Vogue UK called Emma Watson ‘the voice of a generation’ after her feminist address to the UN a few years back. Two years ago this month, it was announced that she would play Belle in Disney’s live-action Beauty and the Beast. Between that announcement and the first trailer dropping, Emma has continued to speak out on women’s issues and to educate herself so as to better build her HeForShe campaign. I bring all of this up because it sounds to me like Emma, who is starting to do press for the film, sees being a Disney princess as possibly working in contrast to her feminist voice, which I don’t think it does. In speaking to Total Film, Emma tries to frame the discussion as empowerment. Only she did it by tearing down another princess, which, to me, is ironic.
It should come as no surprise that Emma Watson prefers Belle to Cinderella.
After all, the actress, 26, passed on the titular role in director Kenneth Branagh’s 2015 live-action remake of the Disney animated classic. Lily James, 27, eventually stepped into the princess’ glass slippers, with Cate Blanchett and Richard Madden rounding out the film’s cast.
Why did Watson turn down such a high-profile part? “I didn’t know they were going to make Beauty and the Beast at the time I turned down Cinderella,” she tells Total Film. “But when they offered me Belle, I just felt the character resonated with me so much more than Cinderella did.”
Watson argues Belle is a much better “role model” than Cinderella. “She remains curious, compassionate and open-minded. And that’s the kind of woman I would want to embody as a role model, given the choice,” she explains. “There’s this kind of outsider quality that Belle had, and the fact she had this really empowering defiance of what was expected of her. In a strange way, she challenges the status quo of the place she lives in, and I found that really inspiring. She manages to keep her integrity and have a completely independent point of view. She’s not easily swayed by other people’s perspective—not swayed by fear-mongering or scapegoating.”
Two things come to mind: the first is that anytime I hear “my princess is better than your princess” it’s reminiscent of the “oh, but mine is a different Bond Girl” talk. The second is that Emma should watch her back because Cinderella fans are coming for her!
I liked the first part, when she said Belle resonated more with her. And I think her points about being an outsider in her community are good. But I guess I don’t see where Cinderella shows evidence of not being curious, compassionate and open-minded? The curious part could be debatable but wasn’t Cinderella’s whole deal was that she was compassionate? Like to a fault? I hope Emma is having fun with this and not conflicted, I hope I’m wrong there. Because truth be told, I would drop everything to play a Disney princess. These tales are purposefully layered because they served as moral or cautionary tales, I guess I don’t see the need to pit one against the other. Of course, she could be talking about the actual movies in which case, Lily James’ Cinderella could be improved upon, sure.
I spoke erroneously on the last thread – apparently both Belle AND her father are innovators not just Belle. I only have the trailer and the poster to go by but I don’t know what she’s talking about costumes, they don’t look any different than the animated film. Fun note: it sounds like they are going to let Luke Evan’s Gaston chew the scenery to hell and back. That’s worth the price of admission right there.
Photo credit: Fame/Flynet Photos and Getty Images
She turned down La La Land to do this movie. Good call, Emma. LOL.
Right?!?!
Belle is such a good character and they really casted this movie well!!
Cant wait to see it!!!
Cinderella was just a girl content with a pretty dress and a fancy ride to get her to a party. She was immature in that aspect despite that she wanted to keep her family home.
Belle educated herself, fought for her the people she loved, and ignored social norms to do what’s right.
But Belle was already set up with much better opportunity than Cinderella (i’m a Belle fan btw). She had a father who supported her endeavors, and she wasn’t locked away to cook and clean for someone during her formative years. Cinderella handled the cards she was dealt with grace and humility, and even if it’s not what most of us can imagine doing, she did it because she loved and cherished the memory of her family. There is quite a bit of nobility in that. So she wanted one night out. She wasn’t even tripping about the dress or the ride, she just wanted a chance to be a regular girl for one night. What happened next was pure fantasy luck. I think it’s an unfair comparison. Sorry for the essay lol
Well, she’s nowhere near as good as Emma Stone, so I’m glad she turned it down.
Ryan Gosling turned down this to do La La Land.
Stone is definitely better, no argument there. I just can’t believe Watson threw away a possible Oscar nomination (and maybe even a win) to do some Disney movie. She should fire her agent.
But that’s my point. It would not be a possible Oscar nom & win if Watson was cast.
And did LaLaLand look like an Oscsr contender on paper?
Hahaha no way would La La Land be getting the acclaim it’s getting had the original cast (Miles Teller and Emma Watson) stayed on as the leads. Teller is actually pretty decent, but Emma Watson is one of the worst actresses I’ve ever seen. It’s baffling that she’s still being offered roles.
She only dropped out due to a scheduling conflict though.
Nah, great roles get Oscar nominations, not great performances. How many mediocre actors have received Oscar nominations simply because they lucked into a great role? It happens nearly every year.
And Damien Chazelle was red-hot coming off of Whiplash, so La La Land had “keep an eye out for this movie” status from the get-go.
@Nat
I’d say it’s both. Yes, there are a lot of Oscar-baity roles the get the prize, but some of them are about the performance. If Gosling or Stone win for La la land, it’ll definitely be performance, not role.
Kimbers I am sure Nat was only being sarcastic.
I don’t think Emma Watson turned down La La Land. But still odd to imagine Emma Watson not Emma Stone in the role. The flavor and feel would have been quite different. Emma Stone relies a lot on her eyes to bring emotion to a part and to evoke compassion.
As for the fairytales … they were written in a different era but it is clear to me that women are still to this very day subservient to men. Just look at the election … a woman with a great resume against a male chauvinist pig. Both fairytales showed good winning over evil and I guess fairytales are why we want to believe that’s true but it doesn’t always happen that way.
I do prefer Beauty and the Beast because it is more mysterious and suggests you can’t judge a book by its cover. It’s what’s inside that counts in a perfect world. Or maybe I don’t remember the story very well.
Yes, the fairytales are basically all ‘same shit, different day’. And as to Cinderella vs. Beauty? Doormat or Stockholm Syndrom? Not sure which I’d favor.
i doubt she turned it down. the director could go with Stone/Gosling and everyone sees that thats a better pairing than her and Miles Teller.
Belle is actually a very good role model for girls. FIrst, she isn’t blonde, like all of the other Disney females that I grew up with. Second, she doesn’t tolerate an abusive guy. She tells him to get lost. Third, the power of HER love brings the Beast back to who he was before he was cruel, and loving her healed him.
I always said she was a great role model, and the princesses who had to have men rescue them really pissed me off, even when a kid. (I am 55, grew up hearing about Steinem and Company.) I really hated Ariel as a heroine – yeah, give up who you are for a guy. Great role model. Ugh. Just a terrible message.
Are most of the Disney princesses blonde though? Jasmine, Belle, Snow White, Ariel and Mulan all have given Cinderella a run for her money 😉
The beauty and the beast with the beauty being the man and the beast the woman would interest me.
This, not so much.
same.
I think there was a thing show called Francesca (French I think) and she was cursed to look ugly.
The hero was the good looking one who saw her inner beauty.
Yes, I was also thinking of a bunch of French cartoons. Michel Ocelot, for instance, has a lot of empowered women and children.
There is an element of subversion in the disney re-telling of this fairytale because the beauty AND beast is actually Gaston. He is both beautiful AND a beast. The rest is just filler.
I like that!
Yes SlowSnow, this. Thank you!
Belle is smart. She reads. She’s not blonde. She doesn’t change for the man, he changes for her.
Maybe it’s because I am an English teacher I see this very differently than most people here seem to see it. But I always contrasted her to Ariel, who changed herself totally for a guy.
wtf? Cinderella was in a abusive home for how many years? Girl just wanted to have a night off and party! Just happende to meet a guy who liked her! Idk about u guys but cinderella is a great role model! She survived abuse and lived happily ever after not seeking revenge!
Ps. Emma being a feminist means not comparing other women to each other!
Not really. She suffered from abuse until someone else showed up and saved her. She has no agency of her own.
Now, the exploration of the abuse would actually make an interesting concept for a movie, but the way it’s presented in the book is not good.
She had as much agency as she could in that time period. Where was she gonna go? No parents, no family name, very little formal education. Her best option if she left was to die a pauper in the streets. When she saw and opportunity, she took it. She fought for it. Whether some mice and birds had to help, or a fairy godmother, or a prince, she took it.
Mercedes Lackey did some loose retellings of fairy tales and the results were enjoyable if you like historic fiction/fantasy elements, it’s the Elemental Masters series.
Robin McKinley might be up your alley.
The Branagh live-action version did give Cinderella agency. She was not waiting for someone to rescue her. She was conscious of her choices, and despite being knocked down and abused, she held on to her values. If it weren’t for the circumstance of meeting Kit, who knows… she might have given up being so accommodating with her step-family. She was reaching her wit’s end.
What Lock Lamora said.
Also, in the original tale, the Prince gives her revenge in that he asks her to decide the fate of her horrid step-relations.
Being a feminist does not mean that you can’t compare women against each other. That’s some Taylor Swift feminism right there. I can believe in equality between genders without having to like and support every woman by default based on some overriding gender club. Helping other women towards equality, equal opportunities and respect? Yes. Not being able to compare the actions of two people and decide which is favorable? No.
It’s been awhile since I’ve since the Disney film, but didn’t Bella basically suffer from Stockholm Syndrome?
+1 Megan. Thats one thing that’s always disturbed me about Beauty and the Beast. If she had fallen for him after some voluntary hanging out, id have a very different opinion. But as is, i find the ‘love’ totally dodgy
I agree with Emma. I’m not saying Cinderella was a bad person and she certainly had a horrible existence, but the early Disney princesses emphasized traits like cheerfulness and hard work and patience. All good virtues but also excellent traits to emphasize in a group you’d like to keep oppressed, quiet, submissive. Belle at least emphasized educating yourself and standing up and fighting for what you believe in. But I’ll still take Tiana or Moana over any of the early Disney princesses – those are finally some princesses with truly independent lives.
She had to have a guy come save her. She didn’t escape and go make her own way. No way is Cinderella my kids’ role model!!
I love the score of the original movie and hope they do it justice, but I don’t know….
None of the princesses are good role models, unless the story is improved because they were written in different times.
Well, maybe Mulan.
Mulan was my FAVORITE. There were still problems with it – like all of the princess movies, but at least she was tough and spirited – and SHE was the one who went out to protect her family.
Beauty and the Beast was one of those movies I only watched once or twice. Didn’t really care for it. I only really liked Chip and Mrs. Potts and Lumiere and Cogsworth.
I mean, it’s nice that she was an intellect kind of character, and all that. But the Beast was a) turned into a different species, and b) an asshat before, and during his transformation. How wonderful it is that she ‘transformed’ him into a nice person. But I wasn’t down for that kind of story line, I guess.
I don’t like most Disney movies. Mulan and Tangled and that’s about it.
Mulan is one of my absolute favorites as well. Like you said, still issues, but she was a dynamic and firey character. And the music that came out of that movie was some of the BEST of all the Disney princess movies.
The music is what draws me in——-I hate Emma Watson’s acting with the passion of a thousand fiery suns………..but I will probably see this just to hear the soundtrack, damn Disney!
I wouldn’t call Belle an intellectual based on reading alone. She appeared to lke trashy romance novels and little else. Now, I love some trashy romance myself, but it’s not those books that build my intellect.
Belle rejected the Beast due to his being a jerk. She took her life into her own hands and escaped. Yes, he saved her from the wolves. But she was portrayed as an intellectual, Beast didn’t save her from her own life, she changed him, and unlike Ariel, she didn’t change herself for a guy. And she wasn’t a princess.
Seems pretty good to me. Broke the mold for Disney females.
“the Beast was… an asshat before… his transformation”
He was an 11 year old kid who didn’t let a stranger into his home. How does that make him an asshat?
Disney sanitised the fairy tales they based their movies on. The original tales are actually cautionary horror stories designed to be morality tales. It’s actually genius that he was able to reframe them as (dubious) family stories fit for children.
Yeah, I know. It would be interesting to see movies made aroumd the actual stories.
Some of the newer Disney princess movies are better and have heroines who don’t just wait for a guy to come save them. But the idea that Belle is somehow a better role model is a little silly.
I think it’s the times we live in.
We are comparing a disney from the 50s vs a disney from the 90s.
The 50s were all about gaslighting women into being housewives and being taken care of vs the 90s when post second wave feminism was at play.
It makes you wonder about creative choices if disney had started making these princesses in recent times rather than in the 30s.
Why? Belle was an independent female. She was portrayed as intelligent. The Beast changed for her, from the power of her love. She didn’t change for him. She escaped when she was captured.
I loved Belle much more than Ariel, for instance, or Cinderella or any of the helpless females Disney had before her.
Female characters in fairy tales used to have a lot more agency.
Fairy tales were developed and told by women, in which the stories often taught girls how to survive.
In the nineteenth century men like the Grimm Brothers completely raped these stories, taking agency away from the women and making the heroines dependent on men.
Look it up; you’ll be astounded by how much women’s voices have been erased from history.
Beauty and the beast was written by a woman and later redacted by a woman. It’s protagonist still has little agency.
@Wilma: Research has been done and versions of Beauty and the Beast are now thought to be about four thousand years old. You can find an article about this on the BBC website.
I was talking about oral traditions, not about an eighteenth century writer, who had to be very careful as a woman to not overstep any marks.
Bacause women had it so much better before that? There is no Golden age of womanhood. I know in popular culture we like to pretend that there was before the evil church came, but most societies before christianity were also or even more oppressive to women. Save for some matrilinieal societies scattered about. But those were not even close to being the norm.
Tianna from the Princess and the Frog is a good role model. She was all about achieving her goals through hard work and effort and didn’t need a man to get her there.
Cinderella is my favorite mostly cos she’s the first Disney business I became familiar with. I think she has the same qualities as Belle, and she was going through the most, she was being abused by her step mother and step sisters. Can anyone blame her for taking the first opportunity to escape?
Maybe it’s because, in the end of “Cinderella,” she has to be ‘saved’ by the Prince who shows up with her shoe? Whereas Belle kind of ‘saves’ the Beast by reawakening his humanity? At least there’s some growth there. The Prince in the cartoon version of Cinderella is just a prop and might as well be a paper doll. That being said, the beast was holding Belle hostage, which is pretty f*cked.
In the end, I try not to read too much into these stories. They’re all written with very old tropes that aren’t cohesive with my idea of womanhood, but I don’t really expect them to be. They’re fairytales. None of these princesses are as ideal for equality as, say, Hillary, but that’s when real life people like adults have to step in and make sure the young people watching these movies has strong role models. Sometimes I do wonder if growing up watching these types of movies, because I was right smack in Disney’s prime princess generation, has affected my ideas of love. And sometimes I think it did, for a while, when I was younger. But the reality is that I grew up and realized love is not a fairytale, despite all the Disney movies I watched. So I think, in the end, they’re just stories.
The truth is, Disney didn’t start making movies about empowered princesses until Pocahontas, Mulan, and Tiana.
I always feel iffy when people say Cinderella’s flaw is that she needed to be saved. Lots of abuse victims need to be saved, and they don’t always have the tools or strength of spirit after years of doing it to save themselves. It sets up the narrative that the only proper victim is the one that fights back and people who use methods like marriage are looked down upon as weak and such. Lol obviously most people aren’t going to look that deep into Disney Princess discussions but I analyze everything
Edit: and I wouldn’t list pocahontas as empowering for a variety of reasons.
The disney version of Cinderalla is pretty horrific in terms of what it teaches girls about romance and life. I think this honest trailer sums it up:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6Pt1_VvVZVY
Fairytales are supposed to be morality tales, and are pretty horrific to boot. Disney sanitised them a great deal. The original versions are available at any bookstore. Definitely not for children. Even the nicer ones written by Hans Christian Anderson.
Re Belle, I seriously side eye a female role model which leads girls to believe that good love and patience will change a beastly a**hole into a loving partner…
Thank you!! I can’t believe people read Belle as being saved by the Beast. Yes, from the wolves, but she rejected him when evil, and her love reformed him. She didn’t change for him, he changed for her. My daughter is 22, and when she was young, I loved Belle as a role model for her.
I think Emma could have made her point about preferring the role of Belle to Cinderella without smacking down the Cinderella movie.
I do feel like the live action Cinderella improved on the cartoon (shame they did not have Lily James sing because she can actually sing and sing much better then Emma)…they gave the Prince a plot line and Cinderella was willing to be locked away in a room and not be married to him so he would not be subjected to her stepmother.
Cinderella and Belle are two different characters and represent women two different ways.
Cinderella is quiet, timid, calm, sees the best in people, believes being good is enough to survive in this world and that a man will help her out of this situation and make her happy.
Belle is independent, strong willed, knows not everything is black and white, only sees the inner beauty and doesn’t sit around and wait for her happy ending.
While Cinderella had a quiet strength with her calmly taking the abuse from her family, Belle had the out strength to fight for justice and not take any abuse from anyone especially Gaston.
It doesn’t mean that one is better than the other. It just means that women handle things differently and handles situations according to how they were raised.
It takes strength to fight against abuse but it also takes strength to not fight it and keep taking it.
I personally resemble Belle but I do know women like Cinderella as well.
Is she really tearing down Cinderella, though? I thought her arguments were valid. She merely said Belle resonated more with her. The “much better role model” bit was added by the journalist, it’s not exactly quoted. Then again, maybe we shouldn’t look much into it.
(1) Could they not find a better picture of her in that magazine cover?
(2) A number of people have said that they consider Cinderella to be a good role model because she remains optimistic and compassionate despite being in a long-term abusive situation. So I don’t get what Emma is talking about when she says that Belle is a better role model because Belle is “curious, compassionate and open-minded” (thus implying that Cinderella is none of those things).
(3) I know that arguing over Disney princesses is silly, but it does highlight what I think is Emma’s very superficial and limited understanding of feminism. I wouldn’t mind it as much if she wasn’t the UN Special Ambassador for women/feminism and based her entire image around being a feminist activist.
(1)-???? i thought it was my screen. they look wonky/spooky
How is someone who remains in abuse a good role model? I mean, I have sympathy and compassion with women who allow that to continually happen, but a role model? No way!!!
I’m happy for you that you have never been abused. Truly.
Belle sticks around in an abusive relationship, and is eventually able to turn the beast into a prince by the power of her love. A fairy tale if i ever heard one. Not a good role model in my opinion. Yes she reads, and makes a sacrifice to save her father, but the message that abusive men change if you just love them enough is dangerous. I guess she was firm with the beast, there’s that.
YES!
This dude kidnaps her and is so ill-tempered and cruel… The message can definitely be read as, it’s okay he’s a monster, just be kind enough, pretty enough, loyal enough and he will turn into the man of your dreams… that is a horrible message. If a man doesn’t treat a woman right, her being ‘good enough’ won’t fix him. Beast should work on his own self before he’s worthy of Belle’s attention.
if you listen to her own words it sounds like emma watson is turning down high caliber roles left and right.
All these fairytale non-sense are stuff of the past. Studies have actually shown the negative impact it creates on young girls. Gender stereotyping is a massive issue with these garbage.
Instead of projecting made-up fictional characters as role models, we would do better knowing real characters like Rosalind Franklin.
As a child I hated it when my papa would gift me dolls and my brother would get robot set and toy microscope.
Worse, they used to have a positive influence on girls in the past. The stories were told by women mostly, giving the heroines a lot more agency. Then men like the Grimm Brothers came along and erased all that. Couldn’t have women thinking for themselves.
Tellingly enough, it is only very recently that heroines in fairy tales have agency again.
oh please these princesses have moral lessons to teach us if we’re willing to look beyond the surface. neither Emma Stone nor Emma Watson are that great of actresses in my opinion
It depends on which version of Cinderella were talking about.
Disney’s Cinderella was compassionate but she had no other choice in her life. Everything went to the Stepmother and she gave everything to her bio daughters.
Grimm’s, the father was an @ssh*le that enslaved his own daughter.
Both of hem were “saved” by something/one else.
Although the beast is initially abusive, he undergoes redemption that would not have been possible for the resiliency of Belle.
I am by no means condoning abusive behavior, but there are many out there who ‘lash out’ because they are out of touch with their own potential to be kind and compassionate. It doesn’t mean they should be written off as human beings. ‘Bad’ individuals may have great underlying qualities buried beneath the complications of their personal histories.
I like Cinderella and I like Belle. Cinderella has amazing resilience and stays ethical and kind even when her step-relatives treat her badly. The fact that it’s set in a time “far, far away” and there are anachronistic elements like princes and princesses makes her character work. If it were a modern story, it wouldn’t really work.
For people who are all cheering for a working actress to give up her career to marry a prince and join an anachronistic system of a very few people being supported by everyone else because of their “blue blood,” I’m surprised to see criticism of Belle as being dependent on a male, when she really wasn’t.
Well, I’m curious to see if the character dynamics are addressed in a way that makes me actually root for the romance. The Beast’s anger management issues were called out in the original Disney film, so I suppose this movie will take the same tack. I want to see the leads actually bond over some shared interests before falling in love, and the Beast needs to have more personality than ‘angry person’ for that to work. What does he do other than stomp around his castle? I hope there is more character development and not just reliance on the Gaston foil. It looks like Belle’s character has been expanded a bit(?), so maybe . . .
Can they just let the holier than thou reduction of everything to today’s mores rest for a bit? Cinderella, like many other fairy tales, dates to a much earlier era. It doesn’t mean that they are there to serve as “role models”. I think Cinderella dates was written by Charles Perrault in the late 18th century. Stories that don’t necessarily conform to every new sociopolitical stage of development often provide channels for children to work out archetypal fears, like that of being left motherless. And often, narratives have charm that survive social change. Leave it alone. Role modeling is not the only value in stories.
Cinderella by Disney was created in 1950. Beauty & the Beast was created in 1991. Looking at a decade in which something was created is but a time stamp on the culture at the time. Someone should have made that clear to Emma.
Beauty and the Beast teaches girls that they can change an abusive guy if they just love him enough. That’s hardly empowering.
I grew up with these princesses and never considered them role models. They’re fairy tale princesses……..
I had the same experience, but whatever the case may be for the majority, I don’t see why Disney shouldn’t update the films to reflect current social mores. May as well.
We now look to fairy-tale figures as role models? Good grief. Everyone knows that Barbie dolls are the ones we should be looking up to… #stupidallaround