Why Cocteau's "Beauty and the Beast" is Better Than Disney's

This week: bought a cheap microphone temporarily, please pardon the audio quality.
Written and edited by me, Julian Rhodes.
All music, images, and clips are used for the purposes of commentary in conjunction with the Fair Use Agreement under U.S. Copyright Law.

[@kissmyasthma3155]

Beauty and the Beast (1946) is high art no question.

[@davemattia]

It's a masterpiece.

[@MrRufusRToyota]

First off, the original was shot for about a dollar right when World War II was ending. That’s amazing in itself. It was almost impossible to even find film. Secondly the story is not about someone held captive. It is a story from the Middle Ages which instructs girls in arranged marriages. The moral is that even if you think he is a monster, once you get to know his heart you can grow to love him.

[@rociomiranda5684]

Disney offers a cute Beast who is too much like a household pet to be an object of desire. It's a children's story. Cocteau's film is for grown ups. Jean Marais' Beast has an elegant, sexy man's body, and projects great sensuality and virility, which, interestingly, disappear when he becomes the Prince.

[@perrilewis180]

Personally both are good. They both show the brilliance and art of their mediums (animation and filmmaking). And you have to factor in that they are two different mediums just using the same story. And Disney clearly took influence from the cocteau film. Heck I think the Disney version accomplished what Cocteau wanted the audience to react to the beast's human form. The beast's name is Adam but you don't register it. Edit: your problems with the Disney film can be addressed by the same answer the Cocteau film. It's a fairy tale. There is a Disney licensed where you find out the enchantress is Belle's freaking mom. The possible Stockholm is the least of the worries with that revelation.

[@singer2be256]

So many interpretations! Cocteau was a genius!

[@thiccboss4780]

i rly like your essay format , the rarity of background music overlapping your commentary forces the audience to focus 100% of their attention in what you're saying with no chance to mishear it. Very valiant interpretation of the Female Gaze , now that's something that the Brows Held High collab didn't talk about. What a beautiful last video from you for me to watch right at the Eve of my Regional alternation , videos like these will become a unlikely commodity there so...guess i'll dowload or save this in a playlist somewhere to watch again with a few other things from Now You See It and Like Stories of Old. Anyway , my favorite scene in the film is when Belle breaks down and pleads on her knees for the Beast to let her go, and The Beast desperately implores her to get up as "i'm the one that should kneel to you" that gets me every time, he does't want to subject her to him , he wishes to...............well.... if i go on that'll be interpretation realm so. great video!

[@willlyon7129]

The French 1946 version of Beauty and the Beast is a much better rendition of the fairy tale, it's gothic and dreamlike. It follows the spirit of the original story from beginning to end.

[@Johnlindsey289]

I happen to enjoy this version, 1991's version and even 1987 to 1990's TV series version of the story with Ron Perlman/Linda Hamilton which drew inspiration from this version which is a modern day (for the 80s and early 90s take) and there's also Wolf Children which is a Japanese animated fantasy drama that drew inspiration from the old story in the first half.

[@melenatorr]

This is a favorite of the family, and thank you so much for doing this. A little note that ties Avenant and the Beast even closer is that they are both played by the wonderful Jean Marais.

[@curiousworld7912]

This was the very first VHS tape I bought, almost 30 years ago. I had seen it on PBS as part of the Janus Film Collection. It amazed me then, and still does.

[@LuluAMV3]

Low-Key one of the best working Video Essayists, love you're work.

[@MickeySlugs]

Truuuuuu

[@camilap.1638]

Amazing! I loved it. Btw, there’s this Czech movie called ‘Panna a Netvor’, which is based on BATB, it’s very creepy and beautiful. I wonder if you’ve watched it. I love Beast’s character in that one.

[@Kat-593]

Do you know where I can watch it?

[@SweetUniverse]

My favorite part is the statues that move, especially the ones flanking the hearth

[@Bunny-ch2ul]

While I absolutely adore this adaptation, and greatly prefer it to (either of) Disney's adaptations, I don't like the describing at as "better." While they're roughly the same story, I don't think they really set out with the same aims. Disney's are both candy colored musicals that rely heavily on sentimentality. Cocteau's isn't that. At all. I don't think it's fair to call something "better" than something else when they're really not comparable. I feel like both the (animated) Disney Beauty and the Beast and Cocteau's version are both equally successful in realizing what they're supposed to be. I feel like Cocteau's has a grander scope, is more inventive, and has much more depth on many levels. Disney's version doesn't really aim for any of those things, just like Cocteau's doesn't aim to be a musical. To me, quality has to do with how well something achieved it's aims, and both adaptations are immaculately on point in that regard. I really don't want to defend Disney. I'm sick as hell of adults my age (I'm in my early 30s) still consuming almost exclusively the same sort of media they consumed as children. (Disney, Pixar, Harry Potter, Superheroes) Having said that, that genre of media isn't "worse." It just lacks depth and substance. It doesn't aim for depth or substance though, so it's hard to make that a genuine criticism though.

[@bespectacledheroine7292]

I agree with you almost entirely, although I don't think the animated in lacking in depth in the slightest. Perhaps it's not quite as rife with endless meanings waiting to be uncovered as this version, but certainly more than any other Disney film at least, there are many moments I feel have exactly that. It's simply hand waved away because many of us in these circles are unprepared to give something like this its due, being as it is "for kids" purportedly. Take for instance the Beast's face softening when he has Gaston in his grip following his pleas for mercy. The same pleas that were denied before he was turned by the enchantress, and proving he *has* in fact learned something during his time as a beast, he releases Gaston. The placement of the musical sting to drive this home is ingenious. In my mind that scene is the equal of any such scene in this version. But the biggest reason I do prefer that version is its Belle, because Day's is the weak link for me in this version by far. The animated Belle doesn't have to learn to see past the Beast's ghastly form, he has to learn how to be meaningfully human for her, whereas this Belle *does* have to learn this. I still love the story as presented in Cocteau's film (Could use less of Belle's sisters would be my only other complaint) but I don't prefer Disney's for no reason is what I'm getting at, and I don't think that just because this is an arthouse classic and rightfully regarded as such, it automatically means the more well known version of our generation has little dramatic heft beyond catering to a desire for sentimentality. I could go on about it being Ashman's passion project seeing as he channeled his feelings about his sexuality in it and when you peer closer you can absolutely see it and this being yet another reason there's more to that adaptation than meets a first glance, but I trust you're catching my drift whether you agree or not. Oh, and I actually would feel perfectly comfortable calling this version better than the 2017 one any time I'm to be asked. Your high watermark of success being how quality something is or isn't is what I'm having in mind here....

[@pikablu_25]

My favorite quote of the film is when the beast says, "Love can make even the most ugly man beautiful". Uhhhh it hits different

[@ihateyoutube8789]

I like everything you had to say, I particularly like that he is nice to start which is what I grow up on reading Gabrielle-Suzanne de Villeneuve. I have yet to see the original. I like that you say it isn't stockholm too; I always hate to hear that because, I know a lot about it and, "violence or a threat of violence" is needed in stockholm and is not in the original story. Thank you, I like your video a lot. From one more subscriber.

[@thebc5754]

The Breakfast Club is a hugely important film on the youth of the 80's and even now, please do it. I love the video essays and informative and relaxing tone of the content.

[@sydneykendall7125]

I saw this movie on TV when I was a very young child in the 1950s. I could not have been more than five years old possibly younger. My mommy read the subtitles to me. I was completely enchanted by the film's beauty and heart and its mysterious, haunting magic. I never forgot it and have often wanted to see it again, but never have. I found this review in my search for a full version of the film with English subtitles. Haven't found it yet.

[@twistedrazor4730]

Hi, apologies if this is unhelpful, but if you’re willing to spend money I’d suggest the DVD or Blu-ray from “The Criterion Collection”. They truly did an amazing restoration and the films looks even more beautiful. Thanks!

[@sydneykendall7125]

@@twistedrazor4730 Thank you! Very much appreciated. I AM willing to spend the money.

[@jazzisnotdead14]

Just because one film over another holds in itself profound themes and ideas over the other doesn't mean it's objectively better; both are equally artistic, meaningful, and profound albeit in differing ways. They may have their intentions set elsewhere, but their potential for meaning lies in the subjectivity for any one of us. Many a times we have the tendency to intellectualize a form of art so much so that the mind blinds us with its analytic nature in seeing other forms without the labels and concepts we've accumulated as an adult compared to when we viewed something as a child, free from these alien constructs. This isn't to jab at how much Cocteau's version means to you, because you're sentiments on why you prefer this version over others is equally as valid and truthful as someone who may prefer Christophe's version :) Keep doing what you're doing.

[@nataliepopper6012]

Your video is really good, thank you for broadening my horizons on this film. However, couldn’t you argue that Jean Cocteau’s opening statement to the 1946’s Beauty and the Beast be applied to Disney’s? To suspend your disbelief and that maybe you don’t need to understand every detail of why certain magical objects and tools have life and others don’t at times? It sounds nitpicky. Cracked made that argument along with a bunch of other unnecessary arguments that aren’t even real issues for the sake of being contrary and getting clicks.

[@matthewbennett9928]

I have to agree it is overly nitpicky because first of all it's a Disney movie and second of all it's a cartoon so it's not that deep. Just watching a movie don't overthink it and just go for the ride I mean there are things in the 1946 film probably just as ridiculous can people accept it just fine

[@itsalejandroe]

I love your channel! Please keep making videos!

[@TheGabe473]

really love your channel!!! keep on trucking!!! :)

[@themysteriousdomainmoviepalace]

Jean Maris powerful performance as the Beast was fueled by his physical suffering in the costume under the heat of the lights. Cocteau's diary of the making of this film is fullnof fascinating info like this. I've never seen the Disney version because this is a hard act to follow. It heavily influenced Coppola's Dracula, which is also Beauty and the Beast.

[@matthewbennett9928]

Except the Disney version isn't really trying to outdo this it really is its own thing. First of all it's a musical with music and lyrics by the legendary Alan Menken and Howard Ashman. And their version they tell a story of a prince who was selfish and unkind. One Night in old woman appeared at the castle he offered him a single rose in return for shelter from the bitter cold. Repulsed by her appearance he turned her away and she reveals herself to be a beautiful enchantress. The prince tried to apologize but it was too late or she could see he had no love in his heart as punishment she transformed him into a hideous beast and placed a powerful spell on the castle and all who lived there. The rose she offered was truly an enchanted Rose they would Bloom until his 21st year and if he could learn to love another and earn her love in return for the last petal fell the spell would be broken or he would remain a beast for all time. So all of the servants become Enchanted objects like a teacup and a candlestick. It's really fun it's really charming and again it really is its own thing. Belle's father is an inventor and he's off to a fair to show off his latest invention play stumbles upon a castle as his horse gets lost and he take shelter inside of a castle and the Beast makes him his prisoner for trespassing. Belle offers to take her father's place. The best part about this movie is Belle herself she doesn't really conform to what Society thinks she should be she wants to read and she wants to travel the world thinks that men shouldn't do that. Especially the man who's interested in her Gaston who is the perfect example of Beauty on the outside but a monster on the inside. So hopefully this influences you to watch it it was nominated for Best Picture at the Oscars that year and it deserves all the Acclaim that it gets.

[@themysteriousdomainmoviepalace]

@@matthewbennett9928 I never thought Disney was trying to outdo Cocteau. Maybe I'll watch if I have time. I'm not a fan of Disney particularly.

[@AmyASpaceOdyssey]

I actually prefer Gaston over Avenant because of how he is loved by everyone in the town and how they never question him. It’s a great commentary on how celebrities or politicians are often treated like royalty no matter how horrible of a person they are. Gaston expects everything to go his way because the townspeople make everything go his way. They believe everything he tells them because they are blind fanatics of him.

[@johns123]

These videos are really great, I'm a big fan! When's the next one?

[@JuliaMinervaRhodes]

Wednesday, my dude.

[@davemattia]

Disney animators didn't understand the audio-visual layering of Cocteau's La Belle et La Bête. Primarily, all of the interior shots - apart from the beast's palace - were on sound stages designed to look exactly like Vermeer paintings. That was deliberate and cannot be duplicated in animation. Disney completely misses that as do most people. Also, as I am bilingual (French-American English) I "hear" another layer in the pronunciations of certain words, and the kind of French they speak - especially La Belle. EXAMPLE: I saw FARGO in a French theater - with subtitles - and since I am a native born American, I could hear why something was far darker and/or funnier than any subtitle or dub could ever capture because of the North Dakota accents. Another would be Bette Davis, in her prime, with subtitles of dubbing, can a non-English speaking person HEAR why she was so great?

[@bobmoran9653]

So right it is beautiful. O just trying to put my teeth onto Orphee now and I am struggling a bit..love Cocteau poems, painting.....so fresh

[@SweetUniverse]

L'orphee is a tough one. It's still one of my favorites.

[@EyeLean5280]

This is a great series. Thank you!

[@covu5699]

Just discovered this and love how you analyze and explain

[@julietcunningham852]

When I heard that Disney was filming this story, I wondered how they would ever top the moving wall sconces when the father enters the Beast's house. They didn't even come close. My first but not my last disappointment in the Disney version.

[@matthewbennett9928]

Well they made it their own and when taken for its own thing it's pretty solid

[@guilhermecorreia9159]

Discovered your channel today, instant subscriber

[@wendyturgeon5949]

Excellent work here!

[@Johnlindsey289]

Saw this when i was 12 on video 25 years ago as i remember watching the 80s TV show with my mother and seeing the Disney version in theaters at age 9 and i enjoyed this as it with Cronos and Hard Boiled were the first non-dubbed foreign films i've seen

[@bespectacledheroine7292]

I prefer the 1991 film, and really that's a testament to how truly well done that version is, because I tend to favor classic foreign cinema over Disney these days, at the risk of sounding a pompous fool. So if anything the odds were stacked against it having much value for me outside of carrying in its wake fond memories, and yet it wins out for me. Still, that said, I completely respect most of your opinions on Cocteau's, which are numerous as they are profound. This is why I think relying on Cracked of all things for complaints of the "plot holes" in the animated version is a tad silly, if indeed you were serious. If the 1946's can be said to be hand waved away due to fairy tale logic, I fail to see why Disney's cannot also benefit from this. Further, snippets of your observations on Cocteau's classic, I feel, can go for my favored version? Whether you're talking about the Beast (11:35 - 11:45), Belle (12:55 - 13:15), or the castle setting (14:37 - 14:54), to me the films aren't as different as might be readily bought into from an individual too biased for one version or the other. But I think the tragedy here lies in the opposing states of reception the 1946 version and 1991 version find themselves in: Those pleased with their taste in high art will forever sneer at the animated, while this version will never be given half the chance that one is year after year. Though I have my preference, I fully and in my manic glee accept both as some of the best films ever gracing us with coming into creation and permanence in the pop culture landscape.

[@kevinsorbi3661]

So which film did you rank number one

[@Qodesh00]

Channel is so good bud

[@thiccboss4780]

it's been 5 months since your last essay , and nowadays i'm starting to realize i like your content better than most film essayers/movie ranters in my sub box , not only are your picked films classic and immortal in a modern perspective , but your commentary always had a audisthetic of knowledgeable and enticing , like i wanted to watch the film myself as soon as i finished watching your video , or for other examples , i reversed one of your videos to watch after iv'e watched the film in question , and after the film i would look for enlightenment as for what the director intended , wanted , and my reaction , a film essay always helps bridge the gap between the director's vision and the viewer's attention. and your format is much less cynical compared to most essayers that act like self-entitled movie "evaluators" , your essay always made me ponder on films i've known all my life and spiked my interest on movies i never heard of. i hope you'll make a comeback , or if you hate that word.... a return.

[@JuliaMinervaRhodes]

Boy are you going to be excited in 6 days.

[@thiccboss4780]

_you just brightened my week

[@JuliaMinervaRhodes]

I'll probably make a video explaining this, but I wasn't absent due to lack of interest in the channel; first, I make these videos during my free time, and when I got sick for a week in the middle of this past semester, a lot of homework piled up that I had to take care of and all my free time evaporated. Also, I was pretty busy making a short film (which got destroyed when my hard-drive crashed). Also, the next video is an hour long, so I was waiting for a time when I had a clear schedule so I could devote my full attention to it (and for the above reasons, I didn't really have a clear schedule until recently, when I got out of school). I should be back to making videos on a regular basis now.

[@thiccboss4780]

congratulations on your recent achievements. i'm sorry for your personal mishaps. and cannot wait for your latest installment!

[@distressedcondiments3113]

This was so interesting. Chef’s kiss.

[@DjDanii]

The narrator of this has such a cute voice.

[@tomasb96]

Please do a "Films of 2017" video!

[@JuliaMinervaRhodes]

I plan to, and I'm very excited for it! It just might take me a few months to get around to it, though.

[@johnadams9044]

This is a spot on psychological evaluation and cognitive treatis. Very well done.

[@wrybreadspread]

There's a visual effect this movie shares with classic Russian cartoons with rotoscoping...sparkles...lots of sparkles. It's a mesmerizing effect.

[@NenadlPopovic]

At 13:15 when sisters ask for parrot & a monkey - its an allusion to original 18th century version where parrots & monkeys were servants in Beasts magical rooms. I think its good version, I only wish it was shot in color... but I do prefer Disney 1991

[@ShredsauceOfficial]

1:46 That's the quaker oats guy

[@jeremyelmkies7157]

Really hoping to see Blow Out make it

[@nataliepopper6012]

At 11:38 you say the Beast had to let Belle go in order to earn that love, but doesn’t he give Belle a key which if she does not return in a week will cause the death of the Beast? Couldn’t you argue this is a way for the Beast to try and manipulate her in inherent goodness so that she remains with him?

[@tae523]

Oh shit you actually made a video

[@JuliaMinervaRhodes]

Yeah, it's been a while.

[@prodbysylle2908]

Andreas Hamburger LOL

[@leobergmiller873]

how do you not have more subscribers

[@JuliaMinervaRhodes]

Probably because I'm too busy with schoolwork to post content with any kind of regularity.

[@leobergmiller873]

Essential Films I would also say that channels that post with more regularity don’t post content of this quality. Maybe not enough people on youtube have an interest in film outside of Star Wars and Marvel...

[@sararose8710]

Alyssa Edward's at 3:50

[@foxybingo1112]

No Battleship Potemkin or Battle of the Algiers?

[@JuliaMinervaRhodes]

They're both very good films, they just didn't make it onto this list.

[@foxybingo1112]

Essential Films why not?

[@JuliaMinervaRhodes]

Battleship Potemkin is an monumental showcase of Eisenstein's revolutionary editing techniques and an excellent example of effective propaganda, but it lacks a certain kind of enjoyability and accessibility that I believe is required for a film to make it onto this list. It no doubt had a very powerful effect on audiences at the time, but its political message has become inevitably dated. My impression of it is that it is a film which is more analyzed than it is experienced. People don't watch it so much for the raw emotional effect it will have on them; instead they look to it as a historical artifact or a frog to be dissected. It's certainly an essential film for film students, or anyone eager to learn about the history of film. I don't believe it's an essential film for the average filmgoer. It is so far removed from modern audiences that I doubt many would be able to understand it (I found it difficult to understand), and even if they did understand the context, I'm unsure of what great benefit they would gain from it aside from a small history lesson. The Battle of Algiers was also a masterpiece, and it definitely opened my eyes to the brutality of urban guerrilla warfare and how North Africa and the Middle East were just as turbulent fifty years ago as they are today. But while I would certainly recommend it to people looking for an intellectually engaging thriller that also teaches them about the history of political conflicts in that region, I don't really see why everyone should see it. It's almost as hard to explain why a film didn't make it on the list as it is to explain why a film did. The difference between a 9/10 film and a 10/10 film is often a special intangible ingredient which has to do with the response in the audience provoked by a film, on an emotional as well as a cerebral level. When it comes to evaluating whether that ingredient is present in a film or not, we often run into trouble because emotions are subjective. If a film engaged me intellectually but didn't emotionally affect me, I'll have a hard time giving it a perfect score. I believe any other critic would admit the same, that our emotional response as viewers is a major part of our work-- which is not to say that it compromises our evaluation: instead, it is one of the most important parts of our evaluation. We must respect this instinctual emotional response, as we can use it to help us identify which elements in the film provoked it, but we must also be humble about it, and not overemphasize its significance in determining a film's value. These two films didn't affect me emotionally in the way they might have affected people who have praised them more strongly, and I've done my best to explain my reasons why (and I might have done a better job had I seen them more recently), but ultimately, this weighs little on my impression of the films' quality: at the end of the day, I don't see them as bad, I just see them as less than quintessential.

[@foxybingo1112]

Essential Films I have not seen Algiers yet, I will get back to you when I have, but I do agree that many watch BP simply to carry out a technical analysis. It did have quite a profound effect on me though, the sequence on the steps in particular being very powerful. For people interested in pursuing a career of some kind in film, I think it is essential due, if nothing else, to the influence it had, accessible or not. With all due respect, I don't see why a film has to be accessible to be essential. Something like Tarkovsky's Stalker, for example, is really long, slow enough to make 2001 look like Die Hard and unapologetically confusing, all of which turn away many viewers. If you are willing to give it a chance, though, you get something of such staggering visual beauty and humanity that even the likes of Kubrick* cannot rival. In a nutshell, a film that is inaccessible can still be masterpiece in my opinion, it take time to truly appreciate it. On an unrelated note, will you be covering Enter the Void? If you haven't I highly recommend it *yes I am aware Kubrick made quite unemotional films. He's just the first appropriate one to come into my head

[@JuliaMinervaRhodes]

I'm glad Battleship Potemkin effected you so powerfully (that was, after all, the intention of the filmmaker). I think what may have kept me from being as strongly effected was the awareness that it was political propaganda, which may have caused me to unconsciously resist it. I think that concept of accessibility as a measure of evaluation is what sets me apart from other critics, even if people disagree with me about it. (I may do a whole video on this subject). This does not mean that films should always stoop to the level of the audience, but that if a film seeks to challenge the audience and bring them to a higher level of thinking, it must guide them there instead of simply insulting their intelligence by refusing to make any effort to meet them halfway. (And it is much more difficult to make a film that simultaneously satisfies and challenges the audience-- so with that in mind, I see films that fail to negotiate with the audience as lazier). It's for this reason that I'm not a fan of Jean Luc Godard's "Contempt" or Michelangelo Antonioni's "Blow-Up". They strike me as films with no respect for their audience. If you react to a film with revulsion, but then tell yourself that "I'm just not smart enough for it and I need to try to get into it", then who's to say you shouldn't give truly bad films a second chance when they give you the same revulsion? Again, I understand I'm an outlier here, but this just makes logical sense to me. I've yet to see Enter the Void, but I've heard great things about it, and from what I know the subject matter, I'm very eager to see it. And it's funny, I find Kubrick's films to be very emotional. I guess that just goes to show how subjective art is. I was suppressing tears while recording the Barry Lyndon review.

[@ruggerobelloni4743]

I lived in the US for 20yrs and was always amazed at some American friends tendency to compare great art to mere entertainment. What I mean Is Chaplin and the Stooges, Shakespeare and TV soaps, The Pietà and Bob's Big Boy Statue, Homer and Troy are not on the same level. If you feel otherwise and say it Is a matter of taste I agree, either you have It or you don't. There Is a story about a big producer of the King of Kings saying : "Could we remove this Judas character? Too negative "

[@disneyrules7808]

Why do the filmmakers have the Beast aka Prince Ardent and Avenant played by the same person in the 1946 film?

[@NarquelieNarmo]

Because of the similarities between the two characters, actually when the Beast turn human at the end, she tells him that he remind her of someone. And when he asks if she loved that person (Avenant) she says no before ultimately saying yes.

[@disneyrules7808]

Hurlelune I see that now.

[@lilthmedusa3880]

I associate it with directly tale

[@mathieunolet8236]

Bonjour

[@eddielew2292]

While I was rapt by your interpretation, I have seen it many times, and am introducing someone to it. I am disappointed in your showing too many of the dazzling visual effects. The person is an artist and I want him to be astonished by the magic while he watches it. Now I will not show this video, too many visual spoilers. It's fine for someone who has already seen it.

[@roychefets6961]

The Cocteau version is art and a masterpiece. The Disney version is commercial drek and basically trash. Even the Beast in the Cocteau version is gorgeous although he's supposed to be ugly.

[@matthewbennett9928]

Given that the Disney film gets Universal praise even from fans of the John Cocteau film definitely suggests that you're in the minority bud

[@brandonspain12345]

That's a bit extreme. The Disney Beast looked unique looking. Ears of a cow, brows of a ape, body and tail of a wolf, and human eyes. Cocteau's is just a big cat.

[@ToriHiragana]

Please, for goodness sake, stop using the word "problematic" in regards to a work of art. That just means it dose against your opinions or the prevailing views of the day; but that is the purpose of art, to explore all sides of an idea even if the creator themselves do not espouse them. Your videos are great and I hate them see it fall back on trendy jargon

[@roychefets6961]

The Cocteau version is so much more creative. The beast in the 1946 version is ugly but gorgeous at the same time. The beast in the Disney version is nothing more than a rather ordinary cartoon.

[@brandonspain12345]

You can dislike the Disney one all you want but don't you dare say the Cocteau's is more creative than Disney's Beast. The Disney Beast looked unique looking. Ears of a cow, head and horns of a bull, brows of a ape, body and tail of a wolf, with human eyes. Cocteau's is just a big cat. _Totally_ more creative as you say it out loud....

[@thomasfranche6770]

The guy in this video just says non words like "toxic masculinity" as if it meant something objective and wasn't just a feminist buzz word. This discredits his argument with this worldview.