Posted on 03/08/2017 10:18:36 AM PST by SeekAndFind
For the past few days, the Internet has been exploding over the news that Beauty and the Beast (in theaters March 17) has what director Bill Condon called Disney’s first “exclusively gay moment.” In the remake of the 1991 animated film, the character of LeFou (Josh Gad), aide-de-camp to the villain Gaston (Luke Evans), appears to be in love with his captain. Thanks to a second, new character, LeFou’s storyline resolves in a moment of self-acceptance. But Condon has since said that his quote was “overblown,” and indeed, once audiences see the film, they’ll likely decide that the so-called controversy is just a tempest in a (talking) teacup. Here’s the rundown of what happens in the film, and why the reaction has been mixed even among gay Disney fans.
Warning: Spoilers to follow.
What exactly is the “gay moment” in Beauty and the Beast?
There are three parts to it. First, there are hints throughout the film that LeFou has a crush on Gaston, though no one ever says this outright. Second, there’s a moment that takes place in the castle toward the end of the film, when Gaston leads a mob of villagers to kill the Beast and the household objects fight back. Madame de Garderobe, the living wardrobe voiced by Audra McDonald, “defeats” a trio of villagers by giving them lightning-quick makeovers; suddenly clad in wigs and dresses, two of the men flee in embarrassment, while the third beams at Madame de Garderobe and sashays away. Finally, there’s the payoff moment: During a last celebratory dance at the castle, LeFou (now reformed) finds himself in the arms of the made-over villager (whose character name, according to IMDb, is Stanley). They dance. And that’s it.
That’s it? No kissing?
Nope, barely even touching. Just dancing, for about two seconds.
(Excerpt) Read more at yahoo.com ...
I’m more upset about Emma being pro PP
I don’t have any “burning questions.”
I don’t give a flying fig about Disney, or its corporate goal of attempting to normalize homosexuality. If that’s what their board of directors wants, fine with me.
They can re-write their corporate history, and say that old Walt was a closet-queen transvestite who spent his weekends enjoying the company of J. Edger Hoover and Clyde Tolson, for all I care. Whatever.
I’m just glad my daughter is old enough so we don’t have to spend money on their fake entertainment products any more.
Like most times, an artificial controversy to drive interest in a movie (oh, and to claim conservatives are outraged.) Unfortunately, when such artificial controversies are generated, it usually means that the movie stinks.
Which honestly, I think you’d have to really work at making this story stink.
But why even have a hint of gayness in a children’s cartoon movie in the first place? Subtlety doesn’t make it any better.
The writer sounds disappointed that it wasn’t hard core porn.
The point isn’t that there’s mild fruity overtones - the older bugs bunny cartoons did that.
The point is Disney virtue signaled it - claimed it shows how homosexuality is good and made it a political commentary.
If anything the boycott and outrage are over the asinine virtue signaling and well justified in my opinion.
Is anyone offended that the main plot of the movie is a romantic relationship between a young girl and a beast?
Yeah, Disney's Frontierland.
Having already purchased premium tickets, I’m pretty much stuck with seeing it.
Will report to FR accordingly.
There _has_ been such content in the background for decades, in lots of children’s content. Looney Tunes is a prime offender, and few of us have a problem with that series; if anything, we delight in how the series offends the Left.
Apparently the scene involves a rather dislikable character (not necessarily villain, just socially unpleasant) fawning over the prime villain. While it may depict offensive behavior, at least it’s relegated to offensive people doing it - as it has been for a long time.
In no way do I advocate/defend the practice as a recruiting tool (being inherently unable to breed, they have to recruit); I’m just noting that the current controversy is likely not substantially a bigger deal than what we’ve grown up with. (I reserve the right to change my mind upon seeing the movie.)
Oh, and as for the popular line that the movie is “Stockholm syndrome & bestiality”, Belle was eventually free to go (and left!) and never was intimate with Beast until after he transforms back to human. Attempts to deride the core story, to neutralize objections to the other issue, are utterly disingenuous.
If it walks, talks, sounds like damage control...it's damage control.
#fight
No. Affection does not equal or necessitate sexuality. The story is a morality tale showing _both_ growing to overcome their own flaws and learn sacrifice for others. Nothing intimate happens until _after_ Beast is saved from his curse, returning to human form.
Obvious damage control. I hope the SOBs go broke and become homeless.
>> aide-de-camp to the villain Gaston <<
Gaston has aides?
He’s a captain.
Oh come on. It’s not mere affection. It’s romantic affection. It’s not beastiality, but it is wierdness salvageable by the fantasy setting.
Agreed.
My burning question is whether there is any movie out there anymore that doesn’t include a preachy PC lesson. And where can I go to get away from this overwrought nonsense.
Amusing: the author’s contention that Ursula from the Little Mermaid is homophobicly inspired by a drag queen. OK, she has a deepish voice and a big chin, but that’s like suggesting that Scar is gay because he has a British accent.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.