Curt Clark

English 161
Revision, 9/3/14

Something There That Wasnt There Before:

The Truth About A Beauty, A Beast, And Stockholm Syndrome
Beauty and the Beast is my favorite movie of all time.
Its not just me; its widely considered one of the greatest animated pictures of all time,
even by Disney standards. Everything about it is perfect; the animation is astonishing and still
holds up to this day, the story is perfect and well-told, and the characters are well-rounded, deep,
and relatable.
This is the movie that, for most people, codified the modern fairy tale romance structure
and in 1991, showed the world that Disney had well and truly hit its second animation
Renaissance. For a story like Beauty and the Beast work, the audience has to believe the
relationship between the central characters, and Disney did a flawless job selling that
relationship, for me and for the millions of others, men and women alike, who praise it to this
day, some 23 years after its release.
So why do I also hear so many complaints about it? Specifically, about its protagonist,
Belle? She should be a perfect role model; more independent than Aurora (from Sleeping
Beauty), Snow White, or Cinderella, and more intelligent than Ariel. Shes kind and patient, but
not a doormat. She doesnt hurt people, but she does stand up for who and what she believes in.
So why does she get so much hate from people in the post-fairy tale era?
The answer, the film's detractors say, is simple: Belle has Stockholm syndrome.
For those who don't know, Stockholm syndrome, or capture-bonding, is a psychological
phenomenon in which a person, taken hostage, will develop feelings for their captor, to the point
of defending their abductor's actions despite everything their abductor put them through, in large
part thanks to perceiving a lack of abuse during the crisis situation as kindness. Real-world
examples include battered-person syndrome, military basic training, and fraternity hazing.
Obviously, as with any Disney movie, there are people who will criticize and deconstruct
every flaw; it's the cool thing to do. But this time, I think the joke's run its course.

Yes, Belle is technically a captive who falls in love with her captor. But there is so much
more going on in Beauty and the Beast that that gross oversimplification stops just shy of being
an outright insult to the intent of the film.
(Note that I'm going by the original film only for this argument. Because the midquels
contradict just about everything in the original. Also, they are godawful.)
To refute this in its entirety, let's look at the four conditions necessary for Stockholm
Syndrome to develop, as detailed by a recent FBI study:
1 - A person held in captivity cannot escape, and depends on the captor for life. The captor
becomes the person in control of the person's basic needs for survival, and the victim's
needs itself.
We can safely throw this one out from the get-go.
When Belle first agrees to take Maurice's place as the Beast's hostage, he's a pretty
terrible person. As such, he treats her, predictably, like dirt, refusing to even let her eat unless she
eats with him. In short, he tries to invoke this.
However, the entire point of the "Be Our Guest" scene is that the household staff is
defiant of him and wants her, not only to be fed, but treated as an honored guest. They feed her,
not the Beast, and so she develops an affection for them. They aren't the ones holding her against
her will, after all.
And Belle can escape. Easily, in fact. She ran right out of the castle the moment Beast
crossed the line from 'jerk' into 'monster'. The only reason she didn't was because of that
unfortunate encounter with the wolves, and after saving her from them, Beast was in no condition
to prevent her escape. She could have made off right then and there and never looked back.
But because she's a good person, she stayed and helped nurse him back to health. And she
still didn't like him all that much.
Observe the dialogue, taken from a copy of the script I found online, from one of my
favorite scenes:
( Fade to int of BEASTs den, with BELLE pouring hot
POTTS. She soaks a rag in the water, then turns to BEAST,
wounds.)
BELLE:
Here now. Oh, don't do that.
(BEAST growls at her as she tries to clean the wound
Just...hold still.
(She touches the rag to the wound and BEAST roars in
who

water out of MRS.

who is licking his
with her rag.)
pain.

The OBJECTS,

have been watching, jump back into hiding from the outburst.)
BEAST: That hurts!
BELLE: (In counterpoint) If you'd hold still, it wouldn't hurt as much.
BEAST: If you hadn't run away, this wouldn't have happened!
BELLE: If you hadn't frightened me, I wouldn't have run away!
BEAST: (Opens his mouth to respond, but has to stop and think of a good
line)

Well you shouldn't have been in the West Wing!

BELLE: Well, you should learn to control your temper!
(BEAST raises his hand to bring out another point, but finds he has
none, so he bows his head down again. The OBJECTS emerge from their hiding as
BELLE has conquered the ferocious temper of BEAST.
BELLE moves the rag closer to the wound) Now, hold still. This might
sting a little.
(BEAST gives a surprised grunt, then grits his teeth as the rag is
applied. BELLE speaks tenderly.)
BELLE: By the way, thank you. For saving my life.
(BEAST opens his eyes, looking surprised.)
BEAST: (Also very tenderly) You're welcome.
(Camera zooms out and we see the OBJECTS looking on with interest.

That is not a woman falling in love with her captor. That's a woman sticking up for
herself while still expressing gratitude for an actual (not perceived) kindness.
And of course when she needs to leave to save her father, it takes the (new, reformed)
Beast all of two seconds to decide to free her, thus possibly damning himself to an eternity of
monstrosity.
So, that's one prerequisite down. What are the others?
2 - The hostage endures isolation from other people and has only the captor's
perspective available. Perpetrators routinely keep information about the outside world's
response to their activities from captives to keep them totally dependent.
Well, first off, the outside world doesn't really know about the Beast at all until after
Belle is freed. When that happens, she's exposed to their response to him fairly first hand.
Secondly, she's not isolated or alone with him at all; he's got a whole household staff and
servants, an entire community she interacts with on a daily basis. Granted, they have an
investment in seeing her fall in love with him, but that doesn't change the fact that they hold very
strong opinions about how he treats her, and indeed coach him on how to be a better person for
her.
Third, look at the scene with the mirror, also from the script:
{BELLE and BEAST have adjourned to the balcony under a starry night.)

BEAST: Belle? Are you happy here with me?

BELLE: (Hesitantly) Well, yes. (She looks off into the distance)
BEAST: What is it?
BELLE:(Looks at him desperately) If only I could see my father again,
just for a moment. I miss him so much.
BEAST: (Looks disappointed for a moment, then excited.) There is a way.
(The pair adjourn to BEAST's lair, where BEAST hands BELLE the MAGIC
MIRROR.)
BEAST: This mirror will show you anything, anything you wish to see.
BELLE: (Hesitantly) I'd like to see my father, please.
(The MAGIC MIRROR shines into life, and BELLE turns her head away as it
flashes. Then it reveals MAURICE fallen in the woods, coughing and lost.
BELLE is shocked. BEAST looks at her with concern.)
BELLE:
(BEAST
BEAST:
BELLE:
BEAST:
BELLE:
BEAST:
BELLE:
(BELLE

Papa! Oh, no. He's sick, he may be dying! And he's all alone.
turns, then looks at the rose, deep in thought.)
Then...then you must go to him.
What did you say?
I release you. You are no longer my prisoner.
(In amazement) You mean...I'm free?
Yes.
Oh, thank you. (To MAGIC MIRROR) Hold on, Papa. I'm on my way.
turns to leave, then turns back and pushes the MAGIC MIRROR back

to

BEAST.)
BEAST: Take it with you, so you'll always have a way to look back, and
remember me.
BELLE: Thank you for understanding how much he needs me.
(BELLE turns to leave and BEAST looks down in depression. She touches
her hand to his cheek and rushes out.)

After her escape from the castle and return of her own free will, Belle is mostly shown as
being happy. The minute she shows herself to be otherwise, Beast whips out the mirror and lets
her use it to check up on her father. And, lets not forget, lets her go when she realizes Maurice
needs her.
So, nope. The outside world is very much within Belle's reach, and she is never isolated
with the Beast; in fact, they're hardly ever even alone together throughout the movie.
3 - The hostage taker threatens to kill the victim and gives the perception as having the
capability to do so. The captive judges it safer to align with the perpetrator, endure the
hardship of captivity, and comply with the captor rather than resist and face murder.
Simply put, nope.
Never happens. Not once.
Beast is physically capable of killing Belle...he's a super-strong lion-wolf-buffalo-bear
guy. In the vernacular that has been used since the 1980s at least: duh.

But he never once intimates the intent to do so, even at his worst. Indeed, any attempt on
her life, real or implied, would be completely counterproductive to his whole goal, which is for
her to fall in love with him, and vice versa.
Remember, she can leave any time she wants. The only threat to her escape was the
wolves, and the Beast took care of those. Belle made it perfectly clear that she will leave if Beast
treats her in any way that she doesn't like.
And Beast takes this to heart. After the scene with the wolves, Belle's captivity isn't really
a hardship to endure. Not only is she in the lap of luxury, with servants catering to her and her
horse's every whim, but Beast himself makes every effort to be nice to her, to be courteous and a
gentleman. Even if he's not very good at it at first, the effort is there, and it's sincere.
So the very premise of Belle's captivity pretty much negates this aspect of Stockholm
syndrome.

And finally:
4 - The captive sees the perpetrator as showing some degree of kindness. Kindness serves as
the cornerstone of Stockholm syndrome; the condition will not develop unless the captor
exhibits it in some form toward the hostage. However, captives often misinterpret a lack of
abuse as kindness, and may develop feelings of appreciation for this perceived benevolence. If
the captor is purely evil and abusive, the hostage will respond with hatred. But, if
perpetrators show some kindness, victims will submerge the anger they feel in response to
the terror and concentrate on the captor's "good side" to protect themselves.
This one is the one most people latch onto when they think of Belle as having Stockholm
syndrome.
My favorite scene in the movie, alongside the iconic ballroom dance number and the
transformation at the end, is a scene where the Beast leads Belle to the castles library, a majestic
place and one of the most gloriously rendered backgrounds in any animated movie Ive ever
seen. Upon realizing how much she is in love with it, gives the whole place to her as a gift.
As much as I love this scene, its the favorite piece of evidence that detractors of the
relationship and Stockholm arguers favorite piece of evidence like to throw out.
Here's why this doesn't work:

a) The library scene is Beast's repayment to Belle for saving his life after he was injured
fighting off the wolves.
b) It's a genuinely kind gesture. This goes beyond 'he stops being a dick to her' and into
doing truly nice things for her. It's a character moment for Beast, breaking away from a lifetime
of selfishness to do something good for someone else.
c) Belle's not afraid of him, or angry at him anymore, by this point. Remember, by now
she's proven she can leave any time she wants. She stays now because she wants to, because she
likes the household staff and is starting to like the Beast. There's nothing to submerge, so her
feelings of gratitude are genuine.
So to close out, no, Belle does not and never did have Stockholm syndrome. She interacts
with Beast as an equal, not a prisoner, and they fall in love as such. He changes on a fundamental
level to win her over, becoming a better person, worthy of that love.
That was the entire point of the movie, after all...that love has the power to redeem
someone, but it has to be earned, to grow on its own, and not be forced.
I feel that Beast earned that redemption.
This film, and its message of the redemptive power of love, helped me through some of
the darkest times in my life, times where I felt as though I was unworthy or undeserving of the
consideration and caring of others. I identified with the Beasts struggle to become a better
person, because I feel its a struggle all of us go through every day of our lives. The tale as old
as time mentioned in the titular song, to me, is not a tale of two people falling hopelessly in love
with each other, but of two people changing and becoming better due to knowing one another.
That is a topic for another essay, but suffice it to say that I looked at the world differently after
having seen this movie. And every time I need a reminder of the lessons I learned in this movie
that we are in charge of our own destinies, that people need each other to change and to grow,
and that there is no situation so hopeless that caring for someone else cannot improve it I will
pop my DVD in and refresh my memory, my spirit, and my faith in humanity.
Because if we can create films with this kind of uplifting message, regardless of how
some people will misinterpret it, we cant be all bad.