Racism And Sexism In Tangled - Or, Okay WHAT Are These People Smoking?
ZeldaQueen: Right. This is one bit of idiocy that threw me for a bit of a loop. Warnings folks, this will have spoilers for the movie Tangled. If you want to read the original article, it's available here
( Read more... )
Mikey: Yeah! :) I hate those people who claim she had Stockholm syndrome. Apparently character development just doesn’t exist. The Beast was just kind of an ass at the start - already being selfish, being turned into a beast, and not having human contact in like forever can do that to you - go figure… Honestly most would have been worse.
Of course they aren’t as annoying as the people who claim she should have hooked up with Gaston; because marrying the guy who want’s to lock up your quirky dad (ever heard Belle and her fathers song together from the musical. It’s cute…) , wants you for your looks, and hates reading is so~ much better.
Must have her mixed up with a different girl who’s name means beauty.
Here’s a hint - It’s Belle with an silent “e”, not an ugh I mean ahhh~!!! I mean an “a“.
ZeldaQueen: I don't get it either. Disney is a COMPANY. It's got an ever-changing number of people working there
Mikey: I know if you listen to some people you’d think it was some kind of creepy have minded legion of racial intolerance who all cackle as one every time a movie comes out.
aikaterini:I love Belle because I can identify with her so much - a dreamy, brunette bookworm. To finally have a princess who was an honest-to-goodness smart bookworm was amazing.
I could go on and on about how Belle is awesome, but I think that I'd be here all day. XD
Mikey: Go ahead; I could listen all day long. When I first saw that movie I was like "I can totally understand and relate Belle" and I still do.
Reply
It's even more ridiculous because Belle never *acts* like a victim of Stockholm Syndrome. She freely disobeys the Beast's orders about staying away from the West Wing, she refuses to have dinner with him even as he yells at her through the door, and she actually *argues* with him when he tries to blame her for his injury. At no point does she concede to his demands or fall for his attempts to avoid responsibility for his behavior. If the Beast had never learned his lesson and had stayed the same way that he was in the beginning of the movie, I really don't think that Belle would have fallen in love with him. She only starts to warm up to the Beast *after* he's genuinely changed, after he's shown her that he's not such a terrible person after all.
The only times that Belle is afraid of him are when she meets him for the first time (when she didn't know who he was and was frightened by his appearance when she did see him) and when he flies into a rage when he discovers her in the West Wing (and I think that anybody would be scared of him in that scene, even Gaston). When they argue, she never backs down from her position. If she were suffering from Stockholm Syndrome, I'd imagine that Belle would be much more timid and much more eager to please the Beast.
/Of course they aren’t as annoying as the people who claim she should have hooked up with Gaston; because marrying the guy who want’s to lock up your quirky dad (ever heard Belle and her fathers song together from the musical. It’s cute…) , wants you for your looks, and hates reading is so~ much better./
Wait...what? There are actually people out there (besides the guy that Zelda Queen argued with on the IMDB forums) that support Gaston/Belle and yet claim that Belle/Adam's relationship is abusive? What planet are these people on? Gaston was supposed to be a shadow and a foil of the Beast. And we're clearly shown in the beginning of the film that he's *not* the man for her. Belle even directly says it herself when her father asks about Gaston. Not only is Gaston a rude, arrogant, sexist boor, but just look at his actions in the beginning of the movie. He insults her love of books and tells her that it's "not right for a woman to read," he tosses her book in the mud, he laughs at her father, he arranges a wedding between himself and Belle *without even telling her* and invites the whole town (yeah, that's not putting pressure on Belle at all, right?), he puts his dirty boots on her book, and he forces her up against the door. And that's all *before* he comes up with his scheme of throwing Maurice into an asylum to pressure Belle to marry him.
Yeah, I sure can't see why Belle didn't choose him. *snorts*
Meanwhile, the Beast *never* denigrated Belle for being a woman or being a bookworm. He gave her a *library* for heaven's sake (granted, it wasn't originally his idea, but then we later see that he enjoys reading with Belle). The only reasons that he was rude were because he was a spoiled brat, he was depressed because of the curse, and he had been deprived of human contact for so long. Once the Beast realized that he had been rude, he changed himself for the better (like Mr. Darcy! :D). How on earth would Gaston be a better alternative?
Reply
Yes they exist and most arn't even men - they just think Gaston is better looking!
I'd like to note some people didn't even notice Darcy was proud in Pride and Prejudice. There is this horrible dating book I've heard of that calls Darcy the perfect gentlemen and say that Elizabeth was wrong about him and that her character devlopment is realising she was wrong about him. And then offers help finding the persons own Mr. Darcy.
Guess they only saw the damn movie... [shudders]
Reply
Oh, thanks! *embarrassed* I didn't make it; I just found it somewhere.
/Yes they exist and most arn't even men - they just think Gaston is better looking!/
*snorts* Yeah, that really helps their case. And even on that topic, I'd disagree with them. I know that a lot of people don't like the Beast in his original human form, but I do. And I still think that he's better-looking than Gaston. Heck, even when I was little, I didn't think that Gaston was that handsome. Maybe it's because brawny guys just aren't my type. *shrugs*
/I'd like to note some people didn't even notice Darcy was proud in Pride and Prejudice./
What did they think that the "pride" in the title referred to, or should I say, whom did they think that the pride in the title referred to? I know that some people take one or the other interpretation: that the title refers to Mr. Darcy's "pride" and Elizabeth's "prejudice" or that the title refers to Elizabeth's "pride" and Mr. Darcy's "prejudice." I've never seen anybody argue that both traits refer only to Elizabeth.
/There is this horrible dating book I've heard of that calls Darcy the perfect gentlemen and say that Elizabeth was wrong about him and that her character devlopment is realising she was wrong about him./
Uh, no, Elizabeth was wrong about him in terms of what she thought he did to Wickham and Jane, but she was absolutely right about his attitude. That was supposed to be the reason why Mr. Darcy changed his behavior for the better; it was because he realized that she was right.
The perfect gentleman? Did the writer of that book just miss the part where Mr. Darcy insulted Elizabeth's family in his first proposal? Where he practically said that it was degrading for him to love her? How did they miss that? Because he said it in the Queen's English, so that automatically makes it okay?
Yes, Elizabeth's character development was realizing that she was wrong about him. But *Fitzwilliam's* character development was realizing that *his* attitude was unacceptable. Did the writer of that book miss the part near the end where Mr. Darcy told Elizabeth that his behavior was "unpardonable?" What, did the author think that he was just being modest and self-deprecating? I'm beginning to think that the writer didn't read the book at all.
/Guess they only saw the damn movie... [shudders]/
Which one? The 1940 version with Laurence Olivier, the BBC miniseries, the Keira Knightley version, or the modernized version (which I've heard is awful)?
Reply
Mikey:Neither do I. Both personlity wise and in the looks department he's just not that good looking. Mostly I hate his personality though...
aikaterini:I've never seen anybody argue that both traits refer only to Elizabeth.
Mikey:I say they are both Pride and Prejudice - although Mr. Darcy is more Pride well Elizabeth is more Prejudice.
aikaterini:Did the writer of that book miss the part near the end where Mr. Darcy told Elizabeth that his behavior was "unpardonable?" What, did the author think that he was just being modest and self-deprecating? I'm beginning to think that the writer didn't read the book at all.
Mikey:I'd say yes, most likely, and you are most likely right about that last bit...
aikaterini:Which one? The 1940 version with Laurence Olivier, the BBC miniseries, the Keira Knightley version, or the modernized version (which I've heard is awful)?
Mikey:Well they all have flaws; as big believer that the book is almost always better, but I believe I am refering to the most recent modern one in this case. I can't remember which one it was exactly, but it actully had her pretty much say flat out "I was wrong he's not proud he's just shy" and all kinds of other romance cliche crap. I only saw it once - ya know cause it was stupid... damn which one was it!
Speaking of Pride and Prejudice - it had been a long while since I read it and I wanted to so I bought a new copy and now I can't find it anywhere. I was half way through it to. I've looked all over for it [sigh] how depressing.
Reply
I always got that feeling as well. Lizzie was proud of her ability to judge people, but was influenced by her prejudice and thus failed to think of the reasons Darcy had for his actions (looking out for his friend and sister, etc). Darcy, meanwhile, was proud of his station and prejudiced about Lizzie's lower class and thus looked down his nose at her and almost missed her own good qualities.
Is the modern one "Bride and Prejudice"? Because that one was kind of awesome. Plus it had singing! :D
Reply
I do love a good musical though~ :)
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment