Beastly is in the Eye of the Beholder - Part II

Versions of this story, which scholars like to categorize as “Animal Husband” stories, exist in all cultures and time periods throughout history.  As most of us know by now, the first written form is generally thought to be the Greek Myth of Cupid & Psyche.

But the version we would recognize as Beauty & the Beast was first published in France in 1740 by a woman named Gabrielle de Villeneuve.  She was a frequenter of the Paris salons where the telling of “Fairy Stories” was a popular form of entertainment.  Her version was long, complex and clearly geared toward an adult, aristocratic audience.

About twelve years later, another French woman named Madame Le Prince de Beaumont took that version and shortened and simplified it, with the idea of a children’s audience in mind.  In doing so, she helped to create the new concept of Children’s Literature, which really had not existed prior to that time.  So, contrary to what the library staff was thinking back in 1987, Beauty & the Beast started out as a story for adults.

What makes this story so attractive and versatile is its symbolism.  Beauty & the Beast asks big, timeless questions like: What is Beauty? And, maybe more importantly: What is Beastly?  These are questions that could be debated endlessly, and can be changed and adapted quite easily, as Madame Beaumont did, to just about any audience.

This idea was brought home to me in 2006, while doing research for a Beauty & the Beast themed English paper.  I came across a critique of Jean Cocteau’s 1946 French movie version “La Belle et la Bête.” It spoke about how there is more to the Beast than just his physical appearance.  He has little of the social refinement that would have been expected of someone in his class and time period.  This Beastly lack of social graces is lost on contemporary audiences. 

Another example is Disney’s Beast.  When you think about it, he basically behaves like a naughty child.  This is evident in how he is repeatedly told he must learn to “control his temper.”  There is also the sweet scene in which Belle tries to teach him how to have more acceptable table manners. 

In contrast to Cocteau and Disney, our Vincent certainly does not need to learn better manners. Yet, he is still the Beast of the story.  The definition of Beast here is much more a comment on our society than on Vincent himself.  After all, we claim to value the princely traits Vincent possesses on the inside – but most people miss them – because of how he looks on the outside. 

It is true that in all of these versions the Beast does look the part – other than human.  Vincent conforms to how a Beast should look, but not how he should act.  Vincent is also the first Beast to remain as he is and not turn into someone more human looking.  This is due, as least in part, to the medium that gave birth to Vincent - television. 

A book or a movie simply ends at a given time. You can hint at the “happily ever after” but you don’t necessarily have to see it.  In television, the end is much harder to pinpoint.  You have to plan for a next week and a next season.  As a result, Vincent and Catherine were the first Beauty and Beast that we really got to know in an on-going and personal way. The more we knew them, the more we loved them – and the more we wanted them to have their version of the traditional “happily ever after” ending. 

These factors created a unique situation in Beauty & the Beast history.  Ron Koslow didn’t intend a “happily ever after” ending.  He didn’t even think it was possible.  Those in charge completely underestimated the power of this story – the very power of love itself!  When they realized what had happened it was almost too late to “fix” it.  Censors would surely pass judgment on Vincent and Catherine having their happily ever after.  Many misguided souls would call it “bestiality.”  There was no easy solution to this dilemma.  But there was no denying the appeal of the story. 

So with Vincent having been the first Beast to step outside the box of expectations, it makes sense that future attempts would have a Beast that doesn’t even look the part at all. In order to have their cake and eat it too, television writers found other ways to create the Beast.

(continued...)