The way I see it, it's not that the pendulum is supposed to represent a certain body part.
It's rather that the tickling can be interpreted to represent sexual teasing/tension.
When tickling happens between two adults, it's almost always for one of two reasons: 1. As Tickling Torture 2. Done between people who are romantically/sexually attracted to each other, and who do this to flirt/create tension.
Obviously, what was being done to Cogsworth was meant as the first reason, Tickling Torture, but adults seeing it can easily be reminded of the second reason.
This is probably more Accidental Innuendo than Getting Crap Past the Radar though, since the film makers obviously intended it as just a straight example of Tickle Torture.
Here we go again...
Three seperate sources cite "Prince Adam" as beast's "real name." This is incorrect. Disney itself has gone out of its way to specify that beast doesn't have that as his name. Glen Keane himself even cites this, and he animated that character.
I'm sorry to break the illusion, but even the parks don't endorse this. Asking belle what beast's name is gets you the info that he's been cursed so long that he's forgotten.
The game cited was made in November 1998, and produced by another company, Cyberflix Entertainment. All official disney sources point out that beast doesn't have a name other than beast.
I must request that references to "Prince Adam" be excised from the article. Bad information is not the reason people come here.
Even Evil Has Standards about the asylum warden is not really a good example of subversion of this trope (the asylum warden is not established as evil before this scene), but it is a very good example of Berate and Switch. I cannot modify it since the page is locked.
The chest from Disc World is actually a shout out to a D&D monster called a mimic that usually appears as a chest and tries to eat adventurers
The film had its own mid to late 90's TV spin-off too, called "Sing Me a Story with Belle".
PART 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eI5d03ItEvM
PART 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FkhW8cdtLEg
Does Belle have a flaw? Someone on youtube think Belle is "a goody-two shoes". I think Belle is a bit over-emtional
Hide / Show Replies
She kinda does, but none the creators WANTED her to have (and yes, goody two shoes-es can have flaws). They clearly wanted us to idealize her as the perfect heroine, but in doing so, they made her imperfect. They want us to see Belle as always doing the right thing, but I see her as always thinking she's right and never admitting when she's wrong (the scene where she's tending to the beast's arm). She's an intellectual snob who gets rather condescending towards anyone who doesn't share HER hobby. She only wants to talk about her own interests but doesn't care to hear about the villagers' ones. She's also a bit self-absorbed.
So while she is kind of a Mary Sue, she also kind of isn't. Makes sense, I know.
Did we watch the same movie?
Belle never actually says or does anything that implies that she thinks of herself as being intellectually superior to anyone who doesn't share her hobby. She just thinks her village is boring and she doesn't fit in with them.
Belle's flaw is that she's stubborn and makes dumb decisions sometimes. Yes, at the beginning of the movie she has trouble admitting that she was wrong, but at the end she actually says "this is all my fault" showing that she has changed.
Apparently not.
Being RIGHTFULLY stubborn isn't a flaw. Belle's choices are portrayed as right in the movie. She breaks the Beast's rules but is portrayed as the victim. I guess the superiority complex is a YMMV thing, but she calls them "little people", which is rather condescending, and seems to look down on them for working instead of reading or wanting adventure like she did.
And wrong about what? She said it was her fault because the beast died because he failed to earn her love- she never made it known. She never denied her feelings, she just never admitted them. That's why he died. I didn't see what it was about her that supposedly changed either. She doesn't really have character development like the Beast does because it just isn't crucial to the story.
- I Want You to Meet an Old Friend of Mine: Angela Lansbury (Mrs. Potts) and Jerry Orbach (Lumiere) were old friends and have worked together before, notably in Murder She Wrote, where Orbach played a friend of Jessica Fletcher's, gumshoe Harry McGraw, in several episodes.
This is nice and interesting but... what does it have to do with Beauty and the Beast? It sounds more like trivia than anything, unless there's a part of the movie I'm not remembering, and seeing as how the example doesn't say this happens in the movie...
Does Belle have a flaw? Someone on youtube think Belle is "a goody-two shoes". I think Belle is a bit over-emtional
In addition to all the things mentioned in the article, I found another issue when I watched the movie again.
In the introduction, they clearly state that the rose will bloom until the Beast's twenty-first birthday, and he must find love before then. In the song "Be Our Guest", Lumiere utters this line-
"Ten years we've been rusting, needing so much more than dusting-"
Meaning that ten years have passed since they were changed. Now, since they still have a little time, however short, it means the Beast is not yet twenty-one, so for ten years to have passed, the enchantress must have placed a curse ON A TEN YEAR OLD CHILD.
Not to mention, where the hell are the Beast's parents? And how was the castle kept supplied during this time if not by trading with outlying villages? How did no one in the nearby family know of the Prince? Ten years isn't that long, someone would have known about the royal family, they would HAVE to.
Also, the aforementioned age issue would make the midquel "The Enchanted Christmas" even more wrong than it's already blatant issues, because of the fact that in the flashback you see the Beast answer the door as an adult. This isn't possible, because if he had been that old the curse would have already been permanently sealed if Lumiere's "Ten years" line was true.
Hide / Show Replies
"ON A TEN-YEAR-OLD CHILD": Makes sense if you think about it...in his immaturity, he didn't let the old woman in.
As for the "royal family" comment, I'm afraid I can't help you. (Are they part of the enchanted furnishings?)
Does the movie actually say birthday. I thought the movie just said "21st year" it doesn't neccassary mean the 21st birthday, or 21st years of regin. and I always thought the 10 year comement was how long they have had any guests (since I doubt a prince who was a selfish, and spoiled would be nice company).
Seeing how long the trope list is, I feel that a Character Sheet needs to be made. Anyone agree that the movie needs a Character Sheet?
The Bitch King Of Angmar
"Abomination Accusation Attack: Gaston doesn't believe that the Beast even exists. When Belle proves him wrong, he changes his position to accusing him of eating children - never mind that the Beast has been around for a long time and the only person who had been missing was Belle herself! Or that the villagers believed Gaston over Belle despite the fact that Gaston was proven wrong immediately beforehand."
I think we need to show that the villagers are terrified as they have just seen a monster in a magic mirror. And that they believe Belle is crazy.
No Living Man Can Trope Me
- Deconstruction: Gaston is arguably a Deconstruction of the God-Mode Sue. Being simply better at anything than anyone else and being far too aware of it, Gaston has clearly given himself the privilege to do whatever he wants, regardless of the morality of his actions (that everyone sucks up to him and does what he tells them, as is appropriate for Mary Sues, doesn't help). At best, his ego has rendered him incapable of seeing the error of his ways; at worst, he's well aware of how utterly evil he can be, but simply doesn't care...because no one elevates himself over petty morality like Gaston.
- This also makes Gaston a deconstruction of the type of hero that appears in Grimm's fairy tales: handsome and adventurous hunter/woodsman, loved son in both his world and his own mind out to court his fair maiden, who, as far as he thinks, should be owed him and fall into his arms. He encounters monsters and never bothers to think they're anything but evil, since the original stories weren't inclined to have that belief as well. Even his jerkassness is a characteristic of Grimm's heroes, [[who were often known to do sadistic things to defeat their enemies, and were occasionally Designated Heroes. However, the movie shows the inherent wickedness these qualities brought together in the wrong way could create, totally without catering to Values Dissonance.
- Likewise the Beast is a deconstruction of the character from the original tale who was kind and gentlemanly despite his monstrous appearance. Here the loss of his humanity as well as the impossible nature of his task only serve to drive him deeper into depression and seclusion. He utterly gives up hope of ever breaking the spell and begins to give into his beastly urges, stops wearing clothes, hunting for his food, and becoming fiercely territorial. If Belle hadn't come along exactly when she did, he would have never broken the spell and become an animal completely.
This entire section was cut due to natter. While I agree that the section could definitely be cut down, I disagree with the notion that the ENTIRE THING is just a natterbomb. There are a great deal of excellent points addressed within this section.
Hide / Show Replies
How bout this?
- Deconstruction: Gaston appears to be a deconstruction of both God Mode Sues and the heroes common amongst Grimm's fairy tales; his privilege to do whatever he likes and his inability to see monsters as anything other than evil, respectively, has turned him evil. The Beast is also a deconstruction of the character from the original tale; instead of remaining kind and gentlemanly like in the original tale, the impossible nature of his task drives him to give in to his beastly urges and move farther and farther away from humanity. If Belle hadn't come when she did, he would have degenerated a beast in all aspects.
That was my best shot. There's a lot of info to condense.
Edited by battosaijoe
Fear me
Under Meaningful Name: Gaston meaning dark. Uhh, since when?
Hide / Show Replies
Y'know, I always thought Le Fou would have meant "the ugly one," as "ugly" translates as "feo" in Spanish (another romance language), and I might have thought that the same root would stay the same. Must run it through a translator when I think of it.
- I Am Not Shazam: Babette is not, repeat NOT the name of the featherduster. The Babettes are the triplets who fawn over Gaston. The featherduster is Fifi.
This is incorrect. The triplets are called the bimbettes, the name of the feather duster in the Broadway show is definitely Babette. In one of the sequel films she was referred to as Fifi, though.
Hide / Show Replies
Similarly in the musical these 3 are called the Silly Girls to avoid anymore confusion. Plus the whole joke of them being called that is the "bimbo" part. Calling them Babette loses the joke.
Okay, I'm probably really dense, but could someone explain how Cogsworth's pendulum qualifies as crap? The implication seems to be that the pendulum is supposed to represent a bit of anatomy found..."down there". But the pendulum hangs from what would be his neck, and resides in what I assume is basically his torso. Plus, he'd just endured getting burned by Lumiere, picked up by Maurice, turned upside down, tickled, shaken, wound up...if I had to endure the same (though I'm not sure what the human analog of winding would be), if someone then opened up my chest and started prodding my innards, I'd probably be rather indignant myself.
Plus, if the human analog to the pendulum is something found "down there", since the pendulum is visible behind a glass door, wouldn't any scene where Cogsworth appears be Getting Crap Past the Radar?
Again, perhaps I'm just dense, and wouldn't make a very good radar, but could someone explain this?
Hide / Show Replies