Beauty and the Beast: True Love or Not?

[MalibuTrashDog]

Beauty and the Beast is one of my favorite movies but there is a lot to the story that makes me wonder.

We all know Belle starts out as the Beast's prisoner in exchange for her father's freedom and how she and the Beast eventually fall in love.

Is it true love though? Or the product of Stockholm Syndrome where the prisoner starts to believe they're in love with their captor?

Discuss.

[FireAndSun]

I feel people who accuse Beauty and the Beast of being a story about Stockholm Syndrome or an abusive relationship really don't understand what Stockholm Syndrome is. A post I came across explains this well, but I'll mention some of the broad strokes of it, as well as my own thoughts, and I'll also include the link down below. First off, Stockholm Syndrome is primarily a defense mechanism the brain unconsciously uses to protect itself from potential harmful feelings or situations. It's a survival mechanism and an irrational state of mind. A person with Stockholm Syndrome does not consciously choose to have positive feelings or associations toward their captor. Belle chooses to befriend the Beast of her own free will. During the first act, when the Beast is still acting like a complete jagoff, Belle wants nothing to do with him. She has no positive feelings or associations toward him at all at this point, and she spends most of the first act she's at the castle deliberately avoiding him. Another aspect of Stockholm Syndrome is that the captor tends to be the sole interaction with others the victim receives. That isn't the case here. There are dozens of servants in the castle for Belle to interact with and befriend, and she does in earnest. She also spends very little time with the Beast during this time frame, as was mentioned. Victims of Stockholm Syndrome also develop a sort of dependence on their captor, and don't want to be separated from them. Belle shows no signs of this. In fact, when the Beast lashes out when he finds her in the West Wing, her first instinct is to run away and not come back. She only comes back after he saves her life from the wolves. Now, this could potentially be viewed as something like Stockholm Syndrome, but it still really isn't. Even after he saves her, her first instinct is still to get back on her horse. She only stops and reconsiders when her conscious mind kicks in. And also to be honest, I'd struggle to just leave someone who had just saved my life collapsed in the snow to possibly freeze to death, even if they had been a... special kind of jerk. And even after she takes him back to his castle, she still doesn't just take his behavior lying down. She stands up to him, and tells him that if he had controlled his temper, none of that would have happened. And the Beast has no retort for that because he knows she's right.

After this, Belle chooses to stay at the castle because the Beast deliberately chooses to change his behavior because he realizes Belle is right, and that he needs to learn to control himself, not because he's trying to manipulate her, and not because Belle tries to make him. And it's only after that point that Belle actually starts to befriend him and later develop feelings for him. And even then, once she finds out her father is sick, she still asks to go to him, and gives no indication if she'll back.

As for her status as a prisoner, I think after a certain point that also becomes moot. After they've clearly become close, I think the Beast would have still let her go if she'd asked even if her father hadn't been sick because he truly did love her, and was willing to put her before himself. And granted while this isn't in the movie, the Broadway musical even goes so far as to add an extra line to the scene where the Beast lets Belle go where he tells her he feels she hadn't been his prisoner for a long time.

Anyway, to cut a long story short, no I don't think Beauty and the Beast is about Stockholm Syndrome. Belle makes a conscious choice to become close with the Beast, and it's only after he honestly changes on his own through no coercing on her part. There are other things to criticize the movie for, despite how much I like it, but that isn't one of them.

http://ladybastet92.livejournal.com/59348.html (The post I mentioned.)

[TheLionPrince]

Alicia explained it beautifully, but no, I don't believe this film supports Stockholm syndrome. In the most simplest terms for how I articulate Stockholm syndrome, Belle does not fall in love with the Beast until after he makes a personality change. Before then, the Beast asserts his authority over Belle, and as his hostage, Belle is less equal than him in status. Now, the Beast and Belle are on equal footing and Belle doesn't seem to express anymore her lack of freedom. It's not said whether she is still forbidden from the West Wing, but the Beast hands over his library to her possession and she is free to use however she pleases.

It would have been Stockholm syndrome if Belle falls in love while the Beast is still physically and emotionally abusive to her, in which forces Belle to cope with his behavior, but this never occurs.

[WildSimba]

[quote="TheLionPrince"]Alicia explained it beautifully, but no, I don't believe this film supports Stockholm syndrome. In the most simplest terms for how I articulate Stockholm syndrome, Belle does not fall in love with the Beast until after he makes a personality change. Before then, the Beast asserts his authority over Belle, and as his hostage, Belle is less equal than him in status. Now, the Beast and Belle are on equal footing and Belle doesn't seem to express anymore her lack of freedom. It's not said whether she is still forbidden from the West Wing, but the Beast hands over his library to her possession and she is free to use however she pleases.

It would have been Stockholm syndrome if Belle falls in love while the Beast is still physically and emotionally abusive to her, in which forces Belle to cope with his behavior, but this never occurs.[/quote]

But how do you know that what we're seeing is not just Belle's perspective of the events, and not what is actually happening. Have you ever heard of unreliable narration before? If Belle does indeed have Stockholm, which she very well could considering the even in the Forrest and her sudden change of heart about her abuser, than her account of the events wouldn't be reliable. Do you really think a normal sane person would forget their life of the outside world before-hand, over love? Stockholm Syndrome could very well be at play here, knowing medically, and considering that Belle is not a reliable narrator, and that she'd have no valid reason to love the beast with him still having heavy restrictions (Not truly being able to leave, still being his prisoner, still being banned from the ward).

A person with Stockholm Syndrome can see a tiny act of generosity as being an ultimate favor. The library and beast letting her use it would technically be a small act of generosity, but Belle sees it as overblown because of her love for books, as well as her attachment to her captor.

My true question to anyone who thinks this theory has absolutely no grounds and stupid is, when does Belle ever cease from being captive by the beast? Why would you trust the side of the story from someone who is being held prisoner, and has shown that her point of view might not be reliable?

[Elton John]

Saving her life when he could have easily left her for dead is not what i'd consider to be a tiny act of generosity.

Beast loved her and was willing to change for her.

[WildSimba]

[quote="Elton John"]Saving her life when he could have easily left her for dead is not what i'd consider to be a tiny act of generosity.

Beast loved her and was willing to change for her.[/quote]

But how do you know that what he did wasn't actually that big of a notion, but due to her unreliable narration, she sees it as a much more favorable act than it actually is? My question is not what's being presented on screen, but what's being displayed in the bigger picture, which is what I'm trying to get you to see. It's not about the content of the film, it's about who is telling the story of the film, that's where the answer lies.

[Elton John]

I always just assumed the narrator at the start of the film was telling the story.

Which would be someone reading from a book years in the future.

It is a fairytale after all.

[TheLionPrince]

[quote="WildSimba"]But how do you know that what we're seeing is not just Belle's perspective of the events, and not what is actually happening. Have you ever heard of unreliable narration before? If Belle does indeed have Stockholm, which she very well could considering the even in the Forrest and her sudden change of heart about her abuser, than her account of the events wouldn't be reliable.[/quote]

Yes, I have heard of unreliable narrators. The Great Gatsby is a great example of a story told by an unreliable narrator. If you want to insist Belle was an unreliable narrator, you must find some reference in the context of the film to support this or have some confirmation from Linda Woolverton, who has outright denied the Stockholm Syndrome angle, or the filmmakers.

[quote="WildSimba"]Do you really think a normal sane person would forget their life of the outside world before-hand, over love? Stockholm Syndrome could very well be at play here, knowing medically, and considering that Belle is not a reliable narrator, and that she'd have no valid reason to love the beast with him still having heavy restrictions (Not truly being able to leave, still being his prisoner, still being banned from the ward).

A person with Stockholm Syndrome can see a tiny act of generosity as being an ultimate favor. The library and beast letting her use it would technically be a small act of generosity, but Belle sees it as overblown because of her love for books, as well as her attachment to her captor.[/quote]

It probably wasn't just letting her have the library that made Belle fall in love with the Beast. His demeanor and attitude started to change around her and for her. He has controlled his temper and acts more civilized. For starters, the song "Something There" conveys Belle's reasons for having in love with the Beast. The first few lyrics of the song specifically state Belle has not forgotten that the Beast was once abusive to her, which sings "But he was mean and he was coarse and unrefined." Having seen a change in the Beast, Belle falls in love with him. She hasn't forgotten who he previously was, but it's implied she has forgiven him.

The problem with the Stockholm syndrome theory is that it's a survival mechanism for captors to emotionally relate with their captives. Belle didn't need to fall in love with the Beast in order to survive in his castle. In most situations, in order for Stockholm syndrome to work, the abuser doesn't change in their abusive methods. Then, that forces the victim to understand the underlying reasons for they are being abused by seeing it from the abuser's perspective. Of course, none of this happens in the film. Belle does not tolerate the Beast's abuse and does not sympathize with the reasons for why the Beast has a short temper. She is assertive from the start and stands up for herself telling him he needs to control his temper better. Eventually, the Beast does change.

This film is not a depiction of Stockholm syndrome.

[quote="WildSimba"]My true question to anyone who thinks this theory has absolutely no grounds and stupid is, when does Belle ever cease from being captive by the beast? Why would you trust the side of the story from someone who is being held prisoner, and has shown that her point of view might not be reliable?[/quote]

To me, Belle stopped feeling captive to the Beast around the "Something There" sequence. And if you don't trust Belle or the Beast's side of the story, the only remaining third party were Lumiere, Cogsworth, Mrs. Potts, and the servants is probably the most fair and balanced. They witness the Beast's abuse to Belle. They see Belle's reactions to the abuse. They see them for themselves that the relationship between the two is manifesting into love because as Mrs. Potts says, "He [the Beast] is finally learning to love." So, it is the Beast (the captor) that changes; not Belle.