"Beauty and the Beast" and romantic love
Not too long ago, I read some remarks comparing Disney's Beauty and the Beast to the original tale – I already don't remember where – and arguing, as so many feminist critics do, that the original tale sends better messages to girls than the Disney version does. But this one made an argument I had never heard before.
This critic complained that not only Disney's version, but virtually all modern adaptations of the tale make Beauty/Belle's character arc revolve around falling in love with the Beast, when in Madame de Villeneuve's original story, Beauty doesn't fall in love with the Beast. She learns to love him platonically and realizes that he has the qualities that make a good husband; this critic argued that the difference between this arc and "falling in love" is essential. Villeneuve's Beauty falls in love with the handsome Prince in her dreams; her ongoing reluctance to marry the Beast despite all his positive qualities stems not only from his appearance, but from her romantic attraction to "another" man. Even after she realizes how much she cares for the Beast when he nearly dies and at long last agrees to marry him, in the original story she still remembers her love for the Prince and feels torn. (In this version the Beast doesn't instantly transform when she agrees to marry him, but only transforms the next morning after they chastely share a bed for the first time.) When the Beast changes back into the Prince, Beauty is effectively rewarded for choosing the worthy Beast over the dream figure she loves by having the Beast turn out to be her beloved.
The whole point, this critic argued, is that romantic love alone isn't a good basis for marriage. When deciding whether or not to accept a marriage proposal, a woman shouldn't just ask herself "Am I in love with him?" but first and foremost should ask herself "Is he a good person? Is he kind and gentle? Does he treat me with respect? Is he generous? Is he unselfish? Is he loyal?" The point of the original tale (they argued) is that Beauty learns to recognize the qualities of a good husband in the Beast, even though she doesn't have romantic feelings for him, and comes to realize that these matter more than her romantic feelings for the Prince. This critic argued that modern retellings like Disney's, which have Beauty/Belle fall in love with the Beast, strip the tale of its most important message.
That's an interesting perspective and one I never considered before. But do I agree with it it? I don't think so.
In the Disney version, at least, the message of "what makes a good husband or romantic partner" is still very present. Belle isn't just swept away by animal attraction (no pun intended) to the Beast! The importance of the Beast's kindness, gentleness, respect, generosity, and selflessness is made extremely clear! The only two differences from the original tale in that regard are that (a) the Beast learns those qualities thanks to Belle's presence instead of showing them from the start, and (b) Belle falls romantically in love with the Beast for those qualities, rather than learning to choose them over "another" man's good looks and courtly charms. It still sends just the right message to girls about what to look for in a partner! (And please don't respond by saying "The movie romanticizes abusers" – Belle can't stand the Beast when he behaves badly and only learns to love him after he becomes kind. But that's a different subject altogether.)
Besides, even if Villeneuve's original version is, in a way, against marrying "for love," consider its context! The original tale is an allegory for arranged marriage. It was written for 18th century French girls who would have no say in who they married, to prepare them to share their lives with men they almost certainly wouldn't love romantically. If Villeneuve really meant to teach her readers to view friendship and mutual respect as the ideal basis for marriage, not romantic love, while giving them the hope that once friendship and respect are established, romantic love can follow... well, she had practical reasons for doing so. Marrying "for love" simply wasn't an option for her young female readers and she wrote the story as a direct response to that fact.
Modern retellings of the tale generally have nothing to do with arranged marriage. Not should they, because in the Western world at least, most of the target audience will choose their own spouses, if they get married at all. While of course the message about the qualities of an ideal romantic partner is still as relevant as ever, I don't see any problem whatsoever with showing Beauty/Belle falling in love with the Beast for those qualities, rather than choosing to marry him out of platonic friendship and respect, then being rewarded with the reveal that he's actually the romantic suitor from her dreams. If she falls in love with him for all the right reasons, as Disney's Belle does, then how could anyone think the story encourages girls just to choose their partners based on superficial attraction?
Of course, it's so popular nowadays to argue that famous love stories "aren't really love stories." Especially among certain "feminists," who talk as if it's dangerous for girls to see any fictional female character have romantic feelings for a male character or be motivated by emotion and not pragmatism in any way. We see this with all the various anti-romance takes on Romeo and Juliet ("It's a satire," "It's a cautionary tale against teenage passion," "It's a trashy, immature play from before Shakespeare became a good writer," etc.), and in discussions of other love stories and fairy tales too. So I suppose it's not surprising that "Beauty and the Beast wasn't meant as a love story and most adaptations are bad for girls because they get it wrong" is an argument that exists. Personally, though, I can't bring myself to agree with it.
@ariel-seagull-wings, @superkingofpriderock, @themousefromfantasyland, @the-blue-fairie, @faintingheroine