ScreenFish

where faith and film are intertwined

Beauty and the Beast

Beauty and the Beast: Looking for the ‘Deep Truths’

by 3 Comments

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. We see what we are looking for; our view of a person – or a movie – depends, to a great extent, on who we are. Beauty and the Beast is about seeing beauty despite outward appearances. Ironically, the villagers can see only Belle’s outward beauty – calling it a “fair facade” – while not seeing how beautiful she really is on the inside, too.

Because of the recent controversy over the film, many will be looking for “exclusively gay” moments in it. They may be able to find tiny hints, but in the searching for those moments, they may miss what is actually there. In my news piece about LeFou, I quoted blogger Amy Green, who reminds us “Fairy tales done well, the ones that last and resonate, are based on very simple, very deep truths.” If we look for them, the new Disney version of Beauty and the Beast conveys to us some of these deep truths.

Augustine said, “All truth is God’s truth.” And there is… well… truth in that statement. The “deep truths” in Beauty and the Beast are, if we have recognized them rightly as truths, God’s truths. I dare say, there are indeed Christian truths in it—specifically and especially in this particular Disney version of the story. Much has already been said about the movie. I’d like to focus my review on the Christian themes and truths in it.

I do not think it an accident this iteration of the tale moves the location of Belle’s source of reading material. In the 1991 animated version, Belle borrows her books from the local bookseller. This is a notion I have always found to be strange, given the provincial, narrow-minded nature of the town. How could such a business stay afloat in such a place? In the live-action version, Bell’s books come from the library located in the village church, run by clergyman Père Robert. Through the years, the Church has been not only the guardian of the Gospel of The Book, but also the custodian of books in general. The Church has not been a perfect guardian and custodian by any means. She has been guilty at times of both perverting the Gospel and burning books. But, in general, throughout history, Christianity has promoted both the spiritual and the educational life.

That education should be for both male and female is supported by the words of Christ Himself. In Luke 10, we see Lazareth’s sister Mary “sitting at Jesus’ feet.” She was with the other disciples learning from her Lord. In that day, that was not the role of women. Martha was busy about fulfilling her expected place, preparing and serving, and she was upset Mary was not helping her. But rather than rebuking Mary for being outside her station, He rebukes Martha.

“Martha, Martha, you are worried and bothered about so many things; but only one thing is necessary, for Mary has chosen the good part, which shall not be taken away from her.” [Luke 10:41-42 NASB]

Throughout the world, girls are being denied the seat of learning by misogynistic cultures which seek to “put them in their place.” Whatever your beliefs about gender roles, Christ made it obvious women are not to be denied such training. It seems only appropriate the Belle of the 21st century is portrayed by a young woman who has stood for the rights of girls to receive an education. The scene where Belle is teaching a girl to read – much to the dismay of the townspeople – is especially poignant with Emma Watson playing the part.

The village church is not only a reminder of the place of education, but of a recurring Christian theme in the story—sacrifice. When Belle enters the building, a large crucifix can be seen taking up most of the wall in the front of the sanctuary. Directors and cinematographers don’t take such details lightly. The cross is the a focal point throughout that scene, and this could not be an accident. Belle will sacrifice herself to take her father’s place as a prisoner of the Beast. The Beast will sacrifice himself to rescue Belle from the wolves. Belle will continue to sacrifice her freedom to care for the Beast while he recovers from his wounds, even though she could have easily gotten away if she had left him to die in the woods. In a sequence new to this film, we find out Belle’s mother had sacrificed her own comfort, insisting Belle’s father, Maurice, take their very young child away lest she contract the plague from her. The Beast sacrifices what seems to be his only chance to become human again, freeing Belle so she could return to her father.

The opposite of sacrifice is selfishness. In the new movie, Gaston is a war hero. We often speak of those who have gone to war as ones who have sacrificed for their country. But it is obvious Gaston is the type who had only his own glory in mind when he went to war. Or, at least, since he has returned from the war, he can only think about using his war hero status as a means of self-indulgence. His idea of what it means to be a hero can be seen near the end of the movie when he abandons the injured LeFou and goes off to hunt down the Beast uttering the words, “hero time.” He is not concerned about others; he is concerned with his own aggrandizement.

Gaston is a picture of someone who is beautiful on the outside, yet hideous on the inside. The scriptures remind us that Satan appears as an angel of light. (2 Corinthians 11:14) A bitter spring can look refreshing, but it will reveal itself if you try to drink of it. (See James 3:11.) Despite having the admiration of almost all of the town, Gaston is still filled with bitterness because he cannot have the one thing he is denied—Belle. And he will stop at nothing to get what he wants. Maurice is in his way, so Gaston leaves him to be eaten by wolves. For self-absorbed people like this, other people are unimportant except as a means for their own promotion. He does not really want Belle; he justs wants the satisfaction of being known as the husband of “the most beautiful girl in town,” and raising “strapping boys” like himself. More trophies to show off with the antlers on his wall.

The Beast begins the movie much the same person as Gaston. He is a self-centered prince only interested in pomp and show. He tries to cover up the ugliness inside with French make-up and powdered wigs, and opulent parties. While the “curse” pronounced by the enchantress seems harsh, it is actually the best thing which could have happened to him. It helps him see beyond the make-up and opulence and get a glimpse of who he really is. This is what the scriptures do.

Anyone who listens to the word but does not do what it says is like someone who looks at his face in a mirror and, after looking at himself, goes away and immediately forgets what he looks like. But whoever looks intently into the perfect law that gives freedom, and continues in it—not forgetting what they have heard, but doing it—they will be blessed in what they do. [James 1:23-25 NIV]

Every time the Beast looked into a mirror, it reminded him of who he really was. Belle coming into his life will greatly change him, but it seems obvious to me there had been changes in his attitude before she arrived. This is obvious in the new version of the movie as provision is made for Maurice in the castle with the Beast’s knowledge. He is frightened away not by the Beast, but by the enchanted, talking objects. When I first saw the movie, I found it strange the stable was equipped with hay and water. But I think the Beast had already taken to heart—at least somewhat—a lesson about hospitality to strangers. He seems to be ready to help any who would – however unlikely – stop by in need of food and lodging. He only takes Maurice as his prisoner after he “steals” the rose. The filmmakers have gone back to the original source—Madame de Villeneuve’s version of the tale. (They name the village after her.) In La Belle et al Bête, the father is also provided for by an unseen host, and the Beast only takes him prisoner after he plucks the rose—an act the Beast sees as ungratefulness. So, the trespass is not trespassing (like in the animated version), but thievery and ungratefulness.

The Prince has changed at least a little since becoming a Beast, but he still needs to be transformed. Belle will teach him how to love, but in order for that love to be complete, she must love him, and he must be transformed back into a human being. On the Special Features disc of the 2010 Diamond Edition of the animated film, Glen Keane, the supervising animator for the Beast, talks about the transformation scene. (See clip at the end of this review.) As a Christian, this scene resonated with him; it reminded him of how the Bible describes us as “new creatures” in Christ (2 Corinthians 5:17). This transformation is a foundational truth of Christianity. We are changed from the inside out.

Even before Madame de Villeneuve sat down to compose her version of Beauty and the Beast, the folktale had undoubtedly “grown in the telling,” and it continued to grow each time it had been retold. Fairy tales have always been embellished and changed as they are rewritten – sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse, sometimes with mixed results. Disney’s latest retelling, I think, has made changes which have greatly improved what they had done before. Many of the changes are subtle, but they all serve to flesh out the boney frame of the previous movie. The new songs and flashback scenes add an emotional weight which was sorely needed. I was moved by it in a way the animated movie never could have.

Some have talked about golden statues in the future for the film. That may well be. But, regardless of the public accolades which may or may not come, 2017’s Beauty and the Beast will always ring golden with “deep truths” to me.

Available today on Blu-ray and DVD, special features include a look at the cast’s table read (which is more elaborate than most), and the process of transforming a beloved animated feature into a live-action fantasy in “A Beauty of a Tale.” Emma Watson shares the background of several of the women involved in production in “The Women Behind Beauty and the Beast. Other musical special features connect with Celina Dion (“Tale as Old as Time”), show how the production transformed the scenes involving music, the making of the music video, and the alternative version of Belle’s “Days in the Sun.” [The Blu-ray also allows you to skip straight to a song to sing along!] For those on the go, including the Digital HD in the Blu-ray combo pack allows for taking the film anywhere and everywhere!

Poisoned Princesses – Disney’s Monopoly on the Monarchy

by 1 Comment

 

Okay, I admit it.  It’s a little weird.

As a (nearly) forty-year-old man, the last thing that you’d think I’d be writing about would be Disney Princesses.  Still, with the release of their latest remake/reboot/resale of Beauty and the Beast, I can’t help but think about how much has changed in a very short period of time for this contemporary image of women.

Personally, I think that it’s fair to say that so much of our modern understanding of what it means to be a ‘princess’ stems from Disney’s all-powerful influence.  When Disney first created the ‘Princess’ line-up in the early 2000s, it proved to not only be a great way to help familiarize this generation with their older characters, it also proved to be lucrative franchise of dresses, magic wands, and make-overs.  (In fact, just last year, the Disney Princess line-up helped propel Hasbro to record sales.) Interestingly though, they also became known for marketing a certain image of young women and, subsequently, a standard of beauty for young girls as well.

Eventually, this was met with backlash as fans became more away of Disney’s subtle stereotypes.  All of a sudden, Disney’s iconic princesses were becoming viewed with greater suspicion.  This, of course, placed Disney in a difficult position where they were suddenly forced to rethink the nature of a Disney ‘princess’, lest they lose their market.

And, maybe, things have begun to change.

In recent films, Disney has shown that they are deliberately attempting to deconstruct the very princess stereotypes that they themselves worked so hard to build.  In their recent remake of Beauty and the Beast, Belle—one of the pillars of Disney’s Princess line of toys—proclaims that she is not a princess at all.  Moana is adamant that she’s “not a princess.  [She]’s the daughter of the Chief.”  (“Same difference,” Maui replies.) Even Wreck-It Ralph’s Vanellope, after discovering her princess roots, throws off her fancy garb in favour of more comfortable clothes.  (In fact, following the tragic death of Carrie Fisher last December, there has even been an online campaign from fans to include Princess Leia in the line-up due to her fearlessness and strong character.  Admittedly, Disney has yet to officially comment on that, however.)

All of this shows a decidedly different tonal shift from the House of Mouse, even if they do seem to want to have their cake and eat it too.  Yes, they still want little girls to be excited about the frilly dresses and magic wands.  (A fact that, potentially, could be what’s keeping Leia and Venellope out of the Princess line-up.)  Still, maybe… just maybe… Disney is also trying to break down the walls of limitation that the labels have established.

This deliberate distancing from the name ‘princess’ shows that Disney realizes that the term has become limiting in a number of ways.  Through the representation of ‘princesses’ as primarily  ‘damsels in distress’, Disney has reinforced archaic understandings of gender roles over the years.  Still, whereas the term has often been associated with a need for rescue, it’s the princesses that are now, in fact, doing the rescuing.  In fact, they’re often assertive, proactive and, sometimes, more courageous than their male counterparts.  (For example, Moana may need Maui’s help but not because he’s a ‘strong male’.  Rather, he draws much of his strength from her ferocity.)

One of the best examples of this change comes through Disney’s new vision for Belle in Beauty and the Beast.  Many have commented that Belle was the first Disney princess to really set herself apart.  Educated and fiery, Belle seemed a breakthrough for Disney as they moved into the 90s.  In the 2017 live-action remake however, this ‘princess’ is not only educated but also empowering, teaching young girls in the village to read for themselves.  She has a greater sense of the world around her and the limited worldviews of others.  (‘Your library make our village seem small,’ she says.)  Most importantly though, she’s even less complicit to her capture than the animated version by staying at the castle as an act of sacrifice and even generates a much more natural relationship with the Beast than in the original.

This, to me, is a far better example to the young women of this generation (and to the boys as well).  While there is nothing inherently wrong with the label of ‘princess’, it should never define the qualitative behavior of a young woman.  What’s more, this sort of divisiveness is not isolated to ‘princess’ either.  As a pastor, I constantly think back to Scripture and how terms like ‘leper’, ‘tax collector’ or ‘sinner’ are always culturally imposed and create spaces of judgment and limitation.  However, these loaded terms lose their power in Christ, where “there is no longer Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male or female…”  In Christ, labels fall away and we are invited to be at our most whole.  (In fact, I would even argue that Jesus empowered women throughout the Gospels in ways that biases within his culture and the church prevented at the time.)

It’s possible that, maybe, Disney is finally buying into what we’ve known for ages: that people can’t be limited to any specific label (or even that labels are, at best, incomplete pictures).  While the cynical might simply call it a marketing ploy, it’s definitely a step in the right direction.  In the future, I also hope that the next step would not to distance themselves from the term ‘princess’ but to reclaim it, showing that the term is far from limiting in and of itself.  Nonetheless, by releasing the stigma attached to the ‘princess’ label, Disney has begun to offer young girls role models that are contain qualities of being strong, educated and sensitive.

After all, like Moana says, there’s no telling ‘how far [they’ll] go’.

 

3.15 Retelling BEAUTY AND THE BEAST

by 17 Comments

This week, Steve welcomes ScreenFish newbie Derek Wong to delve into the tale as old as time when they chat about Disney’s remake of BEAUTY AND THE BEAST. Can the 2017 version live up to the legacy of the original? What does it mean to be timeless?Has true beauty changed? All this and more, only on ScreenFish.

Want to continue to conversation at home?  Click the link below to download ‘Fishing for More’ — some small group questions for you to bring to those in your area.

3.15 Beauty and the Beast

A special thanks to Derek for coming on the show!

Beauty and the Beast: A Mixed Transformation

by 4 Comments

Unless you’ve been on a remote island for the last year or so, you know Disney has been working on a live-action version of its beloved, animated hit Beauty and the Beast.  After much teasing and considerable hype, the finished product has finally been released to theaters around the world.  People are flocking to theaters in droves, along with their kids (at least two girls were dressed in Belle’s signature yellow dress at the screening I attended). What they will see on the screen is a good film that doesn’t quite reach the bar set by its predecessor.

The film, for the most part, tells the story known the world over—a prince isn’t very nice to an old lady stopping by his opulent castle for shelter.  She puts a spell on him and his servants, transforming him into a horned beast (Dan Stevens) and them into various household objects.  The castle becomes frozen in a perpetual winter to boot. If the Beast finds true love before the magical rose in his room loses its petals, he can become human again. If not, he remains a beast forever and his servants become permanently inanimate.

In a nearby village, Belle (Emma Watson) is groaning about wanting more from life, all while helping her father Maurice (Kevin Kline) and avoiding the romantic passes of certifiable egomaniac and Narcissus wannabe Gaston (Luke Evans). When Maurice takes a wrong turn one day and lands at the castle, he picks a rose for Belle and is imprisoned by the Beast for it. Belle eventually comes to take her father’s punishment, but the Beast’s gaggle of talking appliances, led by Cogsworth (Ian McKellen) and Lumière (Ewan McGregor), keep her around—for a while.  When she escapes, wolves surround her, but the Beast saves the day, suffering injury in the process. That’s when Stockholm Syndrome befalls Belle.  Gaston learns of this and eventually leads a charge to kill the Beast (but fails), and the ending is all fairytale happiness.

In this adaptation, Beauty and the Beast succeeds in many areas–yet falls short in a few.  The sets and costumes are exquisitely designed—there could be an Oscar nomination coming Disney’s way next year. There were some issues with the CGI—especially with the wolves and a few of the backgrounds. As for the cast, Stevens’ Beast doesn’t seem quite as angry as his animated counterpart, coming across as more of a tortured soul (he also has a solo that is fantastic). Watson does admirably as Belle, but you can tell from the first song that she can’t quite hit the high notes. To her credit, she does get stronger in her singing as the film progresses. McKellen, McGregor, and Emma Thompson (as Mrs. Potts) are fabulous; Thompson is probably the only person that could give Angela Lansbury a run with her rendition of the theme song. I didn’t quite find Evans’ Gaston to be as convincing–his change from vain leader to exactor of vengeance was too abrupt. There are a few new additions to the film, including the rose Maurice picks at the Beast’s castle, a magic book that acts as a corollary to the magic mirror, a look at Belle’s childhood, and Agathe (I won’t say any more about her).  This adds almost forty-five minutes to director Bill Congdon’s film (it runs 2:09), but I didn’t find myself checking the time as a result.

There’s been a ton of discussion on the Internet and in real life about Josh Gad’s portrayal of LeFou as gay.  As with many other things, speculation is just that—speculation.  In the film, LeFou wants to be on Gaston’s good side, but does act a bit odd at times.  It’s only at the ending battle where anything resembling gay comes into play, thanks to Madame Garderobe (Audra McDonald).  This comes into play (if you want to call it that) as LeFou, in the final dance, spins off from his female partner to a guy.  It’s a blink-and-you-miss-it sequence and really has nothing to do with the overall story.

The themes of sacrifice, love, and restoration come into play quite prominently. However, one early sequence is worth mentioning. Belle asks Maurice about her mom, who describes her as “fearless.” To a large extent, that’s exactly what Belle becomes—both in her determination to protect her father and her belief that something good exists in a hideous horned creature.  In our lives, fear is an attribute that can render the strongest person powerless.  But true love can vanquish fear—the Bible notes this when it says, “There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love (1 John 4:18 NIV).”  Obviously, Belle grew up a lot by the time the credits rolled.

Beauty and the Beast has its ups and downs and is definitely worth a visit to the theater with kids in tow. Just don’t expect to have it replace the animated version sitting on your shelf at home.

Beauty and the Beast’s New (Or Not So New?) LeFou

by Leave a Comment

LeFou Sings
LeFou Sings

The big news to hit the internet in the past couple weeks was news about Disney crossing boundaries into uncharted territory. But will the actuality meet the hype?

Sometime during post-production, Emma Watson (Belle), Dan Stevens (Beast), and director Bill Condon were interviewed by Attitude, the British magazine directed toward a gay audience. Just before the magazine hit store shelves, or became available digitally, Attitude‘s website began doling out online articles based on the interview. When the first one came out, the internet erupted with the news that LeFou would be a gay character and Condon had said Gaston’s sidekick would have an “exclusively gay moment.”

Many have expressed outrage that Disney has now “gone too far,” with one Alabama theater now refusing to show the film. On the other hand, some conservative Christians have responded to the calls for boycotting the film with pleas for restraint. Amy Green blogs about the need for those who post on social media against the film to carefully explain why. She struggles “with the fact that many people view Christians only as ‘people who are against stuff.’ If they don’t understand why this is an issue for you, you’re just one more tally mark in the ‘easily offended for no good reason’ category.” (She has no illusions this approach will satisfy everyone.)

Green reminds us that the story, whether told by Disney or in its other iterations through the years, is a “subversion of our normal fairytale plot.” It does not follow the normal “good and evil” storyline as the antagonist in the end becomes the hero. She reminds us what G. K. Chesterton said about the story in the chapter “The Ethics of Elfland” in his book Orthodoxy: “There is the great lesson of Beauty and the Beast, that a thing must be loved before it is lovable.” She concludes:

Fairy tales done well, the ones that last and resonate, are based on very simple, very deep truths. A side character portrayed as struggling in his sexual identity may not be appropriate for a kids’ movie, but it’s not going to take away from that.

Not quite satisfied with her first post about the controversy, Amy has followed it with another. In Part Two, she encourages those who are uncomfortable with the gay lifestyle (including herself) to seek to empathize with those who are gay, and what it actually means that we should love them. How do conservative Christians “speak the truth in love”? She muses:

Know that for some people, even a comedic sidekick represents a character who they can identify with for the first time, and much more than that, a sign that they can be accepted and live normal, happy lives. That’s what LeFou looks like to them.
Think about that. And think about what the Christian response must look like to them as well, especially when it isn’t defined or explained in any way except “I protest this.”
Whether or not you think homosexuality should be normalized, these are real people you are afraid of. These are real people who you might have offended with your general anti-gay post about the movie because, no matter what your actual beliefs are, they are hearing that you wish people like them did not exist, or at least that you wish they’d exist silent and unseen.
…
We love to be outraged, but we often direct that outrage at anything but our own sin, where the outrage would do the most good. We love to examine Hollywood, but not our own hearts.
My challenge is this: use LeFouGate to do both.

Virtually lost in the eruptions in the media (mainstream, social, and otherwise) is the fact that Bill Condon (who is gay himself) talked not only about a character who will have a “subtle” gay moment in the film, but how the animated version already was considered to have gay themes. Belle and Beast are both, in different ways, outcasts—something those in the gay community readily relate with. Disney lyricist Howard Ashman, who died of AIDS just before the 1991 version came out, viewed the Beast’s curse as a metaphor for his own disease. (See HOW ONE GAY MAN’S BATTLE WITH AIDS SHAPED DISNEY’S ‘BEAUTY AND THE BEAST’.) So, the story already had a strong gay influence, which is part of the reason it has been so well received in the gay community. One might say Condon is just now “outing” it.

But will the “gay moment” in the film live up to its hype? For those of us who have to wait to see the movie, we really don’t know. However, in the actual Attitude print article (I purchased the digital version.), Condon admits the “moment” only lasted five seconds. He has also come out later with a statement that the the “gay moment” has been “overblown.” He doesn’t want people to “make a big deal of it.”

And it it doesn’t appear it is a big deal. Disney decided to allow reviews of the movie to be published early, so we can at least get a hint from published reports on the film. I spent well over an hour last Saturday (March 4) morning reading through the articles which had appeared so far. The majority of them do not even mention the “gay moment,” and it is obvious that those which do were influenced by the widespread reports from earlier in the week. The following quotes seem to indicate this gay character will have much less significance than the hype indicates.

Owen Gleiberman, Variety: “Josh Gad, incidentally, plays Gaston’s worshipful stooge Le Fou as maximally silly and fawning, but I must have missed the memo where that spells ‘gay.'”

Tim Robey, The Telegraph: “Much has been made of Disney’s first ‘overtly gay’ gesture in the ballroom-dance finale, but this lasts a fraction of a second – hardly enough to redeem the non-progressive, smirked-at stereotype we otherwise get throughout.”

Dan Callahan, The Wrap: “Most problematic in this version is an attempt to make Gaston’s sidekick Le Fou (Josh Gad) into a gay character who is in love with his friend. This isn’t a bad idea on the face of it, but it seems like Condon and scriptwriters… are trying to hedge their bets on this issue, and the result is coy and unconvincing.”

Mike Ryan, Uproxx: “A lot has been made about Josh Gad’s Lefou being gay. Now that I’ve seen the film, I kind of wish this hadn’t leaked out because it’s a small part of the film and the stories make it seem like it’s a huge story point. I could see people reading about that plot point, then being disappointed that it’s not a larger part of the plot, because the stories that came out sure make it seem like it is. To the point that I kept waiting for when this would be addressed – and I waited a very long time.”

There was only one writer that seemed very convinced at all, but even he makes it appear this isn’t a big deal.

Britt Hayes, ScreenCrush: “When Condon confirmed this week that Beauty and the Beast has Disney’s first openly gay character, he may have undersold it by referring to Josh Gad’s LeFou as ‘subtle.’ Although there is a bit of complexity in his personal feelings toward Gaston (played to perfection by Luke Evans), LeFou himself is rather flamboyant.”

I leave you with the clip of LeFou that Disney released this past week.

 

 

Emma Watson Sings ‘Belle’ in New Clip; New Book Version Reveals Story Changes

by Leave a Comment

As I wrote in my recent piece about the “Final Trailer,” Disney’s new live-action version of Beauty and the Beast will “upgrade the wheel.” While the storyline will closely follow the 1991 animated version, there will be some changes to the story. Clips and trailers of the film, including a 57-second video released Monday (see below), have shown some of the differences, including a much-less-goofy Maurice, a feistier Belle, and the filling of some plot holes. Emma’s interpretation of the famous “Belle” and “I Want Adventure” tunes show that she was not overly influenced by Paige O’Hara. That is not necessarily good or bad. The clips I’ve heard I do not deem either better or worse, merely refreshingly different. Watson is not a polished professional singer like O’Hara, but she was well trained for her role, and definitely has a pleasant voice. Those not wanting a strict carbon copy of the original will not be disappointed, I think.

Differences in the newer version also can be discovered in the novelization of the new movie, although it is not clear how precisely the book and movie coincide. I recently finished the book, and have found some very minor differences between it and the videos I have seen. But if the differences between the novel and film are only trivial, we are in for a delightful treat. For more news about Beauty and the Beast, which comes out in less than three weeks, I invite you to check out my Facebook page, Beautiful and Beastly Bulletin.

Here is the latest clip, as promised.

Beauty and the Beast “Final Trailer” Upgrades the Wheel

by 1 Comment

Last Tuesday, a video ad for the upcoming Beauty and the Beast hit the internet. Disney has been dipping into their past, adapting their famous fairy tales as live-action films. Those who grew up on The Jungle Book, Cinderella, and the like are being titillated by slightly more grown-up versions of what they remember. Why reinvent the wheel when you can use tried-and-true concepts, make a few adjustments, and improve on what you already have?

That’s exactly what Disney seems to have done with Beauty.  The more I see of what they’ve done, the more impressed I am. Not only did they hire an amazing cast, but they have tweaked the story in ways that has the potential to make this a top-notch movie in every way. Watch the video below, and scroll down further to see my commentary.

 

The first thing that impresses me is the transformation of Belle’s father in this iteration of the story. This is not the goofy Maurice from the animated version. We hear an example of his fatherly, if trepidacious, wisdom near the very beginning of the trailer:

My dear Belle, you are so ahead of your time. This is a small village. And it’s small-minded as well. But small also means safe.

As I implied in my review of the animated version, Belle isn’t interested in safety if it means being stuck in provincialism.

She wants “adventure in the great wide somewhere,” but has no idea what it would cost her. Sometimes the things which seem to be taking us away from our dreams are a catalyst to lead us to a serendipitous fulfillment of them. Although the fulfillment never looks quite like the dream.

As the trailer shows, Belle’s adventure will not be safe, but will lead her through peril into experiences beyond what the small-minded villagers could ever fathom. Her spirit of helpfulness is already being developed, as is shown in the clip of her helping a young girl learn to read. We do not see this type of interaction with the villagers in the animated version, and I hope there is more of this.

There is also more feistiness in this Belle than we saw in the 1991 version. The original Beauty promises the Beast she will stay in the castle forever, escaping only when she reaches the breaking point due to the Beast’s terrorizing behavior. Emma Watson’s Belle promises her father she will try to escape. Why the difference? And why is Maurice accused of being a thief? It will be interesting to see exactly how this plays out in the film.

Another difference which comes out in the trailer is that Belle is apparently let in on the secret behind the rose. I don’t think she was ever given that inside information in the original Disney version. Why this particular twist? (I love Ian McKellen’s line as Cogsworth: “…and we become antiques.”)

In the scene after the wolf attack, we see how the storytellers will plug up one of the plot holes in the animated version. My family has often wondered out loud how in the world Belle gets the huge Beast on the horse to bring him home. The trailer shows the Beast conscious, and Belle tells her she needs his help—he has to stand.

The music at the end of the trailer is the new version of the title song sung by Ariana Grande and and John Legend. To tell the truth, I think I like the original version by Céline Dion and Peabo Bryson better, but this new one is certainly worthy. I can hardly wait to see this all put together!

Beauty and the Beast comes to theaters March 17. Tickets are already on sale at various outlets.

Disney Hits Our Nostalgia Buttons with Record-Setting B&B Teaser

by Leave a Comment

beauty-beast-disney-2017-banner

On Tuesday, I posted the first teaser trailer for the upcoming Beauty and the Beast live-action film from Disney. Several major websites have reported this week the new teaser was view a record 91.8 million times the first twenty-four hours it was online. The most recent record holder was The Force Awakens, which was viewed some 88 million times its first day.

As with first two Star Wars VII teasers, Disney relied strongly on the nostalgia factor to lure fans to watch. Seeing the Millennial Falcon (and, of course, Han and Chewy) again sent chills down my spine. But, instead of old friends, Disney more subtly aroused memories by virtually duplicating the 1991 teaser trailer of the cartoon version. At least two handy editors have put up comparison videos on the internet, one showing the teasers side-by-side, and the one below juxtaposing the two top and bottom, making it a bit easier to follow than the other version.

The most noticeable difference between the 1991 teaser and the one released this week is how they have obscured most of Belle in the live-action version. We don’t see how Emma Watson’s hair is styled, or what she’s wearing, which adds to the suspense.

Many may be surprised (as Ian McKellen, who will portray Cogsworth in the film, was) how popular the 1991 Beauty and the Beast has been, and how greatly anticipated the live-action version is. As the record-setting views indicate, it’s a big deal!