Beauty and the Beast

[miriam_e]

Y'know how they say that the moral of the story Beauty and the Beast is that even if you look horrible on the outside you can still find someone who can see the deeper person within? Well, I don't seem to get that. All I see is the message if you are a guy then you can be an ugly, bad-tempered asshole and still score, but if you are a girl you are not worth anything unless you are beautiful... even then you have to be 'understanding' and be prepared to take shit. It is amazing there is a sane woman on the planet with this being constantly drummed in.

Sorry, but it really does seem to be the same message over and over again in film and TV. I really can't think of a movie or TV series where the heroine was not good looking. Plenty of ugly heroes but not heroines. The closest Hollywood seems to be able to come is to get a catwalk model, put her hair up in a bun, give her glasses, then try to call her 'plain' when anybody with two eyes can see she is gorgeous.

I'm not outraged... just a bit bored. Why doesn't someone do something different for a change?

-----------

I have to admit Steel Magnolias came close. Daryl Hannah actually did a brilliant job of looking self-conscious and unattractive. She is a heck of an actress, that woman. But she wasn't the heroine.

I thought of one: The short-lived (just 13 episodes) but, brilliant The Others which starred Julianne Nicholson. She is not exactly unnattractive, but not gorgeous either. She looks like a normal person. I wonder if it got dropped because the heroine didn't look pretty enough. Nah. It seems to be normal these days that very cool shows are soon killed. Those that actually survive quickly develop cult followings.

Comments

[rpeate.livejournal.com]

Yes, Beauty and the Beast, to which I have always objected, neatly captures the Patriarchy: women must be beautiful and servile, men must be ugly and idiotic. Being a man, I would go further in my criticism of the depiction of the male character: I would say it not only says one can "be an asshole and still score", but that one would want to do so. This implies a total lack of morality.

In short, Beauty and the Beast, in any form, is immoral crap that should be renamed Imbecility and Immorality.

[miriam-e.livejournal.com]

I'm not so sure of that. I think morality has more to do with intent than outcome. If someone accidentally hurts someone and is torn up inside about it then they are not immoral. If, on the other hand, someone goes out of their way to do somebody harm, taking wicked pleasure in the anticipation and the action, then that person is immoral.

I don't believe the makers of Beauty and the Beast meant to do harm. On the contrary, I think they intended to put a good and moral tale before the audience, to propagate the truth that what is under the skin is more important that the exterior. They just didn't think it all the way through.

We are all prisoners of our social conditioning to some degree.

[rpeate.livejournal.com]

I agree that intent is more important than outcome; however, I do still believe it is possible to commit immorality while meaning well. Example: the death penalty. There are those who sincerely believe it's a good thing. While I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt regarding their intent, I find it immoral. And I know some are tired of hearing of Hitler as an example, but he remains instructive: Hitler, too, I am sure all would agree was an evil man. However, it appears he thought he was doing the Lord's work. I think everyone feels "right", even the most wrong.

[miriam-e.livejournal.com]

That is a very good point, and one I hadn't considered... even though I'm fond of quoting Dale Carnegie in How to Win Friends and Influence People where he notes that the most murderous gangsters (e.g. Al Capone, 'Two Gun' Crowley, Dutch Schultz) considered themselves victims who didn't mean anybody ill, but who performed an important public service.

I was wrong. Perhaps being immoral is more to do with being immune to the plight of others...

I agree about the death penalty being bad too, for a number of reasons. It is too final -- there can never be a reprieve after an error in judgement. It has a subtle warping effect on the morals of the general population where the idea of murder becomes accepted as 'good'. It can far too easily run out of control when extremist forces run the show (first, only murderers are killed, then traitors, then pedophiles, then anyone who is inconvenient). A line should be drawn: killing is wrong.

I know what you mean about people tiring of hearing about Hitler.
That worries me because now is exactly the wrong time to tire of it. Your current president has so many parallels between himself and Hitler that the warning bells should be going off deafeningly.