The “Beauty and the Beast” – a modern screen adaptation of a cognominal Disney cartoon (1991), released on February 23, 2017.
The plot is well-known: a handsome, but cruel and self-centered prince finds himself in a refuge of an old woman, under cover of who hides a powerful witch and turns him into a horrible beast. Only mutual love can break the spell, which further develops between him and the captured beauty.
In the given article about the new version of “Beauty and the beast” we, firstly, are going to briefly repeat, what the main plotline, which fundamentally stayed the same, teaches. Then we are going to focus on themes/trends, which have not been in the cartoon, and which mostly give the tone in the new movie, and also show us, what to expect from the “Disney” company later.
Harmful love line (-)
So, what is the plot of “Beauty and the beast” in brief? There is a cruel prince, who is unable to love. A witch comes to him with so to say “examination”-checking. The prince shows his cruelty to the witch, and she turns him into a beast, which symbolizes mental fall and degradation of the hero. The beast is being given the condition for turning back to the prince again, i. e. for the personal progress and spiritual rise – to fall in love and get love in turn. The beast captures a beauty, a splendid girl. The beauty and the beast fall in love with each other. A celebration of love and “happy-end” – the beast reaches the mental progress and turns into the prince back. What is wrong with this plot?
The problem is in the second part of the condition of devolution from the beast to the prince – to receive the love back. The improvement of the prince is tied to a compulsory getting love back from the one, who he is in love with. This algorithm does not correspond to the reality in several moments.
First of all, it is impossible to take responsibility for the other person’s feelings to you. By giving the prince the condition not only to finally fall in love with somebody, to change for the better, but also compulsory to get love in return, the witch asks from the hero an impossible responsibility for the love of the other person towards him. In reality one can carry on the responsibility only for one’s own feelings (=a right condition to fall in love), and the other person’s feeling, no matter how strange in would sound, does not depend on us (= a wrong condition to get the love in return).
Secondly, apart from the fact that the second part of the condition is impracticable – it is unnecessary. Correction and atonement is always tied to the essence of the mistake. Since supreme forces punish the prince for his cruelty and inability to love, the progress is in changing exactly these moments. Since the prince has been punished for his hard hearth, the correction of the hero lies in learning how to love, to soften – which would allow him further making correct actions, which he could not do in the beginning towards the fairy. The character of the prince-beast is fully being transformed by the fact that he could fall in love with someone and has shown it with his actions (=the beast releases the beauty to her father because of his love to her). This already lifts the spirit of the hero up, as it is necessary, and atones for his mistake, caused by the inability to love. At the moment, when the hero lets his beloved Belle go, he, by meaning, is already worth turning back into the prince.
– Also getting the love in return as a necessary condition for the reborn from the beast to the prince misinforms the viewer towards the fact, where the real “key” to the transformation of a person is being hidden. A mental transformation of a person – is a result of his personal actions, decisions, thoughts, feelings. An experienced feeling of someone towards a person-“beast” – is not the real power for him on the way of his transformation. Yes, in case someone falls in love with the “beast”, can play a certain role for him on the way of development into the “prince” (=for changing and mental progress), but the feeling of the other is never, as here, a critical condition in a question of a personal transformation. The real key to this – is straight into a person. The power of a person to the transformation of his “beasts” into “princes” (disadvantages into virtues) is always in his hands. And the condition that the love of the beauty to the beast – is a compulsory moment in reborn in the prince, as if wrongly carries over half of the power of the beast to the beauty. 50% of responsibility for his progress (=for turning into the prince) is being carried outwardly, shifted to the beauty. This is a radically false algorithm, which misleads a viewer and engrains the false idea, that someone’s love – is a decisive force and a half of a success in correction of his mistakes.
– Through the behavior of the beauty, who was granted with the false decisive power to changing the beast into the prince, a viewer in positive light is being transmitted a destructive role model of codependency. The codependency – is a jamming of a person (usually a woman), as if in shifting dunes, in an endless striving to “save” her partner from problems, which he makes for himself and which are under control of himself. A “rescuing” behavior of wives of alcoholics, drug-users, never resulting in their recovery – is a bright example of the described phenomenon. The story of “Beauty and the beast” translates a false-positive view of such codependent relationships and represents that love to a “beast” (=a person with personal psychological problems, bringing him to a serious decay) – is supposedly half of a success in terms of his change of heart into the “prince” (=a man of worth). This is the most dangerous appeal for young spectatresses, which prepares for them the “groundwork” to entering further into such codependent relationships with a sincere belief that only their love will supposedly change a “beastly” person.
– If the story of “Beauty and the beast” taught its audience the good, then psychological algorithms in it from the side of the prince-beast (cruel, egoistic person, unable to love, who needs to work on himself) and from the side of the beauty (a girl, looking for a partner) would have been written closer to the real life. The “key” for transformation of the beast then would have been in his individual work on himself – in upbringing in himself the ability to love without a compulsory condition of a response love. And the love from the beauty to him (the response love, for which the beast can’t be anyhow responsible in front of the higher forces, and which is not the sacred power to his transformation, unlike his own actions and feelings) would have been presented not by the condition of transformation of the beast into the prince, but its happy consequence. In other words the happy love of the heroes would have developed after personal work of the beast on himself, leading him to devolution into the prince.
– Because of the temporary condition of transforming response love the story from the very beginning develops absolutely unedifying. The beast captures the beauty, i.e. figuratively violates her, and convulsive and forced attempts to “organize” the love of the beauty to the beast start, in order the second condition of the fairy would have been executed. Bewitched servants variously “pander” and curry favor with Belle, to make her somewhat quicker fall in love with their master. All these look absurd and do not correspond to normal life objective laws. The power of people to their transformation is always in their hands, but not in hands of someone else (=the beauty in the given story). An exterior love to the person – as it has already been mentioned is not a problem solution of his one or another “enormity”. And, of course, relationships, being built on the basis of violence and freedom restriction of one person from another, which also figuratively carries the story “Beauty and the beast”, – are not the way of love.
– The “Beauty and the beast” is the bright example of the truth, that the only subject of love is not enough to make the story good and instructive. If the story tells about love, this does not mean, that under it can be put any meaningful chaos – in spirit “Heroes love each other. This is Love indeed!” In mass-media “This is Love indeed!” covers whatever turns up, which hypnotizes the audience and “feeds” it with such ideas, which in the pure state it would never have accepted. In manipulative info-products love often “covers” lust, flaws, inclination to evil, betrayal etc. In the “Beauty and the beast” the audience in the guise of love is being presented the row of psychological substitutions (taking the responsibility on other’s feelings/love of one person as a decisive condition of transformation of the other/happy relationships on the base of violence etc.), which forms a screen image of deeply pathologic relationships that, when faced in real life, would lastly seem happy and fabulous.
The goodie in the similitude of devil (-)
The new version of this anyway unedifying story even more redoubles by the fact, how exactly the beast is pictured. It is easy to notice, that as a positive, romantic hero we have factually the devil. The new image of bewitched prince in all parameters corresponds to the classical picture of this “character”: typical horns, climbers, fangs, fur… In one of the scenes it has even been made that the beast looks “bloodstained” (when fouls with food during the dinner with Belle), which confirms the real meaning at the back of the hero’s image.
Allowance of a positive hero with such an appearance – is not accidental, but fully deliberate step from the producers, since it is obvious, that that beast can be pictured differently, but the company has chosen exactly such visual row, and it has been created by art directors long and religiously. Also at the given moment one can say, that the positive image of the devil has been systematically promoted by “Disney” company. Apart from the “Beauty and the beast” this image can be seen in more early company’s products – in the movie “Maleficent” (2014) and in the cartoon “Tinker Bell and the Legend of the NeverBeast” (2014).
In all there pictures the appearance of the main heroes is tied to the moral “The beauty hides inside” or “You can’t tell a book by its cover”. However, with the accented devil-like appearance of the hero the idea “The beauty hides inside” turns into explicit manipulation of mind and promotion evil as good. The “download” of a positive content in classical, strong images of evil serves the supply of these images and negative meanings, historically attached to them, as positive.
Already the only one devil-like image of the prince, the romantic hero, makes the story some simulacrum of a horror, which is absolutely unfit to watch. It is simply scary to watch the scenes with the beast.
The next trend in the “Beauty and the beast” (2017) – is promotion of positiveness of homosexualism, moreover, rather explicit and straightforward.
We want to remind you that earlier “Disney” company has already been promoting the positiveness of homosexualism through its production, but this was done by hidden methods – through implications, metaphoric language and images. The hidden, unofficial promotion of LGBT-values can be seen in two very similar cartoons about hard, rejected by society “sister’s” love: “Secret of the Wings” (2012) and “Frozen” (2013), and also in the movie “Maleficent” (2014) and party in the cartoon “Moana” (2016).
In the “Beauty and the beast” the positiveness of homosexualism is being translated through the story of Le Fou, an open gay, about who the movie director Bill Condon, also an open gay, informed the audience in advance. What is the essence of the plot line of Le Fou, and how exactly the positiveness of homosexualism is being promoted through him?
The plot line of Le Fou consists of two parts.
1) Evolution from evil to good
One part of Le Fou’s story is in his moral progression. At first, Le Fou by meaning is on the evil’s side, helping negative Gaston in his deeds, however, from the very beginning of the story it is denoted, that this character is positive in many ways. Le Fou shows himself as sensitive, empathetic, polite and caring person – as towards Gaston, so towards the others (for example, same Belle – when citizens threw about washed by her clothes, Le Fou tells Gaston, that the girl needs help). Gradually Le Fou comes to understanding, that he can’t support Gaston anymore (=be on the evil’s side), since this contradicts with his humanism inclinations.
After Gaston ties Belle’s father in the forest and throws to the wolves, Le Fou comes forward to a dilemma, to confirm the truth to people, that Gaston – is a murderer, what he would have liked to announce due to his humanism, or to lie in order to support the master. Le Fou has moral excruciations and lies to people (=stays yet on the evil’s side). However, after Gaston finally shows his helper, that he is cruel and soulless – uses Le Fou as a “living shield” in a fight and leaves in trouble, while he has always rescued Gaston, Le Fou finally makes his moral choice and finally turns to the good side. He accidentally saves Mrs. Potts, a positive character, and makes a decision to fight on the side of castle’s servants against evil Gaston and his troops. In the final Le Fou appears along with the other positive characters in the whole meaning glory of good.
Therefore, one part of Le Fou’s story contains morale – listen to the voice of your conscience, be humanly towards people, fight on the good side.
2) Gay-line from the unhappy love to the happy one
The second part of Le Fou’s story is devoted, one can say, to realization of homosexuality “on practice” – to achievement of same-sex love.
Apart from the fact, that Le Fou is the helper of evil Gaston, he is also in love with him. The film director has openly spoken about it, and this is being demonstrated in the story – through the behavior of Le Fou towards Gaston (constant attempts to touch, hugs, massage etc.), expressive glances and corresponding phrases (for example, that he lives for Gaston’s sake). A row of moments visually highlight, that Le Fou “yearns” after Gaston, as in the original cartoon has “yearned” a trio of idolatresses. Here Le Fou and three idolatresses are put as competitors in fight for his favor (ambiguous words of Le Fou to the trio “Some hope, young ladies!”). Also for the corresponding gay-identification Le Fou is allotted by typical “affectedness” (feminine behavior), and he has the corresponding sensitive, “bluish” voice.
The love of Le Fou to Gaston happens to be unhappy, since he is in love with Belle, and also, as it has already been said before, is dishonorable and evil person, unlike Le Fou himself. Gaston, who as the story went has regressed from “bad” to “even worse”, dies in the finale. His helper, who went to the good side, finds a new love – a man, who in one of the scenes was pictured happy in a woman’s dress, i.e. with deviations in gender questions. Since the ending is tied on demonstration of a row of happy beloved pairs – Belle and the prince, Lumiere and Plumette, prima donnas and maestros, Mrs. Potts and her husband – Le Fou with this man also are presented by meaning as a happy couple.(It is interesting, that among happy beloved couples one is inharmonious – they are Cogsworth and his wife. The role of Cogsworth, who according to the plot is unhappy with this marriage, has Ian McKellen, a famous gay. And straight after the demonstration of unsuccessful heterosexual couple with gay McKellen, is shown a sad Le Fou, who is yet dancing with a woman, but soon will find an inspiring alliance with a man. The meaning of the “message” is clear – some men need a man, and the alliance with a woman is “unsatisfactory” for them).
In doing so, the second part of the story of Le Fou carries out the morale that homosexualism is normal and positive and should be necessarily “realized” in a way of finding a happy same-sex love.
The described two parts of Le Fou story (evolution + love gay-drama) are joined together and spill over into the whole story about progressive, highly-moral, everyway positive gay, who for his endeavors in the vineyards of good is being encouraged not something, but namely by happy same-sex relationships.
It is important to mention, that homosexualism in a norm is associated with amorality. Here the plot gay-line is deliberately released side by side with the plot line about morality (evolution of Le Fou), creating a precisely opposite situation in audience’s mind: homosexualism = morality.
The movie engrains the image of gays as highly-moral people (=on the analogy with Le Fou’s development), who should necessarily realize their “specialty” in order to be happy (=same-sex happy couple Le Fou and the “man in a dress” as an award for positiveness of Le Fou). Also the understanding that gays should “look over” partners and find the suitable one (=Le Fou switches from inappropriate relationships with Gaston to appropriate relations with the “man in a dress”) is being translated.
As it has already been said before, “Disney” company for the last five years has been secretly promoting LGBT-values among their audience, children and teenagers. The methods of promotion of sexual deviations now became open, meaning that one can be sure that further this ideological policy will become even more open and intense. It is unpleasant to say, but the movie “Beauty and the beast” has let to understand, that homosexualism – is not the worst thing, “Disney” promotes in frames of sexual orientation subject. The society from now obviously expects the promotion such perversion as zoophilia by “Disney”. Further on this matter.
A very scary meaningful moment in the film – a clear promotion of zoophilia. This concerns relationships of bewitched Lumiere and Plumette.
It is easy to notice, that the relationships of Lumiere and Plumette are shown in sexuality context. When the heroes at first appear together on the screen, they start to demonstrate that “flamingly” love each other. Between them sounds an ambiguous dialogue, pronounced in corresponding passionate tone: “I bet everything in order to kiss my Plumette” – “Dear, I have burnt myself so many times of your fire” – “Your presence itself inflames me”. After what Cogsworth “withdraws” them, assuming that they are not alone, and passion expression is inappropriate; Belle turns embarrassedly. Any sexualisation does not fit in products, aimed at children – but here everything worsens by the fact, that at explicit sexualisation in heroes’ relationships Lumiere is expressed hominized, and Plumette appears as an animal – a bird (see the picture).
The story each time explicitly emphasizes an audience’s attention on their specific pair namely in the context of that between them is the same, displayed earlier “flaming” love. At that it is absolutely obvious, that both heroes could be pictured either humanized, or their relationships could not have to be pictured in the sensibility and sexuality context (which do not fit in a children’s fairy tale). However, it is being demonstrated exactly so: a visual couple a person/an animal – who are tied with passionate love. Again, it is clear that the picture has been long prepared, and the graphics has been drawn scrupulously. So there is no accident here.
It is important, that this is already, at least the second occasion of zoophilia in “Disney” production. The first one was in “Frozen” (2013) cartoon and touched Kristoff hero and his deer Sven. In one of the scenes Kristoff, lying together with the deer, sings a song with the words “Deers are better, than people”. A bit later in the trolls’ song, devoted to love, ambiguously has been mentioned, that between Kristoff and his deer there is “something that goes beyond natural laws’ frames”.
One time – could be an accident. The second time – already systematicity. Now it is clear that a monstrous direction of zoophilia in “Disney” production will, one way or another, do the rounds further. Possibly, along in mass-media will be planted a “civilized” vision of this question, and the term “zoophilia” will be replaced on a euphemism. It is rather possible, that zoophilia will be called “pansexuality” – a sexual orientation, when a sexual object can be perceived as anyone/anything. On the West this term is already actively expanded.
Discreditation of men masculinity and women femininity (-)
The next negative trend in the “Beauty and the beast”, which we would like to mention – is a discredit of masculinity in a man and femininity in a woman.
Firstly, about masculinity. It is not hard to notice, that evil Gaston – is the only one masculine men character in the story of the “Beauty and the beast”. Gaston – is brave, strong, outstanding and respected man, who heroically went through the war. And what the story translates to the audience through such masculine men type? That the masculinity in a man – is negative.
The courage and power of Gaston is deliberately brought by the creators of the story ad absurdum and inseparably combined with many flaws and disadvantages – stupidity, meanness, narcissism, greed etc. His heroism practically happens to be fake and “blown” – as has been mentioned in one of the episodes, Gaston’s participation in the war was not a noble work in the name of Country, but an inhuman enjoyment of blood, foray, impunity (Le Fou’s words to Gaston – “Breath, think of good, remind war, blood… Widows…). So the only one image of a strong and masculine man in the film, the Country’s defender – is being pictured deeply demonized and translates the audience a vision of the masculinity in a man, on the analogy with many Gaston’s disadvantages, vicious and wrong.
Gaston with his masculinity is being proposed by the movie creators as an anti-example of a man. Alongside is given a row of supposedly right men examples – positive passive feminine men heroes: passive painted prince Adam, who, as we talked about earlier, has been wrongly taken away the power under his transformation, and who obediently waits, when somebody will love him and save / feminine, right gay Le Fou / the right gay in a woman’s dress / weak humorist Lumiere, who was beaten up by Belle in one scene, and then she carried him in her hand… The whole gallery of safe, non-masculine men characters to choose for the audience’s identification. Be anyone – infantile prince with a make-up, waiting for love, a moral gay with a bow or in a dress, a dancing candlestick-comic – but not only be as Gaston – strong, initiative, self-conscious, Country defender… Don’t be masculine. The movie leads the male audience to tens of ways for self-identification, offering a future man femininity or androgyny. A men masculinity in the “Beauty and the beast” is presented by abnormal evil and anti-example.
Same happens with feminine images. A row of episodes in the movie, as in the case of Gaston and masculinity, demonize displays of women femininity, exhibiting it as an anti-example for spectatresses.
The femininity in women is displayed retarded and wrong in a song of Belle in a town. It is being pictured, that the main heroine is surrounded by many feminine women, who do classical women’s businesses (wash, cook etc.), and also wear corresponding feminine clothes (ruching, caps, pink color etc.). But it is being put in such a way, that everybody consider exactly Belle, who in this version of the “Beauty and the beast” carries an image of androgyny girl-boy, a feminine beauty. The moment, when strongly feminine secondary heroine, worker of hats shop, sings that Belle, despite her – is a beauty, looks paradoxically. However, this is the view of femininity, which is being translated to the audience for memorizing: feminine women – are backward and bad. The correct woman on analogy with Belle should be masculine or asexual – in the spirit of a teenager, who still looks Emma Watson, playing the main role in the film.
Further women femininity is being laughed at and discredited through the image of three Gaston’s idolatresses. In this version their type has changed in comparison to the cartoon of 1991. If earlier they carried out a sexualized image of prostitutes, now they are “sugary” girls in pink, whose femininity in view of exaggeration is being displayed stupid and derisive. The moment, where Gaston’s horse soils them with mud, demonstrates the message from the movie creators – femininity in women is bad and useless.
Another moment of discredit the women femininity – is a creation by prima donna the first outfit of Belle. When Madame de Garderobe meets Belle, she dresses her in a feminine pink dress, which deliberately reduced to an absurdity and looks heavy and awkward. Belle looks stupid in this outfit, can’t move and gets out of it as from the trap. The message from the movie creators is still the same: femininity towards women, who this outfit symbolizes – is an awkward crap, from which one needs to get out from. Later with the help of details of this dress, Belle is trying to escape from the castle, i.e. the idea is being proved out again – from women femininity one needs to escape, as from a horrible captivity.
And as in the case of bad masculine Gaston and good feminine gays, the price, Lumiere – feminine characters in the movie are being displayed either as anti-examples (Gaston’s idolatresses, inhabitants of the town), or just a faceless background (Madame de Garderobe, Plumette, Mrs. Potts). Through the main heroine is offered an example to follow, almost deprived of femininity.
In general, the new version of the “Beauty and the beast” looks like some wonder-room of gender pathologies – the suffering prince-beast in a make-up / effeminate Le Fou / bogey of men masculinity Gaston / the beauty, looking like an angular teenager / the sugary trio of feminine girls / the guy in a dress…
Under all these gender mess is situated a wish of the movie creators to hide the truth, that the real power and an endless source of energy for a man – in his masculinity, and for a woman – in her femininity. And the philosophy of gender rearrangements, which Hollywood so eager is trying to cultivate in the society – is a stable aspiration to deprive people of one of the main sources of power.
Hyper-individualism and negative image of society (-)
The next trend – is not new in the “Beauty and the beast” (2017), but “inherited” from the original cartoon. Yet it is worth mentioning again. The question is in promotion of hyper-individualism and a negative perception of a society.
As it was in the cartoon of 1991, the new version of the “Beauty and the beast” displays the same picture of a unique, elevated beauty in a hopelessly stupid, dull society, from which she definitely needs to separate and run somewhere in a “great future”. Everyone around Belle, the beauty and the brain, at the pleasure of scenarists appear to be as one – sluggish, retarded, unpleasant, sodden in a “stupid” living. The main heroine is some “different” and better than the others. It is being displayed, that she is the only one in the town reads books, has inventor’s inclinations and dreams about seeing the world. A very “probable” image of the society, isn’t it? Nobody likes books, nobody invents anything, nobody dreams about something great except one single young girl.
Such story building – a beautiful, smart, unique heroine vs. horrible, grey, stupid society – teaches the viewer to perceive oneself, one’s society and one’s role in it accordingly. As is well-known, most of teenagers, on which mainly is aimed such movie – are very scrupulous towards their individuality, society’s flaws and misunderstanding, which they may cause in adults. And such films as the “Beauty and the beast”, demonstrating a contradiction of a chosen, hyper-positive hero and a “dull crowd”, which bears the image of the society one needs to escape from – praise the described experience of a teenager and nurture in her even bigger confrontation with the environment. The “Beauty and the beast” translates a pseudo-norm of perception of oneself as a superior individuality, as the best, and other people and a whole society – as hopeless retarded “town”, where she needs to run somewhere away from.
This is one of the most dangerous ideas of the film, since it is very simple, and insensibly “lies” on a natural experience of a young person, increasing her opposition to the world. If each person consolidates in presented in the movie view of the world in a spirit of “I’m – a unique beauty, and the rest – is dull crowd”, then the society will quickly turn in a concourse of isolated from each other people, standing in a constant aimless confrontation and scattering their energy to no purpose, whereas it could be unified in common higher aspirations.
“Discussion” of mother’s deaths (-)
Another trend – are mother’s deaths, scenes with which in the film are literally being “savored”, as it has been in recent Disney’s “Cinderella” (2015).
In the original cartoon the “Beauty and the beast” (1991) the subject of mothers has been briefly presented. This is a famous moment with multi-child mother-pig, and also with a hidden negative reaction of Belle towards the idea of motherhood, about which Gaston tells her. Both are called up to translate the viewer a corresponding negative perception of the motherhood.
In the new version of the story the negativeness of the motherhood is being translated mainly another way (even though the moment of discussion of the motherhood subject of Belle and Gaston is left, but slightly edged – Belle says that she is not yet ready for the motherhood, and Gaston – is no bargain to her). For transmission of a negative motherhood vision in the film the new characters are being presented, who have been absent in the cartoon – they are mothers of the two main heroes, Belle and the prince. The mothers are being presented… in order to be killed straight after. Two corresponding scenes at that are pictured very brightly and accented, as if in frames of some sadistic fetish.
It is obvious, that such fetishism concerning mother’s deaths – is rather conscious. Indeed the most products of “Disney” company are of expressed anti-family direction. Parents of Disney’s heroes often either die, or are shown as fools in comparison to their children, or simply are evil (as, for example, in “Frozen” or “Maleficent”). The “discussion” of mother’s deaths – is just another fragment in task-oriented anti-family informational activity of the company.
Public nakedness (-)
And the last trend we are going to discuss – is promotion of public nakedness through the main heroine of the story.
Several moments show the corresponding appeal from the movie creators:
– Emma Watson insisted on Belle walks without a corset. The corset was an undergarment back then. All actresses except for Emma in the film were in corsets,
– Belle also constantly wears a hoicked up pinafore, demonstrating drawers, which are an analogous of underwear,
– In the final scenes Belle throws off her yellow dress, staying in a lingerie dress – i.e. the main heroine again by-play appears in front of the audience in an underwear,
– During the film’s premiere there was a leakage of “intimate photos” of Emma Watson, which from all appearances has been purposefully organized – since this supports the trend of nakedness, which is actively expressed in the movie.
It is also needs to be mentioned, that the trend of public nakedness lately is being planted in other movies – for example, in the recent “Ghost in the Shell”, where the main heroine – is a cyborg, looking like a naked woman.
Not all film’s ideas are discussed in the article, but those, which are presented, (harmful love line / main hero in character of devil / promotion of homosexualism and zoophilia / discredit of masculinity in men and femininity in women / hyper-individualism and negative image of society / “discussion” of mother’s deaths / promotion of public nudity) – are determinative and show, that the movie is absolutely useless to watch.
A small row of positive ideas (respectful relationships of Belle and her father / positive image of father / heroine’s interest in reading and inventing / common interests of Belle and bewitched prince / non-resistance to evil is punishable (servants’ plot line) – by no means reweight negative ideas and does not save the movie, that’s why it is unnecessary to discuss them.