Oh, hey, good, looks like everyone's talking about Beauty and the Beast again which, I guess, means this hottest of takes is back…
(MUSIC: “Ironside” by Quincy Jones)
Wow, and you’re, like, 'bout the 26th
…Millionth person to make this hot take (chuckles). Yeah, I read that CRACKED article from five years ago too
- Okay, disclosure of bias, if you will, if you put me into a room
with a gun to my head, I would say that, yes…
this movie is probably in my
Top 2 ½ Favorite Disney movies.
It's the only animated film ever nominated for an Academy Award for Best Picture
And this is back when they had only 5 nominees!
It contains some of the most incredible and nuanced animation in any movie ever!
And all made under a super-tight deadline, in about half the time it normally takes to make an animated movie,
and with very little faith from the higher-ups.
The original "Beauty the Beast’s" reputation has taken a slight turn in recent years as
The target for lazy internet jokes. And as someone who makes their living
making lazy internet jokes, even I'm kind of tired of this whole, like, “Hey, look I'm smarter than a '90s Disney movie,” trend.
Like, wow, she falls in love with him despite him being a jerk to her, and imprisoning her…
…Like, yeah. I mean, that's kind of the point.
See, it's like— it’s like one of those, uh, stories about forgiveness.
See, I understand that sometimes a Disney movie can, can be little too subtle for y’all…
(BELLE: “He’s no monster, Gaston! You are!")
Now, that said, that does not mean that it is not worth it to… explore the possible…
…*merit* of these… lazy internet jokes.
And maybe one day, I'll get into the crap they added into the new movie to "fix"
…some of the criticisms that have come down the pike over the last 20 years.
Uh, no. But in the meantime, we're here to ask the question…
Does Belle have Stockholm syndrome?
No.
Thank you for watching! Like, share, and subscribe to my channel. Thank you, of course, to all my lovely patrons. I couldn't do this without you
Oh. You want me to, like, actually talk about the thing...
Okay. Well, you know what? First, let’s— let's figure out what Stockholm syndrome even is!
Stockholm syndrome describes the psychological phenomenon where hostages, kidnapping victims, and victims of abuse develop intense emotional ties to their captors/abusers as a survival strategy.
The name refers to an incident in Stockholm, Sweden in 1973
when four hostages, who had been taken captive by bank robbers, eventually refused to testify against their captors
Here are the key components to the development of Stockholm syndrome :
(1) That the hostage develops positive feelings towards their captor.
(2) There is no previous hostage-captor relationship.
(3) That the hostage has an increasing belief in the humanity of their captor.
(4) That the hostage learns to excuse abusive behaviors of their captor. And, of course,
(5) A refusal by the hostage to accept the support of the authorities.
Hmm…
(MAURICE: “That horrible beast?!")
(BELLE: "But, he’s different now, papa.")
(BELLE: “He’s… changed, somehow.")
Okay, but here's the thing…
The aforementioned are just requirements for the *development* of what could be *considered* Stockholm syndrome. They're not symptoms…
“Symptoms."
*Here* are the “symptoms” :
#1
(BEAST: “The castle is your home now, so you can go anywhere you like… except the West Wing.")
(BELLE: “What’s in the West– ")
(BEAST: “IT’S FORBIDDEN!")
(BEAST: "You will join me for dinner! That's not a request!” (slams door))
(BELLE gasps)
…Let's put a pin in that one. (chuckles)
We'll come back to that.
#2
(BELLE: "You have my word.”)
(BEAST: “DONE!")
Okay, well, I guess we got that one— Oh, mm-mm, wait a minute. Whose idea was it for Belle to stay at the castle anyway?
(BELLE: "Take me instead.")
(BEAST: "You?!”)
… Yeah, I mean, she is being held against her will in the same way you’re being held against your will if…
…you’re in 9th grade trig and you're dying to go home.
But, there is a key difference here. This is not a kidnapper-kidnappee relationship
She stays in the castle because they make an agreement
(BELLE: "You have my word.”)
(BEAST: “DONE!")
And Point #2 here, is where the whole argument falls apart– the captive is held because she made an agreement
And this isn’t even like, in the fairy tale, where
she exchanges herself for her dad who was being held under a very clear threat of death
Heh, the Beast just kinda sounds like he's making it up like he goes along; like, he's just a kid who has no idea what he’s doing.
(BELLE: “Would you let him go?")
(BEAST: “Yes.”)
(BEAST: “But…”)
(ticking sounds)
(BEAST: “You must promise to stay here forever.")
(ding)
(imitating Beast): “Uhm… ff--forever!
There is one point in the movie where the threat of violence *does* pop up and it's right here…
(BELLE: “Stop!”)
(BEAST: “GET OUT!!")
(Crashing)
(BEAST: “GEEEEEEEEEEETTTT OOOOOOOOOUUUUUTTTTT!!!!!!!!!!")
Which brings us to Stockholm Point #3…
So, here's what follows immediately after Beast’s little outburst…
(LUMIERE: "W--Where are you going?!")
BELLE: (“Promise or no promise, I can't stay here another minute!”)
Yeah, she'd been in the castle for… *maybe* five hours.
So, once the Beast starts throwing tables around, Belle runs away
even, as she leaves, mentioning the little verbal contract that had been keeping her there, and then dismissing it.
And this brings us back to Point #1: The Beast defines rules…
(BEAST: “The castle is your home now, so you can go anywhere you like… except the West Wing.")
(BELLE: “What’s in the West– ")
(BEAST: “IT’S FORBIDDEN!")
And then Belle is immediately like, “Tra-la-la-la-la-la… No." (chuckles)
If Stockholm syndrome is a condition displayed by the victim, then
Belle does not apply, because she does not respect the rules set up for her from, basically, the word go
(BELLE: “Ah, so *that’s* the West Wing…")
Point #4. And then, after “x" amount of violence, the smallest act of kindness on the part of the captor (or even, the absence of violence) elicits sympathetic feelings from the captive.
This one, I think, is the, uh, “symptom," that people are most familiar with, and therefore, the one that tends to trip people up
It really bugs me when people file this movie into the, “I Can Fix Him,” category…
(ANASTASIA STEELE: "No rules, no punishments and… no more secrets.”)
(CHRISTIAN GREY: "I can do that.")
… because Belle never sets out to fix the Beast. *Ever.*
I mean, yeah, she's way more reasonable than anyone in that situation might be expected to be, but she, basically, responds to his absence of dick-ery.
Now, this is not the case in the ‘Beauty and the Beast" direct-to-video sequels
(BELLE (in the sequel): “Come on!”)
Ho-oh, boy…
(BEAST (in the sequel): "You said you’d never leave.")
(BELLE (in the sequel): “I just wanted to make you happy.")
*BOOM*
But, in the original movie– i.e., the thing that matters– her goal is never at any point, either stated or unstated, to make the Beast into another person.
If he's a jerk, she responds in kind.
(BEAST: “Will you come down to dinner?")
(BELLE: “No!")
(BEAST: “Hmm?!”)
If he's nice, she responds in kind.
She treats him fairly.
And he decides to improve himself of his own volition, out of respect and fondness for her.
And, eventually, she responds by being like, “Eh… I guess I wouldn't kick him out of bed."
The Archetypal, uh, Stockholm syndrome setting is more like, you know, your captor… throws a scrap of bread at you after having starved you for weeks on end
You know, not, necessarily, saves you from a pack of ravenous wolves.
That said, I'm not convinced that the Beast didn’t, like…
… slip those wolves a twenty under the table…
Anyway!
So, after the Beast gets in a fight with some wolves & falls down
Belle recognizes that he put himself in harm's way to save her, and, for whatever reason that is implied by this expression, here…
(It’s up to you, the viewer)
… she decides to keep her end of the bargain, and stay with him. Which leads us to
this scene and Point #5…
The victim learns to avoid triggers that will set off the captor
Belle *never* does this, even from the very beginning
(BEAST:"That hurts!!”)
(BELLE: “If you'd hold still, it wouldn't hurt as much!")
(BEAST: "Well, if you hadn't have run away, this wouldn't have happened”)
(BELLE: “If you hadn't frightened me, I wouldn't have run away!")
And that's part of what makes this scene, so great–
She doesn't put up with his shit.
But, she does give credit where credit is due, and that leaves the door open for him to stop being such a dickhead
(BELLE: "By the way, thank you…
… for saving my life.”)
(Beast stops growling)
Point #6
(BELLE: "If only I could see my father again"
(BELLE: “Just for a moment, I miss him so much.")
Nope!
(BELLE: “Papa! Oh no… )
(BELLE: … He's sick! He may be dying and he's all alone!)
At this point in the film, the Beast is caught between
keeping Belle here, and possibly saving his own humanity; or letting her go and putting her needs before his.
And the second he says she could peace out to go help her dad, she's like, “Okay, bye!"
(BELLE: “Thank you for understanding how much he needs me.")
That feeling where you think you got this chick to like you, but then it turns out you’re a literal f**king monster holding her as a hostage
and if it weren't for the mob of angry villagers,
we don't have any indications to whether or not Belle would have ever come back
I mean, she might have, you know, to return this dish she's stole, but, you know
But the most important facet that people miss about Stockholm syndrome
is that it is *not* a diagnosable mental disorder.
It is *not* on the DSM.
Stockholm syndrome *is* considered a “contested illness," as a large portion of the psychiatric and law enforcement community do not think it is a thing.
So, honestly, this entire conversation is almost rendered moot, because
Stockholm syndrome kind of belongs more in the category of "debunked pseudoscience," than actual, study-able, psychological conditions
or at the very least, it's in the category of, “more research needed."
Making “Beauty and the Beast," about Stockholm syndrome is kind of missing the forest for the trees
You know, if you basically only had a passing pop-cultural knowledge of either forests or trees.
"Beauty and the Beast" is a story about, you know, friendship and forgiveness. That sort of thing.
And the romantic aspect is played down to near non-existence
I'm on the fence as to how romantic it even is. Just look at the look on her face when he turned back into a man
Even for a Disney movie this is a pretty sexless relationship, at least from Belle's side of things.
(BELLE: “He’s my friend.")
(Slower: He’s… my… Friend.)
I mean, I do enjoy Beast’s, “Hey look! A Girl! I did it!" face
Aww…
So, even ignoring the fact that most law enforcement & mental health professionals do not think that Stockholm syndrome is actually even a thing
this movie is not a good example of…
… the thing.
Does not mean that this term does not necessarily apply
it just means that this term
is not a good one. Stop using it.
But while we're here…
"Beauty and the Beast" is the story of a young girl who wants…
(BELLE: “♪ Adventure in the great, wide somewhere ♪")
But then learns that getting married to a rich guy who held you prisoner for a while is pretty good…
Hmm, actually, no. Like yeah uh. Let's re-frame that.
“Beauty and the Beast" is the story of two men who view the same woman as a shiny object to be controlled
And where one of them learns to see her humanity, the other one falls to his death
Well, that's a more— well, I guess let’s say it’s a more optimistic way of framing it
because the story, regardless of how it's set up…
It's not really Belle's story.
It's the Beast’s.
He's the one who learns, he's the one who changes,
He's the one with a character arc, and it's much stronger if you look at it that way, because Belle's arc is…
…Well, I guess she does learn to wear other dresses.
Compare the Disney movie to the original fairy tale, where the arc is all Beauty’s.
The Beast, we are told, already has a heart of gold, if we're gonna ignore the whole “dad/rose" thing
Beauty just needs to see that he has a good heart
so, the arc is hers all along, in learning to see beauty in something that is superficially ugly.
In the original fairy tale, the arc is Beauty’s, where in the Disney movie, it all belongs to the Beast
This is a trend we see in a lot of Renaissance Disney; the heroine states a want; be it, y'know, legs
Or "adventure in the great, wide somewhere," or a love-marriage, or not to be in the service of Satan anymore…
But the solution, at the end, always kind of winds up being…
…guys.
In screenwriting terms, the question is whose story is it? And in a character-driven film
like most Disney movies, for example
the story is built around the character arc, or the “Want vs. Need.” And for more about “Want vs. Need," check out the “Hercules" video
It’s pretty good.
In all of the Renaissance Disney movies, what the protagonist wanted was, y’know, their teenage, “whatever" dreams
(BELLE: “♪ I want so much more than they've got planned ♪")
(ALADDIN: “Sometimes you feel so…)
(JASMINE: You’re just…)
(BOTH: “… Trapped.")
(ARIEL: “ ♪ Love to explore that shore up above… ♪")
What they needed was… to find love and get married.
As long as it's not an arranged marriage
and when you look at "Beauty and the Beast"
The Beast’s arc is a far more central theme to the story–
What he *wants* is not to be a beast anymore; what he *needs* is to love someone so much that he puts her needs before
Not only his, but his entire castle.
(BEAST: “Because… I love her.")
Belle’s character is self-actualized at the beginning. She knows who she is & what she likes. She doesn't need to change
She just needs… a guy who appreciates her, which the Beast does, I guess, ‘cuz he gives her some books
And, personally, I find that little trend of women's self-actualization being defined by what guy she ends up with…
… way more insidious than whether or not this movie is about Stockholm syndrome.
Really, it brings up less questions of a psychological disorder, and more questions of agency as it pertains to narrative
Particularly for women, whose narratives usually have them being less active agents, so much as… being thrown into circumstances which they must then survive.
So, if we're worried about trying to stop reinforcing this idea that women should, or inevitably will, end up loving their kidnapper/captor/rapist/whatever
… that thought kind of undermines the point of *this* narrative.
Disney's "Beauty and the Beast" is a story about basic human decency
And how society, at large, neither rewards it; or even, necessarily, sees it. And that's a pretty strong narrative.
But, since it's such a short and simple film
all of this is at the expense of the heroine being allowed a character arc, other than learning to like this guy.
See there are layers to this discussion
Complexities, even.
It can be a story about denying a woman her own self-actualization
while, at the same time, being a touching tale about empathy and forgiveness
It can be both.
Internet.
People who deride this movie by saying it's about Stockholm syndrome are ignoring that it's actually about the various ways that decent people get "othered" by society.
Maurice, presumably the town's only innovator, is considered a weird kook
Gaston demonstrates that bullies are rewarded and beloved by society, so long as they possess a certain set of characteristics
The townsfolk worship Gaston, and think Belle is a weirdo for not conforming to the expectations voiced upon her by her gender.
(BABETTE 1: "What’s wrong with her?")
(BABETTE 2: “She’s crazy!")
(BABETTE 3: “He’s gorgeous!")
And they wanna kill the Beast because he looks scary, despite Belle’s protests
…Buuuuuuuut, Stockholm syndrome, I guess.
Hell, let's armchair diagnose everyone. Everyone has Stockholm syndrome!
The Genie has Stockholm syndrome
‘cuz he’s just so loyal to his kind master! After all, Aladdin is not like Jafar
He is one of the nice ones.
Y’know, he’ll unslave you after you do him a few favors.
And do all the toys in Toy Story exhibit Stockholm syndrome for Andy? Sure, why not?
Hacky, uninformed insights like this belittle the themes that *are* there–
Seeing the good in people, where they don't see it in themselves
The way society rewards bullies and superficiality
The way it “others" decent people who don't conform to expectations
How kindness begets kindness
Your uninformed observation does not make you smarter than the media you consume, it just means you're not paying attention
And that is why the whole, "Stockholm syndrome" thing is stupid, and needs to go away.
Yes, yes, I do recognize the irony of me getting on other people's grills for being smug.
(outro music)
(Crashing)