Posted on 03/24/2017 9:35:31 PM PDT by ctdonath2
Having bought premium tickets in advance of the "gay moment" revelation, I ended up seeing Disney's remake of Beauty and the Beast. No point in wasting good money over an alleged 2-second problem in a 2-hour movie. FWIW, I saw the standard-format 2D version.
WARINING: SPOILERS. Not that you're really going to find them spoiling, since you already know the story and the hysteria, but if you're worried about spoilers anyway then stop here already.
Overall, it was a worthy remake of the hit animated film we all recall. The new generation is growing up with photorealistic animation (vs hand-drawn outlines), so the new "live action" version was compelling in the 21st Century. The castle was intricately detailed & vast, the Beast believably rendered, the acting was well up to Disney standards, the slightly modified story quite faithful, major animated characters (Cogsworth & Lumiere) were staggeringly well done, and the wolf attacks duly terrifying. Hermione held her own as Belle, and Gaston was perfect.
Before the sordid bits you're probably reading this for, let me note that there were two overtly positive Christian references. Early on, Belle exchanges books with the priest with a prominent crucifix or two in the background. In the grand musical number Be Our Guest, there is the lyric "praise the Lord". Backing these are pervasive expressions of heterosexual monogamous romance, chastity, courtship, self-sacrifice, respect, honesty, and other solidly Christian / Western values.
There is just barely enough injection of obligatory Disney / fairy-tale "magic" to set the stage (which is very bluntly & spectacularly set at the beginning), being necessary to the classic story. Set as bookends, this is matched at the end in predictable form (yet still sneaks up on the viewer) with a slight but very proper twist. We are talking about a talking clock, candelabra, harpsichord, etc. all under the responsibility of a hideous (and almost distressingly handsome) Beast.
The technological angle of this production is, on the whole, magnificent. Close-range graphics & compositing are perfectly done, to the point that children are going to have a tough time ever believing the animated characters aren't in fact real. The long-range backgrounds do, for those of us hypersensitive to such details (years back I worked at Kodak's digital cinema division), have an oddly imperfect feel which might be explained by their nuances actually being deliberate (the "pond bridge" scene being the most pronounced), recalling the exact flaws of old-school cinema.
The "gay moment" causing much consternation in recent weeks is, as later noted, subtle to the point of being overlooked if you're not actually looking for it. There are actually two, both being actually quite unflattering. The first is LeFou ending up, at the conclusion of a major musical set, in the very heterosexual Gaston's arms and asking "is this too awkward?" with Gaston emphatically agreeing it is. This is practically a Bugs Bunny gag. The second, which literally lasts only a second, is at the very end, amid a dancing crowd where many couples are reunited, LeFou - having finally gotten it thru his thick skull that the radiantly heterosexual (have I made that point enough yet?) Gaston is never going to fall for him and actually finds him expendable - finds himself the focus of an undoubtedly/flaming gay "diverse" character never noticed before in the movie. If anything, LeFou's subtle/obvious preferences end up rather repulsive: he's an unpleasant, annoying, grotesque character pursuing someone who rejects him on several levels, keeping him around only because he's useful & expendable. If any cinematic character is going to promote homosexuality, it's not LeFou.
There is also a momentary cross-dressing scene, where a vicious and matronly wardrobe, in heat of combat, defeats three very male opponents by inflicting women's attire & makeup on them. Two, very distressed, flee. One, reminiscent of a Bugs Bunny moment, revels.
Some of the "diversity" is awkwardly forced (such as Lumiere's pure-white object of affection who isn't when returned to human form, absolutely nothing objectionable but is needlessly startling). This is, after all, an old story set in medieval France where one would naturally expect the characters be genetically French. (Likewise, I won't expect Caucasians in the future live-action version of Mulan; maybe forcing the issue will be over by then.)
Obviously the movie being for children primarily, it is at times rather intense for that age. The sheer realism of the Beast & the wolves (multiple attacks depicted), and the total believability of the sentient furnishings, will be the stuff of young nightmares (my 7 year old promptly explaining to me that he will have them for one year as the result of this viewing). Many children are exposed to more than this, so it may not be an issue relatively speaking; evaluate your kids' sensitivities accordingly. The hotly-debated sexual undertones are quite subtle and likely invisible to the prepubescent; considering all the other places such content will arise in life, I don't see this as a reason to censor the movie outright.
Stockholm Syndrome aside (to wit Belle's comment "I cannot love if I am not free"), it is a solid classic tale of sacrificial devotion parent-for-child, child-for-parent, and equal-to-partner; even the witch setting the spell (fairy tale that it is) loyally bides her time that the prince properly learns his lesson. Romantic love comes in time as a result of devotion, sacrifices are made knowing full well the cost, and even the self-aggrandizing oft-misguided Gaston just wants to settle down properly.
“Disney’s most subversive works these days are their teen and tween television shows. The cool kids always have smart-mouthed replies for their parents and/or other adults. There is plenty of subtle propaganda in those shows. I block the Disney channels.”
What shows are you referring to?
Think of Paul Lynde as Uncle Arthur in Betwiched. No kid can/could conceptualize of a man having sex with another man...they just thought Uncle Arthur was kind of funny. But the left MUST drive their agenda no matter if it means spoiling the innocence of children.
I wrote this precisely to give a fair assessment. I told you exactly what happens. Don’t beat me up for not saying what’s not there.
Graphically depicting heterosexual copulation would have been obscene as well.
You knew full well that Disney was hyping homosexuality with their pronouncements about this movie.
You took the time and effort to come to this conservative website and tell us how great this fairy tale is.
Nobody asked you to do it.
You volunteered.
You’re a fraud.
My take on the movie:
+ Entertaining, an improvement on the original Disney animated movie in many ways
- Continues in a sort-of-subtle way the current, increasing societal theme of justifying and condoning homosexuality, like (it seems) a majority of Hollywood productions do. It is another on a long slippery slope into moral corruption in that sense.
One has to make choices about whether or not to support those who push that subtle agenda when deciding about entertainment options.
I obviously went to this one - at my wife’s urging - and enjoyed the entertainment value. Upon reflection, however, I probably could have made a better choice, given the bigger context, seeing this as one more means for advancing an agenda to which I am opposed.
How is objective reporting “fraud”? I’m just telling what is, because people are interested.
You’re the one who brought graphic depictions of copulation into this, ya dirty old man.
By your reasoning, we should have had a full-on graphic sex scene in this children’s movie because Belle & Beté were substantially _more_ intimate than the effeminate by going so far as a single brief kiss.
My word you’re hysterical.
Methinks the dirty old man doth protest too much - a clear tell for being in the closet. I mean really: you’re demanding graphic gay sex in a children’s movie!
You are a coward and a fraud.
don’t watch it- but thank you for your concern
[[Here’s the issue with all of these types of things: The left has to ruin it by making the assertion that such and such was/is gay. They essentially force it in our faces ]]
Exactly- That’s the issue with this movie- not how brief or fleeting the scene may be- they made a huge deal out of it and everyone knew that disney was pushing the envelope here- putting their toe in the water- to see how far they could push before it blew up in their faces- but folks so waited to like the movie that they are willing to dismiss the filth- excuse it away- That’s how compromise happens- and before long we’re tolerating all kinds of filth and excusing it by saying ‘it’s not a major theme in the movie... therefore it’s ok’
[[Interesting how NOBODY is mentioning the overly pro-christian content.]]
I don’t mention churches that have gay pastors either- because it’s still an abomination- no matter the amount of ‘Christian’ claims can cover up the abomination and filth-
I can tell you one thing, the remake certainly had more overtly positive depictions of Christianity in there than the 1991 version did in the form of Pere Robert (who took the place of the bookkeeper in the original). Name me one instance of Christianity actually being depicted as good in the 1991 version. I can’t, especially when the villagers were demonized, AND they pretty clearly depicted them as devout Christians based on the failed wedding scene and some of the lyrics in the opening and mob songs. To be honest, I’m surprised Emma Watson actually bothered to reflect reality and history in that situation where Christianity actually DOES endorse literacy in women. And BTW, this is speaking as someone who absolutely refuses to go to the 2017 remake precisely BECAUSE of Disney’s idiocy of hyping up homosexuality in it. Hope Iger gets fired in the future.
That’s a secular humanist argument about the Old Testament that isn’t faithful to the Bible.
The prohibitions against things like eating pork are worded like, “this shall be an abomination UNTO YOU.”
“5 And the coney, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you. 6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you. 7 And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you. 8O their flesh shall ye not eat, and their carcase shall ye not touch; they are unclean to you.” (Leviticus 11)
“Unto you” is used again and again. And the Lord makes clear that these prohibitions were given by Him in order to separate and sever the Israelites from other people. These prohibitions would effectively put up a wall between His Chosen People and everyone else:
“22 Ye shall therefore keep all my statutes, and all my judgments, and do them: that the land, whither I bring you to dwell therein, spue you not out. 23 And ye shall not walk in the manners of the nation, which I cast out before you: for they committed all these things, and therefore I abhorred them. 24 But I have said unto you, Ye shall inherit their land, and I will give it unto you to possess it, a land that floweth with milk and honey:
“I am the LORD your God, which have separated you from other people. 25 Ye shall therefore put difference between clean beasts and unclean, and between unclean fowls and clean: and ye shall not make your souls abominable by beast, or by fowl, or by any manner of living thing that creepeth on the ground, which I have separated from you as unclean. 26 And ye shall be holy unto me: for I the LORD am holy, and have severed you from other people, that ye should be mine.” (Leviticus 20)
As I mentioned- I will not go to a church that preaches the gospel- but throws in an occasional support for filth and abominations- While I suppose including Christianity in a positive light will at the very least expose some unsaved movie goers to Christianity- I choose not to subject myself to, nor support financially, such shows - Yes- the Spirit listeth where it will- and yes- God can even save folks in churches that endorse abominations- But as someone who takes my faith seriously for the most part- I’ll choose churches that don’t do such things because it’s ‘unlikely’ that such churches will reach the masses for Christ, and they are more about being propagandists for immorality than they are about preaching the uncompromising, unchanging word of God- and while a movie might expose some people to Christianity in a positive light- including immorality and endorsing an abominable sexual deviancy even covertly, undermines the whole premise-
While it’s true that many movies today include such stuff- it’s also true that I can change the channel when stuff like that comes to my attention- and yes, maybe I do watch things that slip by without my realizing it- but again- wen brought to my attention- I choose to not watch- I’m not perfect- and Yes, I make plenty of bad choices myself- however, on some issues like the integration of homosexual themes into movies, school material, etc- I view it as a direct blatant war against God- even if such material does include ‘Christian themes’ as well- Many anti-Christian organizations hide behind the ‘religious themes’ in an effort to sneak in their homosexual or deviant sexual agenda- I don’t even care to watch a movie with heterosexual immorality - just don’t need that kind of nonsense- too many great shows to watch instead that don’t have that kind of junk it in-
True- and it’s a secularist argument that is irrelevant to today and issues like we are discussing- First off I’m not jewish- second, we are no longer under the law- Thirdly- God instructed Peter that eating such foods no longer taints a person’s condition
As You pointed out- those rules were very specific to Israel Whom God required to separate themselves from an Ungodly world- and to be an example to the world as a nation set apart- Before the law was done away with, that was the only way for man to be cleansed- After Christ died- that all changed- We are once and for all cleansed by the blood of the Lamb- We don’t need to ‘keep cleansing’ ourselves by abstaining any longer- and again God made certain foods ‘clean’ —
“there is nothing from without a man that entering into him can defile him” (Mark 7:15).
So you’re going to make an argument that when the word “you” is used it only applies to the person being addressed? All those times Jesus said “you” didn’t apply to you personally, but only to others? You have some really selective perceptions.
You should have your own column.
Good job.
5.56mm
Thank you.
Fine by me. I’m already boycotting Disney thanks to what they included in the 2017 remake anyways, even if it DOES depict Christianity in a far more positive light there than in the 1991 version. And I am so hoping for the day Disney gets thoroughly cleaned up, and all propagandists are rounded up and exterminated per what God demanded (no, no mocking, I actually do hope for that).
Are trannies complaining?
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.