(warning: contains spoilers for Beauty and the Beast. 1991 and 2017. And probably some other Disney films too)
Bonjour! Bonjour! Bonjour, bonjour, bonjour!...
Bonjour! Bonjour! Bonjour, bonjour, bonjour!...
Following on from 2015’s Cinderella,
and last year’s Jungle Book (for
me, one of the best films of last year) the 1991 classic Beauty and the Beast is Disney’s latest attempt at making all their
animated films live-action. Cards on the table, I love the animated
version of this film so I had mixed feelings about seeing the live action
remake. Should you mess with the
classics?
Back in the early 90’s, Beauty and the Beast marked a milestone
for Disney – it is one of the most popular and beautiful animated films, with
fantastic characters and a great soundtrack.
As such, it brought stability to Disney’s new Renaissance era, proving
that the success of The Little Mermaid
wasn’t a fluke, and returning to the idea of Disney films as family entertainment
rather than “just for kids”. Its use of
computer animation convinced executives to invest more in computers (which in
turn led to the behemoth that is Pixar – here showcasing early technology in
the 3D-esque ballroom scene). Subsequently,
it became the first animated film to be nominated for the Best Picture Oscar
(long before the Best Animated Film category existed), and three of the songs
from the soundtrack were nominated for Best Song (the Beauty and the Beast title track eventually winning). Admittedly, the plot came with its own set of
issues. Number 1 is the overall message
that if you stay in an angry abusive relationship, and be patient long enough, you
will eventually be rewarded with a kind and loving person (and be rich. And royal.
Win!). Some more niggly plot
points for the inner pedant can be found in this helpful Buzzfeed article.
 |
| Tale as old as time... |
One of the things that amused me in this film is that it appeared that the writers had read this list, and endeavoured to answer all the questions in it. For example, in the opening explanatory monologue, the narrator is at pains to say that EVERYONE IN THE KINGDOM IS ENCHANTED AND THAT'S WHY NO ONE REMEMBERS THE GIANT CASTLE ON THE OUTSKIRTS OF TOWN!!
So here we are, 16 years later looking at the live action
version. How does it compare?
In a lot of ways, it’s identical – beat for beat, note for
note, word for word. Thus begging the
question, why bother? If it’s not
baroque, don’t fix it. If we’re not being
too cynical (by which I mean, coming up with an answer that isn’t “to make a ton
of cash”), I would argue that advances in technology mean that new versions of
films are possible (and, indeed, new films are possible – Life of Pi, Avatar, Gravity to quickly name three, could not
be made 30 years ago but can now). The Jungle Book (2016) was enhanced by
computer technology - creating landscapes, environments and creatures that felt dangerous
and predatory. There is a certain amount
of this in Beauty and the Beast – in a
film where everything is enchanted, there is a place for technology to help
convince the audience that a talking candlestick may once have been a man, and
that an actor doesn't have to resort to wearing a mangy rug and stick fur all over his face to suggest that he is now a beast. In some ways, "technology" is shorthand for "magic" in this film - every enchantment, every spell is computer generated.
That has its pros and cons - I prefer the animated characters with their easily distinguishable faces and limbs. There's a bit more ambiguity about the live action versions of Cogsworth and Mrs Potts, but in other ways, their characteristics feel more organic (of course Mrs Pott's face is made from the detailed pattern on china - she's a teapot). But that's just personal preference.
There are some differences - the story holds slightly closer to the original fairytale (Belle's father promises her a rose, which is why he finds himself drawn to the Beast's garden in the first place). There is a small magical journey for both Belle and the Beast where they time travel (I think?) to Paris to visit the former home of Belle's parents (this didn't seem to add anything to the plot, but ok I guess? Though if you had an enchanted book, wouldn't you just spend all your time travelling the world rather than being locked up and angry all the time?).
The enchantress makes reappearances at various points throughout the film to punish and protect various characters.
Two big storylines that featured heavily in the media were about sexuality and feminism. The sexuality storyline is with regards to two "progressive" notes - both a bit confusing. Beauty and the Beast (2017) heralded Disney's first (and second) interracial kiss. Except it didn't, because surely that happened in Pocahontas? But, if we don't count that (or Snow Dogs. Or The Princess Diaries 2.), there are two interracial couples in this film. Lumiere (Ewan McGregor) and Plumette (Gugu Mbatha-Raw), and Madame de Garderobe (Audra McDonald) and Cadenza (Stanley Tucci) kiss both as their enchanted selves and as their human selves, and it's all very lovely and understated but it DEFINITELY happens, and it's not a big deal. As interracial relationships should be.
The second storyline is that Beauty and the Beast (2017) heralded Disney's first openly gay character (La Fou, played by Josh Gad). For me, this one is a little more problematic because in order to appreciate that La Fou is gay, you need to already know that fact before you watch the film. There is one scene, lasting three seconds, in which La Fou is dancing in the big closing number with everyone else in the cast, and turns to find himself facing a man. That's...it? I'm not saying that I need a graphic depiction to definitively demonstrate that La Fou is gay, and it didn't have to be a definitive plot point. But the problem is this - if you didn't know already, you wouldn't know by the end of the film. There is proof that the interracial kisses happened - you see them. There is no proof that La Fou is gay - that is mere interpretation. I refer to Doctor Who's recent statement by Steven Moffat who said "[a gay character] is the minimum amount of representation you should have...the correct response should be 'what took you so long'?" And in a franchise as big as Disney (who, remember, also own Star Wars, Pixar, and Marvel), surely one gay character isn't too much to ask? Particularly given that they made such a big deal of it? Sorry, Disney, but that's poor.
Feminism is an equally problematic theme. The 2017 update does have some nods to equality - but nothing particularly definitive. This version of Belle also invents, but one thing and that's a washing machine (which would be fair enough, but we only see women doing laundry in this film so we can safely assume that laundry is considered "women's work" in this world). And she passes up on laundry so she can teach a child to read (again, fair enough, but it's only the women who look after the children in this film, which underscores a belief that this too is women's work). Belle 2017 does wear slightly more practical clothes than Belle 1991, she does protest about being put into flouncy dresses, but then revels in them the next scene. Which, again, is fine - you can be a feminist in a dress. You can be a feminist in trousers. You can be a naked feminist if you so choose. But I don't think you can claim feminism when your heroine just protests about something once and then never mentions it again. Subvert the genre, don't subvert the genre, but don't make half-assed attempts at it and then shout about how feminist you are.
Certainly the film feels more contemporary despite still being set in the past, and maybe I should give more credit to Disney for at least attempting to engage with these themes, even if they don't quite land. I feel I've been quite damning of a film I enjoyed, and will probably own. But for me, the live action Disney films score card reads one win (Jungle Book), one lose (Cinderella), and one draw (this one).
That has its pros and cons - I prefer the animated characters with their easily distinguishable faces and limbs. There's a bit more ambiguity about the live action versions of Cogsworth and Mrs Potts, but in other ways, their characteristics feel more organic (of course Mrs Pott's face is made from the detailed pattern on china - she's a teapot). But that's just personal preference.
 |
| If you die after drinking the tea from the left hand pot, you know it was Angela Lansbury killing all those people on Murder, She Wrote... |
The enchantress makes reappearances at various points throughout the film to punish and protect various characters.
Two big storylines that featured heavily in the media were about sexuality and feminism. The sexuality storyline is with regards to two "progressive" notes - both a bit confusing. Beauty and the Beast (2017) heralded Disney's first (and second) interracial kiss. Except it didn't, because surely that happened in Pocahontas? But, if we don't count that (or Snow Dogs. Or The Princess Diaries 2.), there are two interracial couples in this film. Lumiere (Ewan McGregor) and Plumette (Gugu Mbatha-Raw), and Madame de Garderobe (Audra McDonald) and Cadenza (Stanley Tucci) kiss both as their enchanted selves and as their human selves, and it's all very lovely and understated but it DEFINITELY happens, and it's not a big deal. As interracial relationships should be.
 |
| Film about relationship between woman and beast, but sure, let's get het up about the interracial stuff... |
Feminism is an equally problematic theme. The 2017 update does have some nods to equality - but nothing particularly definitive. This version of Belle also invents, but one thing and that's a washing machine (which would be fair enough, but we only see women doing laundry in this film so we can safely assume that laundry is considered "women's work" in this world). And she passes up on laundry so she can teach a child to read (again, fair enough, but it's only the women who look after the children in this film, which underscores a belief that this too is women's work). Belle 2017 does wear slightly more practical clothes than Belle 1991, she does protest about being put into flouncy dresses, but then revels in them the next scene. Which, again, is fine - you can be a feminist in a dress. You can be a feminist in trousers. You can be a naked feminist if you so choose. But I don't think you can claim feminism when your heroine just protests about something once and then never mentions it again. Subvert the genre, don't subvert the genre, but don't make half-assed attempts at it and then shout about how feminist you are.
 |
| What she said. |
Certainly the film feels more contemporary despite still being set in the past, and maybe I should give more credit to Disney for at least attempting to engage with these themes, even if they don't quite land. I feel I've been quite damning of a film I enjoyed, and will probably own. But for me, the live action Disney films score card reads one win (Jungle Book), one lose (Cinderella), and one draw (this one).
No comments:
Post a Comment