Beauty and the Beast (2017)

This era of Disney live action remakes has been fun but feels more like a passing fad that could become old sooner than later. I didn't care much for "Alice in Wonderland" or "Maleficent" but "Cinderella" was quite impressive. "The Jungle Book" was okay and so is this live action version of "Beauty and the Beast". Unlike its predecessors, the original film on which it is based is relatively new. I remember very well seeing its first preview on the "The Jungle Book" VHS when I was a child. I still have the animated film memorized. With all of these remakes, there is a fine line that Disney has to walk between originality and staying true to the source material. The pressure to find that perfect balance is higher with "Beauty and the Beast" because its primary reference was released only about 25 years ago. I was worried at first that the filmmakers were going to follow the source material verbatim after seeing a few previews. I also saw the rest of the world get a little too excited for this latest remake and I didn't want to set myself up for disappointment. After finally seeing the film, I saw some good things and some negative things. In summary, I think I would have preferred to see a different director make this show and I felt the story of the movie had pacing problems but the film is better the second time.

The filmmakers had three sources from which to draw upon in bringing this film to life: the original tale by Jeanne-Marie Leprince de Beaumont, the 1991 animated masterpiece and its Broadway version. I loved the nod to the original fairy tale where Maurice takes a rose from the Beast's garden. By borrowing elements from all these sources, originality can automatically be created but you don't have to stop there and the filmmakers didn't. The look of the film is quite colorful and stylized just like "Cinderella" from two years prior. The difference between the two films is that the team behind "Cinderella" put more work into the story it seems. I also favor movies that have great stories over films that have eye candy as their central feature. In the animated version of "Beauty and the Beast", the opening setting is autumn and the town is full of brown and other earthy tones. Belle's blue dress stands out quite well in this setting. This decision with the design supported the story but in the live action remake, everything is quite lush. Belle doesn't stand out or apart as much as she should have. Another element of this new film version that put me off was the use of CGI in some areas. It is impossible to tell this story in live action without CGI and so I will first indicate what special effects I did appreciate. The Beast was able to deliver a realistic, dramatic performance and the whole movie depended on that. The special effects are able to do what 2D animation had trouble with: putting a human face behind the fur and fangs. Just like I could see a little bit of Christopher Walken in King Louie in 2016's "The Jungle Book", Dan Stevens' face was incorporated quite well for the Beast. The evidence of this comes in the climax. I would love to know if Stevens' performance was captured on set and it sounds like it was. The enchanted objects were also rendered well enough but what I had a problem with was some of the environments created in the computer. If Disney was able to give us the photorealistic world we saw in "The Jungle Book", then why not for this movie as well? The reprise of the song "Belle" illustrates my point. The original version of this scene was a reference to "The Sound of Music". The live action version follows suit and this is obvious with the staging and cinematography of the scene. I just want to know why this was not filmed outside on a real hill. Despite how well rendered the effects are, you can still tell the background is fabricated. The exterior of the castle and other CGI settings also rubbed me the wrong way, not to mention the multiple 3D gimmicks. Those were a little distracting. The biggest problem with this movie however is the pacing of its story. This criticism might sound false at first because the running time for this movie is 45 minutes longer than the 1991 movie. Keep in mind though that the 2017 film has some new musical sequences. What I wish to point out is that some of the scenes that were very dramatic in the animated film felt rushed through in the live action version such as the Beast's death scene and subsequent transformation. One could argue that recreating the pace of the original film would have meant of a loss of originality. I would reply that you could retain the pace while changing other elements. This is a well-known story from the Disney Renaissance but that doesn't give license for the filmmakers to push through famous scenes that are paramount to the movie's success.

Disney's "Beauty and the Beast" is so iconic that its live action counterpart could have easily failed but thankfully, some decisions that the filmmakers made were good ones such as with the casting. The whole world seemed to celebrate when Emma Watson was cast as Belle. This included Susan Egan, the voice of Meg in "Hercules" and the first actress to play Belle on Broadway. The original voice actress for the character, Paige O'Hara, even wanted to help Watson with her singing lessons. Speaking of that, I was impressed with Watson's chops. She even did the Barbara Streisand thing when she sings the word "alarming" in "Something There". For the animated film, Belle was not designed to be the most beautiful out of the Disney Princesses. Also, unlike her fellow heroines, she is unaware of her beauty. Too many times in movies, we see leading ladies that are extremely beautiful and exceed what is normal or more common. These movie knockouts are also fully aware of their remarkable beauty and enjoy flaunting it. “Beauty and the Beast” has a gorgeous actress at the helm but Watson's beauty comes from within as well. I feel her outward features reflect more realistically that of the average woman. Her character of Hermione in the Harry Potter franchise was cute when first introduced but her feature characteristic was her intelligence. As the franchise progressed, the kind of woman she became on the outside was perfect for the big screen (most notably in the fourth film) but also perfect in reflecting a more realistic kind of beauty. This made her the superlative choice to bring this animated princess to life. Dan Stevens creates a Beast that is a pretty funny guy. His animated counterpart may have been more intimidating but that was easier to portray in that medium. Stevens' shinning moment was also the best part of this remake: the song "Evermore" (newly composed for this film). The chemistry and relationship between Belle and the Beast does work as much as it can despite the pace problems. The student/teacher relationship worked in the animated film but, again for the sake of originality, that the two are provided instead with something they have in common to share in the live action incarnation: reading. I like how when the Beast confesses his attraction for Belle that she doesn't take offense but rather subtly reminds him that her imprisonment is what stands in the way of their relationship. I first took notice of Luke Evans in the "Hobbit" Trilogy and when I heard he was cast at Gaston, I was able to accept it. This is yet another example of a good decision by the filmmakers in creating originality. Gaston is no longer reminiscent of Brom Bones from Disney’s “The Legend of Sleepy Hollow” but instead has a background as a soldier. While he is less comical at the start of the film, he is a little more obsessive. The threat he poses therefore is more realistic. This isn't the first Disney film for Kevin Kline, Josh Gad or Emma Thompson (another actor from "Harry Potter"). Kline's voice is much different from what I am used to. On the same subject, Lumiere had a low voice in the animated film while Cogsworth had a high-pitched voice. With the casting of Ewan McGregor and Ian McKellen in these roles respectively, Lumiere's voice now has a higher pitch than Cogsworth's. The film gets away with this because the actors are likewise ideal to play these characters. McGregor has his "Moulin Rouge!" experience from which to draw upon for his role. I loved the new plot point for this version concerning the enchanted objects and how they will lose their of anthropomorphism when the final pedal falls. It is more tragic.

Unlike past Disney live action remakes; the original filmmakers from "Beauty and the Beast" are still alive for the most part. It is true that Dick Sherman was still around for "The Jungle Book" remake to write a few lyrics but for the live action version of "Beauty of the Beast", we have Oscar-nominated producer Don Hahn, eight-time Oscar-winning songwriter Alan Menken and singer Celine Dion reprising their contributions. Thomas Schumacher, another producer during the Disney Renaissance, is an executive producer on this live action remake. Tim Rice, with whom Menken won an Oscar for their work on "Aladdin", wrote the lyrics for the new songs (he was also the lyrist for songs original to the Broadway version). Speaking of that, I am happy for the instrumental version of "Home" that is heard twice when Belle is in her room in the castle. I am so used to the arrangement of the classic songs that I wasn't able to warm up too easily to the new arrangements heard in this live action adaptation. For example, "Gaston" felt less like "Take Me Out to the Ballgame" and more like "Master of the House" in its new arrangement. I was quite surprised by how much controversy swirled around this film as it approached release. The level of infuriation was outrageous to me mostly because those making all the noise hadn't seen the movie. No one had. I remember on social media how many fans didn't like Chip's voice in the trailer for example. Then there was the controversy with how LeFou was portrayed. While I share the concerns of those who likewise have a problem with this change, I did not at all share the level of their reaction. Their calls to boycott the film were an overreaction because, I say again, they were angry about something they hadn't seen. Whenever you act as if you are better than someone else, your ability to create a civil dialogue for change is forfeited. Upon seeing the movie, I thought the offensive scenes were subtle and brief, easy to forget or ignore. All this served to remind me of the importance to not judge a movie before seeing it or to get myself too excited for it. By making a mountain out of an anthill, the problem will only get worse in my opinion.

Director Bill Condon has a positive film resume that includes "Chicago" and "Dreamgirls" but a major, more recent blemish in his filmography had me worried going into this film. When Condon concluded a certain film franchise that shall not be named, even die-hard fans of those movies had trouble justifying its flaws and I didn't want the same to happen with his adaptation of "Beauty and the Beast". Thankfully, the film was okay. It visually reminded me a lot of the Disney live action adaptations of "Into the Woods", "Cinderella" and "Maleficent". The movie earned Oscar nominations for Best Costume and Production Design. I wish it had won both. Because I value story over the visual aspects of a movie and because I am so sentimental to the animation film, "Beauty and the Beast" fell a little short of my expectations. If the plot had been given the attention this "tale as old as time" deserves, I think this film could have been even more successful. That being said, I am glad I saw the movie and applaud some of the choices made. Its billion dollar gross at the box office is sure to result in more live action adaptations but my greatest hope is that no one forgets about the original animated films.

3.5 out of 5 Stars