Year: 2017
Director: Bill Condon
Starring: Emma Watson, Dan Stevens, Luke Evans, Josh Gad, Kevin Kline, Ewan McGregor, Ian McKellen, and Emma Thompson
Tagline: Experience the tale as old as time
Synopsis: Disney's animated classic gets a live action update.
Tagline: Experience the tale as old as time
Synopsis: Disney's animated classic gets a live action update.
Review
Disclaimers:
I'll limit my critique to three areas: music, story, and characters.
Music
I'll give Emma Watson, Josh Gad, Luke Evans, and even Ewan McGregor credit. They all do an admirable job of singing their iconic songs. But as much as I love Emma Thompson as an actress, as a singer she is no Angela Lansbury. And that was all I could think about during "Beauty and the Beast." It's the titular song, an Academy Award winning song. And the warmth and hope that Angela Lansbury imbued into it are lacking.
Of the four new songs, three feel like mere filler. I would much rather have heard the songs from the Broadway version. The film teases with an instrumental version of "Home," but no more. That said, the Beast's solo "Evermore" is terrific and a suitable addition to the film. It is what's needed in that moment and Dan Stevens' voice manages to be both rich and growling as needed. "Evermore" was one of the few highlights of the film for me.
Story
This version follows the animated version in many respects. But as a live action film, it tries to expand the world. Some attempts work better than others.
For starters, the nature of the curse changes. Beast's household are slowly turning into objects, becoming less and less human as each rose petal falls. Rather than living indefinitely as objects, their ultimate fate will be turning forever into lifeless objects. That does up the ante for them, but it also adds a darker tone and makes the situation and the curse seem more hopeless and cruel.
The film also addresses how the entire village could be oblivious to an enchanted castle not far from them in the woods. They've all lost their memory of the place and its inhabitants. Both of those elements work. But just how much does the curse affect them? The townspeople still become a mob and set out to kill the Beast for no reason other than Gaston's fear-mongering demagoguery. At the film's end, I found it difficult to simply dismiss their behavior toward the Beast, Maurice, and Belle. Throwing in a Mr. Potts and an overbearing wife for Cogsworth added nothing.
One thing the live action Cinderella did well was give more backstories to the characters. This Beauty and the Beast tried to do that ... but only half-heartedly. It's a given that Belle's mother is deceased. Trying to make that more dramatic by having her mother die of the plague in an old Parisian windmill doesn't add anything to the story or to our understanding of Belle. All it explains is why Maurice wants to live in the clean air of the countryside. [Side note: Having the enchantress give the Beast a magical book makes no sense, does seem cruel, and feels like a haphazard plot device to facilitate this moment of backstory.]
As for the Prince/Beast, his backstory simply feels lazy and cheap. His mother dies and his father raises him to be spoiled and selfish. That's it. And it bothered me because it seems to take away much of his personal responsibility or accountability. It's his father's fault. That cheapens his growth and change in the story. I'm not saying parents can't emotionally stunt and scar their children. But the film throws it out there as a shortcut, rather than exploring any depth to the Beast's story.
Characters
The characterizations were what I had the hardest part with. Nearly every character feels like a watered-down imitation of the lovable and lively version in the animated film.
We'll start with LeFou. Is he gay? Yeah. Is a big deal made of it? No. Will your kids ask about it? I don't know. Should you talk to them about the movie anyway? Always. [That's a soapbox that I may someday get on ...] It's probably good to explain to kids that LeFou and Gaston have a toxic relationship, platonic or otherwise. Honestly, the few hints thrown in didn't really faze me. They don't add anything at all to the film. But they don't detract either. And of all the characters in the film, LeFou is actually most like his animated counterpart.
With the animated Gaston, you know from his first moment on screen that he really is arrogant and boorish and not at all suitable for Belle. He insults her book then gets it muddy! It's instant dislike. This Gaston wasn't like that. Yes, he seems full of himself and far too self-assured. But you don't feel any immediate distaste for him. Belle's first interaction with him in the film actually felt rude on her part. It takes a while for his downward turn and it comes about in a way that makes him feel more bi-polar than villainous. I'm not sure if the film-makers did that on purpose, or if they simply took for granted that people would dislike him immediately.
Gone is the eccentric inventor who builds overly complicated and dangerous machines. In this telling, Maurice is an artist and tinker. He seems to specialize in music boxes. (I didn't know you could make much of a living at that in a little town.) Rather than being odd, he's perfectly sane, though bearing some sort of emotional scarring from his wife's passing. While I missed his lighthearted goofiness, Maurice is more of an active participant in the plot this way. He openly defies Gaston on more than one occasion. And that works in this retelling.
The animated bookseller has been replaced in this version by a chaplain who keeps a meager collection of books in the church. He and Belle appear to be friends. At the climax, it's clear during Gaston's "kill the Beast!" rant that the chaplain is having none of it. Good for him. But I then expected him to come to the aid of Belle and Maurice in some way. Nope. He simply vanishes. He isn't seen attacking the castle. But he does nothing and says nothing to stop them. It felt like the filmmaker's simply had no idea what to do with his character, so he simply disappears.
I had a hard time with the household objects. They feel too much like objects and not enough like people. They all feel like pale imitations of their animated counterparts. If they are going to look less human or humanized, then the voice acting needs to compensate by adding more life and humanity. I didn't feel like any of the actors brought that. None of them feel endearing. Moreover, some of the story changes led to characterization changes. They feel selfish or at least self-centered. Everything Lumiere or Mrs. Potts do for Belle feels like it is part of a scheme to bring Belle and the Beast together to break the curse, rather than out of genuine concern for Belle's comfort and well-being or for their master's happiness or personal growth.
I'm sorry, but in many ways, the filmmakers killed the Beast. I have nothing against Dan Steven's portrayal. I think his voice is great. And as previously noted, his song "Evermore" is the best part of the film. But that is not the Beast from the animated version. They gave him father issues instead of personal issues. They made him more jaded and cynical and robbed him of the lovable innocence and innate goodness he has in the animated version. And the CGI of him feels so dark and soulless. What happened to the intensely blue human eyes that showed the man within the monster? The film also changes two of my favorite Beast moments. In the animated version, after the Beast scares Belle from the West Wing with a fit of anger, he then realizes his mistake, immediately regrets it, and does a face palm. It says so much about who he really is. The other moment is when the Beast gives Belle the library. In the animated version it is a big moment. He is so excited he can hardly contain his giddiness and he wants the moment to be absolutely perfect. In this version, the Beast shows her the library and then gives it to her almost as an afterthought.
I love Emma Watson. She's a talented actress. She simply is Hermione Granger. But she isn't Belle. How much of that was her and how much of that was the script she was given I don't know. But she was not the character I know and love, the character I've sympathized with for 25 years. She feels less charming and a bit more ... jaded and as though she has a chip (a small chip) on her shoulder. Her rejection of Gaston's proposal feels more harsh. Her sacrifice for her father is only to give her time until she can escape. She seems to approach the West Wing and the rose more out of rebelliousness than out of innocent curiosity. And when she expresses her love for the dying Beast, I found I didn't really believe it.
One change I do like in this version is integrating the enchantress character (Agathe) into the story. I like that she remains watchful over the villagers. The impression I got was that she even leads Maurice (somehow) to the castle. How else to explain a path that appears one night and disappears the next. So I guess she knew that Belle would rescue her father and ... somehow things would come together? It's an odd bit of matchmaking, that's for sure. Mostly I like that she is there during the climax, not participating at first, just observing. The visual of her breaking the glass dome around the now petal-less stem is striking.
Conclusion
Like I said, I didn't hate the movie. And maybe at some point I'll give it a second chance when I'm in a better mood. But for a movie about seeing beyond superficial appearances, for me there isn't much beyond the flamboyant/Gothic facade. The magic, the warmth, the charm, and the joyfulness are all missing. Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go watch the animated classic again.
- If you want to go see this live action version of Beauty and the Beast and haven't already, go see it. Read this review after. It will all be spoilers.
- The 1991 animated Beauty and the Beast ranks in my top five favorite movies. Ever.
- I had a lot going on emotionally when I saw this live action film. Some of that might have affected my enjoyment thereof.
- This is not a short review.
Still here? Okay then.
You may have sensed this coming from the disclaimers: I was disappointed. I didn't really like this live action version of Beauty and the Beast. I don't hate it. I think it is a decent movie and the visuals are pretty amazing. But it cannot hold a candelabra to the original. So even though I went in with mid-level expectations, I left feeling thoroughly disappointed.
I'll limit my critique to three areas: music, story, and characters.
Music
I'll give Emma Watson, Josh Gad, Luke Evans, and even Ewan McGregor credit. They all do an admirable job of singing their iconic songs. But as much as I love Emma Thompson as an actress, as a singer she is no Angela Lansbury. And that was all I could think about during "Beauty and the Beast." It's the titular song, an Academy Award winning song. And the warmth and hope that Angela Lansbury imbued into it are lacking.
Of the four new songs, three feel like mere filler. I would much rather have heard the songs from the Broadway version. The film teases with an instrumental version of "Home," but no more. That said, the Beast's solo "Evermore" is terrific and a suitable addition to the film. It is what's needed in that moment and Dan Stevens' voice manages to be both rich and growling as needed. "Evermore" was one of the few highlights of the film for me.
Story
This version follows the animated version in many respects. But as a live action film, it tries to expand the world. Some attempts work better than others.
For starters, the nature of the curse changes. Beast's household are slowly turning into objects, becoming less and less human as each rose petal falls. Rather than living indefinitely as objects, their ultimate fate will be turning forever into lifeless objects. That does up the ante for them, but it also adds a darker tone and makes the situation and the curse seem more hopeless and cruel.
The film also addresses how the entire village could be oblivious to an enchanted castle not far from them in the woods. They've all lost their memory of the place and its inhabitants. Both of those elements work. But just how much does the curse affect them? The townspeople still become a mob and set out to kill the Beast for no reason other than Gaston's fear-mongering demagoguery. At the film's end, I found it difficult to simply dismiss their behavior toward the Beast, Maurice, and Belle. Throwing in a Mr. Potts and an overbearing wife for Cogsworth added nothing.
One thing the live action Cinderella did well was give more backstories to the characters. This Beauty and the Beast tried to do that ... but only half-heartedly. It's a given that Belle's mother is deceased. Trying to make that more dramatic by having her mother die of the plague in an old Parisian windmill doesn't add anything to the story or to our understanding of Belle. All it explains is why Maurice wants to live in the clean air of the countryside. [Side note: Having the enchantress give the Beast a magical book makes no sense, does seem cruel, and feels like a haphazard plot device to facilitate this moment of backstory.]
As for the Prince/Beast, his backstory simply feels lazy and cheap. His mother dies and his father raises him to be spoiled and selfish. That's it. And it bothered me because it seems to take away much of his personal responsibility or accountability. It's his father's fault. That cheapens his growth and change in the story. I'm not saying parents can't emotionally stunt and scar their children. But the film throws it out there as a shortcut, rather than exploring any depth to the Beast's story.
Characters
The characterizations were what I had the hardest part with. Nearly every character feels like a watered-down imitation of the lovable and lively version in the animated film.
We'll start with LeFou. Is he gay? Yeah. Is a big deal made of it? No. Will your kids ask about it? I don't know. Should you talk to them about the movie anyway? Always. [That's a soapbox that I may someday get on ...] It's probably good to explain to kids that LeFou and Gaston have a toxic relationship, platonic or otherwise. Honestly, the few hints thrown in didn't really faze me. They don't add anything at all to the film. But they don't detract either. And of all the characters in the film, LeFou is actually most like his animated counterpart.
With the animated Gaston, you know from his first moment on screen that he really is arrogant and boorish and not at all suitable for Belle. He insults her book then gets it muddy! It's instant dislike. This Gaston wasn't like that. Yes, he seems full of himself and far too self-assured. But you don't feel any immediate distaste for him. Belle's first interaction with him in the film actually felt rude on her part. It takes a while for his downward turn and it comes about in a way that makes him feel more bi-polar than villainous. I'm not sure if the film-makers did that on purpose, or if they simply took for granted that people would dislike him immediately.
Gone is the eccentric inventor who builds overly complicated and dangerous machines. In this telling, Maurice is an artist and tinker. He seems to specialize in music boxes. (I didn't know you could make much of a living at that in a little town.) Rather than being odd, he's perfectly sane, though bearing some sort of emotional scarring from his wife's passing. While I missed his lighthearted goofiness, Maurice is more of an active participant in the plot this way. He openly defies Gaston on more than one occasion. And that works in this retelling.
The animated bookseller has been replaced in this version by a chaplain who keeps a meager collection of books in the church. He and Belle appear to be friends. At the climax, it's clear during Gaston's "kill the Beast!" rant that the chaplain is having none of it. Good for him. But I then expected him to come to the aid of Belle and Maurice in some way. Nope. He simply vanishes. He isn't seen attacking the castle. But he does nothing and says nothing to stop them. It felt like the filmmaker's simply had no idea what to do with his character, so he simply disappears.
I had a hard time with the household objects. They feel too much like objects and not enough like people. They all feel like pale imitations of their animated counterparts. If they are going to look less human or humanized, then the voice acting needs to compensate by adding more life and humanity. I didn't feel like any of the actors brought that. None of them feel endearing. Moreover, some of the story changes led to characterization changes. They feel selfish or at least self-centered. Everything Lumiere or Mrs. Potts do for Belle feels like it is part of a scheme to bring Belle and the Beast together to break the curse, rather than out of genuine concern for Belle's comfort and well-being or for their master's happiness or personal growth.
I'm sorry, but in many ways, the filmmakers killed the Beast. I have nothing against Dan Steven's portrayal. I think his voice is great. And as previously noted, his song "Evermore" is the best part of the film. But that is not the Beast from the animated version. They gave him father issues instead of personal issues. They made him more jaded and cynical and robbed him of the lovable innocence and innate goodness he has in the animated version. And the CGI of him feels so dark and soulless. What happened to the intensely blue human eyes that showed the man within the monster? The film also changes two of my favorite Beast moments. In the animated version, after the Beast scares Belle from the West Wing with a fit of anger, he then realizes his mistake, immediately regrets it, and does a face palm. It says so much about who he really is. The other moment is when the Beast gives Belle the library. In the animated version it is a big moment. He is so excited he can hardly contain his giddiness and he wants the moment to be absolutely perfect. In this version, the Beast shows her the library and then gives it to her almost as an afterthought.
I love Emma Watson. She's a talented actress. She simply is Hermione Granger. But she isn't Belle. How much of that was her and how much of that was the script she was given I don't know. But she was not the character I know and love, the character I've sympathized with for 25 years. She feels less charming and a bit more ... jaded and as though she has a chip (a small chip) on her shoulder. Her rejection of Gaston's proposal feels more harsh. Her sacrifice for her father is only to give her time until she can escape. She seems to approach the West Wing and the rose more out of rebelliousness than out of innocent curiosity. And when she expresses her love for the dying Beast, I found I didn't really believe it.
One change I do like in this version is integrating the enchantress character (Agathe) into the story. I like that she remains watchful over the villagers. The impression I got was that she even leads Maurice (somehow) to the castle. How else to explain a path that appears one night and disappears the next. So I guess she knew that Belle would rescue her father and ... somehow things would come together? It's an odd bit of matchmaking, that's for sure. Mostly I like that she is there during the climax, not participating at first, just observing. The visual of her breaking the glass dome around the now petal-less stem is striking.
Conclusion
Like I said, I didn't hate the movie. And maybe at some point I'll give it a second chance when I'm in a better mood. But for a movie about seeing beyond superficial appearances, for me there isn't much beyond the flamboyant/Gothic facade. The magic, the warmth, the charm, and the joyfulness are all missing. Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go watch the animated classic again.
Quotable Quotes
- "Have you really read all of these books?" "Hmph. Some of them are in Greek." "Is that a joke? Are you joking now?" -- Belle and the Beast
- "Nobody deserves you!" -- Gaston to his reflection in a mirror
- "I am not a beast!" -- the Beast to Gaston
No comments:
Post a Comment