# data[].attributes.headline
Forms of Slavery and Exploitation in Beauty and the Beast

# data[].attributes.subject
Forms of Slavery and Exploitation in Beauty and the Beast

# data[].attributes.body
This source presented a possible avenue I could explore with my paper. This article discusses the enslavement and exploitation of many characters within Beauty and the Beast. It talked about the witch's use of her power over the beast and how she controlled him with her magic. It also talked about Gaston's toxic masculinity and promotion of rape culture in never taking no for an answer. It painted Beast as a victim as well.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
If I could use my eyebrows the way Emma Watson does, everyone would know where they stand with me. Lumiere and even Cogsworth watched those eyebrows. The Beast dared to hope because of those eyebrows. Only Gaston didn't get that Emma was using those arches to give him the finger.

Beauty and the Beast got me thinking not so much about Emma Watson's eyebrows, but about the nature of freedom and slavery.

The characters in the film are all trapped in different ways-some that have been discussed for a long time.

Most obviously, Maurice-and then Belle, taking his place-is trapped in a tower by the Beast. Maurice and Emma are later locked up in a carriage by Gaston and the villagers, to be more permanently isolated in a madhouse.

The thing is, their release from these fates is actually quite straightforward. It's the less visible shackles that are harder to escape from.

Belle is stuck in provincial France. A sense of duty to her widowed father binds her to a village she feels to be too small-geographically and mentally-for her spirit. She dreams of Paris, and of Verona, home to Romeo and Juliet of her favorite Shakespeare play.

Gaston is stuck in his delusions of grandeur. His self-obsession makes him blind to Belle's revulsion at his presence, makes him deaf to her declaration that she will never marry him.

One bound by duty, the other by delusion. Attitudes. Shackles on the inside.

And the most powerful shackle in the film-above Belle's duty and Gaston's delusion-is the enchantment that binds the Beast and his servants.

Their enslavement is not immediately apparent. I mean, they live in a gorgeous castle, and the singing and dancing furniture seem pretty happy. But they essentially inhabit an alternate reality in which they are something less than human.

The Beast is powerful in his brute strength yet ironically emasculated by his terrifying form. He's unable to lead a life outside of the castle because of his appearance. His fate-and that of his whole entourage-is controlled by the rose in the west wing.

With passing time, with every petal that falls, they become less and less human. The curse consumes and replaces reality.

It's an enchantment triggered by the Beast's pride, his heartlessness toward the beggar-enchantress who approached him for refuge long ago. The curse in the film creates a striking visual for the shackles that our character flaws or attitudes can lock us into and the dramatic effects and harm that this can cause to those around us.

Character and attitudes are powerful because they alter our reality. They become our reality so that we may not even see that we are enslaved.

Consider that at the end, it turns out that many of the village folk have also been under the curse.

It's a detail present in both the 1991 Disney cartoon and in this year's remake - but not explained or elaborated on in either.

I guess I've been thinking a lot about freedom anyway. After all, I work part-time for the world's largest anti-slavery organization. The same week I watched Beauty and the Beast, we also had our annual Australian Prayer Gathering where we stepped into the breach on behalf of the millions of global poor who are trapped, whether in sex slavery, forced labour, in trauma from abuse or in a system that doesn't protect them when the powerful exploit them.

We talk about violence as a "hidden plague," the underlying cause of enduring poverty in the world. It robs people of their dignity. They lead a less than human existence because they are controlled by their oppressors.

So yes, freedom and slavery were on my mind.

And what was it that broke the spell, in the end?

Love, of course. Ergo love is freedom.

But it's no ordinary love. It's not as simple as Sleeping Beauty. I mean, that was just a kiss. No real love required there.

In a way, Belle's initial sacrifice is the pivotal moment. This selfless, illogical act confounds the Beast. It shows him a different way of living, for another person and not just for himself. This is what makes their whole relationship possible.

For Belle, love means choosing imprisonment over freedom.

Later, for the Beast, love means granting Belle freedom. In so doing, he submits himself to his slavery, because there aren't many petals left on that rose and she is his only hope of release and redemption.

But she comes back for him. And the love that has been everywhere from the start-between Belle and her father, and then between her and the Beast-breaks the curse.

And then everybody is free.

Beauty and the Beast has always been my favorite Disney cartoon, but I always believed the moral to be the usual lesson around beauty being more than skin deep, seeing beyond the exterior, not being superficial.

Yet the longer I dwell on it, the more I see that the story is also about sacrifice. About love so powerful it transcends self and focuses on the other. Covers all manner of ugliness-inside and out. Transforms. Brings freedom and restoration.

Sound familiar?

Sounds like God's love for humankind. Sounds like Jesus and the Easter story.

After all, the story of redemptive love is a tale as old as time.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Dark Theme in 'Beauty and the Beast' That Shouldn't Be Ignored

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
If I could use my eyebrows the way Emma Watson does, everyone would know where they stand with me. Lumiere and even Cogsworth watched those eyebrows. The Beast dared to hope because of those eyebrows. Only Gaston didn't get that Emma was using those arches to give him the finger.

# data[].attributes.body
This film was Disney's first film adaptation of the story Beauty and the Beast. While 1991 was a fairly modern time for the world in terms of the position of women in society, there were still some major issues regarding women's rights that needed advancements. There was a lot of controlling and manipulative male figures within this film that would help my thesis.

# data[].attributes.headline
Walt Disney's 2017 Beauty and the Beast 

# data[].attributes.subject
Walt Disney's 2017 Beauty and the Beast 

# data[].attributes.body
Walt Disney's second film adaptation of Beauty and the Beast was widely popular when it came out. The new live action film was seen by viewers of all age groups. It wasn't as feminist as Emma Watson claimed it would be, which was a shock for everyone, since she was a self-proclaimed feminist. We all needed a second to understand where the improvements were made, but then we realized there weren't any. This helps me understand what feminism means to Disney.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Guardian: Beauty and the Beats: Feminist or Fraud

# data[].attributes.subject
The Guardian: Beauty and the Beats: Feminist or Fraud

# data[].attributes.body
This article talks about the ways in which Belle in the 2017 remake of Beauty  and the Beast defies and conforms to the traditional role of a woman, and submit to the Beast's control.  It also critiques the remake for being no more progressive than the original despite numerous claims by the cast and Walt Disney.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Beauty and the Beast was billed as a great feminist retelling of a fundamentally regressive fairytale. It was so feminist that Emma Watson, its eponymous Beauty, has been pilloried on social media for the hypocrisy of such unfeminist acts as having breasts and being attractive. This, naturally, rallies the right-thinking sister to Watson's defence, and thence to defend and applaud the entire film. But is this a trap? How feminist is it really? I dunked it in some water to see if it would drown (this witchcraft analogy does not stand up to close scrutiny, move on).

1) Incomplete subversion of the genre

The main - indeed the only - stated piece of feminism is that Belle has a job, so escapes the passivity and helplessness that has defined heroines since Disney and beyond. Eagle eyed feminist-checkers noted even before the film's release that Belle's inventing is unpaid - so it's not a job, it's a hobby. I don't mind that. The future of work is automation, and even feminists will have to get used to finding a purpose outside the world of money.

I do, however, feel bound to point out that Belle's invention is a washing machine, a contraption she rigs up to a horse, to do her domestic work while she teaches another, miniature feminist how to read. The underlying message baked into this pie is that laundry is women's work, which the superbly clever woman will delegate to a horse while she spreads literacy. It would be better if she had used her considerable intellect to question why she had to wash anything at all, while her father did nothing more useful than mend clocks. It's unclear to me why anyone in this small family needs to know the time.

Later, the trope of transformation - girl in rags trussed up in finery by supernatural cupboards or birds or whatnot - is subverted, as Belle finds herself encased in silks, only to liberate herself immediately after a defiant: "I'm not a princess." However, for the climactic ballroom scene, she is transformed with a pretty dress. So it smacks of that tinny, 1990s inconsistency: rebelliously rejecting frilly conformity one minute, wallowing in it the next. I did, however, like the accent on her bravery, even if her only weapon of any efficacy was a kiss.

2) Glorification of male domination

There is more than a whiff of Fifty Shades about this film, though not in the savagery of the Beast, who - locking people in cages aside - is more cantankerous than violent. Instead, there's the drooling over the castle's opulence, the visual caress of every chandelier and gold-leaf dado rail. This is very zeitgeisty, the sense that wealth has an erotic charge of its own and, furthermore, that nobody that rich can possibly be bad.

However, the book that kept coming back to me was not Fifty Shades but John Fowles's hideous novella The Collector, in which a butterfly enthusiast turned sexual predator kidnaps an art student and keeps her in a cellar until - spoiler alert - she dies of pneumonia. It's actually incredibly hard to turn this story into an equality morality tale: the Beast can release her, she can come back of her own accord, all kinds of agency for the heroine can be filleted in at key moments, but the core proposition is that it's possible to fall in love with someone who's holding you prisoner. It's not love, is it? It's Stockholm syndrome.

Facebook Twitter Pinterest

Stockholm syndrome ... it may be a fancy castle, but she's still a prisoner. Photograph: Laurie Sparham/AP

The teapot, played by Emma Thompson on a one-woman mission to start a class war with her magnificently weird cockney accent, announces, apparently sagely: "People say a lot of things in anger. It's up to us whether or not to listen." This is a CBT reading of domination, where you take back your own power by choosing whether or not to respond to it. I'm not sure it entirely holds for a person who's trapped in a castle.

3) Surrendered filial relationship

The father is meant to be a bit useless. We knew that. He is descended from a long line of fairytale fathers placing their daughters in dire jeopardy because they simply had to steal a lettuce or a flower or some stupid spoon. Yet this makes Belle's ardent love for him - creepily illustrated by the anticipatory duties she performs, guessing what tools he needs for his timepiece-mending before he's even realised he needs them - a bit uncritical and uncurious. They could have resolved this by making him 15-20% less useless.

4) The great lacuna where Belle's character should be

So, you take a classic heroine and you strip her of her stereotypes: she is no longer weak and pliable, pleasing and emollient, cute and girly. But now you have to put some other stuff in there and - presto! - she is an adventurer and a bookworm, a dreamer, a nurturer, a person who may not be able to pick a lock on her own but can definitely put her hands on a tool for when a man wants to pick a lock. The problem is that all her new traits are pretty saccharine, so she still reads as a traditional heroine, just with bits missing. The opposite of a damsel in distress is not a damsel with a plan, it's a damsel with a sense of humour.

5) Palpable fear of ugliness

It's not an obvious feminist element, since it's the beast who's supposed to be grotesque. Nevertheless, I think we could all agree that the plot rather hinges on the idea that people can be ugly without and beautiful within, which idea has implications for womankind generally even if not for this particular woman, who is beautiful within and without. The problem is the Beast isn't beastly. He's actually fabulously handsome. He could quite easily, in another film, be the hero whose superpower is being furry. He is much better looking as a Beast than he is as a prince, which Belle explicitly references by asking him to grow a beard. Feminism aside, it rather misses the point.

Facebook Twitter Pinterest

Hairy superhero ... Dan Stevens is quite a handsome Beast. Photograph: Allstar/Walt Disney Pictures

Watching this film as a feminist fairytale is like listening to someone who claims to be able to speak German, then realising that they have only mastered one phrase. They can ask for directions, but if you actually told them the way to the Bahnhof, they'd be stumped. Still, hats off for trying. It's better to speak a tiny bit of feminism than no feminism at all.

Beauty and the Beast is out now; in Australia from 23 March

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Beauty and the Beast: feminist or fraud?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Beauty and the Beast was billed as a great feminist retelling of a fundamentally regressive fairytale. It was so feminist that Emma Watson, its eponymous Beauty, has been pilloried on social media for the hypocrisy of such unfeminist acts as having breasts and being attractive.

# data[].attributes.headline
Beauty and the beast: The Romanticization of Abuse in Popular Culture

# data[].attributes.subject
Beauty and the beast: The Romanticization of Abuse in Popular Culture

# data[].attributes.body
This source helped me look at the trench of how abuse has been glorified and romanticized in pop culture today. It made specific references to tv and fairy tales, and how we use abuse as a story line and build up a relationship around it.

# data[].attributes.headline
An Epideictic Dimension of Symbolic Violence in Disney's Beauty and the Beast: Inter-Generational Lessons in Romanticizing and Tolerating Intimate Partner Violence

# data[].attributes.subject
An Epideictic Dimension of Symbolic Violence in Disney's Beauty and the Beast: Inter-Generational Lessons in Romanticizing and Tolerating Intimate Partner Violence

# data[].attributes.body
This source looked at the justification of intimate partner violence and perfectly captured Belle's situation. She was loved and so the ways her lover hurt her didn't matter. This source talked about the long history behind Disney's portrayal of problematic relationships, and how it's an issue needing immediate intervention. It condemns the romanticization of domestic abuse and calls on viewers to boycott disney.

# data[].attributes.headline
Happily (n)ever After: The Cruel Optimism of Disney’s Romantic Ideal

# data[].attributes.subject
Happily (n)ever After: The Cruel Optimism of Disney’s Romantic Ideal

# data[].attributes.body
This source looks at the idea of the theme 'happily ever after' that's present in most fairy tales. It critiques the idea that a toxic and harmful relationship built of deceit and captivity can actually morph into a perfect relationship. It sends the wrong message to children and harms what their ideal image of a relationship is.

# data[].attributes.headline
Huffington Post: Emma Watson Denies Stockholm Syndrome Accusations

# data[].attributes.subject
Huffington Post: Emma Watson Denies Stockholm Syndrome Accusations

# data[].attributes.body
This article, written by the Huffington Post, covers the star of the 2017 Walt Disney remake of Beauty and the Beast, Emma Watson, and her claim that the newer film no longer holds elements of Stockholm Syndrome and domestic abuse. She defends the film, claiming that Belle always voices her opinions and doesn't let Beast order her around. Emma presents the idea that because Belle is still in charge of her mind, she hasn't fallen prey to Stockholm Syndrome. There are many who critique this idea and argue that when Belle falls in love with her captor and returns to him after she has been released, she has does indeed have Stockholm Syndrome. Maybe she has full control over her opinions, but when she thinks that her relationship with Beast is acceptable, that shows the audience his hold on her mind is more powerful than we thought. Part of my further research is why even self-proclaimed feminists can come to such a conclusion.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Is "Beauty and the Beast" just a sweetly animated telling of an 18th-century French author's fairytale about realizing beauty isn't skin-deep? Or is it, as people have suggested on the internet for years, a perfectly Disney-fied story about one woman's descent into Stockholm syndrome at the hands of an abusive partner?

Emma Watson, who stars in the upcoming live-action remake, has now weighed in.

In an interview with Entertainment Weekly, the actress explained how the question was one she specifically examined as she decided whether to take on the role of Belle. (We'd expect nothing less from our Hermione, who's turned into a strong advocate for women's rights and voices off-screen.)

Since the film is set to come out with Watson front and center, you can guess at the conclusion she drew. She doesn't think the story quite fits with Stockholm syndrome, named after the psychology theory that hostages can be made to sympathize with violent captors, or that it sends girls the message that sticking by an abusive partner might change him for the better.

The actress believes the love that develops between Belle and the Beast is untainted because Belle retains much of her autonomy after willingly sacrificing herself for her father to go live with the Beast. In other words, she "gives him hell."

"Belle actively argues and disagrees with [Beast] constantly. She has none of the characteristics of someone with Stockholm syndrome because she keeps her independence, she keeps that freedom of thought," Watson told EW.

The "Harry Potter" actress believes her character knows she deserves to be treated well, and fights back to prove it.

"She gives as good as she gets. He bangs on the door, she bangs back. There's this defiance that 'You think I'm going to come and eat dinner with you and I'm your prisoner - absolutely not,'" Watson said. The relationship between Belle and the Beast seemed to particularly strike the actress for the gap "where there is this genuine sharing" between the two as they move from disliking to eventually liking one another.

Watson has made sure to advertise the fact that this rendition of the Disney classic is rooted in less dusty old values than other fairytales. Her Belle is given a neat feminist twist ― she's the inventor, not her father. The actress told EW late last year that the character has a new backstory, "which was that she had invented a kind of washing machine, so that, instead of doing laundry, she could sit and use that time to read instead."

Obviously. Hogwarts: A History doesn't read itself.
"Beauty and the Beast" is set for release March 17.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Emma Watson Addresses That Belle & Beast Stockholm Syndrome Question

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Is "Beauty and the Beast" just a sweetly animated telling of an 18th-century French author's fairytale about realizing beauty isn't skin-deep? Or is it, as people have suggested on the internet for years, a perfectly Disney-fied story about one woman's descent into Stockholm syndrome at the hands of an abusive partner?

# data[].attributes.body
Candlelight Media Group's 2007 remake on Beauty and the Beast is a low budget and painfully mediocre film. Not only did this film glorify workplace harassment, but it also portrays the heroine as a spineless stepping stool. This film was a perfect example of an abusive male and a subordinate and an obedient female. It was an endless circle of a bad relationship set in the real world rather than an magical one. Nevertheless, it captured Beast's character perfectly

# data[].attributes.body
Beastly is a movie that is based off the 2007 hit novel Beastly by Alex Flinn. The CBS film takes place in modern day New York in a high school setting. It features a rich boy who manipulates Lindy's father into making her stay at his house. He falls for her while she lives at his house and can't seem to let her go even after her lets her leave. There was a twist on this movie, as it featured children instead of adults.