hey beast

that moment when ur boyfriend and u dress up in ancient attire circa 1985, and hes drunk out of his mind, but ur not cause ur a robot who’s fueled by alcohol. its ok tho cause ur both havin a good time

Newt: 

Hey I just met you

and this is crazy

but I lost my niffler in a bank

so I’m gonna kidnap you to help me find him, maybe.

Jacob: What.

I know this blog has turned into 24/7 “Beauty and the Beast” (2017) fangirling at the expense of my other fandoms but let me get this thing out. 

SO ever since the 1991 version the line from Belle “see this where she meets Prince Charming / but she won’t discover that it’s him til chapter three” has been identified as the most transparent piece of foreshadowing in the film. I can’t find a shot of the book in the animation, but there’s an illustration that the ‘camera’ sees for a moment that looks like a hulking animal approaching a girl in a meadow. At the end of the day, “Beauty and the Beast” (at least the 1991 version) is a story about stories. Belle is reading her own story and doesn’t realize it. One thing that bothers me about the 1991 version is that Belle doesn’t seem aware of this the way someone well versed in story structure should be. 

The 2017 version improves on this somewhat because not only do they name drop “Le Mort d’Arthur” and “Romeo & Juliet,” but Belle is very interested in how to break the curse because she’s read this kind of thing before. That’s something that is essential to the structure of fairytales.  Structure is something that is very important to Shakespeare as well (I’m less familiar with “Le Mort d’Arthur” but being a legend/adventure story I imagine similar rules apply). 

Which brings us back to that Chapter 3 line. If this is deliberate foreshadowing, then “chapter” can be easily substituted for “act:” probably based on the five-act structure that Shakespeare uses in his plays. I’ve only seen the film once but I’d put Act 3 in the film between Belle’s rescue from wolves and the end of “Something There.” There are two ways to interpret this. One way is Belle realized the Beast is a really a cursed Prince who should undergo change in order to hammer the moral of the story in Act 3, and recognizes that he must change but doesn’t understand how. 

Or there’s the way I personally like. In the line, Belle calls the character Prince Charming. “Prince Charming” doesn’t necessarily mean that he’s a prince or charming, but rather a romantic partner (male if the protagonist is female but since this film is pretty lax on that kind of thing we’ll let that slide) who represents a solution to the protagonist’s problems. The line in “Something There” where Belle posits that’s “True that he’s no Prince Charming / but there’s something in him / that I simply didn’t see” is a direct call back to the line in “Belle.” 

So what are Belle’s problems that the Beast has proven he can solve during Act 3? She wants adventure and someone to deeply understand her hopes, dreams, and desires. He’s already provided an adventure: learning about magic, going on a quest for his salvation and finding some emotional resolution to her mother’s death. He also shares her love of reading and understanding abstract concepts like Love, Hope, Grief. He doesn’t agree with her necessarily, but he does understand them enough to enter a conversation about them with her. Once he un-learns his dickishness, he even displays gentleness, kindness, and generosity. 

During the concluding scenes to “Something There,” Belle realizes that the Beast (while deeply flawed) is her Prince Charming - someone remarkably suited for her. He’s not flattering or wooing or assumes she should like him (like Gaston) because Belle hates that. It’s at this point she realizes she loves him. 

“So good God why does she leave in the end if that’s the case?” you might be shouting right now. The obvious answer is she doesn’t know if he loves her. He doesn’t say it, and he only asks if she could be happy in the castle. I think she fears he might just be lonely. But the largest fear is one that does get articulated by Belle: “Can anyone be happy if they’re not free?” I don’t think she’s just talking about herself, because in all honestly she chose to come back. There’s no sign after the wolf chase that the Beast would keep her from leaving, so there’s no fear holding her back (this is another reason I get annoyed when people say it’s Stockholm Syndrome but this is already getting long). The Beast isn’t free either. Nobody can truly love in isolation - the Beast from society, Belle from her father, the staff from their loved ones. The Beast needs to let Belle not only to prove that he cares for her needs over his own, but to understand that they both have responsibilities they need to answer for. “Evermore” exemplifies this because in it the Beast holds himself accountable for everything he’s done. He wasn’t cursed for his capriciousness, but because he ignored the needs of the world around him. Belle is needed in that world, the Beast recognizes that need and let’s her go. 

Belle comes back because she loves him, and in doing so truly becomes the conduit between the Beast and the society that he turned his back on even before he was the Beast. If you love your fellow man, they will love you back. When society works well, it’s when we love and take care of each other. That’s what Love, Big Picture Love is, and Belle and the Beast are just a microcosm of that love. 

anonymous asked:

Hi! I feel really bad about this since you just talked about people not demanding that fic writers write things so I'm going to do my best to be polite. I just saw the live-action beauty and the beast and with all the wonderful aus that you've written I would LOVE to see you write a beauty and the beast au for e/R! It just fits so perfectly. Anyway thank you for all that you've written I love all your fics so much and I hope you have a good day! 😘😘

First and foremost, this is absolutely the type of polite ask that you don’t need to feel bad for asking, so no need to feel bad, Nonny!

Secondly, I went and saw the new Beauty and the Beast last night and while I have thoughts™, now is not the time to share them (save to say that I loved it). As for an E/R Beauty and the Beast AU, it is indeed on the surface a tale made for E/R, which is why it’s perhaps not surprising that it’s been done before.

Not that that’s ever stopped me, mind, but it does mean that if I were to write a Beauty and the Beast AU, it’d have to be a different take on it than what’s already been done.

Now, the new Beauty and the Beast offers an intriguing angle in the form of the Beast’s new tragic backstory™ which makes the Beast’s role less tailor-made for Grantaire, believe it or not, and much more intriguing for our beloved Enjolras. Of course, that would leave Grantaire as the beauty, and as we well know, no one would ever accuse Grantaire of being beautiful (save for a very stubborn Enjolras). 

But what watching Beauty and the Beast last night (and the animated version again today) reminded me is that it’s not just Belle that has to learn to love the Beast – the spell states that when he (the beast) learns to love another and earns her love in return, the spell will be broken. And obviously most of Beauty and the Beast focuses on the latter portion. I think the new version took some strides towards showing the Beast learning to love Belle but, like, it’s not difficult to love someone who’s beautiful and a nice person. It’s just not.

So what if the Beauty started as ugly on the inside as the Beast was on the outside?

What if, instead of being cursed with Hugo’s conflation of ugly circumstances and therefore ugly appearance (giving you the side-eye, V. Hugs), Grantaire is handsome, conventionally speaking, but thinks – nay, knows – that he is beastly on the inside? And Enjolras, of course, though still capable of being terrible, is still the same good person who wants to change the world on the inside, but is of course beastly on the outside.

That, my friends, leaves us with a delightful possibility for a story – two men, both beasts, both of whom must learn to put aside their beastly nature in order to earn someone else’s love in return when neither thinks they really deserve it. That might well be a tale worth telling, even if it’s not quite a tale as old as time.

kuwaneko replied to your post “And now, for a random Beauty and the Beast (2017) opinion: It kinda…”

the lady wardrobe was absolutely terrifying

Oh, I agree, but I could forgive weird character design, because that’s kind of a subjective thing. Like. It’ll work for some people. And that’s cool.

I’m mostly stuck on how the characters moved, I guess. The worst offenders, I think, were Mrs. Potts and Chip, because…you can kind of cheat w/ Lumiere and Cogsworth by giving them legs/arms etc, but Mrs. Potts and Chip don’t have that benefit, and, they have to behave like real porcelain.

Unlike in the hand-drawn version, where you could have any number of objects dancing around, changing shape, squashin’ and stretchin’ up a storm.