Comparing the portrayal of characters by the animators of the Walt Disney version of Beauty of the Beast and the classic text by Madame Leprince de Beaumont

Authors Avatar
Coursework 15th December

Comparing the portrayal of characters by the animators of the Walt Disney version of Beauty of the Beast and the classic text by Madame Leprince de Beaumont

'Fairy tales, folk tales and fables are about human behaviour in a world of magic.' This was written by E. Cook, a book called 'The Ordinary and the Fabulous' published by Cambridge University Press in 1976. I think that Madame Leprince de Beaumont's version and Disney's both use this as their framework for their stories.

In this essay, my main line of argument is that Disney has aimed for a romantic comedy animation genre, with their target audiences being families, whereas Madame Leprince de Beaumont has aimed to make it a romance and with a generally explicit message, her target audience being upper class girls learning lessons in life. Here is an extract from 'Breaking the Magic Spell' be Jack Zipes, Published by Heinemann in 1979:

'De Beaumont's tale was thus one of the first fairy tales written expressly for children, and we must not forget that it was first published within a book where a governess tells different kinds of lessons and to a group of girls in her charge...Beauty and the Beast originated as a sex-specific tale intended to inculcate good sense and good manners into little girls.

This is contrasted by this quote by Walt Disney:

'I don't make pictures for children, at least not just for children...the important thing...is the family.'

I also think that Disney allows our thoughts and feelings towards characters change, for example, in Madame Leprince de Beaumont's version the Beast, although was portrayed to be ghastly, had a good natured, peaceful side, whereas, in my view, in the Disney version, the Beast was given a bad name from the start, where he was turned into a beast as a punishment for being a spoiled, selfish Prince.

One of the most obvious character differences between the character in the story and the same character in the film is the father figure. In the original text, the father is originally very rich and later, becomes poor:

'There was...a very rich merchant...the merchant lost his whole fortune.'

In the film, although we (the audience), are not told directly that he is poor, we realise almost immediately that he is, because of his over-worn clothes, his not-so-well-kept donkey, his shabby house etc. I think the most clear adaptation of the original text, Disney have made concerning the father figure is his profession - the father figure in the original text is a highly successful merchant (until things start to go wrong), who obviously is good at his job. The Disney version moves the father figure's profession n the other direction where he is seen as an inventor. In this case the father is not very god at it - we only see the father make one invention actually work and there is a great deal of uselessness about it. The father in the original is a highly respected man (when he was rich) but the town's people in the film are not at all fond of the father because of his 'stupid' and 'wacky' inventions. There is a difference in first impressions between the two versions. In the original text version, we are introduced to the father's character via such phrases as: 'Very rich merchant' and 'Man of sense.' We are introduced to the father in the Disney version by seeing an invention blow up; his trousers fall down and his underwear come into visibility. The father in the film is overall stupid but has quite a sweet personality but the father in the original is vulnerable and at the mercy of events - for example he lost his fortune 'all at once' - without a question of why? Another obvious difference is that of the names - in the film, the father is called Maurice and in the original text, he has no definite name and is referred to as the Merchant. There are some parts of the original father figure's character, that Disney haven't adapted like the fact both characters have a strong relationship with Belle/Beauty.

I think that the reason Disney have made Maurice to Be Stupid is so that he can provide humour. I think that he can provide humour. I think that Disney haven't made him at the mercy of events, is so that children do not ask question such as 'Why is he poor.' The reason Disney have made the father an inventor is so that they can convey his stupidity further and it would seem like a 'fun job' to a child. I think that Disney have given the father a name is so that characters can refer to him using 'Maurice.' The reason they have not changed the father's affection is, in my opinion, to show that beneath his useless exterior, lays a kind hearted man. I think that this reflects my line of argument since we think highly of him in the original text whereas he's stupid in the Disney version and Disney have also tried to make us laugh.

Peripheral characters play an important role in both versions of the story. Disney have changed the role of these, taken some out and added a few in. The first characters, I will be comparing are the Beast's Servants, Gaston's Servant (Lefou) and Beauty's sisters (from the text). The Beast's servants provide running commentary on the relationship between the Beast and Belle. Lefou provides a commentary on what Gaston will do next. The sisters provide a negative commentary on Beauty's life:
Join now!


'In what is this little creature better than us that she shall be so much happier.'

The Beast's servants and Lefou give us humour whereas; I think that if the sisters were in the play, they would be hated. The Beast's servants and Lefou are both a mechanism of telling whether their masters are happy or sad, for example when the Beast is in a calm state and is vulnerable, the servants give him advice, but when he's angry, they try to keep their distance.

As a result of the enchantress's spell, everybody who lived in ...

This is a preview of the whole essay