Video review: "Beauty and the Beast"

When “Beauty and the Beast” came out in March, I asked why a live-action remake of one of the best animated films of all time even needed to exist. Since then, the movie has provided its own reasons: 1.23 billion of them, to be exact. That’s the film’s global box office take in dollars as of this writing.

It’s a well-crafted film, bright and engaging and full of vivid characters. No doubt there is a new generation of moviegoers who experienced this timeless tale for the first time, since the 1991 animated version now falls into “classic film” category, as strange as it may seem.

I can only hope they experienced as much joy and thrills I had when I first saw Belle and the Beast dance together for the first time.

But I bet not.

Let’s start with the fact that Emma Watson has many wonderful qualities, but a singer she is not. Her frail little voice just can’t carry big Broadway-style show tunes (by lyricist Howard Ashman and composer Alan Menken). Her Belle doesn’t have that sense of hesitation we admired, existing more as a latter-day proto-feminist.

I also didn’t care for the look of the Beast (Dan Stevens), who can’t help looking like a dude in a fur suit. It seemed like the filmmakers were trying to turn him more into a classic romantic figure than a tragic, magically cursed prince.

The story is well-known: inquisitive young girl comes to be the prisoner of the Beast, who is trapped in his castle along with his entire staff of servants by a fell hex placed on him a decade earlier. If he doesn’t find someone to love him soon, the curse will remain forever.

Luke Evans plays the villain, martial hunter Gaston, who covets Belle for himself. Josh Bad is his right-hand henchman, LeFou, who does some pining of his own.

Rounding out the vocal cast are Emma Thompson, Ewan McGregor, Audra McDonald, Ian McKellen and Stanley Tucci. Kevin Kline plays Belle’s (live-action) father.

There are four brand-new songs in addition to all the originals from the animated movie, though only one, “Days in the Sun,” is memorable.

Billion-dollar payday or not, there’s just very little magic in seeing a virtual shot-by-shot remake of one of the most beloved films ever.

Bonus features are truly wondrous, though you’ll have to buy the Blu-ray version to get nearly all of them. The DVD contains only a music video.

There are about 10 minutes of deleted scenes, as well as an extended version of “Days in the Sun.” A sing-a-long version lets you jump straight to all the songs.

Perhaps the neatest feature is “Enchanted Table Read,” in which the cast carries out an elaborate table read of the film, including singing, dances and set pieces.

There is also a making-of documentary and several featurettes focusing on the people in front of and behind the cameras.

Movie: 

Extras:

Review: "Beauty and the Beast"

Time passes for us all, and for the movies. Since “Beauty and Beast” came out in 1991 and became regarded as one of the greatest animated films of all time, an entire generation has been born, grown up and started having babies of their own. Though it might make some of us feel old to say, it’s passing into cinematic antiquity.

I walked into the 2017 live-action remake with but a single word of question on my lips: “Why?” I left without grasping any kind of answer.

The new movie, starring Emma Watson and Dan Stevens, is almost a shot-by-shot remake of the animated film, with a few extra flourishes and minor changes. They reuse the Oscar-winning musical score by lyricist Howard Ashman and composer Alan Menken, with four new songs by Menken and Tim Rice that don’t measure up to the old stuff.

Most of the cast spends the movie in CGI form as enchanted clocks, teapots, harpsichords, wardrobes, candelabras, etc. Directed by Bill Condon (“Mr. Holmes”), it’s a beautiful, colorful film with energetic musical numbers, distinctive characters and an ageless love story.

And it has no reason for existing.

I’m not a purist on remakes and sequels. If you can make something that adds to the mythology of a film, or extends the characters and their individual arcs, then you’ll get no arguments from me. Disney has launched a number of live action remakes of its classic animated flicks, including “Cinderella” and “The Jungle Book,” and I’ve liked almost all of them.

But this one feels different… hollow, somehow. The tragic love story of the Beast (Stevens) and Belle (Watson) lacks the gut-churning emotional wrench of 1991. The best thing about the animated movie was its unexpected dramatic heft. That had the tone of “Romeo and Juliet.” This new one is the TV sitcom version.

It’s not helped by Watson’s singing voice, which is unequal to the task of carrying songs. That’s become a thing lately: casting non-singers as the leads in musicals. (See “Land, La La.”) Maybe it’s time to reconsider.

Stevens’ portrayal of the Beast using a mix of costume, makeup and CGI doesn’t exactly work, either. He looks like a smaller, softer, prettier version of the animated Beast. Even his leonine nose swoops down appealingly toward a modest snarl. I liked the cartoon Beast’s busted, crooked honker and every-which-way fangs. The new one looks like he got Jenny Craig and a plastic surgeon.

You know the story: village bookworm Belle stumbles into the castle of the Beast looking for her lost father, Maurice (Kevin Kline, changed from inventor to artist here). The master of the house and all his servants have been hexed with a terrible curse, which will become permanent if the magic rose loses its last petal before he finds true love. Belle agrees to become his prisoner in exchange for dad, and antagonism gives way to blooming romance.

The heavy is again Gaston (Luke Evans), the swaggering musclebound hunter/soldier who desires Belle for himself. Josh Gad, as the flunkie LeFou, adds notes of jaded longing for his longtime companion. Some people are upset about having a (more or less) openly homosexual character in a Disney movie, but I was more perturbed he falls into the weary cliché of gay man pining for an unavailable straight.

Ewan McGregor takes over the Lumiere role of rapscallion candelabra; Emma Thompson is Mrs. Potts, and does a reasonably good job warbling the title song; Ian McKellen is unctuous butler Cogsworth; Audra McDonald is the operatic wardrobe; Stanley Tucci is a new character as the wardrobe’s musical and marital accompanist.

Originally they were going to weave some of the songs from the stage musical version into the movie, but instead went with four new ones. Two are just short trifles, while the Beast’s “Evermore” is a bland Broadway hollerer. Though “Days in the Sun,” sung by Watson with help from the supporting characters, more adequately explores the dilemma of the servants caught up in their master’s curse.

I think the lesson is if you’re going to remake a beloved classic, you need to let it evolve. Take some risks, change it around and see how audiences react. They may not like it as much. But there’s no magic in mere repetition.

Reeling Backward: "Beauty and the Beast" (1946)

Disney's "Beauty and the Beast" is probably my favorite animated film of all time, and I've been meaning to watch the 1946 live-action French film that heavily influenced it for some time.

It's really geared more as a children's fairy tale -- I saw it on Turner Classic Movies as part of a bloc of kiddie flicks. I think the animated version has much deeper themes that it explores more fully -- especially the beastly nature of men.

You already know the basic fable: A beautiful young woman is forced to live as the prisoner of a hideous Beast in order to spare the life of her father. Over time the gruesome creature grows to love young Belle, and she returns the affection. Their love breaks the spell that was cast upon him, and he is revealed as a handsome, rich prince who will take his lady love far away to live happily ever after as his queen.

Director Jean Cocteau, who also wrote the screenplay based on the fairy tale by 18th century writer Jeanne-Marie Leprince de Beaumont (which she adapted from an original story by Gabrielle-Suzanne Barbot de Villeneuve), created a visually stunning world in which to populate his characters. Even seen today, the technical and artistic achievements of the film are quite impressive.

Let's start with the amazing make-up for actor Jean Marais to portray the beast, which reportedly took five hours to put on, and another five hours to take off. What's really amazing about it is that it covers his face without completely disguising his facial features and expressions. His eyes, in particular, are still able to emote beautifully.

Cocteau's conception of the Beast is a little more canine in appearance and behavior than subsequent versions like the animated film and 1980s TV show, which bent toward a leonine mien. Although you can clearly see the similarities to the Disney Beast, especially in the ballroom dance scene where he dresses up in formal wear, which the French beast wears all the time.

The disembodied servants in the Beast's magical castle are there, although they remain wordless hands and faces appearing and disappearing out of the walls and furniture. No Mrs. Potts singing songs about being our guest, unfortunately. Still, the sight of stony faces peering out of the fireplace mantle, slowly tracking Belle with their eyes, is enchanting ... and haunting.

The magical rules regarding the Beast and his curse are quite different. Here his furred, taloned hands smoke every time he kills -- though this is merely implied, since we never actually see him hunt animals, or in fact commit violence of any kind.

He still has the magic mirror that allows the bearer to gaze upon anyone near or far, and also has a glove that instantly transports the wearer wherever they want to go. In one unintentionally funny bit, Belle zaps herself from her father's house to the Beast's castle, realizes she forgot the key he entrusted her with, blinks back to look for it and then back to the castle again.

I really enjoyed the self-loathing Marais brought to the role, though I must say I found Belle (Josette Day) a dreadful bore. She's simply a reflection of a feminine ideal here -- beautiful, humble, devoted -- rather than a distinctive individual.

Belle has evil sisters (no step; they share the same father) who constantly plot against Belle and humiliate her. It's interesting how in fairy tales and mythology sisters are almost always at war in some way, and never have a deep and meaningful bond.

She also has a layabout brother, whose best friend is Avenant, who wishes to marry Belle but is continually rebuffed. He's also played by Marais, who additionally appears as the Prince that the Beast turns into when Avenant is shot dead by an arrow while trying to break into the Beast's treasure trove. Avenant then turns into the Beast, and the Beast, who had just died, turns into the Prince, who happens to look exactly like Avenant.

I confess the metaphysical logistics of the story left me baffled. Especially when you consider the final dialogue between the Prince and Belle, in which she confesses that she really had loved Avenant, and only refused him out of loyalty to her father. I thought the whole point of the fable was that True Love conquers all; apparently, it's actually True Love needs another True Love to die before it can live.

At the risk of offending film purists, while I cherish the stupendous beauty of Cocteau's version, I still much prefer Disney's "Beauty and the Beast." It's just a more ambitious, fully realized version of a riveting piece of mythology.

3 stars out of four