My garden of musings

The caveat to this is that you can totally have everything be 99% historically accurate in a fantasy film and everyone can understand it fine AND it can contribute towards the understanding of the plot (see the costuming of the Muppets Christmas Carol -changes in dress indicate the passage of time). But for Disney specifically, it's usually specific versions of fairy tales that's been around for centuries. There's not something to be accurate *towards,* just a setting to establish and we can all tell Beauty and the Beast takes place in pre industrial France because they say it's France and there's no machines and that's all we need to know about the setting. Princes exist, and so do Victorian era dresses, and its all very romantic so let's focus on the plot.

In the first place, we don't even know that it takes place before the French Revolution. Yes, some of the clothes are in the style of the late 1700s, but many others are from later dates too. I once reblogged a very interesting post suggesting that actually, the film could take place in the later half of the 19th century, and that the older clothing fashions in Belle's village are just because of course a poor, backwater village would be stylistically out of date.

In the second place, this is a fantasy world where a Prince is turned into a Beast as punishment for being selfish and cruel to the poor. Who says there will be, or ever was, a French Revolution in this world? I think the Enchantress and others of her kind will prevent the need for one.

I have similar feelings when people say "Of course Belle and Maurice must be filthy rich compared to their neighbors, because Belle can read while most peasants were illiterate and books were ultra-expensive, so Belle is a snob." I'm sorry, but no. Poor and backwater though it is, the village has a bookshop – not even a library, a bookshop – and even anti-intellectual Gaston quotes Shakespeare during "Kill the Beast."

Pepe’s wannbe “Latin lover” persona is just right for the Don, he’s just enough of a jerk to pull off the villainy too, and casting the role with a weird little prawn would be hilarious.

Meanwhile, Rizzo would nail Leporello’s sarcasm and cowardliness. He’d basically be playing himself (again).

for one concrete example, the weird sponge or stone comment that uncle monty makes is actually lifted from what zeffirelli. actually told robinson on set.

I had a dream inside this underground palace before I saw this photo.

Brüderchen und Schwesterchen

Ein Märchen Bilderbuch

1941

I don't think any of Jane Austen's characters are self-inserts, though of course I can't say for sure since I didn't know her. I have heard multiple times that Austen's family said she most resembled Henry Tilney of Northanger Abbey. I think this might be in the biography written by James Edward Austen-Leigh (I don't really read biography). I do think Henry Tilney's voice is pretty close to that of the narrator.

The biography I have read said Jane Austen was a frivolous social butterfly as a youth, which sounds like neither Marianne or Elinor Dashwood. So I pick none! Both of the Dashwood sisters are pretty introverted, even though only one is self contained. I wouldn't use "social butterfly" to describe any Jane Austen heroine except maybe Elizabeth Bennet or Emma Woodhouse. Marianne is a Romantic drama queen and Elinor is an Elder Sister.

As an side, one of the only books I've read where a character really felt self-insert is Ian Malcolm in Jurassic Park by Micheal Crichton, but that's just a personal vibe. I don't go around basing analysis on it. I just think it's telling that when asked to write a sequel, he resurrected Ian Malcolm from the dead.

Yes. I think it started from a place of good intent, wanting to defend the three Walt-era Princesses after so many years of people bashing them and calling them anti-feminist. But it’s taken a turn so that a lot of fans just seem to want more heroines like the Walt-era Princesses and enjoy bashing all the heroines who are less sweet, poised, and delicate - or less white, for that matter.

To be fair ...

I used to agree with the complaints about having so many "adorkable" heroines, not because I didn't like them, but because of the sameness of them; I wanted more of a variety of personalities. But now I realize that too often, those complaints just amount to "Why can't Disney's modern heroines be flawlessly graceful, poised paragons like the heroines of the past?" and basically shame the adorkable heroines for (a) not being perfect, (b) not performing femininity correctly, and (c) showing traits that can very easily be read as autistic and/or ADHD.

Little Brother and Little Sister

I was actually speechless, how many people perceived her so negatively. Like, I am sorry, but a marriage for convenience and not out of love is not a great sin, considering her circumstances.

Furthermore, people were convinced, that she was an attention-seeking woman, who was jealous of every light that did not fall on her head...

From my perspective however, it appears, as if those two men decided to shower her with attention on their own accord. Heathcliff doesn´t seem to forgive Cathrine, that he has these feelings for her.

Her understanding of love ect might be a lil bit strange. She thinks, she had to suppress and change herself in order for Edgar to like her, therefore he should be more accepting of her wishes as well. In Cathrine´s eyes she needs Heathcliff like the air, that she breathes.

Additionally, I perceive her as a rather loyal and straightforward person, in contrast, what other people might think. She might not be always kind, though.

Of course, she can be violent and loses her temper pretty easily, but I do think, that if she was a guy, nobody would bat an eye regarding this.

Nellie Dean´s greatest criticism regarding Catherine is her being egoistic (true) and not being a lil submissive wife (also true). She has her will and her wishes and she is not exactly the shy kind of person.

I don’t judge Catherine for marrying for convenience or generally in her relationship with men.

Her relationship with Edgar is fascinating though, because she herself thinks that the one who accommodates her spouse is herself:

People are rightfully fascinated by Catherine not seeing a contradiction or conflict between her “two loves” here, but I also am fascinated that her perception of her own marriage is so radically different from Nelly’s. I think this might actually point to Nelly’s bias.

I do think that Catherine is a rather self-centered individual who can be physically abusive to her servants, so I understand why Nelly in particular dislikes her, though Nelly herself is far from flawless too in this relationship.

I think Catherine’s worst action in the book is the way she revealed Isabella’s crush to Heathcliff, that was a very thoughtless thing to do and had disastrous consequences. But Catherine being thoughtless, petty and spiteful is what makes her human anyway. She definitely didn’t want Isabella to be actually harmed.

So. my verdict is that Catherine is a complicated, troubled and morally complex individual. But this is actually a massive achievement of Bronte. She managed to write a morally flawed 19-year-old girl in a domestic setting without making her sexually transgressive, especially violent, or vapid and flighty: You would expect a female character who is in love with a man other than her husband, who is shown to be physically abusive to others, and who rejects marrying the one she loves because he is poor to come across as these things, but Catherine Earnshaw doesn’t come across as any cliche. She is wonderfully human.

It is also a great achievement that I can be annoyed at Catherine’s actions while reading the book but also totally understand her unique charisma and why men are in love with her. No one, not even people who hate the character, questioned why Heathcliff and Edgar are obsessed with her.

When it comes to the question of whether she accommodates Edgar or he accommodates her in their marriage, it could be that both are true in different ways, but for personal reasons Catherine only sees her own side of the equation while Nelly only sees Edgar's.

And while her choosing to marry Edgar rather than Heathcliff is obviously framed as a tragic mistake, I've never viewed it as a moral failing either. I agree that the worst premeditated act she ever commits is humiliating Isabella by revealing her feelings to Heathcliff, though the worst act overall might be her tantrum in which she hits both Nelly and Edgar and shakes toddler Hareton.

It's not humiliating Isabella, or her violent tantrum. It's insisting that Nelly come with her to be her servant at the Grange when she marries, and (it's implied) persuading Hindley to insist on it too, even though this leaves little Hareton without his devoted nurse. While it's understandable that she wants one familiar person to come with her, it means separating a child from the only mother figure he's ever known and leaving him alone with his alcoholic father and Joseph.