Disney puts ‘gay scene’ in Beauty and the Beast: Character of LeFou set to explore his sexuality and feelings for leading man Gaston in new film

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maxirad
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ToeInTheWater said:
I also think this idea of “Spiritual Friendship” as the solution to what gay people are supposed to do with their lives if they’re not allowed to date or marry, does have the danger of normalizing such friendships ONLY for gay people, and maybe that’s all they care about, but it seems that if the SF approach becomes more main stream, this will further stigmatize (for lack of a better word) close same-sex friendship as not being something straight people would benefit from.
Click to expand...
I think I get what you’re saying … and I think an SF article addressed that issue. Maybe AT or somebody remembers better than I do …
 
at9009 said:
I actually wasn’t even referring to the whole Spiritual Friendship topic at all to be honest. Just it seems our society in general is so sexualized that it inherently treats an authentic love and intimacy as signs of a sexual romantic relationship. With that perspective, two guy friends fear showing too much intimacy less than be viewed ‘as gay’ (this doesn’t seem to be applied as much to women for some reason). So, people (single, married, straight, ssa or whatever) start to feel starved for genuine connection and non sexual even just emotional intimacy because friendships have been so devalued to just the most superficial of levels.
Click to expand...
I do think the “Elsanna shipping” does show that even among women, non-sexual relationships have been devalued, and that while women still have more allowance for intimate friendship then men, the idea still reigns that romantic sexual relationships are the highest form of love, higher than even familial love.

I think what made many people jump to “Elsanna” is that the movie specifically makes a point of not only emphasizing sisterly love, but how it specifically points out that, although Anna assumes the “power of true love” is the power of romantic love, heterosexual romantic love is not what saves her at the end. The “love” of the guy who was faking it all along certainly doesn’t save her, but neither does the “love” of the guy who actually DOES have feelings for Anna, though I’m not sure he knew her well enough to truly love her.

But on the other hand, while Elsa and Anna were best friends in childhood, they have been both emotionally and physically separated for years at the time of the main events. So I’m not sure if they really “knew each other well” either. The point is that Anna is ready to sacrifice her own life for the sake of her sister, and while it’s not directly stated, I’m sure Elsa would be if their roles would be reversed. I think this why their love is “true”, not because they have a close emotional connection that gives the other fuzzy feelings. The movie makes it very clear that they do NOT and yet there still is love present as an act of will, a choice.

Sadly, the idea of love as an act of will is foreign to the experiences of many these days, who think love is just something that “happens to them”, like being shot with Cupid’s arrow, and that they have no control over at all. They see “love” as an external force that they either have to follow to the natural sexual conclusion as long as it is acting on them, and once it stops acting on them the natural conclusion is to end the relationship, and to actually assert self-will against the “forces of love” is supposedly “unhealthy”.

So their understanding of Elsanna gets stuck at a shallow “they love each other enough to die for each other, they don’t love any men that way, so they must be lesbians”.
I don’t think close same sex relationships should be focused based on the something only celibate people can have. A chaste relationship between two people of the same sex is just that… friendship regardless if one is gay/ssa or not (though that at times may provide unique challenges). There isn’t a push to make it seem like gay/ssa people have some special powers for this kind of chaste relationship or anything. It’s just that as people who are called to celibacy and lack the possibility of a romantic relationship, we start to think more about what friendship is, how it is biblically, what it means, etc. It is not a secret thing for gay/ssa people, but rather important in all our lives.
Click to expand...
Thank you for that clarification. I also don’t think the SF posters actually wish to state “this level of friendship is exclusive to us” as if it is merely a consolation prize.
You mentioned Elsa, the powerful message of Frozen was the sacrificial true love seen i love between siblings. Big Hero Six shows how the love and support within friendship can help someone overcome hatred and overcome the death of a loved one. These kind of stories do not take away from the beauty of marriage but enrich friendship which love is different but can be just as profound.
Click to expand...
I agree, and I personally think that is more age-appropriate to the tween crowd than the more conventional “Disney Princess” stories, whose “happy endings” are all about Finding and Marrying Your True Love.

With the possible exception of Mulan, who does eventually get together with General Sheng, but only in a direct-to-video sequel. Her happy ending in the original movie is “merely” having been able to protect both her beloved father, by sparing him from the battlefield, and her beloved country, by saving China from the Hun invasion. Though I am not sure how many young girls actually found her story relatable, as it is certainly set in a Disney version of China, and not a fairytale/Disney version of medieval Europe.
 
Richard_White said:
Yes, but it was released as a statement by the film’s own director!

Also, even if it doesn’t challenge your faith (I’m sure it wouldn’t to any of us), it still shows the level of deprivation that our society has sunken to. Even Disney, which used to be consistently one of the most wholesome things for children, has been doing it! This kind of thing just has to stop.

May God bless you all! 🙂
Click to expand...
Was Disney “the most wholesome” thing for children? I think we sometimes forget that homosexuality is not the only sin the Church condemns. There was a lot of very damaging blatant racism in some of the earlier Disney films. While modern society’s stance on gay relationships and abortion are deplorable, pre-1960s America wasn’t exactly a Christian Utopian paradise either…
 
rotlex said:
The negative reactions to this are hysterical. People freaking out due to a “gay” scene in the movie. Hardly even noticeable unless your looking for it, not to mention the fact that if you didn’t think he was gay from day one, your deceiving yourselves.

So tell me. How does this bother you so much and yet your OK with Belle falling in love with “a beast”? A gay character you have issue with, but not subliminal bestiality? LOL.
Click to expand...
I have always been a bit bothered by that myself. But perhaps we shouldn’t go there. Even as a child I didn’t like that story and never have since.

I have no idea why but as I got older it reminded me of “Wuthering Heights.” and the violent love between Cathy and Heathcliff.
 
twf said:
Was Disney “the most wholesome” thing for children? I think we sometimes forget that homosexuality is not the only sin the Church condemns.
Click to expand...
Indeed. Especially if that “we” includes self-identified conservative Protestants who have no problem with contraception and oftentimes other heterosexual sins as well.
 
ToeInTheWater said:
I do think the “Elsanna shipping” does show that even among women, non-sexual relationships have been devalued, and that while women still have more allowance for intimate friendship then men, the idea still reigns that romantic sexual relationships are the highest form of love, higher than even familial love.

I think what made many people jump to “Elsanna” is that the movie specifically makes a point of not only emphasizing sisterly love, but how it specifically points out that, although Anna assumes the “power of true love” is the power of romantic love, heterosexual romantic love is not what saves her at the end. The “love” of the guy who was faking it all along certainly doesn’t save her, but neither does the “love” of the guy who actually DOES have feelings for Anna, though I’m not sure he knew her well enough to truly love her.

But on the other hand, while Elsa and Anna were best friends in childhood, they have been both emotionally and physically separated for years at the time of the main events. So I’m not sure if they really “knew each other well” either. The point is that Anna is ready to sacrifice her own life for the sake of her sister, and while it’s not directly stated, I’m sure Elsa would be if their roles would be reversed. I think this why their love is “true”, not because they have a close emotional connection that gives the other fuzzy feelings. The movie makes it very clear that they do NOT and yet there still is love present as an act of will, a choice.

Sadly, the idea of love as an act of will is foreign to the experiences of many these days, who think love is just something that “happens to them”, like being shot with Cupid’s arrow, and that they have no control over at all. They see “love” as an external force that they either have to follow to the natural sexual conclusion as long as it is acting on them, and once it stops acting on them the natural conclusion is to end the relationship, and to actually assert self-will against the “forces of love” is supposedly “unhealthy”.

So their understanding of Elsanna gets stuck at a shallow “they love each other enough to die for each other, they don’t love any men that way, so they must be lesbians”.
Click to expand...
I never thoughts about some of the things you have brought up; but I definitely have, for quite a few years, been aware that our society, while becoming “tolerant towards gays” (or more accurately, becoming liberal) has simultaneously become extremely quick to label as “gay” things that earlier generations never dreamed of seeing that way. (Side note: I wonder if CAF has ever a thread about that. And if not I wonder if it would be worth having one.)

Anyhow, related to the aforementioned plot, we should definitely also think of Malificient. Spoiler Alert. “True love” turned out to have nothing to do with romance there, but was all about the depth and selflessness of a parent figure’s love.
 
twf said:
Was Disney “the most wholesome” thing for children? I think we sometimes forget that homosexuality is not the only sin the Church condemns. There was a lot of very damaging blatant racism in some of the earlier Disney films. While modern society’s stance on gay relationships and abortion are deplorable, pre-1960s America wasn’t exactly a Christian Utopian paradise either…
Click to expand...
I think that some people think that the kind of racism a film could show, essentially by showing blacks and other minorities only as domestic servants or in other stereotypical roles, is no big deal compared to the eeevils of showing that gay people gasp exist.

I know “Song of the South” has been semi-banned for perpetuating racial stereotypes, but I have also read, on CAF, people defending the film, and stating their kids know better than to think real black people all live on a plantation and fawn over the children of their white neighbors.

On the other hand, it seems many CAFers want their children to be sheltered from the whole concept of homosexuality for as long as possible, and so they don’t want any gay characters to ever show up in films marketed to children. While I understand this to some extent, I do think many are being unrealistic in assuming their children are not going to see actual real gay people until, say, age 10 or 11, an age many think is “appropriate” for a discussion about the issue.
HelenRose said:
I have always been a bit bothered by that myself. But perhaps we shouldn’t go there. Even as a child I didn’t like that story and never have since.
Click to expand...
So did you also dislike the Princess and the Frog story? That was also eventually turned into a Disney movie, but very loosely based on it, instead it was more of a kiddie version of “Coming to America” with an African prince finding his princess in Disneyfied-Louisiana.

But interestingly, both that adaptation and the animated B+B made it obvious from the first that the frog is an enchanted prince, and the beast is an enchanted prince, too. As opposed to the original versions, when that is meant to be a surprise at the end of the tale. Maybe they were trying to avoid charges of “beast-iality”?

I actually recall some people questioning the appropriateness of the original B+B story for kids, not because of “beastiality” since B+B don’t actually marry until the Beast’s curse is lifted, but because it involves two people who are in love living together, but not actually being married until the very end. :eek: (After all, isn’t that a near occasion of sin? Fetch me my vapors! :p)

Indeed, I do recall reading that the idea of the servants being enchanted into household goods, was actually a way to make sure the story was G-rated by providing B+B with many chaperones; the servants also exist in the original story, but are made invisible, and the Beauty doesn’t actually know they exist until the curse is lifted.

I still find it distasteful for the director to include a “gay moment” just for the sake of touting his gay-friendly credentials. But I realize that “hey, gay people exist” is far from being the only problematic film content that parents should be watching out for.

(And BTW assuming the new LeFou as is just as much of a fanboy sycophant as the old LeFou, I doubt most gay people would even want to count him as a member, if he’s gay then he’s a very stereotypical one. He also doesn’t actually act on his sexuality, he meekly goes along with Gaston’s attempts to court Belle. Many gay people actually critiqued JKR for the “Dumbledore is gay” reveal, too, that they saw it as pandering to their demographic, but not really relevant in the story since he’s never shown to act on it, and the only time he apparently DID act on it in the past with Grindelwald, it ended in disaster.)
 
I’m trying to avoid mainstream Hollywood period, for the most part. I would like to see “Arrival.” Seems relatively innocuous, from what I’ve read.
 
ToeInTheWater said:
So did you also dislike the Princess and the Frog story? That was also eventually turned into a Disney movie, but very loosely based on it, instead it was more of a kiddie version of “Coming to America” with an African prince finding his princess in Disneyfied-Louisiana.
Click to expand...
Since you brought that up, do you remembering the version with Robin Williams?
 
My husband and daughter and I went to see the movie today. We liked it, though my daughter fell asleep after the Beauty and the Beast song. That’s good though, since the ending was waaaay more graphic than I expected. Had I known that, I would have left the kid with grandpa and the baby. As I suspected, the “gay” thing was hype. The “gay scene” at the end was literally less than a second and was not “openly gay”, but the mildest of innuendo. IMO, the moment where Tom, Dick, or Stanley (not sure which) gets regurgitated from the wardrobe dressed in drag and rather than shrieking in horror like the other two, prances away gleefully, is way “gayer”. Neither character is “normalized”, nor would any pro-LGBT group want them for their poster boy.
 
CatholicWhovian said:
I am starting to sense that Disney’s marketing strategy these days is to create controversy where there is none. Pointing out something that in reality isn’t there. Just like most people these days.

I’ll retreat back to my mountain hermit home thank you very much. 😛
Click to expand...
Just finished watching it and yep, agree with you completely.
 
PS- While the “first openly gay Disney character” was portrayed as a slightly creepy, awkward idiot, the village priest is portrayed as the only member of the community with a voice of reason and is the provider of literature for Belle. I thought I’d point that out.
 
Allegra said:
PS- While the “first openly gay Disney character” was portrayed as a slightly creepy, awkward idiot, the village priest is portrayed as the only member of the community with a voice of reason and is the provider of literature for Belle. I thought I’d point that out.
Click to expand...
Oh … :o

Brace yourself.
 
allegra said:
ps- while the “first openly gay disney character” was portrayed as a slightly creepy, awkward idiot, the village priest is portrayed as the only member of the community with a voice of reason and is the provider of literature for belle. I thought i’d point that out.
Click to expand...
boom 😉
 
Peter_J said:
I’m just waiting for the cries of “Disney’s trying to bring back the Spanish Inquisition” to begin :o.
Click to expand...
When will this ever end? To put the rhetorical question seriously and jokingly. haha :rolleyes:
 
The gay scene was literally 2 seconds where LeFou and another fellow end up partners during a dance where everyone changes partners.

Much ado about nothing. Two guys dance longer than that in West Side Story during the dance sequence in the gym. And didn’t Alfalfa and Spanky don tutu’s in the Little Rascals to run away from the bullies?

I liked the film in general, but I think I do prefer the original Disney cartoon one. I preferred that Beast, and that Mrs. Pots, and that Lumiere,

This Gaston was much more wicked though.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top