The Tomb of Hermes
la bête avenant
One of the most striking changes from the de Beaumont version of 'Beauty and the Beast' to Cocteau's "La Belle et la Bête" is the transformation of the Beast into a gussied up version of Avenant. After some extensive wikipedia-ing and babelfishing research, I have found a couple of interesting things, firstly, the actor who plays Avenant also plays the Beast, and he was also the 'lifetime companion' of Cocteau. Take this as you will, but it makes a lot of sense to give the most important parts to such an important figure in your life. But also, the name Avenant in itself is French for "pleasant or good looking." Is it not funny that the beast turns into Handsome for his Beauty? At first I thought this transformation was a bit ridiculous. But the more I think of it, the more I believe that it was a genius decision.
The beast became over time, more and more human. He tried to suppress his need to hunt and kill. He treated Beauty well, and pined for her when she left. As he lay dying, he accepted all his shortcomings and felt sorry for them. However, over time, Avenant became more and more like a beast. He, too, tried to woo Beauty into marrying him, to no avail. But he went from a handsome friend, into an evil muderous plotter, once he heard of the Beast's fortune. Once the two halves of the same man were in the same place, they had to become unified. The Beast, the wild animal, died for the love of a woman, a human romantic ideal. Avenant, the human, died at the hands of Diana (goddess of the hunt, coincidence? I think not), as he tried to steal the wealth of another. They changed places, and by doing so, The Beast was able to be reborn as his true self, handsome, and pleasant, Avenant. Even at the end, when the Beast asks Beauty if she minds that he looks like Avenant, she plays the same game she used to play with Avenant himself.
The beastly parts of Avenant died with the body of the Beast in the Temple of Diana, while the ugly parts of the Beast melted away to reveal the handsomeness of Avenant. Both men unified created a man worthy of Beauty in character, virtue, wit, wealth, and appearance. Together with Beauty, their story transcends all age and time.
Posted by Moriah at 5:23 PM
~~~~~
The Swindlers' Cave
Of Beasts and Men
Cocteau's portrayal of magic was quite intriguing in comparison to de Beaumont's bland version of fantasy, and I found that through his particular use of magic, Cocteau was able to characterize the human nature much more so than did de Beaumont. The majority of insight that he provided to examine humanness occurred at his conclusion of the story. After thinking about the question posed in class about where the border of distinction between humans and beasts exists, I thought this movie did a much better job at examining what makes us human and how our actions define whether or not we deserve our human essence.
Cocteau achieves this insight by manipulating some of de Beaumont's character and plot portrayals so that by the end, the goodness of the beast and the beastliness of Avontue (I forgot his name, but Belle's other "human" suiter) earn each character their just reward. Interestingly, Cocteau adds this other suiter to the storyline to contrast the nature of the beast. de Beaumont's version makes very vague references to prior suiters for Belle, and none of them hold any grudges against Belle- at least de Beaumont makes no mention of it- that would drive them to go hunt down the beast to kill him and take all his wealth. In reference to the Beast's wealth, Cocteau creates this "sacred domain" where the Beast's true wealth is stored where both the Beast and Belle are forbidden to enter. Inside is where the magical statue of Diana keeps guard of the Beast's treasure and protect's it from any intruders. This statue is also very interesting because it incorporates two of de Beaumont's story elements into one: the good fairy and turning the older sisters into statues for their cruelty. Instead of the statue symbolizing the punishment for ill will and greed, the statue is the dictator of punishments for the same characteristics and acts as the fairy to protect the happiness and virtue of the deserving characters.
The combination of these changes to the de Beaumont version acts in synchrony to show that to be human requires that a person be able not only to recognize his or her own faults, but also be able to convey the true worth of his character. Beast is fully aware of his shortcomings, and he patiently accepts his "beastliness" until some woman is able to recognize the true merit of his character. The human suiter, on the other hand, is lazy, gambles all day, and is way too confident in his good looks to realize that Belle needs more than just a handsome face. Not only that, but he also doesn't stop and consider what he is doing when he attempts to steal the beast's treasure. Because of the Beast's and the suitor's character (flaws), each character earns their true appearance.
Posted by Marion at 4:31 PM
~~~~~
The Peasants' Hut
Loving looks vs. marriage
One difference that I noticed between de Beaumont’s version and Cocteau’s film was act which was required for the Beast to turn into a handsome prince. In Cocteau’s film, someone must give the Beast a loving look for him to transform. This is interesting because the Beast tells Beauty not to look him in the eye when she firs enters the castle. On the other hand, in de Beaumont’s tale, which reminds me a lot of the Disney movie, someone must promise the Beast their hand in marriage for him to transform. When I researched the dates of these two pieces, I found that Beaumont’s version had to be written sometime in the 1700s, while the film came out in 1946. I may be over-analyzing this, but perhaps the change in the story reflects changing beliefs of the times. Like Shavit’s argument that fairy tales reflect the concept of childhood, I would like to suggest that perhaps fairy tales also can reflect the status of marriage in a culture.
Posted by Brittany at 9:48 PM
~~~~~
The Court of King Mark
Cocteau seems to have gotten "Beautiful" and "Creepy" confused
The element that interested me most when comparing Cocteau's film and Madame de Beaumont's version of Beauty and the Beast is how the castle is portrayed. Beaumont's description of the castle, although sparse, seems like a precursor to the Disney version of the castle. When Beauty's father arrives the first time, there is no one to be seen, but the castle seems very inviting, with a "warm fire and a table laden with food, with just a single place setting." I almost expected to read about enchanted teapot servants next. In contrast, when the father arrives at the castle in the film, the castle seems to have been inspired by a horror film. Creepy floating arms hold candelabras that magically light. There is a hand in the middle of the table that scares dinner guests before pouring drinks. The statues in the wall are obviously alive. Terrifying. Very different images from the ones Beaumont presents.
This creepy/beautiful theme also carries over to when Beauty sees the castle for the first time. In Beaumont's version, "She could not help but admire the castle's beauty, and...was dazzled by the radiant beauty of that (her) room. She was especially impressed by a huge bookcase, a harpsichord, and various music books." The castle is beautiful and entertaining to Beauty. Cocteau again portrays a castle with body parts sticking out of the walls holding candles. The changes to Beauty's room are also substantial. In the film, there are vines growing everywhere, which to me adds to the "wild v. civilized" influences in the film. There is also a lack of the bookshelf and musical instruments, removing the air of culture from both Beauty and Beast.
Cocteau obviously had to pay much more attention to the setting of the castle because he was making a film, something incredibly visual. However, I am boggled as to why he decided to portray a castle that is beautiful in the story as something so much more sinister.
Song of the Blog: "Cemeteries of London" by Coldplay
Posted by Chester at 11:20 AM
