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 its like one of those, uh, stories about forgiveness.
See, I understand that sometimes a Disney movie can, can be little too subtle for yall (BELLE: Hes 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, lets 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, hes different now, papa.") (BELLE: Hes 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: Whats in the West ") (BEAST: ITS 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 youre being held against your will if youre 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 isnt 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 hes 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 Beasts 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: Whats in the West ") (BEAST: ITS 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 *thats* 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 youd 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 didnt, 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 (Its 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 youre 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: Hes my friend.") (Slower: Hes my Friend.) I mean, I do enjoy Beasts, 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 lets say its 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 Beasts. 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 Beautys. 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 Beautys, 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 Its pretty good. In all of the Renaissance Disney movies, what the protagonist wanted was, yknow, their teenage, whatever" dreams (BELLE: I want so much more than they've got planned ") (ALADDIN: Sometimes you feel so) (JASMINE: Youre 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 Beasts 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.") Belles 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 derive 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: "Whats wrong with her?") (BABETTE 2: Shes crazy!") (BABETTE 3: Hes gorgeous!") And they wanna kill the Beast because he looks scary, despite Belles protests Buuuuuuuut, Stockholm syndrome, I guess. Hell, let's armchair diagnose everyone. Everyone has Stockholm syndrome! The Genie has Stockholm syndrome cuz hes just so loyal to his kind master! After all, Aladdin is not like Jafar He is one of the nice ones. Yknow, hell 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).
No comments:
Post a Comment