Monthly Matinee November: Fiction Relationship Analysis: Disney's Cinderella

Fiction Relationship Analysis: Disney's Cinderella

by: Melissa Koons
www.melsmagnificentmusings.com


All images are copyright to Disney and their property

"Cinderella" is a classic fairy tale. Nearly every culture across time and the globe has a version of the story as modified for their own culture. The original story emerged in China, 850 B.C.E. This explains why feet are so prominent, as foot-binding was a common practice amongst women during this time in Chinese culture. The smaller a woman's feet were, the more attractive she was. Part of this is because a woman with small feet were often wealthier; the act of foot-binding was so painful and destructive that they were unable to do many physical activities which showed their elevated status and ability to afford servants who would do the work for them.
While feet are a key aspect of the "Cinderella" fairy tale, there are more vital commonalities that transcend culture and are prevalent in EVERY version and retelling regardless of culture or era. The most prevalent commonalities are the notions that kindness and valor will prevail over deceit and hardships and that those who possess and express these qualities will be rewarded.
The Disney retelling of "Cinderella" is no exception. Cinderella is a kind, young woman who endures the mistreatment and downright abuse of her stepmother and stepsisters with unwavering patience and hope. This is where many misinterpretations are applied. While it is important to apply a modern and progressive lens to art and its representation of society, it's also important to compare it to the initial value and message that is being taught. There are better ways to make a point, of course, but there is a reason "Cinderella" is a story that has traveled so far and across time and culture.

Misinterpretation 1: "Cinderella" is promoting taking a passive approach to abuse

While this claim can be made, when you look at the story I argue that this is a misinterpretation and only a surface judgment. Specifically focusing on Disney's animated film (disregarding "Ever After" and the live-action for the purposes of conciseness,) Cinderella wasn't passive at all. She did her chores and tried to have a positive outlook on a bleak situation, but did never acknowledged that her treatment was "okay" or "normal."
She noticed that her stepsisters were favored and that she was treated poorly, she never defended how they treated her. She never made excuses for them and their behavior. She knew it was wrong, but she was a kinder, stronger person and chose not to retaliate with the same mistreatment and negativity. It would solve nothing and she knew it was wrong to do so. So, she did what she had to do given her situation: endure. She was not in a position where she could reasonably escape her abusers, but that should not be confused with being passive. Bear in mind, it was made very clear that she had no other family and no other prospects. A young woman on her own in the time era that this story is told had few opportunities to support and provide for herself. Fleeing her step-family and being on her own would not have been an upgrade to her situation. It actually would have been a lot worse so she made do with the lesser of bad options.

While she endured, she also defended herself and spoke up when it was important. When her stepsisters accused her of a prank by putting Gus in one of their tea cups, she tried to defend herself to her stepmother but wouldn't be heard. She attempted multiple explanations, only to be cut off each time. She didn't admit to something she didn't do, but she also didn't continue to fight a futile battle.

When it came time for the ball, she requested to go. It was important to her and she made it happen, circumventing the obstacles her family put in place to deny her the opportunity. Her hope and work ethic got her through it. She didn't resort to petty arguments that would get her nothing, instead she relied on her skills, integrity, and friends to accomplish what seemed impossible. If she were passive, she never would have requested to go let alone rose to the impossible challenge her stepmother issued her so that she could prove her worth and dignity. When her sisters destroyed her gown, she wasn't passive and didn't just stand there and let it happen. She tried to get away but they blocked her on both sides and she couldn't. She also was visibly upset with her stepmother, understanding it was she who manipulated her stepsisters to attack. Cinderella, again, didn't excuse the behavior nor was she "okay" with it. She fled to her safe place and wept.

When her stepmother locked her in her room, she tried to get out. She banged on the door, she begged, she tried to pry it open. She didn't just sit there and allow herself to be locked away. When the duke and prince arrived with the shoe, Cinderella worked with the mice to get herself out of that room. Did she just allow her stepmother to make excuses and tell the duke there was no one else in the house? No! She ran down those stairs and made a point of letting them know she was there, she existed, and darn it she was getting out. Here was her opportunity, at long last, to escape her abuse and she took it! Even when her stepmother broke the glass slipper, she pulled out the second one. Boom! She wasn't about to let a little broken glass get in the way of getting out of that house. Nope. She was defiant of her stepmother when it mattered most and would result in her escape from her step-family's abusive household.

Boom, bitch.

Cinderella constantly fought her situation, but she picked her battles wisely and didn't fight with aggression or anger. Her kindness, patience, and good-natured behavior may appear like a passive approach to her abuse, but it is far from it. Instead, her actions and reactions only support that she is kind and honorable with integrity and a strong moral and ethical code which are all the traits that every version of the story told anywhere highlights.

Misinterpretation 2: "Cinderella" promotes the damsel in distress stereotype (and that you can meet a man, dance with him, barely talk, and then marry the guy.)

Yes, many fairy tales promote the idea that you don't need to get to know someone before marrying them but this notion is also a very modern concept. For most of history, marriages were arranged based on building connections and aligning with families who would give you the most benefits in supplies, wealth, and fortitude. "Getting to know" your spouse didn't become a thing until really the 20th century.
That aside, the modern perception of romantic love gets in the way of the actual message. The prince didn't "save" Cinderella—technically, the mice and birds did—he was her reward. It wasn't that she was the damsel in distress, I didn't see the prince run upstairs and free her from her locked room, did you? No. She got herself out of the situation by making friends and connections whom she could rely on. On top of that, she saved herself by providing the other slipper and proving she was the woman he was seeking. In your face step-family! (Again, another example of her not being passive.)

Just stand there and look pretty, Princey

The whole moral of the story is that kindness and valor will be rewarded. Marrying a prince, moving into a castle where she will want for nothing, and never have to endure the abuse or hardships of strenuous labor again are her rewards for sticking it out and overcoming her situation without compromising those qualities. Really, the prince is an object. That's part of the reason why he doesn't have a name. It doesn’t matter; he as a person is inconsequential, what he represents is what is more important to the story and he represents positive affection and security.

Misinterpretation 3: Outer beauty is what matters

Obviously, Disney has done a lot over the recent decades to try and create female characters who are more than their appearance and whose physical beauty is rarely even acknowledged let alone a factor in their story (Mulan, Moana, Brave, etc.) However, Cinderella was created in the 1950's and the feminist movements of the 70's, 90's, and 2010's hadn't happened yet. Due to the culture and time period it was created in, yes, there is a bit more focus on her beauty and poise being what attracts the prince. This was later rectified in films with longer run times such as "Ever After" and Disney's live-action version.
That said, even in the animated film that was never really the point. In the original fairy tale it was a consistent theme that she was beautiful and her evil stepsisters would make her sleep in the fireplace, getting covered with cinder ash, to minimize her beauty. Once she was freed of their grasp, and with her fairy godmother's help, her true beauty could shine through and she no longer had to hide who she was because of her abusers. Looking at it through this context, her outer beauty is a mere reflection of her inner beauty and it is that which attracts the prince because—remember?—he's her reward for being a kind, good-natured person.

Everyone knows a little glitter fixes years of abuse and neglect

When working with a visual, animated format in the 1950's it was difficult to translate "he's attracted to her inner beauty because she's such a wonderful person" with a glance and a 74 minute run-time. As mentioned earlier, Disney figured out how to fix that issue with the live-action version where they allowed the prince and Cinderella to have a few on-screen conversations to get to know each other. It's important to mention that the culture of the 1950's was much less "in your face" about these interactions and messages as our culture is today. In the 50's, courtship and romance was meant to be discrete and portrayed as a subtle smile, a dance, a lingering gaze—not as we expect to see it now through witty banter, conversation, and some passionate shouting. But, considering the prince is simply an object of her reward, it doesn't really matter if he gets to know her in the animated version since that was never the point of his character or presence.

Damn girl, your inner beauty
 and kind demeanor is so attractive
that no one else at the ball can compare
to your kind soul


A lot of Disney's earlier animated princess movies get heavy criticism now that our culture has changed our expectations and demands for female characters and representation (which is super awesome and I love the new direction Disney is going with their princess films and how they are adding more substance to their earlier ones in the live-action remakes to address some of the earlier issues with characterization and plot) but not all of it is deserving. When you consider the source material and the lesson that was meant to be gained from the fairy tale, Disney actually stuck to it pretty well. The issue is when the audience loses sight of the actual message and lesson and begins to only identify the differences between their expectations now vs what was acceptable in the 1950's.
The point of Cinderella is to be a kind person and to not allow external hardships compromise your inner integrity. When the viewer remembers this, Cinderella is actually an excellent role model for everyone. She knows she is being mistreated but she endures it the best she can while she has to, not allowing it to make her angry or bitter or hurtful toward others, and the moment she gets her chance to better her life and situation she takes it. She fights within her means and is eventually rewarded for her good nature, kindness, and endurance.

 

If Cinderella were to get a modern update, how do you think her rewards would differ based on modern society's values? Maybe a dashing prince and a palace where she would never have to work again aren't the rewards we seek any more, but the message of the tale still stands and has intrinsic value: be kind, be strong, and don't compromise your integrity because of a negative situation.

Monthly Matinee August: Fiction Relationship Analysis: Hunchback of Notre Dame

Fiction Relationship Analysis: What Our Favorite Stories Are Really Telling Us

This Month: Disney’s Hunchback of Notre Dame

by: Melissa Koons
www.melsmagnificentmusings.com


Copyright all imagery used in this post belongs exclusively to Disney and their animated film.


Popular culture has a huge impact on our social and psychological development. We shape many of our beliefs and perspectives about ourselves based on popular culture and our reaction to it. This can have both positive and negative effects on our development and personal identity. Sometimes, we become stronger because we were inspired by our favorite superhero to stand up for what is right and be allies for those who cannot advocate for themselves. Sometimes, we feel weakened because our lives aren’t falling into the normal storytelling arc and we wonder what is wrong with us. (Hint: life doesn’t have a formula like a good story. It’s not you, it’s your conditioning.)
While popular culture can shape many and all aspects of our perception— from our body image, to our character, to our passions, to our choice for a career— one of the most significant (and problematic) aspects it shapes is our perception of relationships.
Within literature, film, video games, graphic novels, and all other manners of storytelling, we are exposed to thousands of very toxic relationships. Toxic workplace dynamics, toxic friendships, toxic family relations, and toxic romances. While not all stories romanticize these toxic relationships, our perception and interpretation can. When we see these characters get a resolution (happily ever after or otherwise) we can use that to reason or excuse similar toxic behavior in our own lives. Instead of recognizing the resolution for what it is and what it is meant to be, we make it into more or are disappointed when it isn’t.
This month’s Fiction Relationship Analysis is going to focus on Disney’s Hunchback of Notre Dame. This story has a lot of conflicted feelings about it and some people love it, hate it, or have very mixed feelings about how all the characters are left at the end of the story.

Warning: there be spoilers ahead!
 

Disney’s Hunchback of Notre Dame is a loving adaptation of the Victor Hugo classic. The ending was greatly changed from Hugo’s original novel, and I think we are all better for it. While French Gothic Literature has a special place in history and there is a certain literary genius to it, it is super depressing. Yes, the original ending is beautiful in its tragedy, but Disney’s is beautiful in its re-imagining and actually has a better message about relationships.

Quick Summary

Set in Paris, France 1482, Frollo is a self-righteous judge who is focused on cleansing the city of gypsies and other ethnic minorities. The movie starts with Judge Claude Frollo setting a trap for a group of gypsies trying to escape the city. As their ship is stopped by law enforcement and the occupants are dragged out and shackled to be imprisoned, one woman escapes with a bundle which the audience knows to be her infant child. Frollo and his men pursue under the belief that she is fleeing with stolen goods (which emphasizes Frollo’s racism and prejudice against this group of people that he doesn’t even consider for a moment that she may be holding her own belongings or child.)

The woman runs to the steps of Notre Dame—one of the largest cathedrals in the center of Paris—and begs for sanctuary. Before the priest can let her in and grant her safety (per the rules of the church and pope. All within its walls are protected by God and cannot be persecuted provided they offer penance. This plays a big role in the movie,) Frollo grabs her baby from her and kicks her down the steps, killing her. When he discovers the bundle is a baby, who suffers from a deformity, he goes to drown the child but the priest stops him. In a moment of guilt, the priest convinces Frollo to spare the child and care for him. Frollo agrees, provided the child can live, locked away, in the bell tower. He names the child Quasimodo, and that is the hunchback’s tragic origin story.

After about 18 years of being trapped in the bell tower ringing the bells for mass, Quasimodo gets an itch to go out into the city and live his life. Frollo doesn’t allow it, so he chooses to escape without Frollo’s permission to attend the Festival of Fools. Everyone is dressed in crazy clothes and masks, so he blends right in.

While Quasimodo is plotting his escape, we are introduced to Phoebus, Frollo’s new captain. Phoebus walks through the streets and we witness the discrimination Frollo shows gypsies in Paris when Phoebus sees Frollo’s militia chase the gypsy Esmeralda and try to confiscate the money she earned as a street performer under the assumption that she stole it (seeing a pattern? Sounds like the same prejudice that got Quasimodo’s mother killed. That’s not by accident.) She escapes, but loses some of her hard earned money. Phoebus, in an act that shows his disagreement for Frollo’s method and racism, returns the money to her.


Phoebus is eventually brought to Judge Claude Frollo, where he learns of the evil judge’s plan to wipe the gypsies out with an act of genocide (let’s not sugar coat it, that’s totally what he’s doing. Disney went there.) Phoebus disagrees, but as a man of honor and military training, he also knows he has to follow orders lest he be dishonorably discharged and hanged for treason. (Frollo’s threat of torture doesn’t help.) Phoebus isn’t looking at very great options right now. Be party to genocide, or be hanged for doing the right thing. Quite the moral dilemma, but I digress.

Seriously, look how creepy Frollo is when threatening his new Captain with torture. Phoebus is understandably apprehensive, Frollo is seriously disturbed.
Quasimodo makes it down to the street festival and he’s having a grand ol’ time. He’s very self-conscious, but no one seems to notice because they believe he is wearing a mask like they are. This is where he meets Esmeralda and is shown the first kindness and compassion from another person he’s ever received in his life (except the priest.) It is important to note, that his brief conversation with Esmeralda before the street show starts is probably his first interaction with a woman, ever. After some good fun and a quirky musical number, he is discovered as the bell ringer and Frollo enacts a public punishment for Quasimodo disobeying him by turning the crowd against him and allowing them to humiliate him. Esmeralda is the only one to step up and stop the bullying, untying him and making a public statement about how her people are treated similarly inhuman by Frollo and his militia.

 

Phoebus stands at Frollo’s left hand. He suggests calling the cruelty of the crowd off before Esmeralda steps up, but is denied by Frollo and he has to follow his orders. This, again, shows his compassion and disagreement for Frollo’s methods. After Esmeralda rescues Quasimodo, Phoebus is given the command to arrest her. Phoebus chases her to Notre Dame and they have a squabble.
Esmeralda is defensive, but Phoebus proves that he is really on her side although he is limited in what he can do for her. When the rest of the militia and Frollo catch up, Phoebus lies and tells them that Esmeralda claimed sanctuary so they cannot touch her for she is under the protection of the church (see, I told you it was important.) He saved her life to the best of his ability because he knew she was innocent. Frollo and his men are forced to leave, but they stand post outside the cathedral so that, should she leave, they can arrest her once she no longer is protected by the church.
Quasimodo finds Esmeralda in the church (she is kind of stuck there,) and they have a nice chat—the first human chat he’s ever had with another person. She shows him kindness, acceptance, and compassion—all things he’s never gotten from Frollo. Smitten, Quasimodo helps her escape and avoid capture.

Meanwhile, Frollo is wrestling with his own inner demons. He, too, is smitten with Esmeralda. He is drawn to her beauty and it is horrifying for him. Not only because he took a vow of celibacy, but because he is a racist jerk who thinks that her ethnic group is sub-human. He is struggling with his own emotions because he’s dealing with sexual attraction and that attraction is toward a person of color whom he has every intention of wiping out with that whole genocide plan. His solution? He will give her the option to become his mistress or he will burn her. Sex slave or death; not a great ultimatum to be faced with.


Dude is seriously not handling his obsession well.

Frollo discovers that Quasimodo helped Esmeralda escape and is furious. He commands his men to scour the city looking for her and arrest all people he considers to be gypsies or sympathizers. Phoebus follows orders, to a point. Frollo is having his men burn the city down (literally) in his search, but when he traps an innocent family with children inside their burning house because he believes they are withholding information, Phoebus loses it and breaks rank. He saves the people and is marked a traitor for it. Frollo orders his death but Phoebus manages to escape and is saved by Esmeralda. She brings him to Quasimodo for help and safe keeping. Quasimodo is heartbroken because he sees Esmeralda and Phoebus kiss, solidifying that his love is unrequited. After she leaves, Quasimodo is angry with Phoebus but they still form an alliance to help save Esmeralda and her people from Frollo’s genocidal ways.

 

Frollo tracks Quasimodo and uses him to locate the gypsies’ hideout and arrest all of them. He gives his awful ultimatum to Esmeralda and she chooses the pyre. Quasimodo is chained in the bell tower, and Phoebus is going to be killed with the other gypsy prisoners, leaving them all divided and rather helpless. Through motivation (no longer driven purely by the prospect that Esmeralda may love him in return but now that she is someone he cares about and he can’t let his friends and all these good, innocent people die,) Quasimodo breaks free and saves her from the fire. He also frees everyone else and there’s an epic battle. Frollo perishes, Esmeralda lives, it’s all great.
The very end shows Esmeralda and Phoebus brought together with Quasimodo’s blessing, and the two of them bring him out of the bell tower where he finally finds acceptance among his community. (The victor Hugo ending had Esmeralda die from smoke inhalation and Quasimodo starve himself to death beside her body. Pretty sure Frollo and the captain character both died, too. It’s French Gothic Literature, so it’s safe to assume everyone died.)



Okay, so that wasn’t such a quick summary but I have reasons for why I focused on all these plot points. Some of the disagreement and mixed feelings with the ending are based on our perception of how these relationships were wrapped up. I don’t think anyone disagrees with Frollo falling to his death into a pit of fire and lava. That was one of the most cathartic villain deaths in a Disney movie. It paralleled his intense faith that he twisted and perverted into the belief that he was superior to others and that certain races and people were sub-human in comparison by literally having him fall from heaven (the bell tower of Notre Dame, one of the most exquisite cathedrals and monuments of the Catholic faith) into the pit of hell (the very fire he had started with his own cruelty and genocide.) An ironic and poetic end for one of the most evil Disney villains. No, what people tend to have a problem with is what happened after Frollo met his demise.
Phoebus is often considered a “bland” character and not whom many viewers wanted Esmeralda to end up with. Some people view that their relationship was forced, or that she should have ended up with Quasimodo. While these perceptions are valid, I’m going to tell you why Disney’s ending was actually the best way to wrap up these relationships.

Esmeralda is unarguably the connective tissue of this entire story. It is her relationships with the three main men that ties them together and moves the plot forward. Through these relationships, we see very different approaches and perceptions of what a romantic relationships are.

 
Frollo = Toxic

 Frollo’s attachment to Esmeralda is obviously toxic. He is racist and prejudiced against her and her ethnicity, but finds her sexually appealing despite his horrible perception. He objectifies her, mainly because he doesn’t believe her to be human to begin with. To appease his own inner struggle and (horribly misguided) moral dilemma, he reaches the solution that he can still go about his “cleansing” and feel righteous about it provided she chooses to be his mistress. “Be mine and mine alone,” he sings. To him, she is a possession and exists purely for his own satisfaction and desire. She is something to be owned and kept, not a human person with feelings and a life of her own.


Esmeralda's expressions of disgust in this movie are on point.

He is obsessed with her sexuality and he reasons with himself that it will not be sinful if he makes her “his” because then he will be committing a selfless act of mercy by sparing her and her evilness and making her “good” by affiliating himself with her. It’s all very twisted and toxic. Yikes.


 

Quasimodo = Toxic

To fill out the dichotomy of the toxic scale, there is Quasimodo’s toxic attachment to Esmeralda. Similar to Frollo, he is obsessed with her. He’s not obsessed with her body or sexuality like Frollo is, instead he is obsessed with her compassion and kindness. She is the first person to treat him humanly, and the first woman. She fills the void of the mother Frollo killed, and gives him the acceptance and compassion Quasimodo has always sought from the world. He loves how she makes him feel, not who she really is as a person. He loves what she gives him, and he takes it greedily making their relationship incredibly imbalanced. He needs her validation and affection, but he isn’t able to return it in a healthy way. He cannot support her emotionally because he relies on her to heal him and fix his wounds. This is incredibly toxic because Esmeralda will forever be in the position of giving and her needs will never be met. More than that, Quasimodo idolizes her. Since she is the first person (and woman) in his life to fill that void, he put her on a pedestal where he worships her. She can do no wrong in his eyes, and that dehumanizes her by making her divine. She is no longer a person with thoughts, feelings, and mistakes.

 
To his credit: while it hurts him, Quasimodo does accept her choice to be with Phoebus and gives his blessing on the relationship as a friend. He doesn’t hold it against her or hate her because she didn’t choose him (which we often see in the toxic “nice guy” perception.) He befriends Phoebus and learns that he is a good, honorable man and Quasimodo chooses to help him and Esmeralda despite being rejected. He’s also not waiting for her to change her mind. His character develops and he understands that to love someone means loving them and their freedom to make their own choices. So, bright side is that while their relationship started off toxic, it concluded with a healthy balance. Quasimodo accepts her as a friend and from this position he can get his needs met without preventing Esmeralda from getting the same.

Phoebus = Healthy

 For starters, Phoebus isn’t a bland character. He is an honorable, intelligent man who shows compassion towards others—especially toward those who are different than him. He is an ally for all people who face discrimination and he tries his best to use his position of power to help them, but he is limited by his own station and orders. He does not agree with Frollo’s plan to commit genocide, and starts to vocalize it but is shown by Frollo what will happen to him should he step out of bounds (the former captain was tortured for being inefficient and a sympathizer.) Still, facing the threat of death for being marked a traitor, he does what he can to help Esmeralda and others.
While he appreciates Esmeralda's physical beauty, he admires her passion, fire, and strength to stand up to a corrupt system. He loves her for who she is and he doesn’t try to imprison her by objectifying her and making her “his,” nor does he put her on a pedestal where she is forced to constantly be the giver. Instead, he approaches her as an equal. He wants to work with her, not for her or above her. He wants to support her, and in return she offers him support. It is a mutually beneficial relationship where both parties are on the same level and there is no power imbalance. Because of this, both parties can give and receive equally, ensuring that their needs are met.

Phoebus is the only character who perceives Esmeralda as human and treats her thusly. She is not sub-human because of her ethnicity, nor is she divine because of her compassion. He respects her, loves her, and admires her exactly as she is.
Phoebus was the best option for Esmeralda to end up with, and their mutual interests and respect for each other is what gives their relationship a strong foundation. Their relationship was never forced, it just wasn’t dramatic. They started off on opposite sides, but only because of their stations. They always agreed with each other and once they could get past the cultural divide, they were able to fulfill their relationship potential. Their relationship was organic, and had to overcome many obstacles—their love and attraction for each other just wasn’t one of them.
Pop culture has influenced us to believe that a good relationship has to overcome all kinds of dramatic emotional obstacles or differences to work. That’s not true. As evidenced by Phoebus and Esmeralda, the emotional part should come naturally. Yes, they still had obstacles to overcome—both internally and externally—but that didn’t pull them a part. In fact, it brought them closer together because they chose to overcome them together. They had to overcome the distrust that their own experiences have put on them (Esmeralda and law enforcement,) societal and legal expectations (Phoebus following orders,) and cultural/societal discrimination and racism. This was plenty for them to tackle and it didn’t mean that they had to hate each other or need to fight constantly with a whole will they/won’t they tug-of-war.

One of the worst expectations pop culture has given romantic relationships is that every hurdle is ongoing. Many stories circle back to the same conflict again and again in a relationship. The characters can’t let something go, or can’t trust their partner, or whatever else that keeps the same strain on the relationship. This isn’t healthy, and it isn’t good storytelling either. You can actually overcome an obstacle and have it be in the past. And left in the past. Esmeralda overcame her distrust of Phoebus because he proved to her that he respected her and actually agreed with her fight for equality (it wasn’t something he was lying about to get into her pants.)  That distrust was never revisited in the story because it was done. They overcame it together and now they had that foundational trust that strengthened their relationship.
Phoebus overcame the societal expectations he had to endure by standing up for what he believed in and confronting an action he knew was wrong. Once he was able to do this, it was never a conflict or struggle they had to overcome again. There was no need. He had support on the other side and didn’t have to tackle this obstacle on his own anymore.
Phoebus and Esmeralda's relationship might seem bland, but that’s because a mutually beneficial, balanced, supportive relationship is. (And I mean that in the best possible way.) They are strong together and they find strength from each other to take on whatever life throws at them. Their relationship doesn’t need to be tumultuous because the world and life is hard enough already. Instead, their relationship is the steady force that keeps them going. WHICH IS WHAT A RELATIONSHIP IS SUPPOSED TO BE.

A relationship isn’t about belonging to someone and finding validation in the fact that they are with you (Frollo.) It isn’t about fixing someone or having someone complete you and fill the void that has been left by your experiences (Quasimodo.) A relationship is about finding someone who respects you and empowers you to be the best version of yourself and gives you the strength and support you need to meet your own goals (Phoebus.)
What the story is NOT telling you: that it's okay to set your needs aside to help someone heal and/or to fill their emotional void nor that it's okay to be objectified by your significant other.
What the story IS telling you: the best partner will be one that sees you as an equal and wants to join you on your life path because you have mutual goals and aspirations. Trust is the foundation in a relationship, as is an equal balance of emotional and physical support.

Monthly Matinee May: The Psychology Of Beauty And The Beast

Beauty and the Beast: NOT Stockholm Syndrome

by Melissa Koons

www.melsmagnificentmusings.com 





Copyright: All images are the property of Disney

Copyright: "Beauty and the Beast" is a product of Disney and all images and characters mentioned or used in this post belong to them.



You may have noticed that I especially love breaking down and dissecting Disney movies because there’s more to them than you might think. Disney is mostly identified by their line of animated princess films targeted toward kids and adults alike. The first installment of Disney’s princess lineup was “Snow White” in 1937, so many of us grew up watching these movies and eagerly waiting for the next princess and tale to be revealed. With each new one that was released, we were introduced to a variety of fairy tales from around the world. With each passing decade, we were given more and more diverse princesses and stories. We loved most, picked our favorites, and those stories became part of us and our childhood.

Of all the Disney princesses—both actual princesses and leading ladies who don’t get

the actual title of royalty but are awesome just the same—the princess that I latched on to at a young age was Belle from “Beauty and the Beast.” She was the first princess with brown hair, she liked to read, and she was kind (well, they all were.) She was strong, and a little strange, and the princess I identified with most. My love for Belle and “Beauty and the Beast” has carried into adulthood and manifests in a variety of artwork, merchandise, and teapots. I own three versions of the fairy tale on DVD and Blu-ray: the Disney animated film, the Disney live-action, and the French live-action. Needless to say, I’m a fan.



As a fan, I have read the original fairy tales, watched as many versions of it that I can find, and absorbed as many of the details as possible which is why I am strongly against the claim that has circulated the past decade or so that Belle suffers from Stockholm Syndrome.



I call boo-hockey on this.



While I understand why the claim was initially made, there is so much more going on than that and reducing Belle’s character to novice, arm-chair psychology is devaluing her actual strength. In this post, I am going to develop and prove why Belle does not suffer from Stockholm Syndrome and why she is actually an amazing role model for everyone—young, old, male, or female.



For those who aren’t familiar, Stockholm Syndrome is a psychological condition in which a captive will form a bond with their captor out of survival. Patty Hearst is an excellent example of this. In the 1970’s, Patty was the daughter of a wealthy family with political connections and had been kidnapped by a domestic American terrorist and extremist group. After nineteen months missing, Patty was found participating in the crimes of the group that had kidnapped her. She claimed that she joined because they had physically hurt her and stopped once she did. So, even though her assimilation was voluntary, it was done out of survival to prevent her person from undergoing any more harm. There are other debates surrounding Patty Hearst, but that’s all I’m going to go into because that’s all that is necessary for understanding a real-life example of Stockholm Syndrome.



The claim against “Beauty and the Beast” is that Belle develops Stockholm Syndrome after the Beast imprisons her in the castle and that her feelings toward him—the ones that eventually break the curse—have nothing to do with actually loving him but developing a love as a tool for survival. By giving the Beast what he wants, she is sparing herself the danger of being locked in a cell to freeze or starve to death.



This is completely wrong and when you look at the story, characters, and progression

of events, you will see that the case for Stockholm Syndrome has no ground to stand on.



First, Belle wasn’t kidnapped. Unlike Patty Hearst, Belle wasn’t taken against her will. After her father was lost on his way to the market, Belle grew worried and began a search for him (because she’s an intelligent woman and knows how to get stuff done.) She tracks her father’s wagon and finds the Beast’s seemingly abandoned castle. Entering the premises, Lumiere helps guide her to her father so she can help him.







Now here’s the important part: Belle was never a captive, she always had a choice. She found her father locked in a dungeon and tried to break him out. When she failed, her father told her to run, to go home, forget about him. He was old and had lived his life (dad for the sacrificial play.) Belle is given a window to run, but she doesn’t. She knows what waits for her if she returns to the cottage without her father: Gaston.






Gaston is a boisterous narcissist who, while charming and handsome, is an awful option for an independent woman. He cares only about himself and what others can do for him. In the case of Belle, he wants to marry her for some nice arm-candy who will make him look good in the eyes of others. He doesn’t care about her thoughts, opinions, or desires. He just wants the prettiest girl in town for his wife. If Belle

returned without her father, she would have been forced to actually accept Gaston’s marriage proposal because she would not have been allowed to work and live independently in 18-19th century rural France. She had a choice, but it was slim pickings.

"My little wife, massaging my feet..." Gaston knows how to promise a girl her dream life, don't he? 

That’s when she tells her father she’s not leaving without him and the Beast makes his appearance. She has some choice words for the Beast, chastising him for imprisoning an old man who was clearly sick from the cold and just seeking shelter. You can see a flash of guilt in the Beast’s eyes, but his own ego puts him back on the defensive and he stands by his (poor) choice.

That’s when Belle has a thought, and it’s important to stress her time to think. This wasn’t super immediate, she wasn’t backed into a corner, she was standing in the dungeon before a brute of a man and her father in a prison. That’s when she made the choice to offer herself in exchange for her father’s freedom.



She was already free. She wasn’t going to be thrown into a cell with her father. She wasn’t in any danger. The only prison she faced was a marriage to Gaston back home. She didn’t offer herself for survival, she offered herself for the love she had for her family. Thus, the circumstances of her imprisonment are purely voluntary. This was something she actively, and knowingly, chose. Belle holds all the power here. Not the Beast.



Now, after her father is released, the Beast takes Belle to her room which will be her (nicer) prison. Now, some people who are real sticklers for the arm-chair psychology might be trying to say that there is still room for Stockholm Syndrome to manifest now that she’s actually his captive—voluntarily or not. To those people I say: sit down, I’m not done yet.

Through her entire captivity, Belle holds all the power. She started off that way, and she left that way.







The Beast, through the guidance of Lumiere and Cogsworth, is trying to “woo” Belle so that she will break his curse. He’s gruff, he’s got anger issues, and he clearly hasn’t had to use his manners in a good decade. He’s rough around the edges and his emotional maturity was stunted around the age of twelve, but he is making an attempt not to isolate Belle too much from the beginning.

However, his attempts are pretty half-assed and are really only because his cursed furniture friends are begging him to.



As part of this attempt to reach out and still be in power, Beast asks Belle to join him for dinner.

She declines.

He asks again, politely.

She declines again, politely. (With a very mature, “no thank you.”)

Not used to asking twice and being told “no,” Beast freaks out and his emotional immaturity and anger issues are exposed. Grasping at straws, he commands her to join him for dinner and storms away. (“That was not a request!” So romantic, good job, Beasty.)



Now, if Belle was truly suffering from Stockholm Syndrome she would have accepted this angry invitation. She would have joined him for dinner and tried to please him so that he wouldn’t freak out at her again.



But what does she do? She stands him up.







That’s right. She leaves his punk ass sitting at the big table all by himself. She holds the power here, not him, and he knows it! That’s why he storms back up to her room and yells at her. That’s why she yells back! She’s not afraid of him. She stands her ground and refuses him, even when he’s hollering up a storm on the other side of her door. If she had Stockholm Syndrome, she would have apologized and gone to dinner with him. But she doesn’t. She basically tells him to f-off and she refuses to compromise herself just to appease him. That’s why he gets all upset and tells his staff that if she doesn’t eat with him, she doesn’t eat at all. Ha, that doesn’t work out so well. In another act of defiance, Belle sneaks out of her room and ventures down to the kitchen for food, clearly breaking the Beast’s decree. (Belle don’t give af.) Her rebellion gives us one of the greatest songs in the entire movie and only further establishes her power over the situation.

After her “meal” (did she actually eat anything? I’m pretty sure Lumiere just showed her everything and whisked it away before she could take a decent bite,) she’s given a tour of the castle and the foreboding West Wing is pointed out to her. If she had even the beginning stages of Stockholm Syndrome she would have turned away and obeyed the Beast’s stern command that her access to it was forbidden. She would have gone back to her room to avoid upsetting him and risking his wrath. Instead, she tricks Lumiere and Cogsworth to leave and steals into the West Wing to do some snooping.

In the West Wing, she stumbles upon the cursed rose and the Beast loses his sh*t. He screams at her, shouting at her to “get out” and she does. She doesn’t just go back to her room, though. No, she grabs her cloak and gets the hell out of that castle. Lumiere and Cogsworth try to stop her, but she tells them that she “won’t spend another minute with [the beast.]” SHE’S NOT A PRISONER. She straight up doesn’t see herself as his prisoner because she knows she can walk out whenever she wants. AND SHE DOES. She grabs her horse and LEAVES.

Beast done messed up now!

Yes, there were wolves and the Beast was most timely in his rescue, but that only left Belle with another choice: to continue her escape and leave the Beast (who just saved her) to die, or help him and take him back to the castle to recover?



She, again, chooses to return to the castle.









Because the Beast finally showed her something other than his temperament, she made the choice to help him. While she is nursing him, she even chastises him for his anger issues and criticizes the way that he was treating her. She makes it very clear that if he wants her to behave differently then he needs to act differently. She never compromises her strength or self-worth for him. Instead, she makes him change his dastardly behavior to accommodate her standards.





You can't tell me the Beast doesn't know who's in charge here, he sure does and it isn't him.



That’s when we see something there that wasn’t there before.

Disney song pun!

Belle holds her ground and it is only when the Beast starts to make a genuine effort at being kinder and gentler that she starts to reevaluate her opinion of him. He changes to appease her, she doesn’t change to appease him. It is the exact OPPOSITE of Stockholm Syndrome. Her feelings only develop because he’s finally showing her his true self and because he made the choice to grow to reach her standards and

expectations of how a person should treat others.



When Belle is finally “released,” it’s not because she was ever really his prisoner. It was just the final proof that the Beast had changed and no longer wanted to hold on to his bravado and false power over her. It was the moment he agreed that they were equals and she was free to do what she wanted.



That’s why she came back.

That’s why she broke the curse.

That’s why she’s freaking awesome.



She held fast in herself, her beliefs, and she didn’t compromise out of fear or desperation. She is too strong to bend to Stockholm Syndrome. She’s too powerful. She holds all the cards when it comes to her life and future the entire movie; it isn’t until the Beast accepts that, that the curse is finally broken. It isn’t until everyone accepts that, that there is peace in the town.

Belle's a BAMF

Belle doesn’t have Stockholm Syndrome. She has power. She has strength. She has choice. Don’t reduce her to a mere victim who has no control over her destiny or well-being. She has all the control and she uses that control to build kindness, love, and compassion. That’s what makes her the most beautiful person in her village and the girl to break the spell. 

New Years Special Feature: Get In The Arena

Photo Credit Steampunk'D

Here We Go!

A new year. The champagne's been drunk, the mess has (hopefully?) been cleaned up, and the page has been turned.

Now, what are we webcomickers going to draw on it? And more importantly, how are we going to keep drawing?

More Than A Resolution. Resolve.

If you're like me as a creator, your secret, unspoken resolution is 'make something amazing'. But even the resolutions you wrote down revolved around your creative practices.  Get better at faces drawn at different angles, build a buffer, get something on paper....sound familiar?
If they are, I imagine the anxiety, disinclination and frustration that follows a bout of enthusiasm are probably old 'friends' as well. 'I'm not good enough', 'I'll never be as good as that guy',  'why do I even do this' 'I suck' and thoughts of that kind can feel like demons whispering on your shoulders, waves battering at your foundations. So how do we keep drawing?

Get In The Arena.

Ask Yourself: Why Are You Stepping Into The Ring?

Photo Credit Katrina Parker Williams

For this first week of a new year, I'm going to ask you to do something difficult: sit down and ask yourself why you do this. Why do you like webcomics? Why do you work on them?
I'm asking you because you need to know that you have a reason. At three in the morning, you need to be able to ask yourself 'why do I do this?!' and have an answer. Before we go anywhere in a passion, there must be purpose.

In his seminal piece 'The Role of Deliberate Practice in the Acquisition of Expert Performance', K. Anders Ericsson wrote

'Only a few exceptions, most notably height, are genetically prescribed. Instead, we argue that the differences between expert performers and normal adults reflect a life-long period of deliberate effort to improve performance in a specific domain.'

Comic artist Krish Raghav hard at work

Angela Lee Duckworth expanded on this topic by focusing on what makes someone practice a skill for a lifetime. In her book 'Grit: The Power of Passion and Perseverance', Duckworth points out many important aspects of grit, which she defines as the core of achievement. In her words,
“… achievement is the product of talent and effort, the latter a function of the intensity, direction, and duration of one’s exertions towards a long-term goal.”
 But perhaps her most important point is summarized in an interview she gave on the Freakonomics podcast:

"One thing that I found about paragons of grit is that they have extremely well-developed interests. They cultivate something which grabs their attention initially, but that they become familiar with enough, knowledgeable enough that they wake up the next day and the next day and the next year, and they’re still interested in this thing. And I think that is something that we can actually intentionally decide: “I want to be the kind of person who stays interested in something.” And so that passion really does have to come first."

    Think about it in terms of our Golden Age heroes. Peter Parker didn't do a whole lot with those cool new powers...until his uncle's death gave him a reason.

The Marvel Classic, Spider 

And the best artist/writer in the world won't do much with their talent if they don't use it.

10,000 Hours

Now that you're nicely inspired, let's get to work. A LOT of work. In his article 'How to Become Great at Just About Anything', Stephen J. Dubner writes " Improvement comes only with practice — lots and lots and lots of practice. You may have heard of the “10,000-hour rule”? The idea that you need to practice for 10,000 hours to become great at something? That idea originates from the research of Anders Ericsson and his colleagues. They were studying the most accomplished young musicians at a German academy. Turns out the baseline time commitment required to become a contender, even if predisposed with seemingly prodigious talent, is at least 20 hours a week over 10 years."

That's a LOT of work. Sounds intimidating, doesn't it? Sounds near impossible.
But this is the key: it isn't about what you do in ten years. It's about what you do every single day. The best creatives reach those lofty 10,000 hours by setting themselves a very simple goal: practice every day. And practice well.

Get To Business

So what makes good practice?

Intent

Take a page out of Matt Murdock's book and practice like a boxer. Boxers who step into the ring with the wrong mindset get their lights knocked out. First off, know what you're fighting for.

Don't be like Foggy!

You're not practicing to be perfect. Perfection is an illusion, and it's one too many people hide behind to avoid hard work. 'Oh, I'm not that good' means you'll never GET good.  And all the excuses in the world won't make you any better.

According to Duckworth, 'In general, gritty people don’t seek perfection, but instead strive for excellence.' In her Forbes article '5 Characteristics Of Grit', Margaret M. Perlis writes 

Photo Credit Irish Daily Craic

'Anxiety, low self-esteem, obsessive compulsive disorder, substance abuse, and clinical depression are only a few of the conditions ascribed to “perfectionism.” To be clear, those are ominous barriers to success.' 

Instead, get focused on excelling in your skill set. Improve on what YOU are doing. Focus on excelling YOURSELF. What the other guy is doing isn't important to you while you're practicing. The guy who gets distracted in the ring gets knocked out.

Focus

 Every study on improving skills states, in some way, that focus is key. Again, we can look to Matt Murdock for advice: set aside an hour of your day to work on your skills. I don't care when, but do it. No more excuses about not having the time. If yo care, you find time. Period. During comic time, you don't check Facebook, you don't zone out, and if you do, yo pull yourself back and work. Perelis said it best:
'it is important to commit rather than just show up for practice.  Or, to put it less delicately, it’s better to be a racehorse than an ass.'

Goals

To get the most out of practice, set yourself specific, quantifiable goals. Goals serve two important functions: they help foster a sense of achievement, and break the work of improvement down into manageable tasks.  When setting your goals, keep these points in mind:

1. Define Your Skillset.
   Make a list of areas where you excel, areas where you need to do more work and areas you want to improve. If you have the means, ask another artist to help you with this. Seeing your work through new eyes can be a lot of help. Now you know where to focus.
   
   
2. Well Defined Goals Get Results. 
   Say you want to improve on drawing hands. Drawing a page full of a hundred hands isn't actually going to help you improve; you're only repeatedly doing what you know how to do. Instead, get an anatomy book and set the goal of reading their chapter on hands and doing drawings based on one page a day. Or go to Drawing Lessons For The Young Artist and set the goal of working through one of their work sheets a week; every day, read the tutorial and draw its steps again. You'll be learning and you'll feel accomplished.
3. Ditch Guilt. Roll With The Punches
   Above all, keep this in mind: bad work isn't failure. It's learning. Our culture loves the concept of the 'natural talent' and the savant, but those concepts are deeply flawed. It's not 'talent' that makes a skill. It's work. Constant, quiet, hard work. It's getting knocked down and getting back up. You lose a fight? You figure out why. You miss a punch, miss a deadline or an update? Try again. You get a rejection letter, a bad comment, a down vote?

   

   If anyone knows who did this great piece please let me know
   so I can credit them!

   Take every suggestion for improvement and work with it. I see too many people trap themselves in guilt. They start feeling so ashamed and frustrated by their project that they give up on it all together and go looking for something shiny, new and unencumbered by baggage. Don't. Do. That. And ditch shame. This is about your work, not about you. You are not a bad person because you are still learning. You need to accept that you will make mistakes, and you will grow better for them. That's how we learn.
4. Substitute Nuance For Novelty
   If you're feeling bored with your project, it's your responsibility to change it up, take it in a new direction, rather than giving up. Dubner put it like this:So rather than constantly moving on to a new thrill, you try to find another level, another dimension, of the thing you’re already doing, to make it more thrilling. Whether it’s a research project or an arpeggio, a breaststroke or a soufflé — wherever your interests lie.'
   In the analogy of hands, don't give up on practicing hands, just find a novel tutorial.
   
   
   
5. This is a Marathon. Not a Sprint
   Practice takes time, but daily work really is the only way to get to the level you want to be. THIS IS NORMAL. In fact, Ira Glass pointed it out beautifully:

It's Up To You. Roll Up Your Sleeves.

To begin the year, I'll leave you with these words by the  great Teddy Roosevelt.

Sources

How to Get More Grit in Your Life

May 4, 2016 @ 3:23pm

by Stephen J. Dubner 

Produced by: Christopher Werth

Grit: Passion, Perseverance, and the Science of Success, Angela Duckworth

Psychological Review

1993, Vol. 100. No. 3, 363-406

The Role of Deliberate Practice in the Acquisition of Expert Performance

K. Anders Ericsson, Ralf Th. Krampe, and Clemens Tesch-Romer

Freakonomics: How to Become Great at Just About Anything

April 27, 2016 @ 11:00pm

by Stephen J. Dubner 

Produced by: Greg Rosalsky

Drawing Lessons For The Young Artist

SilverFox's Comix Pintrest Board, For Inspiration