From: rcook@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (Robert Cook)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.animation
Subject: Re: Shallowness in TLM, BATB (Was Re: Cheap Animation)
Date: 19 Dec 1992 16:57:12 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego
NNTP-Posting-Host: sdcc13.ucsd.edu

In article <1992Dec19.015406.25289@news2.cis.umn.edu> avatar@wings.micro.umn.edu (Timothy Fay) writes:
>Robert Cook (rcook@sdcc13.ucsd.edu) wrote:
>>
>>Why?  To compare old written works to modern movies?  I've read both
>>of these stories.
>
>The original poster commented that the original stories were fine examples
>of romaticism.  They're not: they're generally very dark and violent (in
>the original TLM, after the mermaid is transformed the witch tells her
>that every step will feel like she's walking barefoot on broken glass--
>ouch!).

The tales are not dark and violent! (Is not!  Is, too!)  Beauty and
the Beast (the most widely accepted version from Mdm. Beaumont) has
practically no violence in it.  There is a threat of violence
(the Beast threatened to kill Beauty's father), but it is empty from
the start.  Disney's Beast is menacing to begin with, and Gaston is
cruel and violent (and stupid) from start to finish--this version is
dark and violent at times, not the "original."

The only thing really dark about Hans Christian Anderson's The Little
Mermaid is the idea of the Mermaid killing her prince (who had just
married a human princess) to become a mermaid again.  The sea-witch
is not convincingly evil--she's like a cat toying with a mouse.  Disney's
version (and I'm not implying that *you* were comparing to Disney) has
a sly villainess with far bigger plans.  And the death of Disney's
sea-witch is very violent--she was impaled by the bow of a ship.
There are certain limitations strapped on the Disney name, but they
have not made their Little Mermaid and Beauty and the Beast less
dark or violent than the original tales.

>>For a fairy tale, is there really anything all that shallow about
>>Disney's Beauty and the Beast? 
>
>Yes, lots.  Both Belle and the Beast are about as one-dimensional as you
>can get (even for one-dimensional drawings).  Perhaps the only character
>more shallow than those two was Gaston--one of Disney's weaker villains.

Care to back that up?  The audience gets to know Belle and Beast
very well through songs, interaction with secondary characters, and
their moments together and alone.  And why is Gaston all that weak?
Because he is stupid?  He is stupid, but crafty and powerful--both
physically and in exercising control over the villagers.  The scene
where they shout "Kill the Beast!" is very potent and says more than
what is apparent, if you look.  Gaston is a very dangerous villain,
if not a colorful one.

I don't see any comparable personal struggles in the original Beauty
and the Beast.  The Beast says that he is simple-minded, and keeps
on asking Beauty to marry him every night.  The only thing deep
about the original Beauty is that she can see that being a good
person is more important than being beautiful; even then she needed
a fairy to beat it into her in her dreams.  That's about all we
get--pretty shallow characterization.

Bernard and Bianca of The Rescuers Down Under, for example, are very
one-dimensional characters.  Bianca is little more than a mouse with
oodles of savoir faire.  Read Margery Sharp's original book series--
Bianca is more than that.  Bernard is less shallow, but we hardly
get to know him; then again, this is a sequel.

>>She falls in love with Beast *before*
>>he is transformed, remember?  The "handsome prince" he became is
>>virtually a necessity--it's what audiences expect.
>
>You contradict yourself.  You claim those stories aren't shallow, then
>you say Disney is basing their stories on "what audiences expect," instead
>of what is coherent or consistent with good storytelling.  I can't think
>of anything more shallow than pandering to an audience.

A compromise must be struck somewhere.  I do not contradict myself,
because keeping the audience in mind while telling a story is not
absolutely shallow.  Besides, Disney was being faithful to the most
common versions of the original tale.  It's a crowd-pleasing happy
ending.  It doesn't make the entire movie shallow.  It makes the
movie more likable to the mass audience.

>And what prompts Belle to change her view of the Beast?  Why he saves
>her when she's ATTACKED BY WOLVES!!!  You claim Disney felt audiences wouldn't
>accept the spirituality of the original TLM.  So why does Disney think they
>will accept one of the _oldest_ and shallowest plot devices in the universe? 

Most people seem to accept this plot device.  It gets things started
(Belle has to rethink her justified bias against Beast somehow) and
is telling of Belle's personality.  She could have left him unconscious
in the snow to die of hypothermia.  This mutual rescue improves on
the old plot device of saving another's life.  Had Beast merely
rescued Belle from the wolves, then your example would be more valid.

The spirituality in the original Little Mermaid is almost religious at
the end.  Disney is preachy enough--the last thing they need is
quasi-religion.  Besides, I'd dismiss it as too whimsical if it was
done by Disney, but that's just MHO.

>The audience, I'm sure, knew the Beast was going to turn into a Handsome
>Prince Charming because That's The Way Things Are.  It would have been
>much more interesting, less--shall we say--shallow, if Belle was too
>late to prevent the Beast from changing back, but continued to love him,
>anyway. 

Yes, *I* WANTED to see that.  But again, there are the Disney
restrictions.  We can't have a romance between two different
species!  Even in spoken and written fairy tales, the animal-groom
(one example of many is The Frog Prince) is transformed into a
human.  The "beauty within" comes forth symbolically (i.e. in physical
form).  On the silver screen, we actually get to see it.


- Robert Cook
Newsgroups: rec.arts.animation