Disney’s live-action ‘Beauty and the Beast’ hit theaters last week and has already broken March box-office records grossing $462 million thus far. The film is a dazzling homage to the 1991 animation, complete with the idyllic soundtrack, lovable characters, and magical narrative of the original. However critically acclaimed, the film has been subject to banal scrutiny for its portrayal, or maybe even its mere inclusion, of homosexual undertones in a key, and ancillary, character.
Having read articles from both sides of the “issue”, it seems there are two principal reasons for the mild outrage: too much gay, or too little. To put everything into context, there are two less-than-three-second scenes in the film that are ambiguously gay. One where the wardrobe forces three unsuspecting men into dresses, and as two run away in fear, one gives the wardrobe a wry smile as if to be satisfied with his new look. The other is one of the last scenes in the film where Josh Gad’s character, Lefou, shares a dance with the supposed queer man. Yes, that is it. Nothing more. Plenty to be upset about, it seems.
After seeing the movie, and having known about the controversy beforehand, it was comforting to feel the collective, “wait… that was it?”, from the audience, regarding the brief homoeroticism. It’s vaguely understandable that some people would be upset about including a new facet of the film that was not in the original, just as people had issues with the addition of an interracial couple in ‘The Hobbit’. However, people need to remember and understand that the world is now a much bigger place, with personalities and preferences that were not common when the original was conceived. For that reason, a character in any movie showing signs of homosexuality is completely normal, if not probable. Even before the controversial scenes, it could be argued that Lefou appeared to have a crush on Gaston, as he was infatuated with his every move and spoken word. He even has a conversation with Mrs. Potts, in which she tells him, “You deserve better than [Gaston]”. So to be upset by the mere inclusion of a gay character is to be ignorant of the changing world, or just simply homophobic. Either way, there is not problem with the characters, only the morals of the viewer.
To say there isn’t enough homosexuality in the film is attempting to push an envelope that doesn’t need to be pushed. The beloved story, as we all know, is about a cursed beast that imprisons a young girl; and once Stockholm syndrome takes its course, it evolves into a touching romance of bestiality. Nowhere in the narrative is there a homosexual relationship, aside from potentially Gaston and Lefou, but unfortunately that’s rather one-sided. If they were to incorporate more homosexuality, it would give the impression of being just for the sake of having homosexuality in the film, which would dilute the central narrative. Yes, I am delighted to have more gay characters and stories in film, but it doesn’t all have to be in one movie, especially one that isn’t about homosexuality in the first place.
The reason they included the two somewhat gay scenes was to add new elements of humor to the equation. A significant component of humor is the art of being unexpected, and that’s exactly what the first gay scene is. When the wardrobe dresses the men up in gowns in the heat of battle, everyone assumes they will run away less than pleased. For one to instead take pride in his new look is unexpectedly hilarious, and adds a new level of comedy that is both good-natured and family-friendly. The scene at the end of the film is a congenial dance with all of the villagers, so two men dancing together is appropriate and, if we’re being pedantic, statistically likely. It’s also just another unexpected joke playing on Lefou’s receptive nature and prior affection for Gaston. Both scenes are perfectly apt for the respective situations and do well not to come off as mockery; rather, progressive, relevant wit in a deeply adored, and heartwarmingly magical fable: One that I will likely see in theaters again.
