AABB, Part Two: Belle

Not so long ago, I posted that I would be attempting a moral defense of Disney's Beauty and the Beast; this shall be the first real chapter. And, fittingly enough, as the story begins with a prologue and then with Belle herself, so will I.

Belle is an interesting character... and a controversial one. Because there are so many interpretations of both her and her actions, she ranges from being a characterless bookworm to a self-centered feminist to a paragon of redemption. Well, here goes...

Her Treatment of Others

One of the main things people point out first about Belle is that she seems rather rude and dismissive of other people, especially in the stage version. She calls the villagers "little people," their town "dull" and "provincial," Gaston "boorish, brainless" and "monster," the Beast also "monster" and "fool," and generally has no friends. Not to mention, she seems to regard other people's lives as irrelevant - how they live is of no consequence to her. This is seen not only in her sung insults above, but also in her careless attitude towards the servants and the rules in the Beast's castle. Now, even for all this, you might notice that I still said she only seems rude and dismissive of other people. Well, the truth of it is, she doesn't want to be - this is one of Belle's defining features, in fact.

Belle certainly has a disregard for the rules, but I believe that this is more out of her contrary nature rather than her disbelief in them or a progressive mindset (as some have claimed). Think about it. She only goes to the West Wing because she was told she shouldn't; same for her eating despite his command. And, really, is there another good example of Belle breaking the rules? She doesn't do it often; I would say her breaking of the Beast's rules is more a way of being contrary to the captor she so loathes at the beginning, not a lifestyle. The involvement of the servants is merely an afterthought to Belle - she didn't do it to get them in trouble, nor did she show any sign of even recognizing that possibility.

For Gaston and the Beast's parts, Belle's critique of them is really only an offense when piled upon other things. After all, isn't Gaston boorish and brainless? Does he not treat her with the utmost arrogance and near-monstrous presumption? And does he not even go to the length of attempting to make her miserable to make himself happy, as in the case of imprisoning her father? And what of the Beast? Didn't he also imprison her father, as well as her? Did he not behave himself with every intent of being the monster he seemed? As for his being a fool, this is a mere passing shot of Belle's contrary character - it was rude and uncalled for, but it is yet another part of the arc that she shapes (as I will demonstrate below). 

As for Belle's treatment of other people in the village, her dismissiveness is a clue to her character arc. She calls them things like "provincial" and "little people" in an unintentional ironic sense of humor - she is one of them, but not enough to reap the benefits of being a little person... in that, she is the littlest of them all. In her complaining of the village life, she doesn't realize how much pettier even than them she has become - while they concern themselves with bacon, fish, bread, and the market prices, she has a leg above them and complains about life in general. But it's not meant as an insult.

When Belle complains, her intent, however pettily played out, is that she merely wants something higher than being alone in the village. Her conversation with her father reveals this perhaps more than anything. She asks him if, for her being alone, she is odd, as she hears. He replies that she should not acknowledge the other villagers - their opinions and what they say is quite irrelevant, and she should not care whether she has a friend among them. They are, after all, "the common herd," as he claims, and aren't worth much. Reluctant to accept this truth, Belle vaguely affirms the notion - if I'm not one of them yet, then it must not be worth it to be one of them, she thinks. But we never really get the idea that Belle is crazy about the idea - she accepts it because the only friend she does have says it's so.

What Does Belle Really Want?

This gets to the very root of exactly what Belle desires. She does not shun the traditional life, or other people's company - in fact, this is what she yearns for most. It is, once more, her contrary personality and the influence of her well-meaning but oversighted father that shapes her dismissal of the small world she inhabits. The best look we get of Belle's dreams are when she sings of the beauty she finds in books - not of the traveling life or of great distance from other people, but of prince Charmings and true love, of someone who will be a companion to her, and of the chivalry of old, beauteous devotion. It's not that she rejects the husband-wife-children-life attitude of the villagers, but, rather, she envies them so very greatly because that is what she desires. She doesn't want to be passed off as one more girl marrying a good-looking guy for adventure and thrills (like so many of the women fancying Gaston are), but wants desperately to marry for love, and for someone who will stick by her in life. 

Belle rejects Gaston because she knows that he will not help her. Not only is he openly unfaithful, but he cares much more about what he does outside the home than in - Belle is irrelevant to him except as someone to be there for the rare time when his whim lies with making a legacy for his household. He can't help her discover herself, he can't help her live up to a higher ideal, and he certainly cannot love her, wholeheartedly, giving instead of taking. Life with Gaston would be oh-so lonely for Belle, who already struggles so with her loneliness and stumbling journey.

Because the villagers would look well on Belle even if she married for the adventure of Gaston, Belle believes that they are errant (and, to a certain extent, they absolutely are). She herself only sees the lack of mystery and constancy in such a union, and abhors the thought. 

Even in her petty state of mind, she yearns for a true, profound relationship - one that will give her fulfillment. Belle's desire for the infinite is a desire in us all, isn't it? And even in the beginning, when it is her constant complaint against the town, the integral good of the thing remains - Belle merely wants a lasting thing.

But Does She Actually Change?

It is my belief that Belle does indeed change, and quite drastically. Think about it. In her first scene, she complains of how boring and typical her hometown is. A few scenes later, when she realizes the true tragedy that is out there, with her father being imprisoned by the Beast, she chides herself, singing "and to think I complained of that dull, provincial town!". Even though her ungrateful attitude remains at that point, we see already her change in attitudes towards the village. Then, later, when she wonders at the spell, and when she finally befriends the Beast, we hear her start to show gratitude more (as when she is healing the Beast). Then, finally, before the mob scene, she sings of how wrong she was, how stupid and silly to disregard everyone but herself, and how much, even against her own stubbornness, the Beast has changed her. And to top it all off, her farewell to the Beast as he is dying claims him a better being than herself - one more worthy of love.

By the end, really, we see a much humbler and more grateful Belle - humbled by hardship and mortification, perhaps, but humbled nonetheless. This is actually one of the biggest reasons that my preference strictly script-wise lies with the stage version (while she's ruder in the play's beginning than in the movie's, we don't get either of Belle's character arc songs, "Home" and "Change in Me," in the movie). To hold Belle's beginning character against her after her change is ridiculous, and I think it is not sufficient reason to condemn the story. 

Her ego diminishes as the story goes on, creating, actually, quite a pleasing character arc. In fact, her character arc can be seen as a reflection of the Beast's - just as he is reformed by her, so she is by him. And both have the same problem after all - egotism, stubbornness, and a rebellious temper. But by the end, both are willing to give their own ways up for the other. The story is all about redemption - after all, the only character who never reform in a story are the villains, and Beauty and the Beast is no exception. Gaston and LeFou (both of whom I'll get to later) don't change a bit, except perhaps for the worse, and same for M. D'Arque (the asylum keeper - unnamed in the movie). But Belle changes. The Beast changes. Lumiere, Cogsworth, and most of the rest change (as I'll also get to in a future post). The only people who don't change are those who represent ideal virtue in the story (Mrs. Potts) and those who represent the utmost lack of virtue (I would argue LeFou, but Gaston works as well). In a way, Beauty and the Beast is a title not just labeling the romance of Belle and Prince Adam (the Beast's oft forgotten real name, by the bye), but the two sides of Belle as well, fighting for her until the nobler one wills out. 

In this, I would defend Belle. Your thoughts on her? Do you have anything to add? To object? To suggest for future posts in this series? Please - spare a thought or two, if you have them.