Mar 16, 2017 08:45 PM
(This post was last modified: Mar 16, 2017 09:01 PM by C C.
Edit Reason: typos
)
Note: I guess the 1991 film is at least referred to as "a musical". Should the 2017 film being a "musical romantic dark fantasy" happen to only qualify one foot stepping into the music cow paddy.
Why weren't the main characters in Beauty and the Beast gay?
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/beau...06081.html
EXCERPT: [...] The overwhelming question that’s circulating at the moment seems to be: “Why does Beauty and the Beast need a gay character?”
But this is the wrong question to ask. What we should be asking is: “Why wasn’t Beauty and the Beast always a gay story?”
The lyricist for the original "Beauty and the Beast" movie, Howard Ashman, was a gay man living with HIV. His experience of living with this disease helped to shape the storyline of the Beast in the original film. As director Bill Condon explained to Attitude: “Specifically for him it was a metaphor for Aids. He was cursed and this curse had brought sorrow on all those people who loved him and maybe there was a chance for a miracle and a way for the curse to be lifted.”
LGBT people have permeated society since the beginning of time, but their narratives have been missing from mainstream stories throughout history – not because they didn’t belong there, but because homophobic society repressed them, buried them, and snuffed them out.
We have been brainwashed by homophobic society to see the presence of LGBT characters as incongruous and jarring, but we should recognise that the absence of these characters is the real absurdity. When LGBT characters are included, they are not being “shoehorned in”.[*] They are simply being allowed to return, after being actively cut out and forcefully excluded for centuries....
- - - - - - -
[*] To clarify "shoehorned in" from the article: "Whenever LGBT characters are represented in mainstream stories, the producers are accused of shoehorning them in where they are not 'necessary'. The addition of LGBT characters seems to always be perceived as a forced political statement."
And an example of blackguarding responses to creative people supposedly becoming overzealous to "be cool" in that fashion... Of forcing a crude fit for LGBT characters and elements in a story rather than allowing them to non-artificially acquire roles: "Similar vitriol reared its head when J K Rowling revealed Dumbledore’s LGBT backstory in Harry Potter. 'The sorting hat is transgender!' mocked one viral tweet, ridiculing what some people saw as Rowling’s desperation to make a political statement."
Why weren't the main characters in Beauty and the Beast gay?
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/beau...06081.html
EXCERPT: [...] The overwhelming question that’s circulating at the moment seems to be: “Why does Beauty and the Beast need a gay character?”
But this is the wrong question to ask. What we should be asking is: “Why wasn’t Beauty and the Beast always a gay story?”
The lyricist for the original "Beauty and the Beast" movie, Howard Ashman, was a gay man living with HIV. His experience of living with this disease helped to shape the storyline of the Beast in the original film. As director Bill Condon explained to Attitude: “Specifically for him it was a metaphor for Aids. He was cursed and this curse had brought sorrow on all those people who loved him and maybe there was a chance for a miracle and a way for the curse to be lifted.”
LGBT people have permeated society since the beginning of time, but their narratives have been missing from mainstream stories throughout history – not because they didn’t belong there, but because homophobic society repressed them, buried them, and snuffed them out.
We have been brainwashed by homophobic society to see the presence of LGBT characters as incongruous and jarring, but we should recognise that the absence of these characters is the real absurdity. When LGBT characters are included, they are not being “shoehorned in”.[*] They are simply being allowed to return, after being actively cut out and forcefully excluded for centuries....
- - - - - - -
[*] To clarify "shoehorned in" from the article: "Whenever LGBT characters are represented in mainstream stories, the producers are accused of shoehorning them in where they are not 'necessary'. The addition of LGBT characters seems to always be perceived as a forced political statement."
And an example of blackguarding responses to creative people supposedly becoming overzealous to "be cool" in that fashion... Of forcing a crude fit for LGBT characters and elements in a story rather than allowing them to non-artificially acquire roles: "Similar vitriol reared its head when J K Rowling revealed Dumbledore’s LGBT backstory in Harry Potter. 'The sorting hat is transgender!' mocked one viral tweet, ridiculing what some people saw as Rowling’s desperation to make a political statement."
