast to get away from the violence. As dangerous as it must have been, life was still exciting for young Belle whilst in Paris and the move couldn't live up to expectations.
Even as a kid, I wondered why the Beast didn't just drop Gaston from the roof once the former has the latter at his mercy. Part of it could be chalked up to Character Development, but Gaston pleads for his life saying "I'll do anything!" Which is exactly what Belle said to free her father.
Another possibility is that he realized he'd be no better than Gaston himself.
This troper always thought that Beast was remembering begging for mercy from the Enchantress before she cursed him and how he had received none
And it's a nice mirror to the beginning of the film where Maurice had begged the Beast for mercy but received none either.
The scene with Belle, Gaston, and the mirror: when I was a kid and first saw the movie, I remember thinking, "Why did the enchantress let her mirror be taken out of the castle, let alone be used by the villain to bring down the hero? Wasn't she trying to help Beast become a better person?" Setting aside the fact we don't know how powerful the Enchantress was, let alone whether she was even nearby and watching to know what was being done with her magical devices, who said she really wanted to help the Beast? The curse did have an escape clause, yes, but it mostly seemed to exist as punishment. So if the Beast died due to letting the mirror out of his sight, and someone who couldn't see past his appearance used it to track him down and kill him, that not only wasn't her fault, it may have been her intention all along. Or she at least didn't care.
A more charitable interpretation also exists, however: the Enchantress knew, either in specifics or generalities, what would happen and how the Beast's spell could be broken, and so she allowed the mirror to be taken and used by the villain because it was the only way to force a confrontation between hero and villain, as well as to make Beast and Belle admit their feelings for each other—Beast because, by letting her use the mirror and take it with her "to remember him", he realized he had to let her go if he truly loved her and Belle because she needed to see the pain her leaving caused him to understand how he truly felt, and to see Beast in danger by her own hand (and eliminate the loose end of Gaston) before she could admit how she felt. So, Omniscient Morality License.
Further thoughts on the mirror: on the surface it was only a Plot Device to enable the confrontation at the end. It also seems to be a cross between the Enchantress being a bitch (by taunting Beast with images of a world he cannot have or ever be part of) and also the key to his freedom—because short of a girl just stumbling on the castle (as Belle did after her father had done the same), the only way he'd ever find someone was if he located her in the outside world and then either visited her, kidnapped her, lured her to the castle, or something of that nature. (Interestingly, the fact Beast could have done this but didn't suggests it was a Secret Test of Character and in that respect at least, he passed, albeit out of despair and disbelief that anyone could ever love him, so why bother.) However, the mirror can also be viewed as symbolic of the outside world in general, that Beast could not hide from it forever if he wished to be human again, and in fact had to interact with it eventually—and the way it was used by Gaston is the logical conclusion, that eventually once his presence and nature was discovered, the outside world would find him, force its way in, and refuse him mercy or kindness...just as he had done to the "old woman".
Another minor one. Viewers may wonder why Belle goes to the West Wing when she knows that it's forbidden. Curiosity is the main reason. But consider as well that Lumiere had just organized an amazing dinner show to make her feel less like a prisoner—it worked too well. Getting comfortable allowed her puckish curiosity to come back with a vengeance, and since Belle wasn't afraid anymore, she felt like breaking the rules wouldn't have any life-threatening consequences.
Even the alternate theory is this...Belle reads a lot. And in the opening, she is shown reading a fantasy novel, or perhaps a fairy tale. Belle figured out that the castle was enchanted, she asked "I wonder what [Beast] is hiding up there..." She's Genre Savvy enough to realize that in an enchanted place, where the scary-looking monster tells you not to look is probably where you'll find the key to breaking the enchantment.
It is a fairy tale she's reading, and a bit of Fridge Brilliance on top of it. Take a close look during the fountain scene, when Belle is singing, Oh, isn't this amazing? / It's my fav'rite part because, you see / Here's where she meets Prince Charming / But she won't discover that it's him 'til Chapter Three. If the lyrics didn't already give it away, the fairy tale Belle is reading at the fountain is an English-language version of "Beauty and the Beast", copied from one of Andrew Lang's "fairy book" series. This makes it a bit of an anachronism, since the "fairy books" came out in the early Twentieth Century, but then this is a Disney movie.
Yet a third theory/explanation, formed while watching the movie again: It's actually a pretty consistent character trait of Belle that she doesn't listen to people, especially not when they try to tell her what to do. It's at the same time one of her greatest strengths and greatest flaws — it means she doesn't let anyone force her into doing anything she doesn't want to do, and that she thinks for herself rather than letting other people dictate what she should and shouldn't think, but it also gives her a casual, thoughtless and almost callous disrespect for other people's rules or even advice, which in turn lands her into trouble a number of times (and really didn't improve her social standing in the village any).
Another possibility is that Belle has read the story of Bluebeard, and wanted to check the West Wing to make sure she wasn't in that kind of castle. (As for why she wasn't scared, so the above comments.)
This is another Beast and Gaston comparison. The Beast rejected the old begger woman, causing him to be cursed into becoming a beast. Gaston and his "friends" throw Maurice out of the tavern when he comes begging them all for help. What ends up happening to HIM?
The Beast lets Belle free, most people assume that it's because he loves her and wants her to be happy even if it's not with him. This works but also consider that he was first cursed because he was callous and willing to trade another human life for his own convenience. It's the same situation here except now he makes the right decision. He could have said nothing, Belle would have kept her promise and stayed and maybe even confessed her love for him before the last petal fell. But it would be at the cost of Maurice's life, and Belle deserves someone better than that. Unfortunately his desire to be that better man for her means he may never be a man again.
This is somewhat stated above, but think about all the servants that were turned into objects. Now obviously you have Mrs. Potts who is the head of the kitchen, but think about that for a second. While she is a tea pot, it isn't like she herself could cook a meal or bring the plate out without some kind of help. You also have all those plates and spoons that appear in the musical number (Be Our Guest). While some people think they are servants that were turned into objects, that doesn't explain why some objects have faces and some do not. In this case, Mrs. Potts is head of the kitchen, so naturally the curse allows her to control all the things in the kitchen. She can tell a pot to get on the stove or tell a cart to bring food out and they will obey her as she herself wouldn't be able to do those things. The same could be said of Lumiere, who is the castle's Maitre d (the head waiter). So he could also control plates, glasses, and dishes, which explains how he managed to pull off the "Be Our Guest" song. This could also extend to anything having to do with being a waiter, including control over candles and table sheets. Cogsworth is the only one really not able to control much, as he is the Beast's scheduler, meaning that he would only be able to control clocks, explaining why he couldn't really stop the song "Be Our Guest" as those items in the dance weren't under his realm of control.
It seemed rather jarring for the Beast to just surrender completely when Gaston shows up simply because Belle had left, despite the likely possibility that she'll eventually come back willingly. However when the invaders show up he must have realized that they left town when Belle was already back there. The Beast thought Belle had personally sent Gaston.
In the stage play, at least, Gaston wants the Beast to think this: he cries out, "She despises you, Beast, and she sent me here to destroy you!"
Considering the fact she was the only one who knew where he was, and had taken the mirror with her, then it would indeed seem logical for him to conclude she'd sent Gaston, or at least not tried to stop him from going to the castle.
I had always thought that the Beast simply had a very clear idea of when the rose would finally wilt and the curse would no longer be able to be broken. Belle would probably eventually have come back, but she would have taken her time, and the last petal fell only a few days after she left. When Gaston came by, he had probably resigned himself to living for the rest of his days as a beast. In that situation, is it surprising that he wouldn't put up a fight? He'd probably thought to himself that it would be better to die right then than to be the Beast for the rest of his life, growing more and more animalistic, and finally dying as less than a man.
During the stained glass prologue, there is a banner with a Latin phrase under the first image of the Prince. It says "Vincit qui se Vincit," which translates to "He conquers who conquers himself."
Throughout the movie, as the Beast learns to be more gentle, kind, and human... Gaston is becoming increasingly forceful, cruel, and beast-like. In the end, HE is unquestionably the real beast that must be killed.
That was something Howard Ashman himself brought up during story meetings (as discussed in the documentary included in the Special Edition). Originally, Gaston was just a comic relief character with no real depth to him, just somebody courting Belle. Howard Ashman suggested "If our Beast is going to be this ugly and hideous creature with a heart of gold, why don't we make Gaston this handsome figure who has the heart of a pig?" And the rest was history.
When Belle goes out to get her father, she brings him back to their house. The castle can't be too far away, and it probably has better care, so why not bring him to the Beast's castle? There's both a Watsonian and a Doylist explanation: Watsonian, that he'll be much calmer if he woke up in his own house than if he woke up in the castle and Doylist, It was a way to show that Belle had not contracted Stockholm Syndrome, as someone with Stockholm Syndrome would have brought him back to the castle.
In the mob at the end, all of the villagers are there...except for the bookstore owner, the only person who was nice to Belle.
During the library scene in the song "Something There" Belle tries to get the Beast to read King Arthur. After he reveals he can't read, she says it's "the perfect book to read aloud". The legend of King Arthur began as oral folklore, told as a story for hundreds of years before very being written down. Thus, it's "perfect to read aloud".
To compound this, the only moments Gaston is actually in trouble are those in which the Beast fights more closely to a man than like an animal: Gaston is a hunter used to fight stronger animals, but a stronger man he never fought. And as it happens, one the Beast's human-like attacks (grabbing his weapon just as Gaston is gloating he's about to kill him. At that point, most animals would have been too cowed to attack, and even then they would have tried to bite him and not to grab his weapon) is the one that disarms and stuns him long enough for a Neck Lift...
Along the lines of the above Fridge Brilliance, if the events of the story happened BEFORE the French Revolution, then the Beast broke the curse, had his castle restored to riches, and got together with Belle just in time for the Reign of Terror. Hello Madame Guillotine.
That's assuming the story is set shortly before the French Revolution. If its set in, say, the early 1700s there won't be anything to worry about for a long time. And if you take Belle's cameo in Hunchback of Notre Dame as cannon then it averts that particular horror completely.
But Hunchback takes place centuries before this. That's like saying Scar wasn't actually killed by the hyenas because Hercules was wearing his skin.
There's also the fact that Gaston clearly pictures "six or seven" children as a part of his life married to Belle, all boys. Belle is quite obviously not thrilled by this idea. What if she had been pushed to marry him, and then tried to refuse having any children? Or what if she had girls?
The longer you think about the situation of the household staff in Beauty and the Beast, the eerier it gets. Has Chip simply not aged in the entire time he's been a teacup, or does he have no memory at all of being human? And he's got like twenty brothers and sisters... all teacups... The twenty-first year may have even been 21 years as a Beast. Which means Chip (who is SO not ten or twenty - Lumiere says something about ten years going past, which, if you assume 21 means the Prince is 21, means he pissed off the enchantress at 11) was either in stasis the whole time, or, more likely, since he asks about sleeping in the cupboard, was born during the curse. How would that even work?!
Given how it's... hopefully... impossible for Chip to have been born while Mrs. Potts was a teapot, Chip had to have been born before the curse. He could just be a small, late-blooming ten-year-old... Which would explain the sleeping in the cupboard line. As you guessed, that would imply Chip has no memory of being human. This is incredible Fridge Horror in that if Lumiere's ten years line is true, the Enchantress cursed an infant for the Beast being a jerk.
Or, alternatively, the Beast, being organic, aged normally, whereas the servants, being objects, did not.
All the furniture is alive, they are transformed humans. The beast sometimes starts breaking stuff when he is angry. The West Wing is filled with broken furniture (hopefully the living ones vacated the premises whenever he had a tantrum... hopefully.) All the furniture in Belle's bedroom (in addition to the wardrobe) is probably alive.
No. Not all the furniture is alive; much, in fact most, of the furniture, fixtures, and so on, would have to be normal, non-living furniture, fixtures, etc. which predate the Prince's transformation. And Chip's "twenty brothers and sisters" comment is most certainly hyperbole, unless he's counting all the children of the castle's staff. He's only about ten mentally, possibly less; either is appropriate.
Actually he has six siblings; I've counted.
Gaston's motivations are, to a child, reprehensible but not foul: he wants to marry Belle like moms and dads are married, live together, eat dinner together, etc. After you think about it as a grown-up (or at least a teen), though, it becomes quite obvious that "marry" is a euphemism for the fact that he wants to rape her, turning him from "bad man" to "disgusting sack of shit." Creepier, he did want to be married as mums and dads are married, her cooking and cleaning and giving birth to strapping boys, but with no personality of her own. And then you realize he could have had anyone of those blonde women and he knows it - he just wants to take away the personhood of the beautiful but strange woman, because that would be winning. Gaston is indeed first and foremost a hunter, and Belle is simply prey to him, and the only thing so far that has eluded him. That alone makes the whole dynamic very, very creepy. This Fridge Horror is best captured in the one scene when Gaston bursts into Belle's house to "propose" to her — following her around the room, backing her against walls, knocking over furniture, trying to kiss her, and all with a disturbing, almost hungry look on his face. As an adult, you wonder how far he would have gone if Belle hadn't thrown him out.
Not necessarily. It really depends on the time period and culture you're talking about, but 18th century France was going through some major changes, especially regarding women. At the beginning of the century, what you said might be true to a certain extent. Men held the most power and "disciplining in a marriage" was looked upon pretty liberally. But by the end of the 18th century, things had changed a great deal, and women were getting more education, fighting alongside men in the Revolution, rising as political figures, poets, and marrying for romance. By the looks of the movie, it's set in the late 1700s or early 1800s - around the time the fairy tale was set. More than likely, the time for women being married off to the highest bidder was over. Except with nobility, which is a whole other story.
Well, that explains why people keep setting the film right before the French Revolution. Early 1800s probably works best, though, if you use the time the source material did. Avoids a messy unintentional tragedy.
After cracking the plan to have Maurice thrown in the loony bin, Gaston and LeFou perform a short reprise of the Gaston song. Gaston himself sings "No one takes cheap shots like Gaston." He knows full well that he's playing dirty here, and he doesn't care. In fact, he's patting himself on the back for it. The man considers himself a genius for stooping to such a vile and despicable method to achieve his already disgusting ambition. This lyric, coupled with the above revelations of his motivation essentially being to seize and destroy Belle's individuality, have convinced some that Gaston is second only to Frollo as Disney's most evil villain.
What makes it even worse, is that towards the end of Gaston's reprise, the villagers sing the line "And his marriage we soon will be celebrating...". That's right, although they may not know exactly what it is, the villagers are fully aware that Gaston is going to do to something terrible to Maruice, and yet they just cheer him on.
Gaston could have easily faked in believing in Maurice, saved Belle, and have won her heart under false pretenses (by, for once, not being an ass). While on the surface this may have been a nobler route (at least in Belle's eyes, before she found out the horrible truth), YMMV on whether or not Gaston's current hairbrained scheme was better than him actually thinking this one up, and could easily dip way into Fridge Horror.
Also, how about during the fight between the villagers and household objects towards the finale where the one guy was ripping the feathers out of the feather duster (who was screeching in pain) while giggling and smiling in a creepy manner? Consider how that would've looked like if she was her human self. Right, essentially he would be tearing at her skirt, making the whole thing an attempted rape scene. Or pulling out her limbs one by one, which is even creepier. Or both.
Lefou attacks Lumiere by holding a huge frigging torch next to him. Lumiere is made of wax.
And he's already beginning to profusely sweat (read: melt) by the time Cogsworth comes to the rescue.
Maurice is out in the cold for at least three or four days searching for Belle, and it's not unlikely that he was out for longer. And Lefou stands in the same spot while fall turns to winter. Think about that one a while.
The West Wing is much darker and more gothic than the rest of the castle and appears to be littered with piles of fur/carcasses of animals. Does that mean the Beast killed and ate numerous animals and just left their carcasses laying around?
Yes. In fact very late into development there was a scene after the "Come down to dinner!" fight that showed the Beast dragging the carcass of an animal he had killed back to his room to eat it. It was cut when they realized it was way too dark and might cause people to lose sympathy with the Beast.
This would have been something of a Call Back to the Jean Cocteau movie, which did show Beast having his dinner when Belle walked in on him. The blood of the deer was still steaming faintly...
During the Mob Song, you can clearly hear female voices at one point. So that means there were women (probably the Bimbettes) in the mob, and they were beat up by the castle denizens.
I meant that the women were probably defenseless against the denizens, while the men at least put up a fight.
I think what the previous commenter meant is that, given the time period, the women of the village would have had little ability to fight back, on account of having never been taught. The men would know, but the women...not so much.
Maybe they went with the mob to protect their families because there are no men in the family? Or, if it's the Bimbettes, to try and impress Gaston.
The former seems to be the case. In "The Mob Song," an unnamed village woman expresses terror that the beast was "set to sacrifice our children to his monstrous appetite."
The female voices were most likely old women (as the only females present at the mob congregation to evict Maurice into the Asylum were old women). And the only other time that female voices were heard were when the servants were rushing down the stairs, meaning it's also more likely that the female voices were actually those of some of the servants rushing to block the door.
Women who voluntarily go with the mob to the castle knowing full well the beast will be killed are probably just as deserving of some attack by the servants as their asshole men were. And whether or not the women had been taught to fight, there were farms in the village. Any woman who'd been on a farm knows how to use a pitchfork. And what about a kitchen knife or a rolling pin?
Some stage adaptations actually include women in the mob song too...If anything the Fridge Horror would be the fact that in some stage adaptations, they include children getting beaten up...though usually more Played for Laughs.
The crapsack village seems to be on Gaston's side and comes along on his rampage.
Some of the castle's inhabitants are humanoid, such as Cogsworth and Lumiere. Some just have faces. Others, like the plates have nothing. I have no mouth indeed.
For some reason it was the forks that bothered me the most. There were people at the castle so boring and non-descript that they got turned into a fork. A fork. If you try to attach a meaning to it (eg oral fixation) it gets even worse. Or maybe the enchantress didn't see the value of some people, which is pretty bad in itself.
Or, alternatively, some items of furniture didn't used to be people. The castle must have been furnished before the curse, after all, and there's no way even a castle that size needed enough servants that every item of furniture in the place would correspond to one.
There was a short gag when Gaston's mob attacks the castle where one guy falls into a blue chest, and the chest then licks its lips and burps. It just ate someone, what happened to him after everyone was transformed back, did the man survive?!
On the DVD at least you see that guy crawling away, covered in some kind of goo (spit, perhaps?) so all parties survived, but that scene is still scary.
The dude eaten by that chest is in fact the baker of the town. (Go to the first scene of the town and take a look at the baker. Then skip to this scene and watch him get eaten.) Uh... that's a bit of a nightmare for him as he makes edible items. Being eaten alive... poor guy...
Looking back at the scene where the villagers fight with the castle's denizens, does anybody remember that scene where the Wardrobe leaps off the top balcony and crushes a guy underneath her?! Yeah you may think "aww he's fine", but look at the next scene where she's fighting more villagers; the dude is STILL UNDERNEATH HER AND NOT MOVING. Yep, that guy ain't resting kids, he's dead; crushed underneath by a furniture piece.
What's worse, what if that guy has a family and one of his friends that survived the battle happened to see the scene unfold. That's not gonna be a pleasant story to tell his wife and kids.....
Maybe it's an animation oversight?
One disturbing thought I had always had as a kid during the mob scene at the end was when the wardrobe shut the villager inside herself and he emerged wearing the clothing housed inside. Obviously combs, brushes and drawers wouldn't be capable of enough dexterity to clothe a struggling person in an enclosed space. Would this mean the Prince's staff was turned into clothing as well? If that's the case, was Belle wearing someone in the ballroom?
Obviously not, seeing as she was wearing it at the end after the transformation.
Chip and his siblings slept in a cramped cupboard. If the curse was broken while they were in there they would have been crushed to death.
Come to think about it, if any of those "children" were accidentally dropped by Belle or Beast or just tripped and broke into pieces... would they just die for good? What would happen if the curse was lifted just after? Would bloody pieces of children just appear on the floor?
Buy why does Mrs. Potts only care about Chip, if she seemingly has all those other children? Why do we only see Chip when the curse is broken? Is Mrs. Potts playing favorites to an absurd degree? Are they not real children, but just animated teacups magicked into existence to fill the ranks? How many others throughout the castle are like that?
That IS Fridge Horror - and a good part of the reason you don't want to spend your life as a teacup.
Would there be anything similar to toilets back then? If so I really, really pity the poor servant who got the short straw when the time came to transform into household appliances...
There would have been toilets in a sense, or at least you'd be able to use it like one. In the city you'd most likely use a chamberpot. In the country you may or may not use an outhouse. In a castle there'd be a bathroom built into the outer wall with a sloped hole in that wall on the outside to dispose of waste. Since such a thing would be part of the castle's structure rather than a regular object I doubt anyone became the toilet. If I'm wrong, yeesh.
There would have been inanimate objects in the castle before the curse, including the unmentionable stuff. The bathtub and the dining room table weren't enchanted, for example. besides, Belle and the Beast would be the only two inhabitants of the castle who would have to deal with that sort of thing while the curse was in effect.
Did the Beast imprison any other souls who were looking for shelter in the past? Ones who were less lucky than Maurice and Belle?
French Youtuber Bob Lennon spent an hour or so in a livestream tearing down this movie and explaining the horror and the squick one could notice. Notable exemples include:
If the castle's staff was transformed into the object they were using and considering that, at this time, people crapped in buckets, what happened to the guy whose job was to emptying those buckets into the forest ?
Gaston seemed to be the best hunter of the village considering all his trophies. So, now that he's dead and since, at the end of the movie, there seems to be a very harsh winter, the villagers will probably starve to death and so will the people of the castle, since they need to eat again.
If Lumiere said that "ten years we've been rusting" and that the Beast must love someone before his 21st birthday, it would mean that the prince was around 11 when he was cursed. But in the flashback scene in The Enchanted Christmas, the prince looks the same as he did when he changed back. What's up?
Did we watch the same film? I thought he looked a bit younger in the flashback, though probably older than 11.
Here's a theory: it has to do with the way time is told in the castle. Aside from the fact that the castle as a whole is apparently wiped from the reality or at least the minds of the villagers, and that seasons don't seem to sync up between the worlds (snow at Belle's house while the castle shows springtime conditions), the windows are totally covered when Maurice appears. Sunlight does not venture in and there are no calendars. The servants in the castle have no means to tell the passing of the days, or even the passage of minutes—except, of course, for Cogsworth, who hardly ever moves the hands of his face and is often seen being overwound or losing gears. By all accounts, it appears that Cogsworth is attempting to judge the passage of time by his own 'heart'beats, and that is subject to any number of variations in tempo and his own attention. If the castle is always as quiet and boring as it is when Maurice enters, scarce wonder that, if even if the times around the castle and in the town are synced up, the servants think that a much more significant amount of time has passed than they realize.