It's widely considered one of the greatest animated pictures of all time, even by Disney standards. This is the movie that, for most people, codified the modern fairy tale romance structure and in 1991, showed the world that Disney had well and truly hit its second animation Renaissance. Millions praise it, men and women alike, to this day.
So why do I also hear so many complaints about it? Specifically, about its protagonist, Belle?
The answer, the film's detractors say, is simple: Belle has Stockholm syndrome.
For those who don't know, Stockholm syndrome, or capture-bonding, is a psychological phenomenon in which a person, taken hostage, will develop feelings for their captor, to the point of defending their abductor's actions despite everything their abductor put them through, in large part thanks to perceiving a lack of abuse during the crisis situation as kindness. Real-world examples include battered-person syndrome, military basic training, and fraternity hazing.
Obviously, as with any Disney movie, there are people who will criticize and deconstruct every flaw; it's the cool thing to do. But this time, I think the joke's run its course.
Yes, Belle is technically a captive who falls in love with her captor. But there is so much more going on in Beauty and the Beast that that gross oversimplification stops just shy of being an outright insult to the intent of the film.
(Note that I'm going by the original film only for this argument. Because the midquels contradict just about everything in the original.
To refute this in its entirety, let's look at the four conditions necessary for Stockholm Syndrome to develop, as detailed by a recent FBI study:
1 - A person held in captivity cannot escape, and depends on the captor for life. The captor becomes the person in control of the person's basic needs for survival, and the victim's needs itself.
We can safely throw this one out from the get-go.
When Belle first agrees to take Maurice's place as the Beast's hostage, he's a pretty terrible person. As such, he treats her, predictably, like dirt, refusing to even let her eat unless she eats with him. In short, he tries to invoke this.
The entire point, though, of the "Be Our Guest" scene is that the household staff is defiant of him and wants her, not only to be fed, but treated as an honored guest. They feed her, not the Beast, and so she develops an affection for them. They aren't the ones holding her against her will, after all.
And Belle can escape. Easily, in fact. She ran right out of the castle the moment Beast crossed the line from 'jerk' into 'monster'. The only reason she didn't was because of that unfortunate encounter with the wolves, and after saving her from them, Beast was in no condition to prevent her escape. She could have made off right then and there and never looked back.
But because she's a good person, she stayed and helped nurse him back to health. And she still didn't like him all that much.
Observe the dialogue from one of my favorite scenes, where she cleans his wound:
(Video not uploaded by me)
That is not a woman falling in love with her captor. That's a woman sticking up for herself while still expressing gratitude for an actual (not perceived) kindness.
And of course when she needs to leave to save her father, it takes the (new, reformed) Beast all of two seconds to decide to free her, thus possibly damning himself to an eternity of monstrosity.
So, that's one prerequisite down. What are the others?
2 - The hostage endures isolation from other people and has only the captor's perspective available. Perpetrators routinely keep information about the outside world's response to their activities from captives to keep them totally dependent.
Well, first off, the outside world doesn't really know about the Beast at all until after Belle is freed. When that happens, she's exposed to their response to him fairly first hand.
Secondly, she's not isolated or alone with him at all; he's got a whole household staff and servants, an entire community she interacts with on a daily basis. Granted, they have an investment in seeing her fall in love with him, but that doesn't change the fact that they hold very strong opinions about how he treats her, and indeed coach him on how to be a better person for her.
Secondly, look at the scene with the mirror.
See a fandub here. (Again, not mine)
After her escape from the castle and return of her own free will, Belle is mostly shown as being happy. The minute she shows herself to be otherwise, Beast whips out the mirror and lets her use it to check up on her father. And, oh yeah, lets her go when she realizes Maurice needs her.
So, nope. The outside world is very much within Belle's reach, and she is never isolated with the Beast; in fact, they're hardly ever even alone together throughout the movie.
3 - The hostage taker threatens to kill the victim and gives the perception as having the capability to do so. The captive judges it safer to align with the perpetrator, endure the hardship of captivity, and comply with the captor rather than resist and face murder.
Simply put, nope.
Never happens. Not once.
Beast is physically capable of killing Belle...he's a super-strong lion-wolf-buffalo-bear guy. Duh.
But he never once intimates the intent to do so, even at his worst. Indeed, any attempt on her life, real or implied, would be completely counterproductive to his whole goal, which is for her to fall in love with him, and vice versa.
Remember, she can leave any time she wants. The only threat to her escape was the wolves, and the Beast took care of those. Belle made it perfectly clear that she will leave if Beast treats her in any way that she doesn't like.
And Beast takes this to heart. After the scene with the wolves, Belle's captivity isn't really a hardship to endure. Not only is she in the lap of luxury, with servants catering to her and her horse's every whim, but Beast himself makes every effort to be nice to her, to be courteous and a gentleman. Even if he's not very good at it at first, the effort is there, and it's sincere.
So the very premise of Belle's captivity pretty much negates this aspect of Stockholm syndrome.
And finally:
4 - The captive sees the perpetrator as showing some degree of kindness. Kindness serves as the cornerstone of Stockholm syndrome; the condition will not develop unless the captor exhibits it in some form toward the hostage. However, captives often misinterpret a lack of abuse as kindness, and may develop feelings of appreciation for this perceived benevolence. If the captor is purely evil and abusive, the hostage will respond with hatred. But, if perpetrators show some kindness, victims will submerge the anger they feel in response to the terror and concentrate on the captor's "good side" to protect themselves.
This one is the one most people latch onto when they think of Belle as having Stockholm syndrome.
Their favorite piece of evidence to throw out here is, ironically, tied with the dance and the final transformation as my favorite scene in the entire movie:
Yup, it's another fandub. Nope, I don't own it either.
Here's why this doesn't work:
a) The library scene is Beast's repayment to Belle for saving his life after he was injured fighting off the wolves.
b) It's a genuinely kind gesture. This goes beyond 'he stops being a dick to her' and into doing truly nice things for her. It's a character moment for Beast, breaking away from a lifetime of selfishness to do something good for someone else.
c) Belle's not afraid of him, or angry at him anymore, by this point. Remember, by now she's proven she can leave any time she wants. She stays now because she wants to, because she likes the household staff and is starting to like the Beast. There's nothing to submerge, so her feelings of gratitude are genuine.
So to close out, no, Belle does not and never did have Stockholm syndrome. She interacts with Beast as an equal, not a prisoner, and they fall in love as such. He changes on a fundamental level to win her over, becoming a better person, worthy of that love. That was the entire point of the movie, after all...that love has the power to redeem someone, but it has to be earned, to grow on its own, and not be forced.
I'd say, Beast earned it.
If you made it this far, thanks for reading! I welcome discussion in the comments.
No comments:
Post a Comment