MovieChat Forums > Beauty and the Beast (1991) Discussion > Screenwriters for this movie are sociopa...

Screenwriters for this movie are sociopaths

posted a year ago by [deleted]
20 replies | jump to latest

For one, they completely changed the dynamic of the original story. In the original story, Beauty is a vain, immature little girl who refuses to love the Beast because he's ugly. Beast is not an asshole in the story. He is a nice guy who just has a curse thrown on him randomly, not because he was punished.

In the Disney movie, the writers made Beast into a narcissistic sociopath who terrorizes his servants and kills anyone who enters his castle and has to fall in love to save his own ass. So, what's the moral of the story here? If you're a kind, considerate, intelligent girl like Belle, you should do everything in your power to rescue the Bad Boy?

There's nothing evil about Gaston, by the way. The reason why Gaston wanted to kill Beast is that Beast terrorized everything and most likely killed tons of people. He was also a narcissist jerk, but his worst crime was being an annoying womanizer, and that doesn't make a person evil. I love how the sociopaths who wrote this movie implied that if given the choice between an abusive killer and an annoying womanizer that the better option was the abusive killer who HAD to change because he had no choice (LOL).

[–] Stratego (29258) a year ago

"In the original story, Beauty is a vain, immature little girl who refuses to love the Beast because he's ugly."

Uhm, no, not at all. Certainly not in the story by Jeanne-Marie Leprince, which the movie was based on. It's her sisters who are described as having too much pride, while Beauty is seen as being very kind.

[–] [deleted] a year ago

No.

Go back and read the story again. It's not that the sisters had pride. They were materialistic. As the story goes, they used to be rich, then the father fell on hard times and they all became upset because they lost their lavish lifestyle. The father became a poor tradesman and would ask his daughters what they wanted whenever he sailed. They asked for luxurious things, but Beauty asked for a red rose and his safety. It was the asking for the rose that led the father to cross paths with the Beast and get captured.

Beauty trades her freedom for her father's life and then gets visited by the Beast in human form in her dreams as the handsome prince that he is. She falls in love with him precisely because he's so handsome, but rejects the Beast because he is so ugly and avoids having to encounter him at every turn. Because she can't stomach being around him (avoids seeing him), he tries to win her by putting on puppet shows and other things to engage her as she explores the castle.

The Beast becomes dejected and lets her go finally back to her house, but then for the first time in her life she realizes how much she had grown to love him, runs back, finds that he's dying, cries and that's when the spell is broken.

I'm not only familiar with the original story, but read and saw variations of it before the Disney film, as well as had an old recording of it.

Point is, being a contrarian is not a form of debate. It's just being a contrarian. Contradicting me about minutiae is not going to change the fact that the story was completely changed in this movie in ways that went completely against what the original was trying to say and do, while introducing toxic messages of its own. Nor is it going to shake me from my position on the film.

[–] Stratego (29258) a year ago

Lol, why such a long essay just to confirm how wrong you are???

I'll go quote Jeanne-Marie Leprince de Beaumont's story, okay?:

"The youngest, as she was handsome, was also better than her sisters. The two eldest had a great deal of pride, because they were rich. They gave themselves ridiculous airs, and would not visit other merchants' daughters, nor keep company with any but persons of quality. They went out every day upon parties of pleasure, balls, plays, concerts, etc. and laughed at their youngest sister, because she spent the greatest part of her time in reading good books. As it was known that they were to have great fortunes, several eminent merchants made their addresses to them; but the two eldest said they would never marry, unless they could meet with a Duke, or an Earl at least. Beauty very civilly thanked them that courted her, and told them she was too young yet to marry, but chose to stay with her father a few years longer."

And no, while Beauty is initially scared and rejects his marriage proposal, she does not avoid him. She acknowledges he has a good heart from almost the beginning and they have dinner and talk every single evening. How can you claim you're familiar with the story?

[–] Otter (24464) a year ago

Well that's a change from the original story, in the movie the Beast does not appear to have a good heart at first! No, at first he throws people into dungeons for nothing, destroys shit, roars and rages.

Which does rather fit the modern internet decision of "nice guy", but of course that also doesn't mean having a good heart.

[–] [deleted] a year ago

Yes, keep posting the MISINFORMATION that Jeanne-Marie Leprince de Beaumont wrote the story. That really helps your case:

Here we cast our minds back to the aristocratic salons of 17th century France. The original story of Beauty and the Beast was written by Gabrielle-Suzanne de Villeneuve.

https://www.pookpress.co.uk/project/beauty-and-the-beast-history/

Again:

The first appearance of “Beauty and the Beast” in print—in French, as “La Belle et La Bête”—was in 1740, as one of the tales in the book, La Jeune Américaine, et les Contes Marins, or The Young American and Tales of the Sea, by Gabrielle-Suzanne Barbot de Gallon de Villeneuve.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian-institution/storied-international-folk-history-beauty-and-beast-180962502/

Wow, you really got me there! Nothing says persuading me about your position than repeating the same incorrect information.

[–] Stratego (29258) a year ago

Except it was based on Beaumont's version which is even credited in the French dub of the movie:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beauty_and_the_Beast_(1991_film)

But you want me to go back to Villeneuve's version? Fine by me!:

"But if he had immense wealth, he had also a great many children, his family consisting of six boys and six girls. None of them were settled in life: the boys were too young to think of it; the girls, too proud of their fortunes, upon which they had every reason to count, could not easily determine upon the choice they should make. Their vanity was flattered by the attentions of the handsomest young gentlemen."

"The youngest girl, however, displayed greater perseverance and firmness in their common misfortune. She bore her lot cheerfully, and with a strength of mind much beyond her years: not but what, at first, she was truly melancholy. Alas! who would not have felt such misfortunes. But, after deploring her father's ruin, could she do better than resume her former gaiety, make up her mind to the position she was placed in, and forget a world which she and her family had found so ungrateful, and the friendship of which she was so fully persuaded was not to be relied upon in the time of adversity?"

"This young person was much more fitted to shine in society than either of them. She was a perfectly beautiful young creature, her good temper rendered her adorable. A generous and tender heart was visible in all her words and actions. Quite as much alive to the reverses that had just overwhelmed her family as either of her sisters, by a strength of mind which is not common in her sex, she concealed her sorrow, and rose superior to her misfortunes."

And it's same in this story, Beauty is initially scared and rejects his proposal, but she does not avoid him and they talk every night after supper.

Sooo...Oops!

Just read the freaking story instead of pretending you know it.🙄

[–] Furienna (3322) a year ago

It is important to remember though that Belle and Beast put effort into their relationship and made it work.
You can argue that Belle "rescued a bad boy", but he was actually able to improve and learned to love her.

Gaston started out as a conceited but mostly harmless jerk, but he was worse than that at the end of the story.
He led a mob to kill Beast not because he was concerned about the safety of the village.
No, he did that just because he understood that Belle preferred him over him and couldn't take that...

[–] Patman111196 (1241) a year ago

There's nothing evil about Gaston? He showed absolutely no regret for his immoral actions and was deliberately trying to trap Belle after he seemed to get the idea that she wasn't interested in him and wasn't going to give in to his demands. Why do you think he said to LeFou he has been "thinking" and that he has come up with a "clever plan" not long after the song about him in the pub? It's not that he's just an amazing person with a lot of admirers with a huge Ego. He just put on a good show for everyone for a long time, and even fooled Belle a little in the beginning about who he REALLY was. He was the actual Sociopath, not the beast.

The beast also didn't "terrorize" or "kill anyone". He was just rude to a woman because she appeared to be old beggar and thought she was wasting his time, and then quickly changed his opinion when she revealed that she was actually very beautiful. The enchantress is more of a villain than the beast actually is.

[–] [deleted] a year ago

There's nothing evil about Gaston? He showed absolutely no regret for his immoral actions and was deliberately trying to trap Belle after he seemed to get the idea that she wasn't interested in him and wasn't going to give in to his demands.

Do you understand what evil is?

It's not being a jerk or an annoying pest who won't leave a woman alone. It's being what Prince Adam was, which was to be a complete narcissistic sociopath (not caring about others, only seeing others).

There's a reason why, according to the movie's own logic, Prince Adam was cursed and someone like Gaston wasn't. There's a reason why the nice servants at Beast's castle, were affected by the curse, even though they had done nothing wrong. Prince Adam was such an evil person that his actions even impacted those closest to him.

The enchantress is more of a villain than the beast actually is.

My goodness. I give up.

[–] Patman111196 (1241) a year ago

I hope you are trolling. The beast clearly had it in him to change from the selfish jerk he was and he ultimately did. Which is why Belle's love for him broke the spell. That's where Gaston differs. I don't imagine Gaston was ever going to change his ways, as he embraced his methods too much. Also, he locked the woman he desired so much so she couldn't warn the beast that he was coming to kill him, nor did he listen to her when she arrived at the castle and begged him to stop. That's not being an annoying or narcissistic jerk, that's being a completely entitled psycho. Gaston had very little conscience and didn't care about Belle at all while the beast did. I never got the feeling he was concerned for Belle's or even the villagers well-being at all, even thought they thought he was such an amazing dude.

[–] [deleted] a year ago

OMG...WTF could I be trolling about and for what reason?

I'm going by the internal logic of the movie's script, which introduced these issues that I'm complaining about when it changed the original story.

If the movie had started out with Prince Adam being a good guy who gets cursed, then you'd have a point that he always had it in him to change. Because his bad behavior could then be excused as, "He's bitter that he was unfairly cursed," or, "The curse, in changing him into a beast, is making him less human."

But the movie never establishes that he always any goodness in him to begin with. It had him be this raging ahole his entire life--as both human and the beast--until the last moment. So the change isn't really natural. It's a problematic character change, IMO, because it mirrors a personality type in real life, the "bad boy" who some women hope beyond hope will change...some day.

The thing about Gaston...it's not that he's a good guy, it's that his motivations are rooted more in human flaws than being evil. That doesn't make him the villain of the movie, to such an extent that he deserved to be killed. That's ridiculous.

[–] Furienna (3322) a year ago

Not only did Gaston strike a deal with Mssr d'Arc to have Maurice taken to an asylum unless Belle married him.
But when it failed, he led a mob against the castle out of spite and had Belle and Maurice locked up.
Then, he decided to stab Beast after he spared his life.
Do you need more proof than that that he was a complete scum?

[–] [deleted] a year ago

I didn't say he was a good guy, but not as evil as Prince Adam, not to where he gets to be killed in the end for his "crime" of...what, exactly? Just being an annoying, possessive jerk?

It doesn't make any sense. Prince Adam's gets a free pass because he has a change of heart after years of causing his servants to suffer and after years of terrorizing the town, but Gaston gets to be killed as the "evil guy" because he was an annoying jerk pestering Belle.

[–] Furienna (3322) a year ago

Read my previous post again.
Gaston did a lot more than pester Belle and would have been a murderer if Beast hadn't been saved by magic.
He had to be killed off because he stabbed Beast.
And I don't remember seeing Beast terrorizing the town?

[–] Patman111196 (1241) a year ago

Gaston was clever, manipulative, and seemed literally incapable of forming any remorse or regret for his actions, all which the beast was the opposite of despite being very selfish and quite aggressive himself.
I guarantee you if Belle somehow decided to marry Gaston, he would have abused her straight on. She would have been her servant 24/7 and expected her to cook and clean and have her get him a beer while he was busy doing his own little hobbies, far more than what was expected in this time period. He would have forced her to do all these things while never paying attention or any children they had unless he "needed" her. After that, he probably would have cheated to his heart's desire, and would have abandoned her and any children if he somehow found an even more beautiful lady that he looked up to.
Gaston only loves and cares about ONE person, and that's HIMSELF and nobody else. Gaston went way beyond being an "annoying, possessive jerk", he was quite screwed up in the head. The beast is just a flawed person who is trying to correct his mistake. Never once did Gaston even consider that.

Terrorizing the town? I don't ever remember that happening in the slightest. Nobody in the village knew about this beast or castle prior to Belle returning home.

[–] Furienna (3322) a year ago

It is never shown what the prince did before he was turned into a beast except that he rejected the sorceress.
But whatever it was, he had still been able to change in a way that Gaston never did.

And seriously, Gaston is proof that a person who starts out as "just" an annoying jerk can become dangerous.
Because the fact that he was that possessive made him resort to extortion and even attempted murder...

[–] [deleted] a year ago

Welcome to Disney revisionism. Take a grim fairytale and sanitise it for all ages with no violence or horror. I was quite surprised to learn that Pinocchio was actually hanged by the neck in the original story, but being made of wood, it takes him a while to pass out, unlike a real person.

[–] Furienna (3322) a year ago

This story has enough violence though to make some people think of abusive relationships.
It is not really fair as I've explained in another thread, but it's not a violence-free story.

[–] Stratego (29258) a year ago

There's more violence in this film than in the original story.

[–] [deleted] a year ago

Interesting. Like most, I never read the original stories, but did see the Disneyfied versions, and we all know old Walt had a dark side to him!