MovieChat Forums > Beauty and the Beast (1991) Discussion > Beast should kill Gaston

Beast should kill Gaston

posted 7 years ago by TM1617-2 (595)
20 replies | jump to latest

The point that is illustrated through Beast sparing Gaston's life is simple, but applied to the wrong character. A major part of being compassionate is the ability to recognize who is worthy of mercy and who is not. Beast knows that Gaston is evil and should realize that the man does not deserve to live. Killing Gaston to protect Belle would be one of the best ways for Beast to prove that he loves her. Surely the enchantress would view the action as heroic given the dire circumstances, and the matter ought to bear enough value to break the spell.

[–] Stratego (29178) 7 years ago

If he had killed him at that moment it would not have been an act of self-defense but an act of vengeance. Who exactly decides who's evil or not and if they deserve death because of that? Do you go around killing people you think are evil?

[–] TM1617-2 (595) 7 years ago

You're being a bit ridiculous. Of course I don't, but have never had a reason to, like Beast does. Those who are adept in psychiatry decide who is evil because we know the conditions that only such individuals can have, but many people are capable of observing the issue without formal training since it tends to be obvious. Gaston has narcissistic personality disorder which is one of the problems that causes the neurological disturbances that are behind amoral behavior. Evil is something that should be automatically understood, so I don't see why it needs to be pondered in an argument. Also, why would Beast killing Gaston not be out of self defense if the man is trying to annihilate him? Gaston barges into Beast's castle in a jealous rage and tries to murder the master resident when the latter has not inflicted the slightest harm upon him. The human is the one seeking revenge against Belle and Beast.

[–] LeiaOfLothlorien (1980) 7 years ago

Good post!

I agree that it would have been acceptable for the Beast to kill Gaston, but Gaston ended up dead anyway so that's that. I think it's more that the Beast didn't want to show how animalistic/monstrous he could be.

[–] TM1617-2 (595) 7 years ago

Thank you very much LeiaOfLothlorien! Yes, I understand that Beast is trying to behave more like a man than an animal by the end of the movie, but killing to save your life and protect the woman whom you love is not monstrous. Even as a small child it has greatly disappointed and annoyed me that Beast does not physically finish Gaston. It would make the final battle much more gratifying.

[–] LeiaOfLothlorien (1980) 7 years ago

You're welcome! 🤗

Although it would be in self defense, I think the Beast just didn't want to be a murderer. Disney might not have want to go that route, anyway, although they have had villains be killed by protagonists in other movies.

[–] Stratego (29178) 7 years ago

Killing him would not be self-defense. Gaston had been overpowered and was begging for his life.

[–] LeiaOfLothlorien (1980) 7 years ago

Uh, Gaston literally went there to kill him. Begging for mercy was probably just a ploy.

But I haven't seen the movie for a while, so I don't remember the exact scene.

[–] Stratego (29178) 7 years ago

No. The Beast was holding him by his throat over the abyss. Gaston was begging him to spare his life. Killing him right then and there would NOT have been self-defense.

[–] LeiaOfLothlorien (1980) 7 years ago

Still, Gaston was clearly trying to kill him before, and not to be trusted.

How did Gaston actually die, again? Did he just trip and fall to his death? Or did someone else push him?

[–] Stratego (29178) 7 years ago

That still wouldn't make it self-defense, though.

Gaston fell to his death after stabbing the Beast while he was climbing up to reach Belle. Totally his own fault.

[–] Otter (24464) 6 years ago

And that's why so many Disney villains fall to their deaths, so the heroes don't have blood on their hands (literally and figuratively).

And so the corpse is out of camera range.

[–] Stratego (29178) 7 years ago

Uhm no, you're being "a bit ridiculous". "Being evil" is not a psychiatric condition and whether someone receives the death penalty is not based on how "evil" someone is. Nothing worse than vigilante justice. The Beast gave Gaston the chance to redeem himself just like he got that chance to redeem himself. The fact that he didn't take it is his own responsibility. The Beast should not make that decision for him.

[–] TM1617-2 (595) 7 years ago

Stratego, I have not said that evil itself is a condition, I have said that there are certain conditions that only evil people can have. It is true that nobody is ever executed simply due to being nefarious if he never breaks the law, but since the death penalty is reserved for the filth of society, it cannot be fully separated from malevolence. You probably don't realize that a person must be born evil to be so because the trait comes from certain types of unstable brains and is not a meme. Therefore, Gaston cannot be redeemed. I acknowledge in my first post what you say that Beast does, and my purpose for mentioning it is to say that it is a mistake.

[–] Stratego (29178) 7 years ago

You said that those adept at psychiatry decide who is evil. They don't, because being "evil" is not a psychiatric condition. People are also not born "evil", some experts (but certainly not all) do argue that some people are born with a mental disorder that gives them a lack of empathy.

[–] babadook (51) 7 years ago

You wanted the Beast to kill someone? How would that work with him becoming more human?

[–] CoriSCapnSkip (1560) 7 years ago

Possible spoilers for those who haven't seen all three formats of the Disney version.

--In the cartoon Gaston sort of killed himself. The Beast let him go, and Gaston lost his balance while trying to be a dirty backstabber. Serve him right.

--In the live action movie, nobody killed Gaston. The Beast let him go, Gaston tried to attack him again, and then the masonry broke and plunged him to his death. Maybe the enchanted castle was sort of sentient and acted on its own. Serve him right.

--In the stage play, the Beast lets Gaston go, then Gaston stabs him. The Beast is so enraged he then flings Gaston off a parapet...or at least, that's implied. Serve him right anyway, the dirty backstabber. I remember a conversation with the kid playing the Prince in our version, where I said the cartoon was a little more exciting because Gaston falls off a tower. He said, "Well, he falls off a tower in ours, too," and I said, "But he doesn't go as far." We had a very small stage, and when the Beast pushed Gaston offstage it was implied that he fell, and died. The stage version is the only one in which the Beast takes action to kill Gaston, and it was done that way, I think, only to get him offstage. I don't know how it may have been handled in the original or other stage productions. In all cases, Gaston was Darwined out of the gene pool and failed to pass on his supposed good looks.

[–] MadameLee (18) 6 years ago

Gaston doesn't loose his balance in the 1991 version. He stabs Beast and when Beast moves backwards in response to the pain he accidently pushes Gaston off

[–] AmeriGirl26 (12243) 5 years ago

The reason the Beast spared Gaston was not completely due to compassion. It was the fact that he had spent the last few months regaining his humanity through his interactions with Belle, and he realized in that moment that if he killed Gaston, he was no better a monster than the man he was about to drop over the edge. It didn't matter if Gaston deserved to be spared or not. The fact that the Beast was willing to back away from his animal desires to murder him, made him the better man than Gaston. It was a defining moment in the movie.

[–] TM1617-2 (595) 5 years ago

Thank you, AmeriGirl26. I recognize the idea, but it is not portrayed the right way. The audience can see that Beast is not reverting to his animalistic tendencies when Gaston injures him since he doesn't even retaliate until he realizes that his life is in danger. That alone shows that there is no abuse of the creature's physical power. Gaston repeatedly and intensely threatens Belle and the man whom she is in love with on the castle roof. He makes it clear that he won't leave until Beast is dead, so the attacked party has no reason to believe the pathetic act, apply sympathy, or feel guilt. The film defeats the purpose of the moral transition by focusing on the truth that Beast is not yet human instead of treating the last fight as one between men. No one should be blamed for defensive killing.

[–] Stratego (29178) 5 years ago

You are WRONG. The movie very clearly shows the transition of the Beast from animal back to being a human throughout the movie. And THEN it clearly shows a momentary relapse as he holds Gaston above the ravine. However, he quickly realizes he's better than that. Gaston had lost the fight and was begging for his life, killing him while at that point no one had been severely harmed was NOT the right thing to do.