Beauty and the Beast, Re-Redux
Well, this conversation just seems to keep going, so let's haul it back to the fore...
Thanks to everyone who commented. It is indeed valuable to note that the Beast does present Belle with intellectual fulfillment via his magnificent library. So... let me refine a bit, say exactly what it is that bugs me here.
Cinderella needs to escape the tyrannical rule of her stepmother and the cruelty of her stepsisters.
Snow White needs to escape the wrath of a jealous queen (who happens to be a witch).
Sleeping Beauty needs to escape the curse laid upon her at birth.
BREAK
Ariel needs to escape the familiar world (What's up there above the surface?)
Jasmine needs to escape the pressures of palace life (actually, she's got something of a case, since she faces a forced marriage.)
Belle needs to escape this provincial life.
The evils that Belle and Ariel are seeking to overcome aren't exactly evils. Not unless you're ready to say that ordinary life is evil, and in Belle's case, that marriage and family are evil. Yes, I know Gaston is a boor, and yes, it bugs me that the desire for wife and children and domestic bliss is put into the heart and onto the tongue of a villain. But it's not just marriage to Gaston that Belle wants to avoid, it's the whole provincial life - presumably, that would mean she wants to avoid marrying anybody in town. But provincial life is not evil. There is a bookshop. There are decent souls. Who knows whether or not the baker is secretly a poet? And even if he's not, what's wrong with being a baker? Heck, Belle's father seems to be making a go of it, even if he is an odd bird. What's wrong with provincial life? Belle sings it: "Every day/Like the one before." The same thing can happen in a castle. Routine is a part of life. Family is a part of life. Someone like Chesterton would even argue that they are good parts of life, that ordinary life, even in the midst of its routine, is fraught with romance and drama, and not to be fled.
Lest anyone think I just hate adventurous women: Mulan: cool movie. What's Mulan doing when she breaks the rules about women's roles? Fighting to keep her father from certain death. Now that's an evil worth overcoming.
Thanks to everyone who commented. It is indeed valuable to note that the Beast does present Belle with intellectual fulfillment via his magnificent library. So... let me refine a bit, say exactly what it is that bugs me here.
Cinderella needs to escape the tyrannical rule of her stepmother and the cruelty of her stepsisters.
Snow White needs to escape the wrath of a jealous queen (who happens to be a witch).
Sleeping Beauty needs to escape the curse laid upon her at birth.
BREAK
Ariel needs to escape the familiar world (What's up there above the surface?)
Jasmine needs to escape the pressures of palace life (actually, she's got something of a case, since she faces a forced marriage.)
Belle needs to escape this provincial life.
The evils that Belle and Ariel are seeking to overcome aren't exactly evils. Not unless you're ready to say that ordinary life is evil, and in Belle's case, that marriage and family are evil. Yes, I know Gaston is a boor, and yes, it bugs me that the desire for wife and children and domestic bliss is put into the heart and onto the tongue of a villain. But it's not just marriage to Gaston that Belle wants to avoid, it's the whole provincial life - presumably, that would mean she wants to avoid marrying anybody in town. But provincial life is not evil. There is a bookshop. There are decent souls. Who knows whether or not the baker is secretly a poet? And even if he's not, what's wrong with being a baker? Heck, Belle's father seems to be making a go of it, even if he is an odd bird. What's wrong with provincial life? Belle sings it: "Every day/Like the one before." The same thing can happen in a castle. Routine is a part of life. Family is a part of life. Someone like Chesterton would even argue that they are good parts of life, that ordinary life, even in the midst of its routine, is fraught with romance and drama, and not to be fled.
Lest anyone think I just hate adventurous women: Mulan: cool movie. What's Mulan doing when she breaks the rules about women's roles? Fighting to keep her father from certain death. Now that's an evil worth overcoming.
posted by Matthew Lickona | 3:58 PM
35 Comments:
but are you actually trying to say that it would be wrong to want more than those things? maybe she isn't saying it's evil at all, just that she hopes for something more for herself. what would be wrong with that? i am not sure i understand your arguement at all. one need not think routine evil in order to want to escape it, or be better than it, or accomplish more. your arguement would seem to be saying that one should not have ambition at all, but be happy with the mundane ordinary daily drab they have been saddled with. Belle is really just saying, this might be right for all of those around me who have found their place in this small town, baker, book keeper etc. but i want more. i dream for more for myself. not seeing what is wrong with this.
mcm
OK, so after all is said and done, maybe, if we really probe Belle's psyche and go "deeper" than the words in her little ditty imply, it isn't really the provincial life she wants to escape at all but, rather, the narrow definitions of her life, the labels (bookish girl, crazy daddy) the town has imposed upon her. See Godsbody entry, Jukebox, 7/6/06. Yes, yes, I know she sings about wanting something more but maybe what she really wants is to be "seen" as something more than the bookworm with the kooky pop.
Just a thought from someone who perhaps might win the prize for most provincial life ever lived! Husband and I moved back to our shared hometown after a 15 year absence. Actual conversation overheard in church referring to me: "Look, Eileen, isn't that little Audrey, the one who played Raggedy Ann in the Christmas play with Kevin?" Keep in mind I am now 40 and said production took place in 1971! Seems I could show Belle a thing or two about a life provincial!
But, I am with Matthew on this one. The only real "princess" worth her salt and the only one my 5 year old daughter could pick out of a line up Mulan. She refers to all others as "the one in the blue dress" or "the one with the rose" but it is Mulan she calls by name!
Audrey
don't get me wrong, my kids love mulan too, but doesn't she decieve her family, cut off her hair, dress as a boy and then lie to everyone in order to accomplish her end? is this ends justifying means people? at least belle is straight forward, honest, attempting to lead a more academic exsistance, is kind to the beast winning his heart and then ultimately falling in love with him? interesting just how differently people see things. i would never hope for my daughter to imitate mulan. how ever much gumption she shows, she runs away from her family and lies to everyone to show it. not so with belle. she is honorable at least honorabe in how she goes about saving her father. mcm
"There goes the baker with his tray like always/The same old bread and rolls to sell."
No, MCM, I'm not trying to suggest that grand aspirations are evil. Sorry if I'm not being clearer here. But the everydayness of village life is what is anathema to Belle, and she seeks to escape it. Here's the problem: everydayness afflicts everyone in every walk of life, and if you can't learn to find the good in it, you end up addicted to novelty. "What's next? What's new?" What's new becomes what's good. I don't think this is a healthy attitude to foster in children - I think they already have a taste for novelty. My argument is that the other princesses become princesses by overcoming genuine, objective evils. Belle become a princess to overcome her fear of everyday life. But even princesses have routines - the splended boredom of the rich and powerful is what leads to their embrace of decadence.
No, Mulan is not ends justifying means. Or at least, I'm not defending it as such. She does wrong by her deception, and it costs her. Of course, this being Disney, all is forgiven at the end, but at least within the course of the film, her deception does have consequences - it costs her the respect and friendship of the man she has come to love, and she spends the rest of the film trying to
atone for her sin (which, naturally, she does).
Audrey,
Thanks for your contribution. It is indeed fascinating how these films land differently on different folks.
The grass is never greener. Never ever never greener. When I was poor I used to dream of a home and steady income. Now that I got it I wish that I was poor again. Strange how it is too.
I agree with the Mulan preference. Mulan is moved by a dilema a bit more noble and virtuous, even if she goes about everything in the wrong way.
My nieces (the ones I am trying to instill the Barbie shame in) are both Chinese. They love Mulan. She looks like them and has a purpose. I look at them and think of where they might be today if their parents hadn't felt that call to adopt. It's grim, people.
Mulan is a tad better, I think- two hours of inspiring them with something more than talking silverware and a seashell bra. It's like a political National Velvet-ish Twelfth Night for kids. Ok, well, not exactly. But you know what I mean.
Yet, it's still a movie!! Let's all calm down...
For the record I don't think either Belle or Ariel view their respective "towns" or lives as evil. They just want to try something different. I went 1000 miles away from my home to go to college. Could I have gotten a good education close to home? Sure. I just wanted to experience a different life for a while. A Massachussets winter is a spectacular thing...but it doesn't mean a Georgia one is evil.
Lindsay,
I don't think anyone's un-calm; this is fun! Which is not to say it isn't serious - kids soak stuff up, so I think it's worth thinking about what it is they're seeing.
Lisa,
I see what you're getting at. But Belle doesn't say she wants something "different." She says she wants "much more than this provincial life" where "every day is like the one before." "More" puts what she wants above what she has in a way that "different" wouldn't.
I think you've got a better case with Ariel.
Matthew,
I agree about the parental awareness. My mom found some Charleton Heston-hosted Biblical Kid Cartoons recently on the $1.00 aisle (I think they had a more clever name).
Anyway, in screening said videos, we discovered that in the Nativity episode, Mary was having vocal labor pains. I was put off and decided that it wasn't for us. I know it sounds silly, but it just didn't wash, for me, with the Immaculate Conception thing. As you said, kids soak it up.
And, by the way, I am having fun, too-Why else would I been commenting, commenting, commenting!!!
forgive previous typos today
My wife and I always had a problem with The Little Princess in particular, because of her outright disobedience of her father (together with the usual Disney portrayal of all father figures as tyrants or buffoons) and the "follow your dreams and all will be well" stuff that passes for a plot these days. That's why we have preferred Pixar's movies of late to anything Disney from the 80s-90s.
I guess I had a latent discomfort with Belle's desire for "more than her provincial life". But then again, that's what drives us to art & literature, exploration & discovery in the first place? Without "something different" happening, there would be no story to read, no movie to see.
matt,
are you just feeling that the "more" implies social climbing? in other words, belle isn't just saying she's adventurous-she isn't just saying "different" she is saying bigger and better? i don't know that i agree that this IS what she is saying, but if that is how one interprets it, then i could see a problem. my problem with mulan is, as noble as her purpose is, she still does the classic, disobey her father and 'rebel' against her family to do it. this is one of my least favorite themes in the disney films. my kids aren't even aloud to watch 'little mermaid' for that very reason. her dad is shown to be overrbearing and, if not evil exactly, certainly not one to be listened to, respected and obey. ha ha, i am the craziest when it comes to taking these movies way to seriously, i won't let my kids watch lion king either because of what happens between the two brother. i just don't want my boys seeing that. one of my great friends thinks i am crazy. but, both matt and i CAN agree on this, i do think it is important to carefully watch these videos and look for what messages are being sent.....it may seem crazy to people, but kids do take stuff away from them. and if matt is worried his daughter will look around and cringe at how totally 'provincial' and out of touch home life is (i am totally only kidding here), but seriously, i do the same thing as matt even if i don't agree about beauty and the beast, i look for the message and see if i really want my kid to think that way. mcm
p.s. i do like mulan's overall message though, so that movie has been a keeper for us. she ultimately comes back and is forgiven by her father, so this is redeeming as oppossed to making the father look like he is just and idiot (little mermaid) who won't support what is 'best' for his daughter. by the way a side note, little mermaid strays very far from the original fairy tale-the original does not have so happy an ending which i think makes the very point matt is talking about with belle, one should not think the grass is greener. the original tale is much more true to this message.
mcm
Provincial life is not evil! I agree. I miss cooking for cowboys and mystically communing with round hay bales on the prairie where it is clear the Author of Life is in control, unlike what man has wrote in urban civilization.
Is it way to late for me to make sense. I think it is past my bedtime. But ah, if only Belle could have connected with the blogosphere...
Viva la vache!
Kitchen Madonna
I'd like to point out that in the original fairy tale "Belle" doesn't want to escape provincial life either, she just wants to save her father, and makes a noble and valiant sacrifice to do so.
though, I still like the disney one awfully... the candelabra-guy gets me every time...
Ariel was totally self absorbed.
Belle's entire reason for remaining with Beast was to save her father.
I wouldn't even consider letting my kids have a copy of The Little Mermaid, but I encouraged Beauty and the Beast becasue while Ariel was self centered and a bublle head, Belle was quick thinking and compassionate, even toward the Beast. Besides that Belle was a reader, something I wanted the kids to see as important.
I have always thought that Beauty and the Beast was the best of the Disney movies.
I think our host has a fair point, and there is more to be said for it. Gaston is, yes, a boor, and a bully. But he is also self-supporting and an employer who doesn’t leave his employees under a hideous curse.
The Beast, meanwhile, inherited a castle, and almost no responsibility except to keep his staff in good stead. What does he do? He throws an old woman out when she needs help, and gets his entire staff turned into houseware and furniture. Then, knowing full well that their release from this curse depends upon his finding true love, he holes himself up in the castle, accepts no visitors, and never ventures out. Despair is not a virtue.
That he ends up falling in love with Belle is pure luck. Indeed, it is a bizarre luck that results from him taking her father prisoner under unjust circumstances. Without that "luck," his staff would have been left as furniture and candlesticks forever.
Now, Gaston is not morally blameless, but his behavior never rises to this level of selfishness. In fact, it is fair to infer that if Belle had paid him the attention and given him the care she lavished upon her jailer, then Gaston might have found redemption instead of being killed by the Beast.
Why does Belle favor the Beast from the start, even though he put her father in a dungeon? When Belle first meets the Beast, and decides to give him the attention she withheld from Gaston, the only thing he has going for him that Gaston lacks is a really, really, big house with servants. Belle is a tramp and a gold digger.
wow. i have to respond to the notion that belle was a
"gold digger and tramp". first of all, gaston is shown throughout the movie as doing any ruthless thing to get belle to marry him. he is the one who has her father thrown into an asylum. never once does he do anything honorable or for that matter, worth loving. further, one can presume from the movie that gaston is not poor, he is presented as being the wealthy land owner, who hunts etc. he is never shown as having a single redeeming virtue except maybe drinking beer. finally, the reason he gets killed by the beast is because he rallys the town into a frenzy of ignorant fear and they go and attack the beast's castle singing about killing the beast. again, nothing redeeming. belle does not set out to win the beast...she actually has no interest in him at first regardless of who he may be. with some help from the now household objects staff, they just eventually get to know each other and beast becomes a better man for it as opposed to gastons slow descent into evil in order to possess belle. belle never exhibits one iota of trampiness throughout the film. her motives our geniune and her actions pure and honest. so,mgarbowski, your arguments are false, as in they have no factual basis, and silly.
Caleb Stegall opines (quite effectively IMO) on the Discipline of Place, which is I think at least part of what Matt is pointing toward in his very valid criticism.
The key implausibility of Belle (and Ariel for that matter, if we imagine for a moment that mer-people existed) is that it is a peculiarly modern phenomenon for society to bless (or, among the more erudite, even sanctify by fanciful theories about human nature) this desire to cast off natural constraints of birthplace, station, and/or biology. We find Belle to be a heroine precisely because she is so unlike a typical 18th century French peasant girl and so very much like us, a people who, in contrast to very nearly everyone at nearly all times in all societies, not only lack a sense of place (home, rootedness, tradition) but have by our handlers (media, educators) been trained and encouraged to hold such things in unalloyed contempt.
what??????? are you trying to say that people have been any different at any given point in history? doesn't the most famous saying go "history repeats itself?" how do you think america even came into exsistance, let alone...let's just say name a country? if it weren't for the need to roam, to explore, to find something better. in fact, i would argue, that society TODAY makes us satisfied to sit on the couch in front of our television (or computer for that matter) and DO NOTHING. the sad irony is, we couch potatoes still WANT more-we just think we can get it while still sitting on our butt. i know this is not the point matt is making, but the idea that society today is somehow different than before-that's silly too.
Anon-
Well, isn't there something to it, though? Seems to me the whole idea of "upward mobility" is peculiarly modern AND Western and is a good thing. Generations ago (and not too many at that), people were pretty much locked into the social situation they were born into. There was little chance for a peasant to ever be anything much more than a peasant. That even applied (to a lesser degree) to trades: it was very likely, if your father was a blacksmith, that you would be one, too. It may have been possible for someone to rise above their station, but there would be many obstacles in their way, so that unless one were particularly driven/gifted, it was unlikely they had much choice in their "career".
However, with public education (despite its many flaws) and the opportunities offered by the free market and even by looser societal constraints & prejudices, we have more freedom today to do and be something different - and even something MORE - than we currently are.
Steve focused on the negative effects of this, which I certainly acknowledge (lack of rootedness and grounding; inability to choose a path in life because they're all open to you, etc.). But let's not forget the huge benefit - choice.
But let's not forget the huge benefit - choice.
To which I say... be careful the bedfellows you keep! It is no accident, but rather a natural outcome of enlightenment liberalism, that the purveyors of the Lifestyle Left hail choice as the highest (and increasinly inviolable) social good.
Most migrations of the past have been due solely to economic necessity (i.e., survival) and then only in view of settling and doing here in a new place what was known, familiar, and accepted in the old. Anonymous needs to re-read what I wrote, viz. (simplifying),
it is a peculiarly modern phenomenon for society to bless or ... even sanctify ... this desire to cast off natural constraints of birthplace, station, and/or biology.
I.e., what has changed is society's willingness to bless or sanctify adolescent attitudes which work, fundamentally, toward its own (i.e., society's own) destruction. Obviously human nature, especially the natural impulse to rebel against societal and traditional restraints, has not changed. Now it is certainly true that similar communal laxity may be found in the past, especially in the late (read rich, slothful, ennui-ridden, playboy) Greek and Roman civilizations... where emphasis needs to be on the word "late". And merely asserting something to be silly has all the rhetorical power of asserting a strong personal dislike of broccoli... i.e., it is not an argument.
No doubt, Steve. But choice remains a good, as does enlightenment liberalism. Societal choice of this sort comports with our dignity as human persons, would you not agree?
You sound almost like you prefer the strictures of non-Western and pre-enlightenment society precisely BECAUSE they limited people's ability to choose a better life for themselves.
And to bring this back on point, I wonder if the classic fairy tales lose some of their "oomph" these days because a girl choosing her own path in life is no longer as unusual. So the movie companies have to jazz up the stories with themese of outright disobedience instead of just going beyond societal conventions? Just ruminating.
to amsol and steve, amsol your point about societal restraints in the past is well taken and your point that maybe now it is even easier to be upward mobile, does seem true inspite of what 'the new american idol' generation might tell us. however, i think (or hope) my point is that the DESIRE FOR CHANGE was always there whether or not the choice was. this desire seems to me natural and fundamental to our human nature and is rooted finally in our desire for God however we as humans may misdirect it. i feel strongly that this desire should not be demonized. i think we have to be careful in confusing a desire to better ourselves or our social position even, with the choices that are made to do so. because, in my mind, this desire is the ultimate key to our salvation. to bring it around to bear on the point, it seems to me that matt is demonizing this desire. saying that it is wrong to be driven by a need for something better. i strongly disagree-i think this need is the beginning of our search for God. and whether first we find a 'good' man in Belle's case, or a land in which we can live in peace to worship...or whatever, i think my may point is the HOPE, is essential to our humanity. yes it often leads us astray, but that problem is rooted in original sin. HOPE is key to our salvation.
to add weight to my argument, most of the saints, it seems to me, have been driven by this same desire. they look around with disatisfaction at their current life, realize there must by something more and are lucky enough (by the grace of God) to recognize that 'the something more' lies in following Christ. this is not any easy jump for everyone, often, we just feel a constant nagging that "there must be something more than this....provincial life" indeed, there is-etenal life with God. how can you possibly get more upwardly mobile than that? my final thoughts. god bless. mcm
MCM,
I know you've given your final thoughts, but I do need to drop in to say that I'm not demonizing desire. I'm saying that the desire in this case is misdirected. Belle wants adventure and excitement and an escape from a place where "every day is like the one before." Well and good. But getting out of the village won't break her free of the tyranny of routine. The rich get bored just like the poor. The great thing about the desire of the saints (and every human heart, if we believe Augustine) is that ultimate fulfilment, the ultimate upward mobility, can be achieved without ever leaving this provincial life. That within the most ordinary context, we can make the most extraordinary journey.
I know that fairy tales are opposed to the ordinary. I'm not a bit bothered that Belle ends up a princess. What bothers me is that the good of princess life is opposed to ordinary life as if ordinary life is somehow less worthwhile. This is the novelty introduced. In the earlier tales, ordinary life was denied to the girls who eventually became princesses - they were enslaved, or mistreated, or cursed, or starving.
MCM,
One final note - while it is true that you often read saints on the matter of desire - for holiness, for justice, etc. - you will also, just as often, find that they praise acceptance - of suffering, of humiliation, of what God wills for their life. Again, this is not to demonize desire, but it is worth noting.
okay, my final final final thoughts....i do get that, but i think that it could be argued that even when we sanctify the mundane, let's say by making every day actions a prayer, changing yet another dirty diaper, or washing yet another dirty dish. we don't do it so as to 'enjoy' those things per se or 'rest' in those things per se. we do so because we see that they are placed before us as necessary steps on our journey to a better life-eternal life with God (hopefully) so i guess i persist in my notion (maybe deluded) that desire for a better life is paramount to all christian action. yes, we do this by accepting what God places before us....but not in the sense of being satisfied with it....i guess i think that even if belle went about singing i am so happy and content with this provincial life...she would have to explain herself as to why she felt fulfilment in it by singing about how each day like the day before is a glorification of God. hm...is there a song in this?
mcm
Anon-
Write to Elton John and see if he can come up with something.
MCM,
You're ignoring my coda about fairy tales being opposed to the ordinary. For the sake of the story, there has to be motion, and it would be a strange fairy tale that took us on an entirely interior journey as Belle moves from dissatisfaction with provincial life to rejoicing in provincial life. (That sort of thing would be much more of an adult drama.) Ending up as a princess is integral, I know that. But why add the dig at ordinary life? Why not make it a story about a girl saving her father and ending up a princess and leave it at that?
Further, I'm not talking about simply sanctifying the mundane. I'm talking about rejoicing in the drama of ordinary life. Dirty dishes and diapers aside, ordinary life is fraught with drama - family conflict, the joining of two lives in marriage and the resultant sparks, the wars between generations, forbidden loves, prodigal sons, etc. etc. All within the confines of ordinary life. It may not be the province of a children's movie to explore these things, especially a fairy-tale children's movie. But to add a bit dismissing "this provincial life" seems to say that these things are not even there to be explored. And that, I think, is pernicious. I don't want Belle to sing about how much she loves provincial life. I want her to just leave the topic alone, because it's outside the scope of the story.
But choice remains a good, as does enlightenment liberalism. Societal choice of this sort comports with our dignity as human persons, would you not agree?
I think not. Choice is not a good (socially or morally speaking), but rather a red herring. Freedom is a good, but only insofar as it encourages and presents the opportunity for individuals and their communities to do good. As such, freedom surely "comports with our dignity as human persons." But there is no right (natural or otherwise) to do evil. And Enlightenment Liberalism has been positively caustic to the communities and their faiths throughout the Western world.
(side note-i know demonized was a strong word it just made the point) i am not sure i am totally understanding you, does the problem lie in her ultimately becoming a "PRINCESS" as if to suggest that one must become something like a "PRINCESS" or a "ROCK STAR" for life to be meaningful because this is played out in direct contrast with a more "provincial" and therefore ordinary life? i would agree that if disney were suggesting this, it might not be so good. and maybe this is exactly what you are saying-that to suggest to children that one must
"MAKE IT BIG" for life to be at all interesting, this would be a dangerous thought. i did not see the tale this way.
but i am not sure that is what you are saying either. the way you describe ordinary life, in my mind, makes it dependant on exactly the adventerous spirit that belle has; marriage, war, forbidden love, prodigal sons, this does not arise from satisfaction in "ordinary life". certainly i see your point that great good and enjoyment and drama can be found in the ins and outs of everyday living, but to want something more than this therefore being bad? still not convinced. i would have to sit down and watch it again (it's been a long time) in order to really see if i think disney is sending this message, i guess my focus was more on the "don't judge a book by it's cover" message which of course is the message of the original fairy tale, than a more subversive plot.
What I'm saying is that ordinary life involves all those things - marriage, love, sin, betrayals (large or small), heartbreak, tragedy, triumph, drama, generational discord, forgiveness, reconciliation, hostility. You don't need a particularly adventurous spirit to find these things. You just need to keep your eyes open and engage with the world around you. Why is Faulkner considered a great writer? Because he took a tiny patch of land and built an entire world within it.
But my main objection remains: what Belle doesn't like about provincial life is the routine, the lack of adventure. But every life has routine. Even the life of a princess. Again, the boredom of the rich is what leads to decadence.
I'm all for the heroine becoming a princess - in the context of the fairy tale, it's the reward of paradise after the great trial. But Belle sets the life of a princess against the provincial life not because the provincial life is full of suffering, but because it's boring and routine. That's a false opposition. The life of a princess can be boring too, as I've said. The rich get bored just like the poor. The desire to live life as a constant thrill ride is immature.
I agree - the main message of the movie is the "don't judge a book by its cover." Just like the fairy tale. But as I've noted - when someone changes a classic fairy tale, it's worth paying attention to what they changed, and thinking about why they did so. Is it an accident that the villain is the one who dreams of a wife and six children?
Is it an accident that the villain is the one who dreams of a wife and six children?
Hey... I resemble that remark...
Post a Comment
<< Home