|
Post by crazyalice on Nov 21, 2009 19:20:31 GMT -5
[quote author=silver board=Movies thread=688 post=410740 time=1222996469 I see what you're saying, but I also think that the Beast was very much repulsed by his own self, by his own appearance. At the beginning, he hated himself more than anything else. Although it's not very clear that he had a transformation to being okay with himself, I think that it meant something to him that Belle, someone who was remarkably beautiful, could love him, an ugly creature, as he thinks himself as. I think it's that fact that helps him with the new perspective on life and is able to move past appearances. I strongly agree with Spell. The Beast is a very deep complex character so I can see how many people would have different takes on him but I tend to lean towards the above. To himself he was a hideous, hopeless beast.
|
|
|
Post by Silver on Feb 4, 2010 23:36:05 GMT -5
After recently watching this film with my best friend. We were discussing many random things that we found fascinating. It could mesh just as well into this discussion. Linda Woolverton who wrote the screenplay for this film did an incredible job at providing character development and connecting the dots. Pretty much everything seves it's place. (Side-notes, she was the first woman to ever do so for an animated film and also wrote the screenplay for Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland) However she managed to sqeeze in a few mysteries that still today leaves the audience puzzled. Now that is what I call great writing!
One of the big questions my friend and I asked was what would have happened if Belle had managed to touch the rose? Would the spell have just crippled by default and the castle and all it's inhabitants stayed as they are? Would they have died? Could she have been harmed?
Here's another- How come none of the town residents recognize the castle or it's location? Shouldn't they have knowledge of where the royal family lived? Did the spell erase everybody's memory of the royalty who lived there? Plus, what happned to Beast's parents?
Another big one is approximatley how long did Belle stay with the Beast? Some say only a couple of weeks. Others say almost half of the year. Then others believe it's meant to be an undisclosed amount of time. The reason I'm puzzled is because when Maurice arrives at the castle it seems to be summer and it's raining. When Phillippe returns home (which plays off as a day later) It's teh exact same weather. The next scene when Belle arrives there's snow on the ground then a couple of hours later it's a blizzard. By the end of the movie it's back to rain and spring. Hmm? I guess the producers just said we'll make France have unpredicable weather and seasonal changes.
This isn't meant to be taken too seriously. Just some food for thought. So what does everybody else think?
|
|
|
Post by SpellWovenNight on Feb 4, 2010 23:55:49 GMT -5
I don't remember the sequence well enough for the weather discussion, but I can tell you my point of view on the Rose. I always thought it was just Beast's behavior and attitude that didn't want Belle to touch the rose. To put it in LOTR's terms it was his "precious." I think he was more worried about the rose being damaged, which could've made the spell permanent or force it to loose more leaves than it would have naturally.
I always wondered about the Castle own. The Beast is almost royalty with out subjects, but still, people would know it exists, right? I'm going to add a question to the mix. Did time affect the Castle when it was under the spell? Or were they all immortal for that time period? If they were under the spell long enough, say one-hundred years (like Sleeping Beauty), then it makes sense that the townsfolk didn't remember them.
|
|
|
Post by Silver on Feb 5, 2010 0:13:48 GMT -5
Sometimes I wonder if Linda Woolverton did this on purpose to the audience. haha. Maybe she didn't realize it when she was working on the outline and all the dreafting sessions how many doors were left open.
Those are good theories about the rose.
That's a great question about the objects. In the prolouge it's narrates as this "The rose she had offered was truly an enchanted rose. Which would bloom until his 21st year." In the musical however It reads as this- "The rose would bloom for many years." Later in the lyrics to Be Our Guest Lumire says "Ten years we've been rusting." The same lyrics are stated in the musical. Even if it was for ten years, is it possible they did become immortal for the time being. Chip was still a little boy when it began and finished.
Here's another random one. Does Chip actually have brothers and sisters? If Mrs. Potts just meant that as an expression, who are their parents? If they're really hers, who's the father?
So many questions! No concrete answers.
|
|
|
Post by Briar Rose's Dark Knight on Feb 5, 2010 0:45:44 GMT -5
As for the rose, I think there's some evidence in the film itself that something could happen that damages or destroys the rose and forces the Beast and enchanted objects to remain that way "forever." When Cogsworth is giving everyone their duties, he's using the pointer with such gusto that he nearly knocks the rose over, and the enchanted objects look on with fear and horror.
Aging and the curse is interesting. From the lines in the film, I'm guessing that the Beast was roughly 11 years old when the curse happened. However, I think that the castle servants ages froze in place. Perhaps because they were turned into objects, they couldn't "age" like others did.
From the audio commentary, I think Belle's time in the castle places at least a few months. We see the changing of the seasons, complete with LeFou Snowman(they reference how he stood watch when it was sunny and now he's a snowman) and the thawing of the wintry grounds of the castle.
|
|
|
Post by SpellWovenNight on Feb 5, 2010 1:47:36 GMT -5
The picture in the West Wing that's shredded in half and Belle places it back together is the Beast at the same age when he is transformed again. So, I don't think he would've been eleven. He also doesn't look that young in the stain glass mural story, and why would he and the servants have a different curse?
|
|
|
Post by Briar Rose's Dark Knight on Feb 5, 2010 2:17:18 GMT -5
And that's the problem. I think you can make an argument that the movie actually contradicts itself.
|
|
|
Post by SpellWovenNight on Feb 5, 2010 3:31:02 GMT -5
Just curious, what lines were you basing the Beast to be around eleven years old when the spell was cast?
|
|
|
Post by Butterscotch on Feb 5, 2010 11:50:28 GMT -5
If the rose bloomed until his 21st year and the enchanted objects have been rusting for ten years, then that would make the Beast 11 when he was cursed.
I'll throw out this theory that Ive been toying with: The Beast was 18-20 when he was cursed. The rose bloomed until he turned 21, like the prolouge states. but it takes many, many years to actually wilt and die. The castle is kind of dormant; the enchanted objects don't move much in the early parts of the film. It's only really until Belle and Beast start to fall in love that the castle really comes to life. As the castle becomes less dormant, the rose wilts faster.
Isn't it Fall when Maurice leaves? The trees in the background of the song Belle look all orange and red. Fall can be unpredictable, and an early snowstorm isn't unheard of.
I don't think the other teacups are Chip's brothers and sisters. While many of the Enchanted Objects were the Beast's servants, I don't think all of them were. I think that the spell gave life to every scrap of furniture. While Chip might've once been human, the others weren't. Maybe Mrs. Potts adopted them?
|
|
|
Post by Briar Rose's Dark Knight on Feb 5, 2010 22:33:02 GMT -5
If the rose bloomed until his 21st year and the enchanted objects have been rusting for ten years, then that would make the Beast 11 when he was cursed. I'll throw out this theory that Ive been toying with: The Beast was 18-20 when he was cursed. The rose bloomed until he turned 21, like the prolouge states. but it takes many, many years to actually wilt and die. The castle is kind of dormant; the enchanted objects don't move much in the early parts of the film. It's only really until Belle and Beast start to fall in love that the castle really comes to life. As the castle becomes less dormant, the rose wilts faster. I think this one make the most sense. It allows for the Beast to be older than 11, which the portrait shows when he was cursed, and also explains how the enchanted objects could have been rusting for 10 years like the song says.
|
|
|
Post by barkydog2000 on Feb 7, 2010 2:00:34 GMT -5
It is also a possiblity that they did have a different curse. It was the Beast's fault and his punishment, the others just happen to get cursed too. Though, I doubt it is a different curse, since they were all transformed in some way. They never explain why EVERYONE is cursed. Seems a little unfair, unless it had to be like that so that they would have to stay with the beast and not just leave him alone after the curse.
|
|
|
Post by Butterscotch on Feb 7, 2010 11:11:39 GMT -5
It may be unfair, but maybe the enchantress was a big jerk, and punished everyone just because she felt like it.
|
|
|
Post by Silver on Feb 7, 2010 17:40:08 GMT -5
No offense, but I can't imagine the creators of the film doingt that. ^^ In the musical, there's a moment where Lumire and Cogsworth briefly discuss their anger towards Enchantress including them in the spell.Later they realize they partly brought this on themsleves by not giving the young prince any disipline. L- "Day by day, we will all gradually become things. C- Why did we have to get dragged into this whole spell business?! It's not like we threw that poor old beggar woman out all those years ago. L- Yes, but are we not responsible to? For helping him to making him they way he is? C- I suppose so."
The lesson for them was sometimes you need to step in to help a person you love. If you're aware of the fact that the person has no desire to change, you need to speak up. They were more then aware that when the prince dismissed the poor old woman, he had crossed a line. They never spoke out on her behalf. They in turn crossed a line by just being passive and ignoring his greedy and thoughtless behavior. She felt it was time for them to know what it means to truly be passive and silent.
|
|
|
Post by barkydog2000 on Feb 7, 2010 17:52:04 GMT -5
ah, good point. guilt by association. I never seen the musical, so I didn't know they ever discussed it.
|
|
|
Post by Mrs. Nesbit on Feb 11, 2010 21:00:30 GMT -5
Maybe the enchanted objects were just exaggerating. What felt like ten years to them might have only been a few years? I just watched this movie with my mom not too long ago and thought of the same things while I was watching it. I really wish I could remember seeing this on the big screen. My mom kept talking about taking me to see it but I was only 5 or 6 at the time and don't remember much. I wish Disney would re-release films on the big screen again like they did with Toy Story and Toy Story 2. I think it would be lovely to see this film esp with all of today's theatre technology.
|
|