Beauty and the Beast

Review of Beauty and the Beast 2017

This film includes a confection of references to Busby Berkeley, 50s musicals such as Oklahoma and Singing in the Rain and of course an obvious steal from the most famous scene of The Sound of Music. All of which is quite fun, and the animation and visual work is entertaining.

It was decided, perhaps in the interest of not frightening the younger viewers, to explain before we see the Beast how he became a Beast. This removes the element of mystery from the tale and in my view was a wrong move. Not only that but the prologue scenes show someone not recognisable as the Beast we meet later on and about whom we know and care nothing. There is a passing mention later in the film of his father making him what he was, but this is left well alone and could have been omitted altogether, along with the prologue. 

It is so important to the tellers of this tale for the Beast not to be scary that we are often told he doesn’t mean anything threatening he says to Belle and her father. This undercuts the traditional fear we SHOULD have of a frightening monster. We are left with the rather abstract falling rose petals to really motivate Belle. 

I have no complaints about acting or casting.

Everyone did their parts well, and Dan Stevens and Emma Watson were just right for their roles. We were both convinced Stephen Fry was playing Cogsworth though it turned out to be Sir Ian McKellan. I think Stephen could have done it just as well. Emma Thompson as Mrs Potts the teapot and her little son Chip were charming. Luke Evans as Gaston was good too. The much hyped gay subtext really didn’t exist but we were charmed by a spot of cross dressing diversity mid movie.

I'm having real trouble finding the right pics for this review as there is so much to wade through. I would love to have a pic of the (involuntary) cross dressing and the rose petals.

I have never seen the animated version of Beauty and The Beast, so I can’t make any direct comparisons but a little reading tells me that the backstory for the deaths of both characters’ mothers has been added. Do we really need this? Can’t a fairy tale character just be a fairy tale character who doesn’t have such a thing as ‘backstory’?

To me fairy tale characters should be  archetypes and while it was an interesting experiment to make them more rounded  in ‘Into the Woods’ perhaps that particular experiment has become too influential. I understand the gender problems that necessitate some moves away from the traditional – Belle is more practically attired than most princesses for the vast majority of the film and has been given some abilities in her own right – but does she really need a dead mother?

On the whole I confess to being a tad bored. I found the film flat and lacking in strong story telling. The sub Sondheim/50s musical score is not bad, with a stand out number in ‘Be our Guest’. Yes I know, it’s a famous score and has been a hit musical but I guess I am not easy to impress. The new songs, by the original composer of the 1991 film, are up to standard and don’t stick out as different to me. By the way, you really shouldn’t remake the Jungle Book Disney. You can’t improve on that score or that performance.