When I heard about the Beauty and the Beast live-action remake by Bill Condon, I was curious. Do we need another version of a fairly outdated Disney™ tale? Will the new one featuring Emma Watson turn out to be a feminist tale?
Emma Watson, one of the most well-known Hollywood millennial feminists, played Belle in the remake. Before the release, she announced that she prodded producers to update Belle’s character with a feminist lens.
So is Beauty and the Beast feminist, or just an old fairy tale?
Warning: this review contains spoilers if you have not seen the original. If you have seen the original, this review reveals new details of the remake.
BE OUR GUEST
For several days after seeing the Beauty and the Beast live-action remake, I woke up singing the opening tune jauntily. “Here comes the baker with his tray like always, the same old bread and rolls to sell…”
Mrs. Potts filled my cup, “Be Our Guest” dazzled me, and Lumiere sparked my flame. I’m a sucker for musicals. In fact, I gave an unforgettable townsperson performance in a 20-minute version of this show at age 9. So it has a soft spot in my heart.
What can I say? I liked it.
BUT…..
If you hadn’t guessed, I’m also fairly anti-princess culture. The Disney™ princess packaging and paraphernalia typically makes my stomach churn. What’s so great about being a freakin’ princess? We don’t tell boys they should strive to marry into a royal family to be a prince. But I was willing to give this film a chance, and hoped it would break new ground.
Related: Not All Girls Like Pink
13 Reasons Why Jane the Virgin is your Favorite Feminist Show
Help Girls Develop Rock Star Confidence in 5 Days
THINGS I LIKED
Let’s talk about the improvements first.
- Emma’s upgrades. True to Emma Watson’s promise, Belle swapped dainty ballet flats for more practical riding boots. We also learn more about Belle’s desire to explore the world independently and seek adventures outside of her predictable French town. And she has zero interest in townspeople’s opinions of her; one of the most-needed lessons for girls and teens today.
- Engineering apprentice. Rather than simply being the daughter of an inventor, we see Belle’s own fix-it skills and invention ideas up close. Yes, her primary invention is a washing machine to address the traditionally female chore of laundry, but we see her talents nonetheless. If inventions topped Emma’s hobbies over reading, or she had more definite career plans, it would have been an even more welcome plot update.
- Mentoring. In addition to her smarts, Belle is generous. She attempts to transfer her love of reading to a local girl. Unsurprisingly, Belle is chastised for teaching literacy to a girl, though it doesn’t seem to bother her much.
- She’s got guts. Girlfriend keeps hopping on a horse at a moment’s notice, often without a coat (brrr!), to go help her father or warn the Beast of ensuing threats. Belle is quite fearless. It almost borders on the absurd, however, when she does things like volunteer to be a prisoner to set her father free. What? But her “switch-out” is a key piece of the plot present in the original; without it, she wouldn’t get to know the Beast.
- Emma Thompson. My favorite British actress was a heartwarming Mrs. Potts. This woman can do no wrong. ‘Nuff said.
THINGS THAT NEEDED AN UPGRADE
Now, to the lower moments. This film had great potential to upgrade the original fairy tale by ridding some of the outdated stereotypes.
- Dads can parent, too. Why are the mothers always dead?!? I’m sure there have been thesis papers written on this, so I won’t venture down that rabbit hole. But the result is often a father “left in charge” who either doesn’t understand his daughter or fails to provide the guidance she needs. Happily, Belle’s father in the remake, played by Kevin Kline, is less of a bumbling buffoon than the animated version. He’s more of a scattered professor type. But Hollywood should give more credit to single fathers, and to fathers in general. Fairy tales often depend on the heroine’s quest for adventure. Are we to presume this would be squashed by a strict mother?
- The focus on her beauty. In order for the remake to break new ground and shatter the Disney™ mold, it would have to de-emphasize her beauty as a core characteristic. Isn’t it enough that Belle is a brainy outcast? Gaston’s obsession with “winning” and domesticating Belle somehow gives her more worthiness when it comes to the Beast. Even such a gorgeous person could still fall in love with an ugly creature – wow! Emma even managed to look like a “normal girl” in this film. Why then, is her beauty still part of the plot?
- Double standards. Finally, why did the curse require someone else to love the Beast, too? If this film truly broke new ground, it might have tinkered with the curse. The narrator says the Beast not only has to love another, but that person must see through the Beast’s ugly exterior to love him. This is not just a test of the Beast. This is a test of all women. Can any woman whisk aside her shallowness and see through to who he really is? I wonder whether the tables would ever be reversed.
FEMINIST TALE OR FAIRY TALE?
The movie almost won me over completely. The songs, the charming talking candlestick, the effects. My favorite upgrade was a more fleshed-out relationship between Belle and the Beast, built on common interests. They both loved to read and discuss the world. And they travel back in time to learn more about Belle’s childhood and her mother, in a touching new moment.
This gave me hope. They really got to know each other and bond over shared interests. Maybe it’s a nice story after all.
Until I went home and remembered that most of that relationship was built while Belle was imprisoned against her will. Sorry, but healthy relationships just don’t develop that way.
Alas, it’s still a fairy tale.
Leave a Reply