Here’s what’s actually in “Beauty and the Beast.”

The media hype over a character controversy, was…hype

Therese Aaker

Well, that was exhausting.

After all the media hype surrounding the “exclusively gay moment” in Disney’s latest live-action remake of “Beauty and the Beast,” it turns out that the hype was, well…hype.

That “moment” that the director referred to isn’t really what it was made out to be — at all. While there is somewhat subtle innuendo (and I mean subtle — we’re talking winks and nods, and a few lines of dialogue), it is by no means the devastating show of immorality many were afraid of.

Here’s what actually happens. Throughout the film, it’s clear that the character of LeFou really admires Gaston (just like in the original). He’s a bit flamboyant. There are a few jokes. When the villagers storm the castle, the armoire throws dresses at a few men, who are then dressed as women (which also happens in the original film), and one of them enjoys it. And then at the very end, LeFou is seen first dancing with a woman, and after that, with the man who was shown enjoying his dress.

So, sure, there’s a little innuendo there. Those kinds of jokes, no matter what gender it’s referring to, are best left out of kids’ films. But it’s by no means an explicit agenda-pushing attack.

In reality, the movie is really entertaining — and worth seeing, because the best stories are worth being told more than once. There’s a reason the 1991 “Beauty and the Beast” is a Disney classic. I remember watching it over and over (and over again) from the time I was a toddler. I didn’t know why the story stuck with me all these years, but I think, just maybe, it has to do with a story where love redeems all, even the most hopeless of causes.

I’m sure that sounds familiar. Maybe Lent was a good time for “Beauty and the Beast,” directed by Bill Condon, to release.

Sometimes remakes are a hit or miss. While Disney’s 2015 “Cinderella” remake gave a new flavor to the old story, even focusing on deeper themes that carried it further in the truths it presented, “Beauty and the Beast” is a near shot-by-shot tracing of the original film.

Is that a good or bad thing? You can decide. On the one hand, everyone loves nostalgia. I know I do. So many moments in the film (especially the Beast’s transformation, or the “Gaston” song) brought me back to my girlhood, enchanted by the magic onscreen and the beat-for-beat lyrics to the classic songs.

Seeing it purely from the cinematic side, however, it falls a bit flat. You can’t compare it to the original, of course, and since the original was already perfect, it didn’t need anything extra added to make it better. Especially a few of the somewhat cringe-worthy songs that were added in.

The singing in general was somewhat lacking, and, despite the talented cast members (Emma Watson, Dan Stevens, Ian McKellen, Stanley Tucci, Ewan McGregor and Emma Thompson to name a few), it was more like they were fitting into old shoes that didn’t really quite fit, or at least have the same magic that the original cast of voices had. It was stiff; there was no way they could really become the characters. Rather than seeing “Belle” the character, you saw Emma Watson saying Belle’s lines. It wasn’t really Lumiere, it was Ewan McGregor with a fake French accent.

Still, it’s really fun. It’s a Disney princess story. It’s worth seeing. There wasn’t really anything new about the story, no new themes explored. But the same themes you see in the original, themes of true love being shown as a love that’s freely chosen, love as sacrifice, love as redeeming — that’s all still there.

More importantly, depending on the age of your children, I think watching this film with your kids presents a good opportunity.

This movie can be a conversation-starter for you and your children; no movie should be the one teaching them about the world. Parents are the primary educators, and this film can be a teaching moment.

Homosexuality is something they will be not able to hide from in the world; even if they don’t see this movie, they will see it everywhere else, and avoiding the topic may just teach them to avoid people they meet in everyday life.

On the other hand, if your children are old enough to have a talk with you, you can use this film as a starting point to discuss the Church’s beautiful teaching on human sexuality, and how to see this topic — and more importantly, people who struggle with it — through the Catholic lens.

By doing this you will equip our next generation of Catholics with a truly Catholic way to encounter the world, which is to engage it, both through thoughtful, educated discussion, and through unconditional love.

COMING UP: Don’t be fooled: Feminism isn’t really about choice

Sign up for a digital subscription to Denver Catholic!

OK, call me crazy. But I the only one who remembers, in my formative years, hearing repeatedly from the feminists that feminism was about freeing us women to make our own choices about our own lives? If we wanted to pursue high powered careers, we should be free to do that. And if we wanted to stay home and raise babies . . . well, that was a valid choice as well. One got the impression that they didn’t understand why any self-respecting woman would make such a choice. But they nevertheless gave some good lip service, sometimes through rather clenched jaws, to our right to choose it.

Well, apparently not so much anymore. Everything I have been reading lately indicates that the facade is gone. Motherhood is out. Careers are in.

That previous incarnation of feminism — the one where women get to make their own choices about their own lives — is now called “Choice Feminism.” And it is so 1995. If you don’t believe me, just google it. I did.

What I found was a whole lot of academic, Marxist-sounding ideology about class and the patriarchy and struggle and some “queer” stuff that I didn’t quite understand. Basically it all boiled down to this: we women may think we are making our own choices. But we aren’t, because our choices are all so influenced by the patriarchy and the oppressive conditions under which we are forced to exist.

So, we should instead choose what they tell us to choose.

At least that’s what it all sounded like to me.

I understand the criticism of “choice feminism” to a certain extent. Many writers spoke out against this idea that any choice a woman makes is somehow a feminist statement. The most-common example I saw was that of the “liberated” stripper who celebrates her stripper-ness as some kind of victory for feminism. Which doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me.

But, do you know what the second-most common example was? The choice of a mother to stay at home with her kids.

It seems to baffle them that any woman would make such a bizarre sacrifice. It must be because of the patriarchy. Or because child raising is still perceived by our sexist society as “women’s work.” Or because we are still tethered to a ”1950’s male breadwinner model.”

It doesn’t seem to occur to them that it could be because women, having nurtured these tiny little creatures within their own bodies, may actually want to spend their time nurturing and raising them.

The piece de resistance was a widely circulated article in the Australian magazine RendezView, which actually proposes that mothers of school-aged children be forced, under penalty of law, to be “gainfully employed” outside the home. Says Sarrah Le Marquand, somewhat awkwardly, “Only when the tiresome and completely unfounded claim that ‘feminism is about choice’ is dead and buried (it’s not about choice, it’s about equality) will we consign restrictive gender stereotypes to history.”

So, I’m thinking that by “choice” she means “freedom of self-determination”; by “equality”, she means “women being just like men.”; and by “restrictive gender stereotypes”, she means “biological and psychosexual differences that impact our lifestyle choices.”

But the women of the world clearly aren’t voluntarily marching into her brave new world of gender uniformity. And so it is time to employ the long arm of the law. Says she, “. . . it’s time for a serious rethink of this kid-glove approach to women of child-bearing and child-rearing age. Holding us less accountable when it comes to our employment responsibilities is not doing anyone any favours [sic].”

(I have to confess I’m somewhat curious about what will happen to unemployment numbers in Australia when every mother exercises her “employment responsibilities” and enters the workforce. But I digress.)

And so, the mask is off. Feminism was never about allowing women to choose what they want. It is about coercing women to choose what these feminists want them to choose.

It is not not surprising that, in a recent poll, 85% of women responded that they support equality for women, yet only 15% said that they identify as a “feminist.” The movement has moved away from the women it is supposed to represent.

As for me, I don’t want the State, or the Feminist Powers That Be, to issue a list of acceptable choices for women. Particularly when it comes to the often complicated question of whether a mother works or stays at home.

I still subscribe to the apparently antiquated notion that decisions like these are best made by the couple in question.

I know. Call me crazy . . .