[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.