Let's be real: remaking a perfect movie is a death trap. When Disney announced they were doing a live-action take on the 1991 classic, everyone lost their minds. Some were stoked to see a modern spin on the "provincial life," while others were sharpening their pitchforks (Gaston style) to protect the animated original.
At the center of it all was Belle in Beauty and the Beast 2017, played by Emma Watson.
📖 Related: The Queen's Green Planet: What Most People Get Wrong About Elizabeth II's Living Legacy
It wasn't just a copy-paste job. Watson and director Bill Condon actually tried to fix some of the "plunger holes" in the original plot. You know, the stuff we just ignored as kids because the songs were so good. But did it work? Honestly, it’s complicated.
The Inventor Upgrade No One Saw Coming
In the original cartoon, Maurice is the quirky inventor getting lost in the woods. In the 2017 version, Belle takes the "mad scientist" mantle.
She's not just sitting around reading about "far-off places" anymore. She’s actually building things. Most notably, she creates a literal washing machine using a mule and a barrel. Why? So she can spend her time reading and teaching local girls to read instead of scrubbing socks by hand.
It’s a smart move. It gives her a reason to be the town "outcast" that feels more grounded than just liking books. In 18th-century France, a woman who invents things and teaches girls is way more threatening to the status quo than a girl who just has her head in the clouds.
What Really Happened to Her Mother?
The "missing mom" trope is a Disney staple, but 2017 finally gave us an answer.
Through an enchanted book (which is basically a magical GPS), the Beast takes Belle to her childhood home in Paris. It's a tiny, cramped attic. They find a "plague mask," and it hits hard. We find out her mother died of the Black Plague, and her father, Maurice, had to flee with Belle to save her life.
It’s a heavy scene.
It changes the dynamic between Belle and her father completely. Suddenly, his overprotectiveness makes sense. He's not just a "crazy old Maurice"; he's a grieving widower trying to keep his only daughter from the same fate. This shared trauma of losing a mother actually becomes the bridge that connects Belle and the Beast, who also lost his mother young and was left with a cruel father.
The Costume Controversy: Pockets and Boots
Emma Watson was very vocal about making Belle "emancipated" through her clothes.
- No Corsets: Watson famously refused to wear one. She wanted Belle to be able to move, breathe, and actually do things.
- The "Tool Belt" Pockets: If you look closely at her blue village dress, she’s wearing pockets on the outside. In that era, pockets were usually hidden under layers of skirts. Belle wears them like a utility belt for her tools and books.
- The Boots: No ballet flats here. She wears sturdy leather boots because, honestly, who's riding a horse and trekking through snow in silk slippers?
Even the iconic yellow ball gown got a makeover. It was designed to be light and "floaty" rather than a heavy, structured piece of architecture. Some fans hated it, calling it "too simple" for a royal ballroom, but the goal was movement over majesty.
The "Stockholm Syndrome" Debate
People love to throw the term "Stockholm Syndrome" around when talking about this story.
The 2017 film tries really hard to debunk this. Belle is much more combative here. She tries to escape immediately by tying bedsheets together. She screams back at the Beast. She doesn't just "fall in love" because he gives her a library; they bond over a shared love of Shakespeare and the fact that they are both societal misfits.
The Beast is also more "human" in this version. He’s educated. He’s witty. He's not just a screaming animal who needs to be taught how to use a spoon. They meet on a more equal intellectual level, which makes the romance feel slightly less like a hostage situation and more like two nerds finding their person.
Why It Still Matters Today
Despite the $1.2 billion box office, the 2017 Belle is still a point of contention.
Some feel Watson was too "stiff" or that the "feminist" upgrades felt forced. Others argue it’s the most well-rounded version of the character we’ve ever seen. What’s undeniable is that it added layers to a story that was previously told in broad, animated strokes. It took the "Beauty" and turned her into a woman with a past, a career (sorta), and a very clear set of boundaries.
Actionable Insights for Fans and Creators:
📖 Related: Fellini 8 1/2: Why This "Beautiful Confusion" Is Still The Best Movie About Movies
- Watch for the subtle details: Next time you stream it, look for the "Bloomers" Belle wears under her skirt. It was a conscious choice to allow her to ride a horse astride rather than sidesaddle.
- Compare the "I Want" songs: Listen to the 1991 vs. 2017 versions of "Belle." The 2017 version has much more aggressive townspeople, emphasizing the "danger" of her intelligence.
- Study the character arc: If you're a writer, notice how the 2017 version uses the "missing mother" subplot to provide "internal motivation" for both leads, something the original lacked.
The 2017 remake isn't just a nostalgia trip; it's a deep dive into what happens when you try to bring a fairy tale into the modern era without losing the magic. It’s messy, it’s beautiful, and it’s definitely more than just a provincial story.