In the live-action remake, Belle confesses her love to the Beast after, not before, the last petal falls off the rose. Didn't the spell specifically stipulate that the Beast would never be human again if he failed to find true love before the last petal fell?
This was answered on the page for that version, but basically, The Enchantress Did It. To paraphrase: "It's her spell and her rules. It defeats the purpose of the curse and gains no one anything if she decides to be a stickler over ten seconds." Adam had managed to adhere to the spirit of the curse, if not exactly to the letter. It would be unreasonable for her to deny him his freedom from it just because Belle didn't say she loved him just in time.
If Gaston was so desperate to get Belle's favor, why didn't he just roll along with Maurice's pleas, crazy sounding or not, instead of throwing him out of the inn and into the dead of winter? While he decided to use him to blackmail Belle, wouldn't it have made more sense for him to do something that probably would've made him look better in front of Belle, like taking advantage of Maurice's desperate situation by helping him rescue Belle? Callously throwing out the father of the girl he's after, especially since that girl has legitimately been captured, would not have done him any favors in getting Belle's hand in marriage, much less making her like him.
Because Gaston is a self-centered, arrogant jerk who doesn't think he should have to do anything to win Belle's favor, he thinks he simply deserves her because of who he is.
Plus the sequence in the inn starts with Gaston being angry at Belle for publically rejecting him. Screw winning her favor, nobody dares to humiliate Gaston!
Brhm. The whole reason everyone thinks Maurice is crazy is because he came to the inn, yelling about the Beast, which everyone makes fun of. Everybody thinks he's a little cracked anyway, of course, but, uhÖ in the climax when everybody finds out that the Beast is real, doesn't anyone reconsider that?
Well, maybe, but then Belle comes in trying to tell them all, "Oh, no, he's so gentle and caring and sweet...Really, he wouldn't hurt a fly." I'm gonna be honest - if I heard her saying that about a beast who so far I'd only seen roaring and barring his teeth through the mirror, I might think she was a little nutso, too. And Maurice certainly wasn't about to turn on his daughter, either, so they locked them both in the cellar.
Belle doesn't seem to work, and no one is buying Maurice's inventions. How do they have any money to afford their daily bread and other necessities?
They have a few farm animals around. Presumably Belle can sell eggs and milk to get necessities. Plus we can assume Maurice is doing some minor handyman repair jobs here and there.
They're both very clearly bourgeoisie, albeit probably very poor bourgeois. This is 18th-century (ish) France, meaning that reading is a skill becoming more common, but still bound to those with the money and leisure time to afford instruction, bound books are still a luxury even with printing, and yet a not-terribly-responsible girl is being trusted with them, and most importantly it's the tail-end of France's feudal area which lasted to nearly the 19th century. Belle and Maurice are higher up on the social ladder than the villagers, and social mobility was not a thing until after the French Revolution. Skilled craftsmen could have customers all over the area, maybe he makes clocks or music boxes and just invented in his spare time.
Here's another enigma along the same lines: who's keeping that bookseller in business? Belle is the only one we ever see visiting his shop, and the other villagers don't seem very literate or interested in learning how to read. Yet he somehow can afford to be generous enough to lend out books and let Belle keep her favorite...
Noble patronage. Maurice doesn't have to work due to tax income, is kind of eccentric, and most nobility historically enjoyed setting up services "for the common good" that only they could realistically take advantage of. This is probably most of why the villagers edge into 'openly hostile' territory regarding books, that's the money they had to give to the government being used on a service they can't access due to literacy rates under one percent.
Why did Belle have such a hard time recognizing the Beast in human form? She already saw what he looked like when she went into the forbidden room and fixed up that torn painting of his.
She didn't know that was him though, and even then she only saw the eyes, which is what made her realize it's him.
Plus, she didn't have much time when she was in the West Wing. Just as she was about to flatten the torn piece down, she gets distracted by the glowing magic rose. And mere moments later, Beast comes in and starts screaming and throwing furnitures at her. The picture didn't have a chance to make much of an impression on her.
Frankly, what puzzles me more is that she saw the transformation happening. I mean, c'mon, who else could he possibly be? I guess, she was just a bit shocked, it's not like she sees things like that every day.
Belle is meant to be an avid reader, which kept her apart from the other townsfolk. Fine but we only ever see her reading one book and that was a standard fairytale book! How were the viewers supposed to see her as this major bookworm when this was the only book she was seen reading?
—->Belle "Aaah... isn't this amazing! It's my favorite part because... you see/Here's where she meets Prince Charming/But she won't discover that it's him.../Till Chapter three..."
Umm because she walks through the town reading a book in a way that suggests that she does it all the time, the villagers sing about her constantly reading in their song about her and it wouldn't make sense to show her reading in any other part of the film because that's when the action is going on? She also mentions reading Jack and the Beanstalk in the beginning and reads Romeo and Juliet in the extended edition. It's just the limitations of filmmaking.
We probably could have picked it up from her being absolutely ecstatic to see the Beast's library, given that they make a point of making a whole scene out of it. Besides that, the whole point of it was to set up that she's an intelligent, thinking woman, which is what really separates her from the rest of the people in town only interested in kissing Gaston's ass.
I think they wanted her to talk about reading in a way kids could relate to- thus, she reads fairy tales, which would be familiar to kids and contain elements they find exciting, like magic and giants.
Er... Just because that's the only one we directly see her read doesn't mean that's actually the only one she reads, it's just her favorite one. It's implied that she visits the bookstore a lot so she probably reads plenty of other books off-screen.
Not to mention, it would've really slowed the film down if they threw in a bunch of scenes of her reading other books.
Fairy Tales were not considered children's stories in ancient France. They were actually considered appropriate for intellectuals in salons.
Not to mention in the scene at the bookseller's, she asks him "Have you got anything new?" implying she's already read all the other books in the store. Or at least all the ones which interested her, which was surely more than one.
Belle wasn't exactly an 'intellectual', though she was certainly intelligent. We never saw her employing science, engineering, technology etc. to solve her problems the way her inventor father did. She was interested in adventure in a grander and larger scheme than small town living. So of course she reads. It's her escape route, her view into a larger realm. I never saw her as being so much interested in books for boIt's oks' sake. Given that, it makes total sense that she's read everything the little provincial library has to offer and that her favorite book is a grand adventure. "Far off places, daring sword fights, magic spells, a prince in disguise!" Though she loved Beast's library, we didn't even see them reading together until the end of the day, after various outdoor activities - it's not like she spent her hours draped over a chair reading like she did at home.
In fairness, 14th century France. Engineering (outside of seigecraft, which a woman wouldn't typically be allowed to study) wouldn't be a thing in Europe for 250 years or so, and science was a few weirdoes in various abandoned sheds trying to turn lead into gold. And reading isn't really a group activity for most people, so having the camera focus on her sitting alone for hours doign something sedentary might not be the best use of viewer time.
Remember also that at the time, books would have been very expensive for a peasant living in a small village in France. Belle probably has only a handful at most. It's surprising that the village can even support a bookshop, especially if the shopkeeper lends books out.
That would be because it's not 14th century, it's 18th century. Where are you getting 14th century? Belle's clothes are way too fitted for it be the Middle Ages, the Beast's blue jacket is pure 18th century, Gaston uses a gun for heaven's sake. Chimneys on village cottages and tile roofs are 17th century innovations. Stoves don't really show until the early 19th century! The printing press had been invented, and Maurice's wood-chopping gizmo runs on steam power. We have hit the beginning of the industrial revolution, people!
During the "Mob Song", Gaston is exciting the villager's superstitious rage against the Beast. Alllllright. Then why did nobody question the fact that he was holding a bewitched mirror glowing green ? And it's not like he hid it, either; he was holding it high in the air for everyone to see !!
Why would anyone question it? Holding it for everyone to see is the point. It's lumped into the "magic is scary" category as "and this mirror belongs to the beast, so see, magic is real and it's scary."
Alright, but then at best it's a Plot Hole that they could have resolved, since never see Gaston telling the villagers that he got the mirror from the Beast. It would be a perfectly logical explanation, but it's only a very likely Wild Mass Guessing as long as no scene or even Word of God tells us that it is true.
Again, there's really no reason for them to talk about the mirror at all. They're being faced with a giant monster they have to deal with. Nobody's going to care about the mirror whatsoever.
Gaston took it from Belle. Belle brings out the enchanted mirror to show them the Beast is real and save Maurice from being sent to an asylum, so the villagers likely think it was hers. Gaston takes it from her and uses it to rally the crowd. Any resentment towards a magic would be directed at Belle.
So... Belle is basically tired of living the "same old life", but she has no problems reading the same old book? Yeah, that makes sense.
There's a big difference between rereading your favorite story over and over again, and having a life of monotonous routine with no end in sight.
Yeah, it was a book about an adventure. Her regular life doesn't have any adventures.
Even excluding the adventures, keep in mind that Belle essentially admitted to not having any real life friends. That fictional prince is starting look pretty good, no?
Not to mention it's made pretty obvious that books are expenses most people couldn't afford even if they wanted to, and it seems like only the bookseller's kindness lets Belle read at all (excepting maybe mechanical texts her father might own). Considering that not every book could be relevant to her interests and Maurice's 'profession' clearly limits their funds, it's not surprising that she's thrilled to have the book given to her; plus, "You've already read it twice!" isn't exactly "You've never read anything else!"
Belle also asks the bookseller if he's got any new books, which I took to mean that she's read every book in the place, some of them twice.
Also, reading the same book two or three times is not exactly unreasonable, especially something as short as a fairy tale or light fantasy book. If you love reading and there aren't new books around ("Not since yesterday", the bookseller says; Belle did ASK if he had any new stock), you might as well reread your favourites.
When the mob attacks the Beast's castle, they don't appear to have any guns. Yet in the tavern during Gaston's song earlier, he shoots a gun. Plus, in the mob's song, they mentioned guns. So where did they go?
Villagers: Bring your guns, bring your knives, save your children and your wives...
Maybe no one but Gaston actually owns any guns, and their inclusion in the song lyrics was just poetic bravado on the part of the villagers. Gaston himself didn't bring any guns because he wanted to make his hunt of the Beast more challenging (and, probably, sadistic).
Mr. Cogsworth is shown gleefully brandishing a pistol during the raid, though he only actually uses the sharp scissors he was holding in his other hand to jab LeFou. There are a few guns in this movie, just not very sophisticated ones and not very many. (One would also have to wonder how effective they would be against animated furniture that doesn't have any obviously vital organs; even if the villagers had any pistols in their belts, they probably didn't bother drawing them once they realized how useless they would be against the castle's defenders.)
At the time, too, guns were really expensive and usually not effective as weapons unless you had a very large number of them (or used a blunderbuss like Gaston). Bullets took a while to make, as well, and gunpowder wouldn't fire if wet (they were in the snow and it was raining). Bows were more accurate, longer-ranged, and faster to fire. Although the animators probably weren't thinking of any of that and were merely considering what would make an interesting fight scene. The guns in Beauty and the Beast can fire at least three shots rapidly without loading, so it wouldn't be very fair to those in the castle who didn't have them. Either way, it makes more sense for the villagers to be using their tools like pitchforks and axes rather than guns. The song included them likely for recognition. If someone calls for guns, now people know that things are getting serious. "Brings your bows" might not have the same effect.
Why didn't the beast just tell Belle about the curse? It would have made things a whole lot easier.
That likely would have put a lot of pressure on Belle. As well as, the love had to be genuine. If she knew of the curse, it would be less "love for the sake of love", and more "love for the sake of saving everyone". Which wouldn't be "true love", and the entire plan/final chance would fall apart entirely.
Worth noting also is that the staff seem to have had some taboo against explaining anything about it to her. Right after the "Be Our Guest" number, Mr. Cogsworth even asks Belle who told her the castle was enchanted as an animated fork goes skittering past him! Probably, telling her about the curse would be the worst thing any of them could do for their chances of having the curse lifted, since (as noted above) you can't guilt-trip anyone into true love. (Depending on how flexible the enchantress' curse was, maybe true familial love might have been sufficient to break the spell as it was in Frozen, but Beast didn't really have much prospect of giving or getting any of that either before Belle came along.)
In most versions of the fairy tale the Beast isn't allowed to tell the Beauty character about the nature of his condition. He may have been magically prevented from actively telling her what was going on, or perhaps didn't believe it would make any difference.
I always thought he was too stubborn and proud to tell her, then he didn't want to guilt her into it.
Just WHY did Belle even try to touch the rose? It's pretty obvious that if it was in a glass container, you are not supposed to touch it? Why wouldn't Belle get that?
A glass dome placed over something doesn't entirely equate to it not being able to be touched, at least not any moreso than being told not to enter the Beast's private rooms in the west wing, which she was perfectly fine with doing anyway. And it's never said that the rose couldn't be touched, just that the Beast was extremely protective of it.)
In Belle's town, why does the sign above the baker's say Boulangerie (as you would expect), but the sign above the bookstore says Bookstore?
If they wanted to communicate that it was a bookstore, then a sign saying Librairie may have been too confusing.
Maybe the owner also sells books in English.
A boulangerie is specifically (in modern parlance) a French-style bakery. A bookstore is a bookstore.
Or he could have just wanted an exotic sounding name.
It may have just been an oversight on the part of whoever was drawing the scenes.
If the bookstore really is a "bookstore", then why does Belle constantly go back to return her books and borrow new ones? Wouldn't she be technically going to a library instead (or a "bibliotheque")?
It's a village out in the middle of nowhere back before libraries were anything but vast stockpiles of manuscripts meant for universities and palaces, not the common person. Bookstores were the equivalent of the modern local library because there was nothing else, unless a private citizen with a large book collection was affable enough to let their neighbors borrow them. Borrowing books from a bookshop wasn't a standard by any means - it depended on the owner. If he was motivated solely by profit, then he wouldn't. If he was interested in education, then he would allow children or the poor to borrow them.
It's established pretty much immediately that she and the bookstore owner are good friends. He is also the stereotypical "friendly old man", quite happy to give away such a small thing as a book if it will brighten someone's day. He may also see her as the daughter he always wanted, a playful bookworm like him. No need to tarnish that friendship with business.
If the Beast was originally a selfish prince, where are his parents, the king and queen? Also, what is he ruling over?
It could also have been that his parents died when he was young and he inherited the throne (this troper is fairly certain that a prince doesn't necessarily become King when his father dies, but then laws of succession aren't her specialty). After the prince was cursed, either the people he ruled over got freaked out and or thought he died (when he stopped showing up) and left. Or, they left because he didn't do a good job ruling.
Maybe he's the ruling monarch of a principality and there are no king and queen.
Given that the setting is late 18th/early 19th century France, this is almost certain.
He probably killed them in Beast form. Or they came home after a business trip or a meeting with other rulers and they ran away after seeing what happened to their son and servants.
In 17th/18th century France a 'Prince' didn't have to be the son of the King and Queen. He only needed to be related very vaguely to royalty to be called a Prince. It often just meant "Somebody who could inherit the throne if enough people died". Grandchildren and nephews and relatives removed who didn't have a hope would often take the title. It's less common now (sticking with Lords and Ladies a great deal) but still happens.
Where do the residents of the castle get all the food that they feed Belle during "Be Our Guest" and subsequent scenes? Assuming that magically enchanted furniture doesn't need to eat, the Beast is the only one there who would need real food since the curse, and he doesn't seem like the type to be requesting gourmet meals. They could have a small farm area worked by enchanted gardening equipment that we just never see, but that couldn't account for the sheer variety of food that we see, not to mention items like chocolate that simply don't grow in that climate. And I doubt they have the facilities for processing grain into the flour needed for all those pastries we see...
They're magic stoves and appliances. Perhaps they can somehow generate their own food. Or, perhaps the spell somehow preserved everything they had pre-transformation and it just stayed untouched.
The Castle obviously has greenhouses (as seen in Belle's Magical World) and farmlands which the subject take care of (some of which may have been turned into farming tools). As for chocolate that was an offhand suggestion by Cogsworth who may or may not have been entirely serious. Meals are rarely prepared at the castle, as by the point Belle arrives the Beast has taken to a diet almost entirely of meat, which he procures for himself. This is why the Chef is so upset, someone woke his ass up, told him to make the best meal of his life and no one ate it. Belle stayed in her room while the Beast most likely went out hunting.
A deleted scene pretty much confirms this, the Beast was so pissed off he went out and killed an animal, dragging it back to the castle to eat it.
Did anyone else notice that, during the scene in which "Gaston" takes place, the town is covered in a thick blanket of snow, where, just that afternoon (assumed by the film's progression), the weather was fine and sunny? Not to mention that that evening, just at sunset - where Belle sings about wanting "adventure in the Great Wide somewhere"- it was still sunny, meaning that there must have been one hell of a snow storm between scenes.
Gaston is the bad guy, therefore everything is cold, lifeless, heartless like he is. With Belle it's all sunshine. Of course, that doesn't explain why it's a snowstorm in the scenes where we don't see him.
This troper always chalked it up to the weird timeline. The best explanation she heard is that the "adventure in the Great Wide somewhere" thing happens in late fall, which is unusually warm and sunny, and that there were a number of days that passed between her staying at the castle and the "Gaston" scene (incidentally, it's also snowing when she is attacked by the wolves).
But if that is the case, then why would Gaston be talking about her - "Who does that girl think she is?!" - days after. I highly doubt he'd wait a few days before bitching about her to his friends in the tavern, and he's too proud to be in a grump over her for that long. This troper thinks it simply a dodgy timeline on Disney's part.
Gaston was too proud not to grump over Belle for eternity. He publicly declared that he would have Belle as his wife. If he just moves on without marrying her, then he's a failure. He's too proud to allow that.
When Maurice sets out for the fair, it's a warm autumn. It would probably take him several days to get there, so there's about a fortnight between him leaving and Belle being proposed to by Gaston. Belle finds out he's gone and sets out to find him, which would also take a little while, which explains why he's sick when she finds him. When Maurice finally gets back to the village Gaston may have been grumping for a couple of days, and when Maurice is thrown out of the tavern, it seems it's only just starting to snow heavily. Without a horse Maurice could have been searching hopelessly in the woods for weeks. It's canon that Belle spends Christmas in the castle.
The farmer with his barrow of large pumpkins during the opening number is a hint. Back then, with only natural fertilizers and no pesticides, and without having had as much selective breeding, one would need to wait until frost is imminent to bring in the pumpkins instead of having several crops per year like nowadays. If they were in the southernmost forests of France, it's possible that it took only a few weeks between first frost and Christmas, and it's quite possible for first frost to have hit hard with a snowstorm if the days were simply more chilly than they looked, or they were having the last day of a warm snap.
I, uh, I'm gonna point out that I'm from southern Alberta, Canada, and it is not uncommon AT ALL to have a nice sunny afternoon followed by an evening of heavy snowfall in, say, November. Maybe that's not normal in other parts of the world, but it never stood out as surprising to me.
This troper lives in Sweden, Northern Europe, and can confirm that the shifting between heavy snowstorm and sunshine in late fall through winter is standard here too. It's not as rare as one thinks. However, some of the confusion is understandable in that Belle lives in France, which isn't as cold. The closest I can think of that makes sense in this case is that she lives in the northern part of the country, as it equals colder in Europe. Not much in temperature differs, but that's my guess.
Pathetic fallacy, my friends. That scene where Belle was running around and singing wouldn't have been so happy if she had been singing in a snowstorm.
Related to this, since Belle and Beast were together for a couple months, there are a few things that bug me. 1) Why did Maurice wait that long to go out and try and take Belle back? 2) Didn't anyone notice that Belle wasn't walking around town anymore? Surely, someone must have wondered where that funny girl was, especially the librarian.
I kind of assumed Belle didn't leave the house every day. Sometimes she wouldn't be seen for days on end because she'd be helping Maurice with his latest invention.
It's possible that Maurice was asking around, even trying outside the town, for help. When that didn't work he gathered his supplies (which would've likely taken time) then went after her. He also had to remember the way back to the castle and it was a longer trip without his horse.
How exactly is giving a man an extra hundred pounds, a thick coat of fur, claws, teeth, and a tripled testosterone count supposed to make him become more compassionate? Not quite the prerequisites for an altruistic.
The idea was that he had no choice but to improve his personality if he wanted someone to love him and thus be turned back. Notice that he's not nearly as scary when he's kinder later in the movie. What was either missed or ignored by the Enchantress was that the Beast would be forced to spend quite a while locked up in the castle almost entirely alone and in a strange body, which undoubtedly would make him crazy and even less sociable than before. However it's quite likely that the Enchantress either just wasn't thinking that far ahead or simply didn't care. Incidentally, the injuring of Belle is sort of touched on in the musical.
Why does the Enchantress turn the servants into talking furniture? What's the point? I thought it was the Prince she was angry at.
It's probably because the servants would have left him, being a monster and all. And the Beast will have a hard time getting by without them.
In the play, they discussed that very thing. They were partly responsible for making him the way he was, spoiled, selfish, and mean, by nature of giving him everything he wanted and never standing up to him.
The following exchange between Lumiere and Cogsworth from the Broadway version pretty much more or less sums it up:
Cogsworth: But why did we have to get dragged into this whole spell business? Itís not like we threw that poor old beggar woman out on her ear.
Lumiere: No, but are we not responsible too? For helping to make him the way he is?
Cogsworth: I suppose so.
It's also been theorized that the Enchantress just used an unfair curse, because she was pissed and didn't really care about collateral damage. (And depending on how her magic words, perhaps she didn't have a Beast-specific spell up her sleeve.)
In those days one of the responsibilities of owning an estate with lots of servants (which was sadly often neglected or ignored) was that if you screwed up, they suffered for your failure. Be that literally gambling away the house or failing a virtue check with an enchantress. It's not entirely unlike being in command of a small military unit.
Maybe the spell turns you into something resembling your characteristic.
The Beast: The Prince was implied to have a beastly personality.
Lumiere: Fiery Passion
Cogsworth: He is all about managing schedules and keeping everything running smoothly and on time.
Mrs. Potts: There is no way around the fact, that her main job before her transformation was serving tea.
The clothes drawer: She was likely the one who dressed the Prince every morning and her whole life revolved around clothes.
Uh, the Enchantress is a fairy, they're not exactly known for their kindness or fairness. Many of them were tricksters of the highest degree simply because they were supernatural beings who enjoyed screwing with petty, insignificant humans. Why the hell else is she wandering around disguised as an old woman, carrying an enchanted rose in the middle of a bleeding snowstorm? Hell you could make the argument that she caused the snowstorm just as an excuse to approach the castle disguised as an "innocent" old woman with nothing but a rose on her person. It's possible she punished them all just for a laugh.
This exactly. If anybody watches Adventure Time, think of Magic Man. The very first episode he's featured in, he changes Finn into a giant foot, and tells him he has to learn some lesson. The lesson, of course, is that Magic Man is a jerk. Similarily, if this fairy lady was actually a good person, she would have used her magic to show the then eleven-year-old child that he needs to shape up, or his people may rebel, or whatever. Turning him and his subjects into stuff until he learns a lesson was simply not necessary. She was a jerk, there's no question about that. Even if Beast learned a good lesson, she made it happen in a downright evil manner.
It's not just because she was a trickster - it was a Secret Test of Character, along with a bit of Values Dissonance. Hospitality was considered important back then, and the Enchantress may've wanted to see if the Prince would be so heartless as to leave an old woman to die in the cold, when presented with a chance to grant her lodging. As for the servants, the sequels show that they were responsible for some of how Adam turned out. Considering he may've only been 11 at the time the curse was placed, she probably didn't want them to try running off and leaving him to suffer because of something they contributed to.
At the beginning, it's stated that the rose will bloom until "his 21st year," and the Beast is clearly not yet twenty-one yet in the film as the rose is still blooming. In the song Be Our Guest, Lumiere says "ten years we've been rusting." Does this mean that the Beast was only eleven when he was cursed by the Enchantress? Beacuse that just sounds a little odd to me. I mean, sure, he may have been a selfish, spoiled little brat, but a lot of eleven year olds are! He would have had a lot of growing up to do and it seems overly mean to put such a curse on such a small child.
Word of God states that though the Beast's official age is not mentioned in the movie, it is strongly indicated by the narrator's statement that the rose "would bloom until his 21st year." As the rose has already begun to wilt by the time Belle arrives at the castle, it is very likely that the Beast is 20 years (i.e. on their 21st year) of age by this point. This has been confirmed by the Beast's artist Glen Keane, and also in the filmmakers commentary for the extended edition, where it is specifically stated that the Beast's/Prince's 21st birthday would occur at some point after the enchanted rose has lost all of it's petals and the curse had either been broken, or else become permanent.
Honestly, if he was eleven years old when he was cursed, it would explain a lot about the Beast. The nobility married and ruled at younger ages than that. Take a (presumably parentless) eleven-year-old boy, make him the ruler of a principality, and see how long he stays well-adjusted and humble. Then turn him into a hairy monster for ten years, and watch him throw tantrums, break furniture, almost completely forget his table manners and his lessons in reading and writing, and generally remain an emotional child until Belle shows up to give him a reason to straighten out and behave like a sensible twenty-one-year-old.
The whole concept of being more lenient to children because of their age didn't begin to appear until mid-XIX century. At the time the movie takes place, kids were treated, more or less, as 'dumb adults'. Enchantress didn't see punishing an 11 year old in such manner as being particularly more extreme than doing the same to a grown up man.
When Gaston makes his Think of the Children! argument, we see horrified mothers clutching their children. These people thought it was a good idea to bring their little kids along to see Maurice get lynched.
I'm pretty sure hangings used to be family events, practically holidays. People would bring picnics. (Or at least, this being so is common in literature, which is excuse enough for it being true in other media.)
This is not just exclusive to France, either. American rural families would bring their children to hangings as a "scared straight" tactic to try and keep them from joining the outlaw gangs that were all over the place until the West was truly tamed.
Absolutely. In those days families would bring their kids along to all these kinds of things in a "Look what'll happen to you" thing. Even corpses were on public display. Heck, children would often clamour to attend public hangings and witch-trials as a treat; they'd demand to visit the stocks to laugh at the village idiot. Taking them to an event like dragging some crazy old guy to the Asylum would be, for kids in that time period, totally awesome. It was practically a "Family Day Out".
Only one problem with the above, Maurice wasn't going to be lynched at all. Gaston was threatening to send him to the funnyfarm. As for the mothers and children, if you look closely you'll notice they weren't a part of Gaston's gang; I think they were drawn to Belle's place by all the commotion Gaston was making.
Especially since this was not a lynching but rather an involuntary commitment to an insane asylum, parents bringing their children is quite realistic. This kind of voyeuristic crowd is hardly unheard-of in more recent times, either: note that there's a scene in Peyton Place (written in the 1950s and set in the 1940s) in which a crowd of small-town gawkers of all ages, apparently having nothing better to do with their time, gather around to watch the police hauling a bunch of the town's drunks out of a cellar. About the only thing keeping such crowds from gathering these days is the new communications technology; such meddlesome spectators can often just watch a news report about it on television or look up somebody's cell phone video of it on YouTube from the comfort of their homes.
What else surprises me about that is that Belle doesn't even tell Beast that "I'll come back to visit" or something.
Maybe she thought it was implied? And remember that she was in a hurry; her father was dying in the wilderness somewhere.
Yes she thought it went without saying that she would return. After all she loved him.
Reminding you that the Beast had only days left on the rose - what did it matter if she came back in a few days, if he could never be human and all his servants would have turned into household objects forever? Even if she does come back it's still too late. Also at that point neither of them had confessed their feelings for each other, the Beast probably assumed that if it hadn't happened yet it never will. He had tried his best, he had given it everything he could and still failed.
If she loves Beast despite the fact that he is not human, what does it signify that he has failed? She'd just return to the Beast she fell in love with in the first place...
The whole point of the challenge in earning another's love is not only to improve himself as a person, but also be restored to humanity so that they can share that love together. There's a lot he can't do with Belle as a beast, and the longer he stays in that form the more animalistic he becomes. Belle helped slow down the devolution but Word of God confirms that it's still happening anyway. Even if she came back after the last petal fell because she loved him he's still slowly losing his mind and becoming an animal.
Did she know that though? Did The Beast ever really explain to her what that magical rose signified? When she was on good terms with him, it makes sense if she never asked the Beast about it. He reacted badly that one time she wandered into the West Wing out of curiousity.
Okay, okay, even if we don't take it that Beast was 11 when he was cursed, he was probably still pretty young when he was cursed. Why was he expected to let a strange creepy old woman? And on that note, if she's really a witch and not an old woman then why is she even trying to get into the house in the first place? It sounds like she's trying to scam royals.
Hospitality was a literal matter of life or death in that time period. The prince basically abandoned an old woman to freeze to death.
Exactly. No phones, not that many private vehicles, no police patrols, and it could be easily ten miles on foot to the next house. An old person in that situation would be totally helpless unless someone on a cart or horse just happens to come along the road, which would be a very slim chance.
Don't forget the wolves.
Most people are unaware of this facet of history, but in times like these, hospitality was seen not just as a kindness, but as a sacred duty. In cultures all over the world from India to Ancient Greece to early Judaism to Celtic. If you had any extra room, from a stable to a couch to a bedroom, you were expected to put up anyone who came to your door.
Also, in myth and fairy tales, typically if you were hospitable to such a person, when she revealed herself as a powerful being, she'd reward you instead. It was a test: If the boy is hospitable and treats her well, he gets a reward—probably some service provided by her magic, or the rose. If the boy kicks her out, he's punished.
Both of the above resulted in the curse: The Prince didn't display the care a 'proper' ruler should have for his subjects, even if it's just letting the servants let her in to sit by a fire in the kitchen; and he didn't display even the kindness one would expect to show a helpless old woman, especially someone with resources as considerable as a prince's.
It's not like the movie says she was justified in cursing him.
As to why she was there, isn't it obvious? She wasn't scamming, she was there specifically to test the prince's heart. Whether she'd been watching from afar, knew what he was like, and then swooped in to bring down judgment, or she just regularly goes around testing people, it seems either providing boons or meting out punishments to those she meets is just what she does.
Does the Beast have a name? The servants all call him "Master", the townspeople and Belle all call him "Beast", and after he transforms at the end he simply says "It's me."
Presumably he has a name and they just didn't mention it. Maybe they thought it would be odd for the Beast to say "By the way, my name is Bob" or whatever.
Maybe his actual name is "Beast", or "Beeste" or something similar, and that's what inspired the Enchantress in the first place.
According to the tie-in game, his name is Prince Adam.
The "tie-in" game is a game licensed but not overseen by Disney, so information from it is suspect.
Word of God aka Paige O'Hara confirmed the Beast's name as being Adam.
The whole story is set in France. So why does only Lumiere have a thick french accent?
Originally, Lumiere had a thick American accent. When they translated everything from French to English, they switched Lumiere's accent from American to French.
Maybe the various accents mean that the characters are from various parts of France - for example, the accent of people from Belle's village and the Beast's province are "translated" into American one, but the accent of Parisians is turned into a stereotypical French one. It's not hard to imagine that Lumiere (and the feather duster, who has an even heavier accent) are hired from Paris by the Prince.
In the French dub of the movie, Lumiere is the only one with an accent- an Italian accent, to fit the Latin Lover stereotype. All others accents vanished, including the British ones.
When Maurice and Belle stumble upon the castle, it seems new and mysterious to them. The Beast isn't even that old, so how does an entire castle seem to drop off the face of the earth to the rest of society?
The film was set in France sometime around the late 18th and early 19th century, which would imply the Beast was cursed around the time of The French Revolution, noted for political instability.
Also, as someone guessed above, it's always possible that, while he's a prince, he's not literally the next in line for the French throne. Thus, maybe it's possible that the castle he lives in isn't the actual king's palace, and if so that would make sense that people didn't recognize it very well.
Unlikely that he was even related to the King in any way. In the French feudal system, "Prince" was a legitimate nobility title more of less equivalent to a Duke, while the current heir to the throne would have been referred to as "Dauphin".
And in that time period, people (especially "poor provincial" ones) didn't travel much outside their homes, if at all. (Thanks to feudalism, many of them couldn't.) So they may never even have seen the castle or known it was there before Maurice discovered it. If it was a private estate, they wouldn't even have to have known of messengers or nobles traveling in and out.
Remember the only communication is by mail carried by a horse, tourists are few, heck most people never went much of anywhere. If the Beast's estate wasn't hideously overdue in taxes or the subject of some major legal dispute, it could very easily "get lost".
Also, at the climax of the film when the enchantment is broken, the castle undergoes a transformation and reverts to its true form. The people may not have recognized it. It went from being festooned with gargoyles made of black stone to angelic figures made of marble.
So, the reprise of Belle's song has her longing for "...adventure in the great wide somewhere", yet the story has her trapped in the same building for most of it, and the happy ending is living in the same palace, which is incidentally within a short ride of her home? Even the sequel is still in the palace. Some "great wide somewhere".
I take it to be somewhat ironic. Belle does end up "somewhere," just a place she least expected.
Who's to say she and her prince didn't travel and adventure to any great wide somewheres after the story?
Yeah... This kind of bugs me to this day. I guess technically she is is having an adventure of a sort and she is out of that poor provincial town...
How often in life do you get EXACTLY what you wish for? She did get AN adventure, which is entirely different from the same old routine from her village. And it IS somewhere, so two out of three isn't too bad, right?
Some versions of the stage musical (but not the Disney version) address this explicitly; about halfway through, Belle sings a song where she basically realizes that what she really wants is love, and adventure is just a secondary desire.
I genuinely just assumed that Belle realises that adventure doesn't necessarily mean things like climbing mountains, fighting dragons or solving a thrilling mystery.
She wants adventure, not necessarily world-wide travel. That's why she said "somewhere". She didn't care what the location was, she cared that it was an adventure.
It's more vague than an "adventure" and more like an experience greater than herself and her humdrum existence.
Exploring an enchanted palace is much more exciting and adventurous than a small, normal village. A lot of people would even say that's more of an adventure than travelling "the great wide somewhere". Plus Belle's dreams weren't just about travelling to new places, she also felt lonely and alienated in the town and wanted connections with like-minded people. ("And for once it might be grand, to have someone understand, I want so much more than they've got planned"). The Beast's castle was filled with more interesting, open-minded, entertaining people than the small-minded villagers. And she probably had more luck finding stimulating, intellectual conversation/fellow bookworms among the higher-ranking palace staff than rural peasants. Although she didn't go far in the film itself, once she married the Beast there's a whole world open to her: Who's to say they didn't travel afterwards? Or what kind of people she might have met?
Why do human servants have names like Lumiere, Cogsworth, and Mrs. Potts? And they just happened to turn into a candlestick, a clock, and a teapot?
Lumiere and Mrs. Potts aren't terribly strange names. As for their transformed states, the enchantress had a dark sense of humor.
Do we actually know what their jobs were? Cogsworth was probably the butler but getting turned into a clock doesn't really parallel that, does it? Having a name with "cog" in it does though. I can't think what Lumiere's job would be that would match getting turned into a candlestick. Mrs Potts was either the housekeeper or the prince's nanny. Of course she could have had a completely different job but getting turned into a teapot kind of narrows down the possible work you can do.
I assume Lumiere was honestly just in charge of lighting the castle, since it's lit by candles. Cogsworth was possibly like his personal assistant (whatever the archaic term was. Chaperone?), which would explain why time is his shtick- he's supposed to be punctual. Cogsworth spends a lot of time insisting they get from point A to point B in a timely and orderly fashion, so I doubt he's just the head of the kitchen and dining room.
I'd imagine Cogsworth is the butler - the position (usually held by a male) is in charge of the entire male staff (likewise, the usually female housekeeper is in charge of the female staff, though if the house lacked one, the female staff would likewise follow the butler's direction.) As butler, Cogsworth would be the most senior member of the staff, explaining why he's commonly attempting to direct the other servants. And he wouldn't just be in charge of the dining room! The wine cellar and pantry would also fall under him, as could the entire first floor.
A clock is a perfectly sensible form for a butler to be transformed into. Who do you think is responsible for making sure that all the other servants' work is completed precisely on time?
Also, while not necessarily canon, Kingdom Hearts II has character profiles when you visit Beast's Castle stating that Cogsworth is the majordomo, Lumiere is the maitre d', Mrs. Potts is the housemaid, and the wardrobe (this troper can't recall her name) is the castle's lady's maid.
There's one scene where Mrs. Potts tells Chip to go to bed with his brothers and sisters in the cupboard, and you can see at least 10 or 20 other teacups. You also see 6 teacups when Gaston is in Beast's mansion. However, when everybody turns back into humans, Chip is the only child there. Where's everyone else?
Correction: There are only six other cups in the cupboard with Chip. And that number doesn't fluctuate; those six cups are seen dancing with Mrs. Potts in Be Our Guest. Chip just has six siblings (or three, and the other three are in-laws that his siblings married).
Further in that time, it wouldn't be uncommon for various children of the servants to be tended to and fostered by one person, to be educated in various things. So perhaps all the children were turned into cup and so they are Chip's siblings, he is just the only blood child of Mrs. Potts.
Also, just because we only see Chip change back doesn't mean the others weren't in the background somewhere in the ballroom. Or they were off playing/eating/doing chores while the adults and royals danced.
There were six other cups in the same compartment of the cupboard as Chip, and a dozen or so more in the other compartments. I'm guessing those six (who also helped Mrs. Potts pour hot tea on the villagers during their raid on the castle while Chip was off springing Belle and Maurice from the cellar where Gaston had imprisoned them) are all Chip's blood siblings, while the others are just children of the other kitchen staff. After all, it's highly unlikely Mrs. Potts was the only mother on staff at that estate.
Why did Belle take her father back to their house instead of the Beast's castle after she saw him freezing in the mirror? She finally trusted the Beast, who had a full staff to take care of Maurice (and probably a personal physician, at that), whereas it was just her at their house in the village. She probably didn't have any medical training and it looked like she didn't seek out help from anyone in the village.
Maybe the village was just closer.
Yeah, Belle knew the Beast wasn't such a bad guy, but Maurice didn't know that. He was willing to go wandering around in the woods in winter to go get her back from the Beast's castle, but Belle probably figured that Maurice would be more comfortable waking up at home rather than in the castle of the guy who'd locked him up earlier.
They do explain that Maurice is still fearful of the Beast after being revived in his house, although very briefly, because it's before the townsfolk come to commit him to the asylum.
Or perhaps Belle simply didn't think of it at the time. She saw that her father was freezing to death in the woods - and her first instinct is to get him home and care for him. She probably may not have realised that she could have brought him back to the castle as well. Or more cynically, she was glad to be out of the place. While the Beast had become nicer to her, she still likely thought of the place as a prison. She didn't realise how much she truly loved him until she thought he was about to die.
While Cogsworth is giving Belle a tour of the castle, they walk down a corridor filled with suits of armor that all turn to look at Belle as they walk by. So, where were these during the battle scene? I'm sure they'd be much better suited for scaring off the villagers than assorted furniture, Rule of Funny notwithstanding.
Perhaps the battle was actually bigger than it looked, and the armor suits were fighting off at least a few of the villagers and we just didn't get to see it.
It could be due to the implications; the suits of armor have axes, so using them would've made the film to dark and gory for Disney (they changed Gaston's death from surviving the fall and being eaten by wolves to just falling for this reason).
Why did Gaston waste so much time, and energy (and ultimately his life) chasing Belle? Fine, she's pretty, but why chase after a woman who is clearly a bad match for you (not to mention doesn't like you), when you've got hot blondeTRIPLETS fawning over you?
I think initially, he wanted her because she was the only one he considered to be attractive enough to be worth him, but then she rejected him. That rejection was a huge blow to his massive ego and his ego is basically his entire identity. He needed to avenge himself to back up his own self image and the way other people looked at him. Plus there's always that 'you want what you can't have' thing.
He says Belle's attractive in the film ("In town there's only she, who's as beautiful as me...")
Besides of what above troper says, I'll just point out that Gaston, if you remember, is a hunter. Maybe he sees Belle as some hard to get prey.
Plus, being Gaston, he was probably getting some action from all the women in town on the side anyway.
The stage musical pretty much implies that that's true. Marrying Belle wouldn't have kept him from pursuing other women.
Exactly, she resisted him instead of immediately falling in his arms like the Bimbettes, which made her more of a challenge. "No girl alive stands a chance against you..."
In Gaston's own words, after asserting that Belle is indeed the most beautiful girl in town, "That makes her the best; and don't I deserve the best?" Even if he weren't already rationalizing her rejections as Playing Hard to Get, his Entitled to Have You mentality is fully intact throughout the story.
What exactly did Belle think was going to happen with the Beast? Seriously the best she could have hoped for was being locked in her Father's cell and being an attractive young woman rather than a old man she should have been expecting a much worse fate. She couldn't possibly have known she'd be some combination of outright neglected and courted unless she's already read the story!
Belle wasn't really thinking about herself there; she was just trying to save her dad. Even if it did occur to her that the Beast might have something more... sinister... in mind, she probably didn't care as long as he let Maurice go.
Why is Belle so accepting of a sheep eating a page from her favorite book that has recently been given to her? I'd be upset. Furthermore, a stray sheep in the town square? How'd that happen? That's one incredibly inept shepherd.
It looked like the shepherd was leading his sheep through the town at that moment. Also, Belle has a kind, patient personality. She wouldn't scream at a dumb sheep for eating her book.
Plus, it's not like the sheep completely wrecked the book. It was just a corner, still perfectly readable (which is probably all that matters to a bookworm like Belle)
Belle did respond to the sheep, but it was merely wagging her finger at it.
Just how blind, sadistic and stupid are the townsfolk anyway? Despite Gaston being the town hero, good looking, strong, courageous till the climax and charismatic, surely the really obviously evil actions must have been where they would have drawn the line. They're all aware that sending Maurice to a mental asylum was just a ploy by Gaston to blackmail Belle into marriage, they immediately ignore Belle's attempts to convince them the Beast is truly kind hearted after Gaston's attempt to threaten her into wedlock despite how after all this time the Beast has been transformed, not one child has gone missing (that we know of) and how even though Maurice was considered an oddball, no one found it peculiar how around the time he was begging for a rescue attempt, Belle was missing. These people just borderline between reallystupid and reallysick.
Remember the events that just happened before Gaston rallied them. They've never seen the Beast before until Belle showed them him roaring his lungs out in the mirror. Now they're scared out of their wits and won't believe Belle when she tells them that this roaring monstrosity is actually a decent, gentle creature. Gaston then comes in and plays on their fear and suspicion by setting up a scenario where Beast comes in to take their kids. He may have not done it before now, but who's to say he won't start? Then he starts acting brave and saying "Now let's kill this thing before it kills us!" You're a town person, and this town hero hunter guy you don't realize is actually a total dirtbag at heart, is telling you how you can protect yourself and your kids from a beast you've never seen before from killing you and your kids. These people are not entirely stupid, just fearful and easily misled.
That explains their immediate decision to kill Beast, but that still leaves my original question unanswered why they didn't call Gaston out for all the cruel and selfish actions he did, setting Belle's father up to be locked away in a mental institute unless she agreed to marry him being the main one.
I think it was established that nobody likes Maurice and Belle very much. People think they are "odd" and "different" and for the town's people that's not much of a stretch to assume they are a little wrong in the head, and that sending Maurice to the asylum is therefore justified. As for "blackmailing Belle into marriage," well, every man envies Gaston and every woman swoons over him. That Belle and her father don't just adds to their oddness. Besides, for them it's not blackmailing, because a) a "good" boy does it to a "bad" girl; and b) there's nothing wrong with proving your manliness by showing a little force to stick it to a naughty woman who dares to reject Gaston. That was pretty much a common Double Standard back then, really, especially in the countryside among the simple folk.
It's possible that, due to his kindness, when the bookseller got wind of the plan to imprison Maurice and blackmail Belle he wanted no part in it, hence his absence from the mob.
No one knows Belle or Maurice all that well, let alone liking them — aside from the bookseller, who is strangely absent from mob scenes — so for all the townsfolk knew, Belle really wasPlaying Hard to Get with Gaston.
It's not that nobody likes Belle and Maurice, it's that everyone thinks Maurice is crazy and that Belle is not just odd, but ungrateful for rejecting their town hero's advances. I think people are scared of Maurice, even if the asylum owner isn't, because you do see explosions come from their house, and nobody knows what he's inventing. Belle and Maurice disturb their boring, ordinary little lives they're content with having. They're not cruel, they're just very narrow-minded and simple, but not stupid. Everyone there likes their quiet lives, something they can't have with Belle and her father disturbing the status quo. None of the are doing it to be cruel and they're not doing it out of stupidity. If the town hero, who everyone trusts, says something's dangerous, and the only defense it gets is from a weird woman who reads fantasy novels when no other woman reads, you're probably going to side with the town hero. Simply put, nobody sees Gaston as selfish or cruel. They think he deserves Belle if he wants her.
Gaston rallied the crowd using something that, sadly in this case, does exist in real-life; Mob Mentality.
This is rather minor, but the entire premise of the best-known musical number of the show is completely off-base. Why on earth would Lumiere insist that Belle's not their prisoner when that's clearly EXACTLY what she is?
The above response may have been meant as a joke, but I honestly think the commenter was on to something. Lumiere has already expressed a firm belief that Belle "has come to break the spell!". But she can't do that if the Beast keeps treating her like a prisoner. "She's our guest! We must make her feel welcome here!" is his way of trying to salvage a bad situation and make Belle feel at home.
Well yes she is technically the prisoner in the castle but it's not like she's forced to stay in a cell. She has the run of the castle and is allowed to do whatever she likes. The Beast also said his servants would attend to her, so she's to be treated like a guest even if she is really a prisoner. Hell, that's Fridge Brilliance to the title of the song: the servants are trying to convince Belle to think of herself as a guest in the castle and enjoy herself, especially if she's to stay there forever.
Could somebody explain the whole angel scene while Belle and the Beast are dancing? The camera pans upward to the ceiling where some angels are painted on. You watch as some shift out of the clouds, then we go back to the pair dancing. Are the angels supposed to be watching Belle and the Beast dancing too? Or is there some hidden meaning?
I always assumed they were more transformed children of the castle staff.
I saw it as time-lapse, showing how much time was passing during the dance, with the moving angels signifying a different angle/point-of-view from Belle and Beast as they changed positions below.
So the curse is lifted at the end, the Beast is back to being a prince, his servants are back to being human...but what (besides Gaston being dead, plain old fear and being freaked out by the magical light show) is stopping the villagers from coming back and trying a second time to kill the Beast, or anyone they can find?
Well, Gaston led them there in the first place, and he had a Magic Mirror. Him being dead is what stops them mostly - but also the prince isn't a beast any more. Nothing to be afraid of there.
And if they did go back, they would then find the restored prince with all his servants and soldiers. Even if they didn't immediately change their tune and bow down, they'd have had far too large a force to face in order to do anything, so they'd have to give up.
The villagers are a bunch of simplistic, superstitious bumpkins. The last time they came back they got attacked by self-animated housewares and their leader dropped off a balcony by a genuine monster. Unless they've got the army or at least the local militia at their back (fat chance; who'd believe them?), they aren't going anywhere near that castle again.
Let's not forget that the mob invaded the home of a prince in what seems to be 18th-19th century France with hostile intent and actions. The village might be filled with superstitious bumpkins, but I doubt even a superstitious bumpkin would risk provoking the wrath of a prince in the time period the movie is set in after what happened when the mob invaded the castle. Going from French law in the assumed time period, the prince would be within his rights to have the villagers who took part in Gaston's invasion executed or at least the ringleaders who survived the invasion of the castle. It would be better to avoid provoking the prince's wrath if not try to be friendly to with him.
The villagers don't know that the Beast and the Prince are the same person. If a new mob got together and decided to kill the Beast, they wouldn't know where to find him. The Prince could just say "Oh, you're looking for the Beast? I think he ran off into the woods after he killed Gaston..."
There's also the fact that if they return the creepy haunted castle with the Beast and living furnature they left will be replaced with a different castle full of people and headed by a Prince. They'd have no proof to go on, and the prince could simply tell them they were crazy and there's obviously no magic silverware or Beast here, and some of them might even believe they actually were crazy and all of that was a hallunication. And as mentioned, he's a nobleman and his entourage and they're a bunch of village peasants. His word trumps theirs by far, and he could basically have them all executed if it tickled his fancy, so they'd have to believe what he told them to if they valued their skins.
The sheer number of animated dishes/furniture in "Be Our Guest" is pretty amazing. Did the Beast's household really have that many servants? Seems like a lot of people to wait on one guy.
Some European castles, especially ones the size of the Beast's, had staffs that numbered in the hundreds. Comparatively speaking, Beast's staff is pretty average-sized.
Plus, its a big castle. You kinda need a lot of servants/workers to take care of the castle.
This is pre-industrial revolution; everything has to be done by hand. You'd need a small army just to keep the place looking nice, nevermind actually do anything besides. An estate with a staff of hundreds would not even be considered 'large' in that era.
The prince might not have had that many servants and the enchantress's spell simply brought some of the inanimate objects to life as well. My theory is that only things that have recognisable faces and personalities were originally servants. Things like forks, tankards, glasses etc were just brought to life by the enchantment.
^ If that's the case, then why were the nameless household appliances so eager to convince Belle to "be their guest?" If she falls in love with the Beast, that means they lose their sentience and sense of self.
Most of them probably weren't sentient, but more like trained animals or pre-programmed machines.
Some of them may have been transformed animals, not just humans. Remember the dog-footstool? An estate that large would have its own livestock as well as kennels and vermin-control cats.
How did Belle not notice the massive wedding ceremony being set up right next to her house?
She's a deep sleeper. Maybe she was reading that book till the early hours of the morning and slept in.
She's a reader. There are plenty of stories of readers who miss rather loud and obvious events because they are lost in a book, especially if they are reading their favorite book.
I can personally confirm failing a spot check as badly as Belle by book-distraction.
Maybe she did notice the wedding, but wasn't interested in the details— especially since at this point she had no idea that the wedding was going to be for her.
Also, Gaston was making it a point for the wedding to be a surprise for Belle - her not noticing them setting it up was kind of the idea.
Why did Gaston claim their were no pictures in Belle's book when we saw a picture during the scene where she shows it to the sheep?
There could be two answers to this: One, that we were seeing the book through Belle's eyes during "Belle" ("Well, some people use their imaginations.") and she saw the pictures in place of the text because of it being her favorite story. Or two, that Gaston's casual, disinterested flipping through just didn't land on any pictures and he dismissed it before Belle could show him differently.
And its to show that he's likely an unintelligent brute who values manly hunting and banging hot women over reading and knowledge. He's also likely illiterate, as pictures were a great way to tell a story to illiterate people back in those days.
Gaston may have looking for a certain kind of picture, nudge-nudge-wink-wink, so anything else didn't count.
Considering how he holds the book, that was what the animators were probably implying, but it's likely he just missed what few pictures there are in what seems to be a retelling of Sleeping Beauty (since the original tale could not make for an inch-thick book).
Why is Belle included in the Disney Princesses line? She's just the daughter of a crackpot inventor.
Disney Princesses can be royalty by birth or marriage.
They're pretty loose about qualifications for the line in general. Neither Pocahontas or Mulan are royalty, but they're still included (albeit you could argue this is only because Disney thought the original line-up looked a little too white, since Jasmine was the only "offical" princess of color). Elsa is considered a Disney Princess despite being crowned queen at the beginning of her movie.
Pocahontas was the daughter of a 'chief of chiefs', the leader of a group of clans. She was basically the American Indian equivalent of Merida. She's been considered in popular culture to be a 'princess' since at least the 1800's.
Heck, they don't even have to do that to qualify (see Mulan).
So what the hell happened to LeFou? Is he dead?
He probably survived with the rest of the mob, but he was too unimportant to Disney to be followed up on. I mean, really, who cares about a little French man with a big fleshy nose?
Does anyone know what happened to the Magic Mirror?
The last time we saw it, Gaston had it. He probably tucked it away, and when he fell off the roof into the chasm it went with him.
Why did no one from the village know the castle was there? Presumably Beast was the Dauphin of this town, so when he/his servants stopped coming to town, or stopped collecting taxes, why did no one notice?
Well, they probably assumed the prince was dead when he stopped showing up, and perhaps the ruler of France or whatever simply summoned the servants so they weren't just sitting around an empty castle doing nothing.
If the Revolution had already happened, people might have assumed the prince and his servants fled before a mob came after them. The castle probably didn't get inhabited by squatters because it's in the middle of the forest and pretty isolated from the nearest village.
Or probably the most likely explanation. The Witch erased the castle and everyone in it, from the memories of everyone from the outside. No-one bothered to check, because no-one remembered they existed. And perhaps the wolves that are constantly stalking the grounds. May have been humans transformed, to scare passersby away.
So is Mrs. Potts younger than she looks, or is Chip adopted? I mean, I guess it's not impossible that a woman as old as she APPEARS to be could have had a child only years before, but she certainly looks well past child-bearing age, and Chip is just a small child, so he can't have been born more than a few years before the transformation/age-freezing.
Adopted may make sense, as Mrs. Potts seems to be the Castle Nanny. Maybe his teacup mother shattered at one point and she took it upon herself to look after him.
This being an age when a lot of people were shaving their heads and wearing powdered wigs to cut down on time spent taking care of their hair (Mr. Cogsworth for one: watch his head near the end when Lumiere slaps him with a glove during their little squabble), I'm thinking Mrs. Potts is wearing one of those powdered wigs when she's transformed back, and is actually no older than her mid-forties. Chip was probably her very last child out of seven, and she probably is well past menopause now, but other than her hair, she shows no signs of being particularly elderly (no wrinkles or arthritis).
Obviously, Belle was scared of the Beast in the beginning, but she was still confident enough to talk back to him and wander round the castle. Even in places where she was specifically told not to. It seems odd that she didn't try leaving before, like she does when he yells at her. There's nothing stopping her.
She gave her word.
Because she promised him in order to save her father. Breaking a promise right away wouldn't really look good for her character, and even if she did try to escape, the Beast would immediately come after her anyways. She didn't have much of a choice.
And the Beast didn't seem that bad. Well if you get past the fur and fangs, he's just more like a grumpy child who likes to yell. And despite all his yelling when Belle won't come down to dinner, she could probably see it was all just bluster. After all he didn't break the door down like he threatened to. She only fled when the Beast got properly violent in the West Wing. So essentially she didn't think her life was in danger and when she did, that's when she got out of there.
The magic mirror only shows the Beast's face, and everyone was entirely unaware of him until then. This page also establishes that everyone has either forgotten about the castle or don't know it's there, so how did Gaston know that "at the drawbridge of a castle/and there's something truly terrible inside" was where the Beast was?
Because Maurice told everyone earlier at the tavern.
Also, remember that Gaston keeps the magic mirror and carries it around with him. The mirror shows you whatever you want, right? So he could say things like "Show me where the Beast lives" and "Show me how to get there". He may have even done this off-screen during the early part of the "Kill the Beast" song, when the villagers were singing among themselves.
It's worth noting that the castle doesn't actually have a drawbridge. It's just a regular bridge. Gaston is perfectly willing to make things up on the fly.
How did Chip know how to work the wood-chopper?
He was eight, he probably had some sort of instinct for technology.
There's a time gap between the mob going after the Beast (they're seen chopping down a tree to make a battering ram, and that takes time) and Chip steering the machine into the door. During that time it's likely Chip tried different things and figured it out.
This may be a minor detail...but how is it that, during "Tale as old as Time", Belle apparently knew how to dance? I'm assuming the Beast would have...He's a prince, after all, so I'd assume he would've learned how to at some point in his life...but instead, he's the one who looks nervous when the scene begins. But where, when, and how would Belle have learned how to dance so well if she was shown from the beginning to be a bookworm with no romantic interest in boys?
She may have read a book about it. As for the dance itself, she was the woman, all she had to do was follow.
She could have danced with her father too. It's not unreasonable to suggest there were occasional village celebrations Belle may have attended too.
Why wouldn't Belle know how to dance? She was more intelligent and curious than a typical village girl yes, but she wasn't a tomboy or anything that had dislike for girly things. She wore dresses, enjoyed the romance in her story's is implied to be the one who does the cooking and cleaning at home and probably enjoyed dancing as a girl. Just because she wanted nothing to do with the local meathead didn't mean she had zero interest in any from of romantic things.
So...when the Enchantress cursed the Beast, did she also magically increase the size of all of his clothing? I mean, Adam seems like a pretty big guy even when we see him as a human in the ending, but when you look at that waistcoat he's wearing during his dinner with Belle...Or did he just have one of his servants make him new clothes during the ten years he spent alone?
Well back in those days a prince's clothes were usually made for him, or possibly imported. He already has a seamstress on staff. And in the movie he only really starts wearing clothes after the relationship with Belle starts to blossom. So it's possible he didn't have any clothes made until then. Again it's the Wardrobe's job to make them; she doesn't just produce the clothes out of thin air.
He may have worn clothing in the early stages of his curse, and it's obvious that at least some clothes were made to fit his beastly frame as once he turns back into a human his Beast-proportioned clothes no longer fit him properly, even walking directly out of his cape because it can no longer hang around his shoulders.
Human or Beast, he's still a prince, hence has authority over the other people in the castle. He probably just commandeered a set of clothes belonging to some tall, muscular servant and had them altered to fit his new body. The fact that the servant in question was probably a hatstand or something, hence doesn't need his clothes anymore, makes it even more likely.
When attempting to talk Belle out of entering the west wing, why didn't Lumiere and Cogsworth simply explain the reason why the room was forbidden by the Beast? While the Beast was a bit more justified (his curse was obviously nothing he wanted to brag about), I don't understand why Cogsworth and Lumiere would have a problem explaining the whole enchanted rose scenario. They were clearly desperate to prevent Belle from entering, and their efforts weren't really helping ("The master is hiding nothing"), so why didn't they just tell her everything?
If Adam doesn't want anyone to know about his curse, I don't think he would be happy if his servants when about telling people. Plus, it's not entirely true that he was really hiding anything in the west wing, aside from maybe the fact that it was all torn up, which to Belle didn't come as very surprising anyway...It's just his private chambers.
It's stated that the Beast's mind is becoming more animalistic. He goes to the West Wing to act out his bestial behaviors. In the commentary, it's stated that part of his anger over Belle being there is that he was ashamed that Belle saw what he'd done.
Exactly why do I keep hearing people say that this movie is a Stockholm Syndrome tale? I don't see any Stockholm Syndrome. Belle didn't start to actually like the beast until he started respecting her and not acting like a spoiled jerk. When he saved her life, that's more or less when things started to turn around and show that the beast isn't so much of a bad guy, since he did save her when he could have simply just let her leave.
It's mostly the result of many viewers having a somewhat shallow understanding of exactly what Stockholm Syndrome is.
This is their viewpoint: Belle was his prisoner. It doesn't matter if he were a nice guy who didn't actually want to hurt her. She was his prisoner living in what was effectively a Gilded Cage. She was not allowed to leave his castle to go back home to her father. His 'gift' of his library wasn't really a gift, as it was already there as part of his house (ie, her prison.) He was actually just giving her permission to use his library/study for her own personal pleasure. Small acts of kindness like this, saving her from the wolves, then freeing her to go home are typical things that tells someone with Stockholm Syndrome that their captor isn't really that bad of a person, they're just a conflicted human who made poor choices. It's well-documented that people with Stockholm Syndrome have been known to defend, or even fall in love with, their former captors. In short, it doesn't matter how nice your prison is, how nice your captor is: if he/she won't let you go, then you are a prisoner and anything they do revolves around that context. Anything you do in response revolves around that context.
But she wasn't captured by the Beast, she gave herself up of her own volition to save her father's life. And she wasn't really treated like shit by the Beast, either. She could go anywhere she wanted in the castle, she wasn't locked away in the tower in a dungeon, and his servants attended to her and gave her what she wanted. He saved her life, she didn't start to come around until he stopped being a jerk, and when he releases her, she leaves. And she probably wouldn't have come back if it wasn't for the mob going to kill him. I agree with the poster two places above me, and I think people who simplify this story into Stockholm Syndrome don't really understand what it means. It's much more complicated than feeling sympathy for your captor.
There is a trope for this. Belle may have been able to roam free in the castle, but she was still trapped inside it and forbidden from leaving. Her willingly offering herself as a prisoner changes nothing, and the fact that there are a few times throughout the film where she probably could leave, yet chooses not to, further reinforces the argument. It's true that there is usually a lot more to Stockholm syndrome than that, but the basic gist of it - someone feeling sympathy/befriending/falling in love with their captor - does apply here in a sense.
This overlooks one very important point: the minute the Beast does something genuinely threatening of physical harm to Belle, she leaves, despite her word, despite the Gilded Cage, revealing she has no attachment to him whatsoever—and this is prior to being allowed use of the library. The only pleasant thing done for her at that point was the "Be Our Guest" sequence, and no one suggests this made her develop Stockholm Syndrome for the enchanted objects, or that she started developing it for Beast because of their actions since she knew very well they were acting against his wishes in being kind to her. Then the wolves attack, the Beast saves her...and collapses in the snow. She has the perfect opportunity to leave and does not. Why? Well obviously because she is a kind person who can't abandon the Beast to die even after how he had treated her, but the point is, it couldn't have been Stockholm Syndrome motivating her to stay because at the time of the wolf attack, he had done nothing to make her care for him, except save her. And that is hardly an action done with an ulterior motive, rose notwithstanding, nor is it something that magically makes her love him. In point of fact it is after this that he starts changing and doing truly good things for her, and that's when her view of him changes, not before. Stockholm Syndrome is about changing in response to perceived acts of kindness, but these are genuine ones, and he changes before she loves him, not after. She does not defend Beast until he has proven genuinely worthy of defense. And she doesn't do it to earn more good treatment, since at that point she's getting it already, or anything at all really.
That's true. I'll give you that. But it also leads right into another point: the minute Adam does a decent thing for Belle, by saving her from the wolves, she seems to forget all about running away, helps him back to his castle, and doesn't try to leave again. Instead, the two of them argue and bicker about who's to blame until Belle manages to get him to admit (begrudgingly) that he was wrong. And then she stays at the castle and helps him change and become a nicer person, for no real reason - yes, there's the promise she made, but she still doesn't owe Adam anything, and what's he going to do if she leaves? I know this wasn't what Disney had intended, but remaining at the side of a brooding stranger that you know nothing about, seemingly with the mindset of hoping or trying to "change him", is not the sign of a healthy relationship. Belle had no reason to stay at the castle after that point, even if the Beast did save her life.
She does know that this brooding stranger risked his health if not life to save her. So, there is probably a different trope at work.
How close is the castle to the village? It appears close enough to the village to be a bit of a hike away. Shouldn't someone have seen it? I can believe why nobody found the castle before - the mob song says the castle is haunted so maybe the superstitious townfolk thought the castle was haunted and there was no reason to go there.
Why doesn't the Beast ever tell Belle his real name during the film? If it were me, I think I'd get tired of calling him "Beast", and it serves as a problem to the audience as well, since we never find out (in the film, at least) what his real name is supposed to be?
Worth noting is that if you ask Belle at Disneyland what the Beast's real name is, she'll say it's been so long that he's forgotten what it was.
So, I know, and I've heard that the enchantress transformed Adam's servants because they were supposedly responsible for making him a selfish prince, but did she have to transform Chip? Whether they age with the spell in effect or not, he had to still be a little kid when it was originally cast - what could he have done to Adam that caused him to become more of a royal pain?
I'm not a fan of the "servants are partly responsible" hypothesis. No, she was a fairy, and she was a trickster, and assuming she did anything due to being a nice entity is coming at it from the wrong angle. She was screwing with people as a way to entertain herself.
Whether you think that or not is up to you, but both the stage adaption and one of the sequels confirm that the servants were responsible because they went along with everything Adam said, gave him everything he wanted, without objecting to any of it. What you have written here is a theory, and it's not a very likely one, either - the Enchantress was testing Adam's character by requesting shelter in return for a rose. Whether she was a trickster or not, she still proved that he was heartless, selfish, and cruel before his curse. She cast the spell as a means of convincing him to chance; if she'd done it just to mess with him for entertainment, why would she have giving him a way to reverse it?
As to why Chip was transformed: because the Enchantress wasn't completely heartless. Think of what would have happened to him if his mother (adopted or otherwise) was no longer able to care for him because she was a teapot? He'd be a little boy all on his own, unable to take care of himself, in an isolated castle with a selfish prince who had just been transformed into a beast. What do you think would have happened then? If he had somehow managed to escape the castle, there's no way he could have made it to civilization at his age, and if he had, in those days lost children were usually not taken in but left to wander on their own as street urchins. And even if none of this happened, and the objects could take care of him the way they did Beast, he would have kept aging while his mother did not. So he was transformed to keep him safe and of the same age as his family. A similar argument probably applies to why the dog was transformed.
After the Beast is attacked by wolves, why does Belle think she has a point in telling him to control his temper? She deliberately went into the West Wing, a place he and his servants told her specifically to stay away from...not to mention she knows now how he would react if he were to find her in there, and the Beast does have something that he wishes to remain hidden inside. How honestly did she want him to react to finding her in there, and why does the movie seem to think her counterargument was valid?
Because he did lose his temper. He could have handled the situation in a rational manner, explaining to her that she was forbidden from the area, she trespassed, and she will be punished somehow, probably from a removal of privileges... but instead, he lashed out in anger and began destroying things. Just because his anger and depression are understandable doesn't mean violent rages are justified. Predictable, sure, but not justified.
I know about all of that, and I know that it's important for his character to learn to control himself and not lash out so violently, but the way Belle tells him this still sounds unjustified. It's not like she stumbled into the west wing by accident or just took a peek through the door before he found her there - she willingly went inside, after being told multiple times not to and that it was forbidden, and almost came upon the root of his curse. Even if it still doesn't justify him lashing out like he did, Belle at the very least should have understood he'd be upset, and shouldn't have expected him to react that rationally to her breaking the only rule she was given while left to her own devices inside a behemoth castle. Bottom line is that this bothers me because it acts as though it was all Adam's fault, when Belle did something that would've made anyone upset, given the circumstances under which she did it. (TBH, I thought it would've been better had he just gotten upset after finding out that Belle had snuck out and ate dinner without his knowledge - it would've been completely in-character for him to have lost his temper then, but because what Belle did was so petty and understandable, she would've also been justified in calling him out on it.)
(I'm no expert on medieval politics, so bear with me.) The Beast is specifically described as being a prince. What exactly does he rule over? To me, it seems that he is Authority in Name Only.
Not every prince has to rule over something. He may just be the last in a long line of heirs (think of something like Hans from Frozen) or is only related to another member of royalty in a distant, convoluted way. His castle certainly doesn't seem close to enough to rule over Belle's village or any other.
Similar to the Enchantress turning everyone to furniture, but why did she turn the dog into a footstool? That's makes just as less sense as the servants. It didn't seem to have any role in the prince's selfishness and even if it did, it doesn't have any fault for it—because it's well, a dog. What's the point of turning a dog into a footstool?
I'm guessing the Enchantress just put a curse on the entire castle and every living thing inside it was effect, without discrimination. The point of it was to teach Adam a lesson, meaning she clearly believed that he could be changed, so perhaps she didn't want him to have to give up his dog due to an inability to take care of it...or something.
Part of the Beast's curse is that he succumbs to bestial impulses when he loses his temper. It's entirely possible that the Enchantress transformed the estate's livestock and pets to protect them from the Beast's own animal side. Alternately, she may have figured that the dog would no longer recognize the young prince as a Beast, and transformed it so it could no longer bite him.
A bit of a Plot Hole here: Phillipe abandons Maurice sometime before Maurice finds the castle. He later arrives back with to Belle to lead her to the castle where her father is held. This makes no sense, how did Phillipe know where the castle was, let alone Maurice?
That's...a good point. The only answer I can come up with is Philippe was very smart for a horse, so he was able to bring Belle back to where he abandoned Maurice. And since there was only one road through the forest in that direction, other than the dead end at the cliff, there was nowhere else he could have gone. So she followed the road until she found the gate, and then saw his hat.
Another possibility is Phillipe came across the castle after Maurice had already gone inside, deduced that it's the only logical place his rider could've been, and went back to fetch Belle and bring her there to help. Though, I'll admit, this does seem a bit too smart for a horse like Phillipe to have mustered.
A careful viewing makes this a mere nitpick: take a look at the scene in which Phillipe abandons Maurice, and you'll notice it was no more than a (very) short run from there to the front gate of Beast's estate. (The wolves were already menacing them when Phillipe fled, and Maurice managed to make a narrow escape even when they were obviously closing in on him a lot faster than he could run.) While the geography is a bit difficult to track, the place where Phillipe abandoned him was at the top of a cliff, and the estate's gate is apparently somewhere down near the bottom of that same cliff. While Phillipe wouldn't have known the way to the estate itself, he could surely have taken Belle to the top of the cliff, and (it being somewhat lighter and less foggy out there when she arrived) she wouldn't have had that much trouble finding the gate from there. At the gate was her father's hat, so she immediately knew she was at the right place.
How long was Belle gone? They imply at least four or five months (the snowfall passes, plus that enchanted Christmas is stated as being in the middle of this) and why didn't anyone else notice? I can understand why they would think "Oh, Where's Belle in the Winter? Probably reading." but why didn't the librarian notice anything wrong? Surely he would have wanted to ask.
I'd guess it would be a couple to a few months - there is still snow at the time she leaves because Maurice being lost in a winter storm, I recall, is what prompted her to go look for him. Also, Gaston left LeFou to wait outside Belle's cottage until she came home, meaning he might not have been concerned firsthand with exactly where she was, only that she had rejected him and was going to pay for it.
So what would happen if the Beast died before the curse was lifted?
Every servants would've probably remained an animated object forever since the curse can never be broken.
Notice how when the Beast does nearly die, we see the servants sadly hanging their heads as the last petal falls. I think it was pretty obvious they knew (or at least figured) that they'd be stuck as enchanted household appliances without their master alive to break the spell.
At least, they'd be stuck that way until the Enchantress came back to check whether Prince Adam had learned his lesson or not. But the servants would have no way of knowing if she ever intended to return or if something might've happened to her in the meantime.
Did the love between Belle and the Beast require a verbal proclamation in order to break the spell, or did Belle just not love him until that exact moment at the end? The prologue just says that he had to give his love to someone else and have her love him, in return, but it doesn't say anything about actually saying they loved him. Would the spell simply be unbreakable if, say, Belle happened to be mute?
Probably not. The only reason she has to say it is the Rule of Perception: she has to show us she loves him. If she were mute, she could maybe use some kind of sign language (a personal one between her and him, since there was no standardized sign language in France at the time), or just kiss him full on his big hairy lips. How she communicates she loves him isn't important, only that she means it.
What's really the point of making the townspeople so unlikable in this film? I'm already endeared to Belle just by watching her interactions with her father, Gaston (who I can understand being unlikable), and at the bookstore. But the way these townspeople dislike Belle and Maurice so much, for no real reason whatsoever, just seems like the film's way of getting us to side more with Belle, when that should be obvious already due to her being the protagonist. A small group of Gaston's devotees is one thing, but the implication is that the only person who's tolerant of Belle at all is the owner of the bookstore - what's the point of it?
The townspeople seem to be clannish and suspicious of the unusual, but not completely mean. While they do gossip about Belle they all say hello as she passes ("Bonjour!"), so they're at least being polite. Their treatment of Belle could be the result of Deliberate Values Dissonance; in that time and place physical prowess was prized and anyone who didn't fit the mold of the majority was at least snubbed (similar to today minus increased common knowledge of mental disorders and social services; and in view of the outdoor wedding party, the village doesn't even appear to have a church). There's also the Double Standard about the sexes, with Belle being a woman and Gaston being a man.
Maybe it was done to make Belle an outcast, if mostly by her own volution. If she had an active social life, Maurice would have someone to help him on his quest, and Belle herself would be more eager to return. Plus if Belle had friends in the village, they'd require more screen time. As for in-story reasons for why Belle and Maurice are treated the way they are, Maurice has a (somewhat understandable) reputation of Mad Scientist, while Belle the townfolk see as snotty: she doesn't seem to socialize, spends most of her time dreaming of other places and reading books, so she obviously thinks herself better than us, ordinary people. And as mentioned elsewhere on this page, Gaston is viewed by the locals as the epitome of what a man should be, so Belle rejecting his advances is percieved as yet another example of her stuck-up attitude: 'She thinks even the best of us isn't worthy of her. The bitch!'
How did Lumiere know that the Beast giving Belle the library would make her so happy? She showed a little interest when he mentioned the castle having its own library (which she promptly used as an excuse to sneak off to the West Wing) but he had no way of knowing about her love of books.
The library was the first thing that Belle genuinely seemed to find interesting at the castle, enough so that it almost pulled her attention away from visiting the west wing. Lumiere must've figured it was a pretty safe bet.
Or maybe Maurice mentioned his daughter's love of reading while he was locked up. Presumably Beast didn't intend to feel his captive or empty the guy's chamber pot himself, so the servants would've had access to Maurice's cell and could've heard him moaning to himself about how poor Belle will have only her books for company without him.
I know that Lumiere is supposed to be hospitable and everything, but why did he think it safe to go so far towards making Maurice feel welcome when he arrived at the castle? Leaving him to freeze to death outside is one thing, of course, and they are all under a curse due to being so unhospitable in the first place, but when you know that your master's got a bit of a temper, wouldn't it be a good idea to at least consider letting him know about Maurice before rolling out the welcome wagon?
Lumiere seems to be The McCoy to Cogsworth's Spock on Beast's staff. Where Cogsworth always seems to prefer a practical solution that won't tick off his boss, Lumiere shows little regard for any of his master's ultimatums when they get in the way of being friendly and hospitable. Had the matter been left to Cogsworth, he would most likely have just told the staff to put Maurice in the kitchen with a crust of bread and have the stove chef warm him up; then he'd wait until Beast was in a relatively peaceable mood before casually letting slip that he's put up the first visitor the castle has had in a decade in the kitchen, just a harmless old beggar, really... ("Besides, you remember what happened the last time we turned away a seemingly harmless old beggar, master?") Passionate and hot-blooded fellow that he is, Lumiere doesn't have the time or inclination to bother with such trivial matters; also, since he knows from experience the Beast's bark has usually been worse than his bite for the last decade, he probably subscribes to the philosophy that it's easier to get forgiveness than permission from the boss.
Maybe he was thinking about doing that, but wanted Maurice to get settled in first, and Beast showed up before Lumiere could tell him himself.
Maurice is being ministered to by a talking candlestick and clock. He's barely managing not to Freak Out!, faint, and/or run screaming as it is: expecting him to meekly comply if they ask him to follow them - to the kitchen or anyplace else - would be asking too much of the poor guy's nerves.
When Belle rushes to save Maurice, neither she nor the Beast think about the wolf pack wandering in the woods. I get it, heat of a moment and all, but it just bugs me that at no point anyone goes 'Hey, last time Belle left, she got attacked by wolves. What it that happens again?'
Considering the fact that Maurice was in great danger of freezing to death at that point, I'm guessing they figured getting him to safety was more important than worrying about the wolves attacking, which seems to be a 50/50 chance anyway, since they didn't seem to attack Belle when she first arrived to the castle. Even if they did happen to attack Belle again, I'm sure the Beast would've been keeping watch to make sure to scare them off again. Also, since the wolves got curb-stomped by the Beast the first time they attacked, they may have been hoping that the pack's instincts would tell them not to go after Belle again.
The magic mirror. Where has it come from? Did the Enchantress give it to the Beast? Why?
Possibly she had two such mirrors, and left him one of them to imply that she'll always be watching, and judging, him. It's a way to ensure he'll keep the need to reform himself in mind. Likewise, the portrait depicting what he'd look like if he hadn't been cursed was probably her way of taunting/reminding him as well, because any mundane painting made before she'd cursed him would show an eleven-year-old boy.
I'm pretty sure this was explained in the movie - the Enchantress gave him the mirror to serve as his window to the outside world.
What exactly was going through Belle's mind when she entered the West Wing? Not only did she know full well that she wasn't supposed to enter it, but considering her horrified reaction when the Beast spotted her, she also knew she would be in big trouble if she got caught. For that matter, why didn't Lumiere and Cogsworth simply tell her that the Beast could very likely be hanging out in that room instead of just trying to divert her attention away from it?
Curiosity. As for Lumiere and Cogsworth not telling her that, they were panicking and not thinking very straight. Plus, in the back of their minds they probably didn't want to imply to Belle that going where the Beast is can be dangerous.
After watching the film in HD, I noticed that Gaston seems to plummet into a river under the bridge (beforehand, it just looked like a misty ravine). This now makes me wonder why we don't actually see Gaston make a splash when falling into the river. He just disappears into nothingness.
During "Gaston", how was Gaston able to fire his gun three times without reloading?