Disney's "Beauty and the Beast"

3 May 1996
Renee Hayes

I am interested in Disney's adaptation of "Beauty and the Beast." Does anybody have any thoughts on this, or any references to critical materials? For example, what's with all the talking and singing and dancing cups and things? I am not sure what to make of this. What was Dinsey's motivation? Why is the story set in the French countryside? Isn't Beauty and the Beast a German tale, or am I confused?

I am asking this question on behalf of a student in my Children's Literature class. He raises some good questions, I think.

Walt disney Productions always mucks stuff up. "Beauty and the Beast" got rather good reviews so I told myself I would give Disney another chance. the production was more violent than the story. they have to find ways to show off their animation skills. who knows why they thought it necessary to make the adaptations that they did. And of course those images stay with you and ruin the story every time you read it. YOu see the Disney production. that was it for me. I've learned my lesson. No more Disney.

Although Disney interpretation is quite different from the original story, interestingly enough, the two particular ascpects mentioned are probably the closest. "Beauty and the Beast" is a French story, not German, so its setting in the French countryside is perfectly appropriate. And the singing and dancing objects are a logical Disney extension of invisible servants that make things move. One of their main schticks is personification, and it's a lot easier to personify objects than invisible servants (although Robin McKinley did a lovely job with the latter, in her _Beauty_.)

Oddle enough, _Beauty and the Beast_ is the one Disney film in which the anthropomorphized sidekicks don't drive me up the wall. I think they're done with a great deal of wit and charm.

Disney has a long history of taking a story or history and retelling it in their own way, even if that way distorts fact or dismisses the story. Jus recently, there was the controversy over Disney's "Pocahontas". Since I live in Virginia Beach--close to Jamestown, I learned the real history about Pocahontas (at least John Smith's version). At the time of John Smith's arrival, Pocahontas would have only been 11 years old, but Disney disregarded that fact and made her into a beautiful Native American princess somewhat similar to 'Alladin's" Jasmine and "The Little Mermaid". Disney only makes movies that they like, not movies based soley on the books or stories from history. Keep that in mind the next time you see any Disney movie. Good entertainment, bad replacement.

First, you might want to look at June Cummins's article, "Romancing the Plot: The Real beast of Disney's *Beauty and the Beast*, in *Children's Literature Association Quarterly* (Spring 1995) pp. 22-28.

The story is set in the French countryside because the story "originates" (if we can talk about the "origin" of a story that ultimately comes from folklore roots) in Mme. de Prince de Beaumont's story from the early 18th century. The history of the tale and its variants (prior to the Disney film, which came out after the book was published) is told in Betsy Hearne's *Beauty and the Beast: Visions and Revisions of an Old Tale* (University of Chicago Press, 1989).

As if "history" or objective "truth" was ever so neat, clean, and simple as some would like to imagine. Sorry, but historical truth is a tad more elusive than than a simplistic accounting of "facts". Moreover, we might be better served if we could keep clear the differences between feature films and documentaries. The feature filmmakers responsibility is to his or her artistic vision and creative spirit; the responsibilty of the Walt Disney Corporation is to make a profit for its stockholders-these are not mutually incompatible, but they may well have little to do with with some ill-defined search for historical "truth" -and why should that upset us ?

Dear Renee

I had an interesting discussion in my undergraduate children's lit class a couple of weeks ago. We all watched Disney's _Beauty and the Beast_ together, which took two days even though the class is 80 minutes long. I encouraged them to make notes of things in the movie that echoed other literary works, but mainly to watch the movie very carefully, as many of them had told me they had "seen" it hundreds of times with their own kids or while babysitting. I assigned them a reading from a Hornbook article, "Walt Disney Accused" which is an interview with Francis Clarke Sayers done in 1965 (ancient history?) When they came to class I read the text (NO PICTURES) of "Beauty and the Beast" from the Opies' _Classic Fairy Tales_ and then we had an open discussion of the video, the "original" story, and Sayers' attack on Disney's reinterpretations. By the way, the "original" story is French.

We had a wonderful discussion. One student pointed out that the dancing dishes reminded her of all the dancing mops and buckets from "Sorcerer's Apprentice" and another thought it was like all the underwater dances from "Little Mermaid" and then a theory emerged from the discussion that as animators, Disney Corp. are going to change the story to get a chance to show off what they do best: those marvelous musical extravaganzas. I was very proud of my students for coming up with that! In the earlier assignment on storytelling, we had noted that all the guide books by professional storytellers talk about a new story being created every time a storyteller takes it and fashions it to entertain an audience, the students seemed to think that it was O.K. for Disney to be creative with these old story lines. But it was wonderful, some thought, to have access to the "orignals" as well, because then the listener could imagine their own Beauties or Beasts. We did note that the modern Disney production is a story about a courageous girl with feminist notions, but mainly it is the story of the transformation of the spoiled Prince-Beast into a decent guy worthy of Belle's devotion. The "original" story is a cautionary tale about what kinds of virtues to look for in a husband: not good looks, nor wit, but kindness and goodness, which the Beast already had.

It was a very satisfying and productive experience in the class. I think I'll try it again. Interestingly, they thought it was O.K. for Disney to change fairy tales for retelling, but they were very opposed to what was done with _pocahantas_. This might make an interesting class discussion too...

The original story was French, written in the 1700s by Madame LePrince Beaumont. The servants of the enchanted prince were turned invisible. The father was a merchants, and Beauty the youngest of six children, with two wicked, envious older sisters. She did love to read, and Belle can mean Beauty in French.

There is no character like Gaston in the original story, although he makes an interesting foil for the Beast, being like the pre-enchantment prince, beautiful without and beastly within.

Disney is not concerned with scholarship, they make money, and occasionally movies. Before you pooh-ppoh them too much, check out what other companies do to classic fairy tales.

You make it sound like Disney is the only one in Hollywood who does this. I can hardly name a book that was made into a movie that was not redone to suit the interests of the studio and to meet their main objective,"To Make Money." One has to remember that those in Hollywood are not particularly interested in historical acuracy or being true to the original text. Though it is a shame. Though the possibility exists for someone (who has a lot more money than I) to step forward and make books and stories into movies that are consistent with the originals. If there is such a person I wish them Good Luck!!

Seems to me there was a good article on this tale and its Disney variation in a recent issue of Children's Lit Assoc. Quarterly--but I'm not in the office and can't check the citation. There's been quite a lot of good scholarly writing on Disney's adaptations of stories, and on the Disney phenomenon in general. In fact, there's a brand new book out from Indiana University Press on this subject, although of course I am blanking on the title and author (I only remember the press because I went to IU!) Can you tell I'm the sort of professor who says, "Well, it's about three rows down in the reference room, towards the top, bounnd in blue, ith orange lettering?"

Daphne Kutzer writes: "In fact, there's a brand new book out from Indiana University Press on this subject, although of course I am blanking on the title and author"

The IU Press book is *From Mouse to Mermaid: The Politics of Film, Gender, and Culture*, edited by Elizabeth Bell, Lynda Hass, and Laura Sells - published 1995. It has articles on a variety of Disney films, both animated and live-action, including "The Curse of Masculinity: Disney's *Beauty and the Beast*" by Susan Jeffords. I'm sorry I can't tell you much of what she says about B&B because I have only so far gotten the book from the library to my office - actually reading it awaits the mythical arrival of summer and the end of grading. Alas, I see that it also has an article on *Bambi* - too late to discuss in my own article on that film which is due out this summer.

Wendy mentioned Robin McKinley's Beauty in her message. McKinley is one of my all time favorite authors, _Beauty_ being one of the best. I seriously think that Disney read her novel when drafting their movie. The invisible servants carried through with the serving dishes jockeying around the dinner table to be the first to serve the girl, and certainly Beauty's love of books. Before chastising Disney for making their own version of the tale, let's think about some of the other versions. How about Vincent and Catherine from the CBS TV show. Present day New York City is a pretty good stretch from the tale, and yet the great attraction for that show was the idea of being able to love someone despite the outwards appearance. What about _The Phantom of the Opera_? Not just the Broadway version, but the original and every version since then. They are essentially beauty and the beast stories.

As for Pocahontas, yes, it is way off the mark as far as the facts fo. If you listened closely though, what you would find is that Disney was making a staement about racism. right before Smith gets shot, the English and the Native Americans are each calling the other ones "savages" and saying things like, "They're different from us, which means they can't be trusted". Pocahontas tells her father that she loves John Smith, she tells him to look at where the path of hatred has gotten him, and that she chooses a different path. I think that this is a more important message to everyone who watches, than whether or not the facts are one hundred percent straight.

Now, the hunchback of Notre Dame, is another story. I think they might have taken it a bit too far by naming Quasimodo's pal gargoyles Hugo adn Victor.

On May 3, 10:17pm, "Nancy J. Schell" wrote:

"I seriously think that Disney read her novel when drafting their movie. The invisible servants carried through with the serving dishes jockeying around the dinner table to be the first to serve the girl, and certainly Beauty's love of books. Before chastising Disney for making their own"

I had this impression as well, although it's hard now to remember exactly why. According to one of the animators, who discussed this with me on GEnie when the movie first came out, they looked at a lot of sources, including the Trouffat (?) film.

The all-time great 'Beauty and the Beast " film for me is Cocteau's. Last fall Philip Glass, the composer, did a performance with the film at the New Wave Festival here in NYC (a major avant garde event.) He evidently rescored the film and had people singing etc. during a showing of the film in place of the original soundtrack. At first I felt that Glass shouldn't be tampering with Cocteau's vision. However, then I decided to think of Glass's work as something like collage or sampling. I suppose then you can take other people's work and use it in a new way that makes it your vision? It happens with novels to film all the time so I guess it can happen with one film to another as well. Any thoughts on this?

For more Disney criticism I recommend Jack Zipes. A recent book is "Fairy Tale as Myth: Myth as Fairy Tale" which includes an essay on "Breaking the Disney Spell."

Here's an interesting response to my Beauty and the Beast question that got mailed to me personally. The sender asked me to forward it to the list.

Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 3 May 1996 12:57:21 -0700 (PDT)

I did think it was a french story, though I could be wrong. I beleive Disney drew on a wonderful young adult novel called Beauty, which re-writes the story with a pseudo-medieval atmosphere. Here, Beauty is quite a bookworm (should I say bibliophile?), and has a close relationship with her horse. The library plays a strong part here, as in the movie. In the book the cutlery and lamps are more likely to rattle in an effort to please, or light up as she walks by, than burst into song and dance. Check out the book, though I can't remember the author, I'll think on it.

If you know how, could you forward this to the list? I have been a lurker and don't have the address handy.

The tag line "Disney Beauty: An Oxymoron?" is a little snide. Actually I rush to each new Disney film because I love animation, music, comedy, and story. I no more confuse the Disney versions with the original than I confuse Campbell's Cup-a-Soup with a real pot-au-feu served from a hearth in provincial France. Of course, I'm an adult and can make choices about what will serve my appetite most neatly at any given time; kids can't always do that.

Which is why I refer readers interested in the "disneyfication" of traditional tales to an essay called Mahvuhhuhpuh in Sven Birkerts' excellent collection of pieces called THE GUTENBERG ELEGIES: THE FATE OF READING IN AN ELECTRONIC AGE. It touches (only tangentially) on Disney's version of Beauty, but explores the concentrated effect not just of the film version but of the omnipresence of the merchandising aspects, which change the impact of the story in the lives of today's children from that of an ientertainment--however rivetting it is essentially incidental--into something that approaches ritual. (This is beginning to be my spin on it, so I better stop here.)

But--because the late Paul Heins is much on my mind this week, and I've been looking over his essays--I also remember his remark about the movie versions of children's stories--and I quote:

"How many of us are willing to say that the moving-picture versions of MARY POPPINS and DR. DOLITTLE were bad art? Some of us will, because we believe that the picture versions failed to capture the spirit of the book on which it was based. How many of us would go so far as to say these cinematic productions were not only bad art, but--because they were bad art--were corrupt in feeling? I, for one, am willing to say so."

I'm not sure I would have gone as far as Paul Heins in that last remark. We may not share his assumption that picture versions intend to capture the spirit of the books on which they are based. But whether I agree with Paul or not, boy, I already miss his nerve. Dem's fightin' words.

Well, I'm going to try this theory on for size about the film. Actually, two theories, which came out of a discussion of the film in my CL course last summer.

I began by making the fairly outrageous assumption that the film could be seen as a feminist statement. Students challenged this, and I offered as partial proof the fact that at the end of the film, it is the *household objects*--knives, forks, teapots, dishes, etc., all those objects associated with women--that rise up and defeat Gaston and his ilk. Students countered w. "Yeah, but what about the fact that the maid figure is sexually harassed? People are always doing the equivalent of pinching her behind. And the can can dancers, too!"

To which one of the brighter students I've had over the years answered the following (I'm paraphrasing her):

She suggested that the film is NOT feminist, and that in fact it is a paradigm of sexual and domestic abuse and violence. Belle, after all, is trapped in a house by a "monster"--he tells her he can give her everything, make her happy, but she is forcibly separated from family, friends, etc.-- isolated in the castle, the same way abusive husbands/boyfriends isolate the women the abuse. Further, she said, the film encourages girls to think that if only they learn to behave the "proper" way (according to the monster/husband), they can change the monster into a loving and caring partner. This,of course, is one of the myths that keeps women w. abusive husbands. She (the student) went n to make some associations w. the OJ case --Belle as the equivalent of a white woman, the Beast as the equivalent of a black man, etc.

So what do you all think of this? A persuasive argument or not?

"For more Disney criticism I recommend Jack Zipes. A recent book is "Fairy Tale as Myth: Myth as Fairy Tale" which includes an essay on "Breaking the Disney Spell."

The same essay is reprinted in *From Mouse to Mermaid* edited by Bell, Haas, and Sells (Indiana UP, 1995), previously cited on this thread.

Daphne Kutzer writes:

"To which one of the brighter students I've had over the years answered the following (I'm paraphrasing her): She suggested that the film is NOT feminist, and that in fact it is a paradigm of sexual and domestic abuse and violence. Belle, after all, is trapped in a house by a "monster"--he tells her he can give her everything, make her happy, but she is forcibly separated from family, friends, etc.-- isolated in the castle, the same way abusive husbands/boyfriends isolate the women the abuse. Further, she said, the film encourages girls to think

that if only they learn to behave the "proper" way (according to the monster/husband), they can change the monster into a loving and caring partner. This,of course, is one of the myths that keeps women w. abusive husbands. She (the student) went n to make some associations w. the OJ case --Belle as the equivalent of a white woman, the Beast as the equivalent of a black man, etc. So what do you all think of this? A persuasive argument or not?"

Well, it might be a persuasive argument - but it is hard to see how one would specifically indict *Disney* through this interpretation, since almost everything that she cites in support of the "paradigm of sexual and domestic abuse and violence" can be found in the original fairy tale. There, too, the heroine is forcibly separated from family and friends - as Belle does, she agrees to go to the Beast's castle only to save her father from destruction (as she believes) at the hands of the Beast. Once there, she is isolated from all other people, having only the Beast himself for company. Beauty must learn to relate in a loving manner to the monster in order to transform him back into a human being. All of this is in Beaumont's tale - so what is the specific indictment of Disney? The Disney film shows far more transformation in the character of the Beast than in that of the Beauty.

I have said this in previous threads, and expect to be flamed for saying it again, but sometimes we are so eager to attack Disney that we pick out parts of the stories that were always there for our particular outrage. In some cases, the problem with Disney may be in the type of story the studio chooses to make into a film, rather than the alteration that the film makes. And if the Disney film makes us upset by its ostensible message, perhaps we should revisit the sources to reassess our understanding of those stories.

Wally writes:

"I have said this in previous threads, and expect to be flamed for saying it again, but sometimes we are so eager to attack Disney that we pick out parts of the stories that were always there for our particular outrage. In some cases, the problem with Disney may be in the type of story the studio chooses to make into a film, rather than the alteration that the film makes. And if the Disney film makes us upset by its ostensible message, perhaps we should revisit the sources to reassess our understanding of those stories. "

He was amplifying his point that many of the issues my student, arguing for a sexual abuse context, exist in de Beaumont as well as Disney. True enough , and the student had also read *that* tale, but she thought the "domestic violence" (for lack of a better term) was more explicit in the film. She was particularly disturbed by all that emphasis (in the film) placed upon Belle teaching the Beast how to laugh and play in the snow, appreciate the birds, etc. As best as I can recall her argument, she felt that the film-- partly by what it chose to emphasize from de Beaumont's tale and what it chose to delete, and partly by virtue of film technique--was a more serious problem, for a feminist viewer, than the written tale.

I would respectfully at least half-way disagree with Wally. One of the advantages of written text, it seems to me, is that it allows the reader more opportunity to evaluate and create meaning for him or herself. Film-- any film--tends to beat you over the head with its message, in a fairly insistent kind of way. Where Disney is concerned, I'd point out that I really dislike "The Little Mermaid" for ITSELF, but I also have trouble with the Andersen original, which I think in many ways is more disturbing than Disney's fairly cheerful version.

I didn't mean to start a kind of Disney-bashing thread here. The student impressed me because she was capable of looking at Disney films with a critical eye (this is an undergrad student). In my experience in both CL classrooms and other classrooms, students are enormously resistant to any kind of analytical look at Disney at all: all Disney films are sacred cows to undergrads, so much a part of their childhood that they can't see the films with any sort of analytical eye.

Yes, Disney's film (and the current musical based on it) seems to have certain similarities to Robin McKinley's _Beauty_, and I seem to recall seeing/hearing that the movie was based on it. Personally, I reviewed McKinley's novel for one of my children's literature evaluations this term, and really enjoyed it (I had read it before Disney's film came out). It seems to me a superb retelling of this story, which is one of my favorite fairy tales.

To throw some more gasoline on the Disney flame , maybe I'm overreacting, but what disturbs me about that version is the semi-elitist element that I do not see present in _Beauty_ or in the Beaumont (or other) variations. It seems that Belle has an "attitude" about her reading habits -- as if she feels earning a living country-style is somehow beneath an educated girl like herself. Yes, it's a "poor provincial town," but somehow I think she seems too critical. . . . Also, while I cannot recall if these lines are only in the stage musical or also in the film, there are the lines about "So I should accept I'm simply not like them?/They are the common herd -- and you can take my word: You are unique! Creme de la creme -- " While I strongly believe that children should be encouraged to accept/acknowledge uniqueness, particularly those few who *are* voracious readers (I was one of these "odd" children myself!), this seems to border on snobbery.

The film has its cute points, but all the same I prefer McKinley's version. I won't go on with my critique of Disney's moralization of the tale (the Beast's state as a punishment for selfishness, etc), for I'm sure you all see my picture. . . .

Any thoughts?

In a message dated 96-05-03 17:31:49 EDT, you write:

"At the moment, Disney seems to be on the hot seat about the tales that have been altered and placed on film for all to see and hear. As a child and then a parent, I use to count on the Disney films to be good, clean fun films to watch or take my children to see. In the 70's and 80's, there were a number of films I wouldn't go to see myself much less take my children to see. In reality, I never counted on Disney films to tell the true story about anything. I watch them just for the fun of it. With that in mind, I have enjoyed most of the animation, the characters and the music in these tales.

> Disney is not concerned with scholarship, they make money, and occasionally movies. Before you pooh-ppoh them too much, check out what other companies do to classic fairy tales. "

While Jackie is right about the other classic fairy tales, would anyone care to take a look at what some film makers have done to literature/books both past and present? A couple that come directly to mind are Jumanji, James and the Gaint Peach and Witches.

I have loved McKinley's _Beauty_ for years, but she didn't invent the reading heroine; she only expanded on a theme already there.

Every version of the tale I remember (all based on the French one by the lady with the long name) has Beauty's room contain a wall of books; that's one of the major luxuries of the place. 5 May 1996
Celia Freese

As an undergraduate in the early 50s, I was in a kindergarten lab school setting. The teacher was when I read was about to read Little Red Riding Hood to a student. The student talked of that story the previous day. We talked about the various possible endings. I had brought a version.

I have always been alert with my own children as to what they read, watched on television, video or films. It is the conversa- tion we've had about them that builds a foundation of learning... I would rather my kids know the various versions than to display ignorance as to why so many versions do exist.

Disney is about color picture animation. It's an industry of entertainment. As I prefer the Good Time Videos version of Pocahontas, I talk about that to the kids. Growing in knowledge our perceptions DO change.

Whether it be Beauty and the Beast or Little Red Riding Hood, there are reasons why a story is modified which are beyond our own opinions.

Two thoughts that don't seem to have come up yet in this discussion: First, Daphne, what (if anything) does your student make of the fact that it was a female (fairy) who put the beast in the situation in the first place?

Second, one of the most interesting things about the Disney film, to me, was the number of allusions to other FILMS--Frankenstein, Sound of Music, and as someone has pointed out, the earlier Cocteau film of B&B, which is now available on video. MANY of the visual images of the Disney film seem derived from Cocteau, especially the stature and dress of the beast himself, and details like the arms with chandeliers coming out of the walls, etc. The Cocteau film also attends to one of my daughter's (then about 11 years old) comments on leaving the Disney film, which was "I liked him better as a beast." (My son also liked the little boy better as a teacup!) In the Cocteau film, as Beauty is looking rather stunned at the transformed Beast, he says something like,
"Don't you like me this way?" and her comment is, "I guess I'll get used to it." As I recall, E. L. Konigsburg made similar remarks in an address to the ChLA a few years back. Do we resist the extraordinary being made ordinary, even for the sake of "beauty" (or handsomeness, in this case)? Is the Beast somehow less "special" when he becomes the standard Prince Charming? (Actually , in Cocteau, he becomes, physically, the man from the village who has long been in love with Beauty--a good guy, not a Gaston type--and has died trying to rescue her from the castle--it's a great, intriguing, provocative film.)

Is it possible to see Beauty as ironically portrayed here--that is, she needs to be "taken down a notch" because she does not value her provincial surroundings. Learning to love the Beast, despite his appearance, is one way Beauty matures, both in the original tale, in the Cocteau film, and in the Disney film. I don't see many people discussing the way the story (in any of its forms) is a coming-of-age tale, but I believe it certainly is. Belle/Beauty must transfer her loyalty from her father to her husband-to-be, and the story operates strongly at the symbolic level to underscore the degree to which a young woman must adapt herself to sexual awakening, and to be selective in who she will accept as a partner. The Cocteau film is particularly superb in its symbolism, with the jealous boyfried from the village attacking Diana's temple. Diana, as you will recall, is the goddess of chastity.

As for the bookishness, the craving to be away from a provicial town, this is almost a commonplace of 18th and 19th century heroines. Emma Bovary is probably the best example from French literature, of female protagonist who constantly compares the humdrum reality of ordinary life to the imagined life she has found in books.

And Beauty's taming the beast into civilized behavior? That idea, of woman as civilizing and taming influence goes way back, at least as far as the Romance of the Rose and other works from the Middle Ages.

Disney's film is amazingly rich is evoking these many traditions, and in adding to it a layer of 1990's concerns--which is that the boyfriend Gaston is abusive, hence to be abhorred, and that the father is the object of ridicule because he is an inventor. Does anyone want to talk about what Disney's film is saying about modern technology by changing the father's profession from merchant to engineer/inventor who is ridiculed by the village oafs?

Re: the elitism in the character of Beauty, Jack Zipes has an interesting essay as the introduction of his French fairy tale collection for Pantheon, in which he describes the salons hosted by elite women at the time of Louis XIV, women who were permitted no outlet for their intellects other than to come together an tell highly embellished folk and fairy tales, the most clever of which were intended to be veiled commentaries on the society they lived in, and their attitudes toward their role in it.

To a group of second and third graders with whom I shared Marianna Meyers' version of this story, one of the most perplexing issues was what to do about behavios and rewards. When asked "What did Beauty really want?" and "What did beauty finally get?" they were at first challenged and then intrigued by the paradox that by not striving for a good marriage and material success Beauty was the one woman in her family who go those things. One boy said, "If you asked her if she wanted a castlke and a prince, she'd probably say, 'Oh, no! no! no!'--but then she'd probably take it." The story reminded one of my students of the paradox of the Sermon on the Mount--in which Jesus seems to say that if you don't strive for rewards, you'll get them.

Another question that intrigued them was, "Suppose Beauty had been a man and the Beast had been a woman?" (They didn't know the story of the Loathly Lady). A second grader said a boy wouldn't have been so thoughtful--would have approached the situatioon with violent force, and probably have gotten killed. Their other comments made it clear that they understood the kind of ethic of care/ ethic of competion dichotomy that Carol Gilligan wrote about in IN A DIFFERENT VOICE.

Daphne notes that her student was particularly concerned, in the context of domestic violence, with the scenes of Belle teaching the Beast how to play in the snow, etc. I'm sorry, but I don't quite make the leap from her "gentling" him to an endorsement of domestic violence. There are serious cultural problems with the image of the female as a civilizing influence on the male, and the Disney version certainly presents *this* image - but civilizing the male Beast is not the same as exhibiting domestic violence, not by a long shot. The character of Gaston, who would make Belle do what he wishes in disregard of her own desires, might be a more likely candidate for domestic violence - but his moral position is most emphatically undercut by the film's narrative. The Beast, although he exhibits temper, is true to his fairy-tale roots in declining to force himself upon Belle. The only actual violence he exhibits is in her defense - against wolves and later against Gaston.

However, I do agree that it is refreshing to see an undergrad engage with the Disney films at a critical level, although it is not all that rare in my experience. Most of my students who are capable of engaging any film or text at a critical level, and such are rare, show similar critical capacities when it comes to pop culture generally and Disney specifically.

My favorite commentary on Disney's BEAUTY AND THE BEAST came out of the mouth of a four-year-old who after months of pleading was finally given Beauty and Beast dolls that were then being promoted as merchandising tie-ins for the film. (Previously her parents had resisted purchasing a Barbie, so they were loath to give into this similar model of female perfection). Anyway, as the adults chatted, she sat on the floor blissfully playing with her two new dolls and creating a dialogue between them. A rough paraphrase follows:

Beast: Come on Beauty, you have to come live in my castle.

Beauty: No, I don't want to.

Beast: You have to. I say so.

Beauty: No I don't. You're not my boss. I'm going to put you in the zoo.

And what more apt place for any one with Beast-like behavior could there be!

Wally's experience matches my own in at least one respect:

"When reading their justifications for rating the works as they did, I observed that most of the students' judgments were informed by utilitarian or moralistic reasoning - either "this work would be useful in working with X group of students" or "this work promotes good values" for positive responses, and the corresponding negatives for works the students disliked."

I find that sort of utilitarianist/moralist nexus, too, and have a great deal of difficulty persuading people that (for instance) nonsense is worth bothering with. Unless they can read a moral into it they don't want anything to do with it. This makes _Alice_ and _Pooh_ sound pretty authoritarian, not to mention things like _The Thirteen Clocks_. Edward Lear it leaves right out: there's nothing redeeming to be said about him at _all_. Thank God.

I haven't run across the "enormous popularity" of _Beauty and the Beast_, yet, because it's been a few years since I taught the children's literature course. I'm on again this fall, and I fully expect to find the same thing. I'm certain it's related to its pervasiveness in pop culture, primarily the Disneyfication. So McKinley's a spinoff benefit, I suspect.

"close behind came Scieszka's *The Stinky Cheese Man and Other Fairly Stupid Tales* (12 negatives, but four positives). (Some of the negative voters said they liked the book, but rated it low for utilitarian reasons; on the other hand, many were adamant that they would not read this to children or use it in their [future] classrooms because it was "stupid.")"

My wife, who's taught the course in recent years, introduced the idea of an assignment whereby students found a kid to read to consistently through the term. It's the only way to approach this sort of thing: a little dose of reality works wonders with the demand that kid's books teach a lesson. I thought _SCM_ was a little stupid, too, but my granddaughter loved it, and not for stupid reasons.

It is interesting to read of Wally's students' narrow view of fairy tales as primarily worthwhile if they provide clear moral lessons. Yesterday I presented at a conference attended by alumni of a series of NEH Folklore Institutes. One participant spoke intensively of her work with the Grimm fairy tales and the Nazis. She evidently did a unit with young kids (I think primary age) on the Holocaust and focused the kids on how the "Nazis" reworked the Grimm tales for their own purposes. I found her intensity very troubling. She was so intense about what the Nazis had done to these tales: that they had changed them, eliminated some, etc. that I couldn't even speak up to the fact that the tales are always changing, that the Grimms changed them when they first published and then republished them. Certainly, the Nazis used the tales for their own means, but there was something very disturbing by the humorless and didactic way she was presenting this material to her students. She talked about teaching propaganda, but she was almost as indoctrinarian as the National Socialists. It really bothered me because she was providing all this intense stuff that she was very emotional about with no opportunity, it seemed, for the kids to wonder about it. What would happened, I thought, if a kid challenged her? I hate to think - he/she would have been branded as a Neo-Nazi immediately.

I'm coming fairly late in this topic thread.

After reading all the previous posts, I notice that very few people have discussed one foundemental difference between the Beaumont version and the Disney version of the story. In the Beaumont version, a "wicked" fairy had cast the spell unto a tender, loving prince to turn him into the Beast. This is the story about how Beauty learns to see through the ugliness and the "lack of wit" of the Beast and to love this creature for its/his true virtue. The Disney version, for the sake of drama, has made the prince a wicked young man. Here the story becomes about how Belle/Beauty, with HER own virtues and patience, transforms Beast from a bad-tempered, mean-spirited creature into a GOOD person.

Is it possible for Disney production to keep the original theme and still make a popular film? If so, why did they feel compelled to change it? If not, what does it say about our culture? Did the Disney production crew feel that a twist on the theme playing up the "feminist" flavor (thus, more PC) will ensure better box-office record? (Contrary to the grad. student's opinion, I believe Disney production tried very hard to make Belle a very strong woman.) The addition of Gaston is, again, for dramatic purposes. But, why did Disney dismiss the jealous sisters who can be as nasty and abusive as Gaston -- except that they do not have a sexual interest in Beauty? (Of course, Disney would not want to repeat themselves by offering two sisters just like those in Cinderella!) The Beaumont version had little sex overtone while the Disney version plays so much on the sexual appeals -- of Gaston's lust and of the pouty blondes' lust after Gaston.

Is that the only way Disney production knows how to tell stories or is it how the audience know how to appreciate stories?

For that matter, who IS the audience?

On Mon, 13 May 1996, fairrosa wrote:

"In the Beaumont version, a "wicked" fairy had cast the spell unto a tender, loving prince to turn him into the Beast. This is the story about how Beauty learns to see through the ugliness and the "lack of wit" of the Beast and to love this creature for its/his true virtue. "

Thank you, Fairrosa, for pointing out how Disney changed the Beaumont version on this point. That was the one aspect of the Disney version that disturbed me the most: Disney has Belle reforming the Beast rather than discovering the gentle soul that had continued to exist beneath the loathsome appearance. It reinforces the stereotype of woman as domesticator, which seems to be favorite of Disney. In Snow White, in the Grimm/Jarrell version, the dwarves' house is described as "small, but cleaner and neater than words will say." But Disney has to make the bachelor house a pigsty, and little Snow White becomes the little mother and housekeeper to these incapable men. In Grimm, she does promise to keep house for them, but not because they can't do it themselves, but to repay them for her keep.

I too noted the way Disney's Belle reforms the Beast. Indeed, the recent Disney heroines, touted as stronger females, continue to reinforce stereotypes albite more subversively. Because Belle is a reader rather than a domestic a la Disney's Cinderella, she is a modern female - more suitable as a model for young girls today. (Where is the Disney hero reading through the "provincial town" as does Belle?) Yet she is the dutiful daughter, the nurturing female all the way through. Pocohantas especially bothered me because she was suppose to be even more so a "new" type heroine. Yet the story was all about her relationship with a man and ultimately her giving him up for the sake of her people.

I can't stand the hypocritical attitude of Disney and reviewers who see these females as anything notably different. Okay, they aren't sweeping and dusting anymore - but they are still sweet, polite to their fathers (again only fathers, never any mothers around, even today) and taking care of their lovers at their own expense. Drives me nuts to see all that promoted as a "feminist" perspective.

On Tue, 14 May 1996, Monica R. Edinger wrote: "I can't stand the hypocritical attitude of Disney and reviewers who see these females as anything notably different. Okay, they aren't sweeping and dusting anymore - but they are still sweet, polite to their fathers (again only fathers, never any mothers around, even today)..."

Perhaps I dreamed this (as no one seems to know it except me), but I thought I heard that Disney was planning on making an animated Bluebeard. (Frankly, I don't see how, so I probably did dream it). Anyway, I had high hopes that the plot would follow, roughly, Angela Carter's _The Bloody Chamber_, where the heroine is rescued by her mother.

Since I'm about to get off this list for the summer and won't have to read the flames, I'm going to defend Disney! Although all of the comments made throughout this thread have value and are certainly valid criticisms of the Disney ideal of women(as well as other issues), the Disney movies do one thing that should not be under-rated: they get many children interested in stories, old and new, and that can't be all bad. I loved (and, in fact, still do!) the Disney _Bambi_, and when I was able to, I read Felix Salten's novel and _Bambi's Children_ as well. I even watched _Snow White_, but have still always hated housekeeping and have _never_ assumed that it was "my job" just because I'm female! The fact that these movies are loved and remembered from childhood doesn't mean that people, old or young, are stuck with their interpretations forever. We are capable of growing, maturing, re-evaluating, and re-interpreting. I find too much value in the "simple" experiencing of a story to disregard Disney entirely.(hope all the flaming is over by fall!!) --Kathy Koenig

Hi.

I just wanted to tell you that I agree with what you have said, and to offer my theory about one of your questions.

"again, for dramatic purposes. But, why did Disney dismiss the jealous sisters who can be as nasty and abusive as Gaston -- except that they do not have a sexual interest in Beauty? (Of course, Disney would not want to repeat themselves by offering two sisters just like those in Cinderella!) The Beaumont version had little sex overtone while the "

I published an article about Disney's adaptation of _Beauty and the Beast_, and I argued that Disney does whatever they can to maximize the romantic elements of fairy tales and to play down any other issues. So in the case of the sisters, Disney did not care about what they offered in the original story. In Beaumont, the sisters were materialistic and stupid, and Beauty learned from them how NOT to be. Because the Disney version is not interested in Belle's development, only the Beast's, Belle does not need lessons like that. Of course, you are also right about Disney not wanting to repeat the format of the Cinderella story. I hadn't thought about that. They only repeat what sells--breasts and kisses.

If you are interested in my article, it is called "Romancing the Plot: The Real Beast of Disney's _Beauty and the Beast_." It's in the Spring 1995 issue of the _Children's Literature Association Quarterly_.