Strangest beast that he ever saw... on TV

News Media Commentary
Title:	Strangest beast that he ever saw... on TV
Commentator:	John Lofton
Date(s):	November 30, 1988
Venue:	print
Fandom:	Beauty and the Beast (TV)
External Links:
Click here for related articles on Fanlore.

Strangest beast that he ever saw... on TV was a 1988 article by writer John Lofton.

It was published in "The Washington Times," a conservative newspaper founded six years earlier by Sun Myung Moon.

The article was commentary on Beauty and the Beast (TV).

It was reprinted in A Romantic of the Leonine Persuasion #2 in early 1989 and Passages #9 in January 1989. This letterzine reprinted many articles about the show, but "Strangest beast that he ever saw... on TV" is the one that garnered the most fan comments.

This article was also read aloud to fans by Roy Dotrice at an unknown convention in early 1989.

The Article

In the original "Beauty and the Beast" fairy tale, the Beauty, literally, disenchants the Beast, who becomes a handsome prince. But, now, we have this abomination on CBS television, also called "Beauty and the Beast." And I am not embarrassed to tell you: I don't get it.

Now, ordinarily, I do not watch this program. No way. But I did tune in this year's season premier to see why it is so popular. And to see, in the words of the TV Guide ad, if I would "Get swept away all over again."

I wasn't. In fact, I not only wasn't swept away all over again (because I never had watched this hideous show before), I wasn't even swept away for the first time.

For openers, we hear a voice-over of "Vincent," the Beast, talking about "Catherine," who lives in the world of the wealthy and powerful, a world apart from his, which appears to be in a huge sewer pipe underground in New York City (an excellent place for this show to occur, incidentally). "Vincent" tells how "Catherine" captured his heart at first sight, and how he knew then and now that she'd change his life forever.

Then "Catherine" speaks about how Vincent" came from "a secret place" far below the streets (which, alas, has been discovered). And where, she explains, he is "hiding his face from strangers, safe from hate and harm." She says he saved her life. Wherever she goes they're together in spirit and their bond is stronger than friendship and love. And though they can't be together (C'mon, these are the '80's! It's OK for a Beauty to be seen with a Beast - especially in the Big Apple!), "they'll never be apart."

And what a kisser this beast has.

At first glance, he (?) looks like he was in a bad car crash and did cosmetic surgery on himself at home, following directions from a correspondence course, several lessons of which he never read.

What, exactly, is this Beast? How did he get the way he is? Is he a cross between some things? Is he still evolving? Can he reproduce? Is he the way he is because there's too much radon in his sewer pipe? Has he been drinking too much radioactive sewer water? Where is [sic] OSHA and Ralph Nader when we really need them?

And then there are those voices, those horrible voices. When the Beast and the Beauty converse, they speak in whispery, syrupy, hushed tones which are reminiscent of late-night FM disc jockeys, or the hosts on one of those sex-oriented 976 party-talk phone lines. Yechhhhhhhh!

And there's that sickening music that plays, or so it seems, throughout this entire program. It reminds me of the nauseating theme which dominated the movie "Love Story." Years ago, when we saw that movie in a drive-in theater, my 6-year-old son told me he wanted to go home because the film's theme song made his stomach hurt.

I knew how he felt when I watched "Beauty and the Beast."

Anyway, this premier program opens with 'Vincent" and "Catherine" in his lair, listening to an above-ground concert in a park somewhere. They are in ecstacy. Her head is tilted backward, her eyes closed. She is smiling.

The Beast: 'What makes you smile?"

The Beauty: "Everything."

It's all downhill from there.

It starts to rain. She looks skyward, noting, "It's raining." She laughs. He starts to put his coat around her. No, she wants to get soaked. She laughs some more. He smiles. She's soaked. More rain. More laughing. This is wonderful, she says (ah, yes, nothing like getting drenched while sitting in a sewer, right?). He smiles. They hug. They hug again. She leaves. He looks sad.

Although we were previously told that the Beast stays apart from the Beauty's world, we see him, somewhere, at night, atop a building overlooking Gotham, where a voice-over of himself tells us there is only "the city, the night and me." Well, what's he bitching about?! This is a lot. I mean, there are more than 8 million people in New York City, and a lot of them are beasts! What does this guy (?) want?

Also, I find myself wondering: If the Beast comes above ground, and sees his shadow, does this mean six more weeks of winter?

Then we see 'Vincent" walking the streets. What appears to be a sleeping bum wakes up, sees him and runs (as I would, too, if I saw such a geek staring at me).

And this is another thing about this show that is off-putting-the staring by the Beast. Didn't his mother tell him it's not nice to stare? And I don't mean just an occasional casual glance. I'm talking about staring, countless stares where this, this thing's face fills the entire TV screen while that haunting, horrible theme song plays over and over and over and over.

There's more, much more to this particular program. More whispery voices. More staring. More theme song. The whole thing reminds me of one of Algernon Swinburne's inane poems made into a TV show.

I don't get it. And to be honest, I don't want to get it.

Fan Comments

At first I was very angiy after reading this article. Now I feel sorry for him. How can someone feel so negative about a show so filled with love?

I have to make a comment on that vicious little review by John Lofton, columnist (or more aptly, assassin) for The Washington Times, dated November 30,1988. What a puling, small-minded, hateful review, obviously written by an insensitive cretin unable to appreciate the elevated qualities of human kindness, gentleness, and tolerance, which is what the show is really about. Does anyone have his address? I'd love to write him a letter. (I promise not to use plastic explosives, even though sorely tempted.)

[This letter was written by one of the handful of male fans who contributed letters to "Passages."]

In issue #9, we read the article by Mr. John Lofton of the Washington Times. It was advised that this be filed under "O" for other opinion. He was at least honest in saying that he did not understand it, and did not want to. He obviously did not want to before he even turned on the TV. I found the whole article outrageous! I find it so not because I am devoted to the show, but because I am devoted to responsible journalism: Mr. Lofton flunks in that category.

So he doesn't understand, it, so what? I don't understand Buddha; does that make him somehow ridiculous? If I go in depth to ridicule something that I do not understand, does that reflect on the work I am criticizing, or myself?

There is a long history of people trying to destroy or ridicule that which they do not understand. It is the poorest and saddest tradition of critics. It is exactly the sort of review that I have been anticipating.

Why? First of all, most reviews are written by men. There seems to be a larger proportion of men than women doing reviews. Or at least the reviews I find are all written by men. Now, I have always been afraid that the show would earn the label of "For Women Only." Unfortunately, it seems to have done so to a large extent. The movement of B&B to the Monday time slot is evidence of that; more than one source has relayed that there are hopes of boosting the ratings by airing after "Designing Women" and "Murphy Brown," both of which have large female audiences.

Mr. Lofton takes the hard-line macho point of view first off, and immediately closes his eyes and ears. He has decided already that there is something soft and weak about the series, and to endorse it would be to associate himself with softness and weakness. Better to attack first! That is the action of a coward.

These are the 80's, right, Mr. Lofton? The "sensitive male" is out. B&B is silly and stupid because no man, ever, would feel like Vincent, right? Poetry is dumb and it just ain't believable the Beast doesn't want to get her into bed, eh? I can't read your mind, Lofton, just base my opinions on what you've written, but can I be too far from wrong? If you can judge this show by one barely-glimpsed episode, I can make some judgments about your attitudes by one review.

I've known people with similar attitudes, and they're cowards, too. Anything that hints of a weakness, or feeling, must be suppressed. Anything less than perfect emotional control means weakness, and eventual collapse

into spinelessness, homosexuality, AIDS, and death according to the opinions given to me by these people. Real men never feel sorrow, or longing, or tenderness, or self-doubt, is that it? I exaggerate for effect, but I think the point is clear. There is a deep-seated aversion in some men for this show that has nothing to do with the quality of the show itself. Something in B&B makes these people uncomfortable at some deep level that they are not in touch with. This discomfort manifests itself in disapproval for B&B. These people, who refuse to come to grips with some aspects of themselves, are cowards; it always takes more courage to confront things than dismiss them.

I am not demanding that EVERYBODY love Beauty and the Beast; far from it. I'm just asking that people give it a FAIR chance.

Mr. Lofton never did. (If you read this, Lofton, I'd love to hear your side of it. I think we all would.)

I can't help but comment on that review (??) printed in Issue #9 by John Lofton in The Washington Times! Who could stoop so low as to print something like this? File under "O" for "Other Opinion" indeed-this should be filed in "File 13", if you know what I mean. I have seen negative reviews on B&B before, but this was not just negative, this was downright vicious! Here's to you, Mr. Lofton, for possessing no compassion or couth whatsoever - it's people like you that we don't need to give publicity to Beauty and the Beast- and to The Washington Times for stooping to such low depths!

Thank vou, Michael Beacom, for saying everything I wanted to say about John Lofton (and his snide remarks), but so much better than I could have and at greater length! It is the moral equivalent of a good punch in the nose, which is just what that person deserves. Thank you, again!

I was outraged when I heard that article read by Rov Dotrice himself, at a convention earlier this year! I couldn't believe my ears! The actual nerve of John Lofton!! According to Mr. Webster, the word "Critic" is defined as follows: (A) "One who expresses a reasoned opinion on any matter especially involving a judgement of its value, truth, righteousness, beauty, or technique; (B) one who engages often professionally in the analysis, evaluation, or appreciation of works of art or artistic performances." If you ask me, the man best define his OWN meaning of critic because it is for sure that he does NOT fit in to this category! And, obviously, the man doesn't know the real meaning of love, beauty, honor, trust, and romance! I suggest you look for another job, Mr. Lofton, because anyone to judge anything simply because they "don't understand it," needs to take a good look at themselves FIRST! Thumbs DOWN to you, Mr. Lofton!