https://www.instagram.com/p/CGSbBVDHg-G/
https://disneyprincess.fandom.com/wiki/Belle#:~:text=Personality,being%20told%20what%20to%20do.
“Ella se mantiene curiosa, compasiva, de mente abierta. Y ese es el
tipo de mujer que me gusta interpretar y que al mismo tiempo es un modelo a
seguir si me dan a elegir”, explica refiriéndose a Bella.
“En una forma muy extraña, ella desafía lo establecido en el lugar donde vive. Encuentro eso muy inspirador. También busca arreglárselas para mantener su integridad y tener un punto de vista muy independiente. No es fácil que sea arrastrada por las perspectivas de otras personas”.
“Hay una cierta cualidad de romper con lo establecido que Bella tiene; es el hecho de que ella tiene un empoderamiento de desafiar las cosas y es algo que espero al dar vida a un personaje”.
“Belle is absolutely a Disney princess, but she’s not a passive
character — she’s in charge of her own destiny.”
...
https://www.hypable.com/emma-watson-beauty-and-the-beast-ruining-belle/
The message is that the original Belle is not sufficiently heroic. She
reads Jack and the Beanstalk, loving magical tales, instead of being familiar
with Shakespeare and Romeo and Juliet. She blows dandelion spores into the
wind. She uses words, not violence, to save her father. She cries as the Beast
leads her through the castle to her room. She sobs on her bed after losing her father
and her freedom in one day. In short, she is vulnerable. And it is that
vulnerability that the 21st century heroine version of Belle — Emma Watson’s
Belle — does away with. To be a 21st century heroine, we are taught, means to
stand up for oneself, always choosing to be active rather than reflective, to
be defiant rather than vulnerable, privileging logic over emotion. To be a 21st
century heroine means that it is not enough to be afraid and still choose to be
brave — no, one must be fearless.
This is what ruins Belle. The Belle that inspired so many of us in the ’90s was a Belle we could relate to because of her kindness, her sweetness, her vulnerability and her compassion. We liked her facility with words, the fact that she tried to be gentle with Gaston even when she refused him as opposed to the blunt way in which Watson’s Belle informs him she will never marry him. We related to her tears. We appreciated the fact that even when she ran away, she said, “Promise or no promise, I can’t stay here another minute” — acknowledging that breaking a promise, even one made under such complicated circumstances, was problematic. And in the iconic scene after the dance where the Beast lets her go, we loved the fact that she told him she was happy with him but wished to see her father again because she missed him so much. This allows the Beast to do the right thing on his own. This, as opposed to the 2017 version where, when asked if she is happy, Belle prompts the Beast, asking, “Can anybody be happy if they aren’t free?”
What set Belle apart in 1991 was that she was a dreamer. Yes, she wanted more than her provincial life, but living happily with a man she loved, respected and who understood her was sufficient. She was an idealist, someone lost in books and fairytales — not an inventor, or someone logically sorting through how to break the curse, or consistently fearless. She valued the Beast’s being gentle and kind because that’s who she was.
The Belle of 2017, with her strong, defiant, stoic attitude — choosing anger over sadness — sets us back. It says that a woman of today is not impressive if she does not do something, such as become an inventor, or if she feels too much — crying rather than creating escape routes. It takes much of the Boy Code that makes our culture of masculinity so toxic and applies it to women, arguing that heroism is linked to toughness and stoicism.
Imagine how much more empowering Beauty and the Beast would be if it offered a nuanced, complicated portrayal of 21st century womanhood. It would be profoundly moving if we could understand that not every heroine must be a Katniss Everdeen or Tris Prior. We should be able to acknowledge that it is enough for women to dream, enough for women to be brave in spite of fear, acceptable for women to cry or show emotion. We say we are feminists — and yet our vision of feminism has not gone far enough. Currently, we are feminists only when our heroines adopt stereotypically masculine modes of behavior. We need to get to a point where feminism can also celebrate nurturing, vulnerable heroines whose main weapon is words.
👏👏👏
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario