As any of you with children or grandchildren probably know,
Disney Animation Studios has just released a "live-action" remake of
their classic 1991 animated feature Beauty and the Beast. This follows
their very successful remake of The Jungle Book (2016) released last
spring, based on the Disney animated version from 1967. I put the words live action in quotes because
many of the characters in such films are not live actors at all, but CGI (computer-generated
images) voiced by real humans.
For example, the only character in The Jungle Book
played on screen by a human being was the boy Mowgli, played by a relatively
unknown child actor named Neel Sethi. All of the other characters were jungle animals,
and try as the Disney folks might, they've been unable to train bears, tigers
and snakes to follow a script or take orders from film directors. Similarly, in
Beauty and the Beast, although there are more real people in the story, many of
the key characters are what normally pass for inanimate furniture and
bric-a-brac, which become magically animated in this ancient folkloric tale.
In the old days, animated characters, whether hand-drawn or
CGI, were brought to life by the voices of little-known character actors for
the most part. Not so much anymore. The Jungle Book had Bill Murray as
the voice of Baloo, Ben Kingsley as Baghera, Idris Elba as Shere Khan, and
Scarlett Johansson as Kaa! The new Beauty and the Beast features Emma
Watson of Harry Potter fame as the female lead, Belle, and Dan Stevens (Downton Abbey's Matthew Crawley) as "Beast", with talent the
likes of Ian McKellen, Ewan McGregor, Emma Thompson, and Audra McDonald as the
personable objects.
In case you've been living in a closet all of your life, Beauty
and the Beast is about a young villagelass named Belle - beautiful, yet bookish, dreamy and devoted to her dear old dad - who spurns the appeals of Gaston, the handsome but vain and arrogant village cad, only to find herself a captive in the castle of a frightening, yet human-like monster who goes by the name of Beast. This being a fairytale, Beast turns out to be far more attractive than Gaston.Over time, romance blooms and,
after some rough sledding and dangerous encounters, the story ends on a high
note with the satisfying message that true beauty is measured not by outward
appearances but by what’s in a person’s heart, as the Beatles sing All You Need Is Love. But wait … when Belle expresses her love for
Beast, he turns into a handsome prince – which means that actually, um, looks really
do matter, and - uh, never mind.
So, what about the music? Actually, the Beatles' songbook plays no
part in Beauty and the Beast. Instead, the beloved songs of Alan Mencken
and Howard Ashman from the 1991 movie – songs like Belle (“… no denying she's a funny girl, that Belle!"), Gaston (“No one's slick as Gaston, no
one’s quick as Gaston…”), Be Our Guest,
and Beauty and the Beast – are
updated and, if anything, presented with a bit more brio than the earlier
version. And surprise! – who knew Emma Watson could sing or Ian McKellen could
hold a tune? Plus, there are are a few new songs by Menken and Tim Rice (Howard
Ashman having died within days of the release of the 1991 movie). These include
a lovely Aria belted out by Audra
McDonald and a mellow How Does A Moment
Last Forever for Kevin Kline (as Belle’s Papa). Fans of the original will
be happy and new consumers - young ones, at least - should be charmed. For me, it all sounded a bit dated,
stylistically; but that’s just me.
Is it any good? Well, my initial impression was not that
favorable. Maybe it was me, but it seemed the story got off to a slow start,
and it took a while to get into the mood and suspend my disbelief. And whatever
the reason, the characters, as they were introduced, didn't seem to work at
first - especially Emma Watson as Belle. At her first appearance, she came
across as far too contemporary for the imaginary world in which the story is
set - with its olde streets, thatch-roofed half-timber houses and flocks of chickens,
geese and other livestock milling around. I'm sure that Belle was supposed to
stand out as the most beautiful girl in the village, but nonchalantly strolling
through town in a decidedly twenty-first century manner, Watson seemed jarringly anachronistic despite
her 18th century peasant outfit and in marked contrast with the other village
denizens who looked like they did sort of belong there.
So, at the outset, as I said, I was concerned.
But, after we got through the preliminaries and the action
moved from the village to the forest and into the castle of the beast, things
improved considerably. For one thing, the heart of the story kicked in, but
more importantly, the magical blend of fairytale live action melodrama and the fantastical
CGI characters – animated clocks, furniture, dishes, etc – won me over. The technical accomplishment of
creating such characters is quite wondrous, as are the actors voicing these
characters: especially Emma Thompson as Mrs. Potts (a teapot), Audra McDonald
as Mme.Garderobe (a wardrobe), Ewan McGregor as Lumiere (a candelabra) and Ian
McKellan as Cogsworth (a clock).
Especially wonderful as a live-action character is Josh Gadd as LeFou, Gaston’s fawning sidekick. Gadd pretty much steals every scene that he is in with Gaston – in a good way. As a veteran of Broadway musical theater, Gadd knows how to sing, how to ham it up and how to project a character. Gadd’s character is at the center of a stupid controversy fostered by a group of close-minded, unimaginative folks who take issue with the portrayal of LeFou as somewhat effeminate, culminating in a concluding celebratory scene in which he is seen (for a couple of seconds) dancing with another guy. This would be funny if it weren’t so sad, but it does not seem to have affected public acceptance of the movie, which is setting box office records.
Luke Evans, playing the evil Gaston, was okay, but less
wonderful than Gadd. His was an especially difficult task – it's pretty tough to
translate a pompously narcissistic, obviously ridiculous (thus funny) cartoon villain
into a live action, flesh and blood character who is believably threatening,
yet ridiculous enough to still be funny. Evans is game, but it doesn't work –
he's more evil asshole then comic foil.
What about the leads? Dan Stevens, while pretty limp as the pre- and
post-beast Prince, is terrific as Beast - powerful, mercurial, a little dangerous maybe,
and yet very human underneath his monstrous appearance. Having been cursed by a
sorceress for his selfishness and cruelty in the opening scene, Beast is
understandably bitter and morose, living in solitude in his vast, cold,
isolated castle, likely doomed to be forever alone, until his heart is awakened
by Belle's appearance, and we watch as he grows more and more compassionate and
humane within his beastly body.
As noted, Emma Watson starts out the movie seemingly out of
her element, but once her introductory number is dispensed with, she becomes a
pretty good, empathetic (and of course, lovely) protagonist. She's good enough
that we can believe in Belle’s abiding devotion to her father and her growing
fondness and eventual love for Beast. Just as Stevens grows into his character,
so Watson’s characterization deepens as Belle's empathy turns to fondness, then
to romantic love.
Overall, the acting and the technical achievements of Beauty
and the Beast are quite good. After
the opening, the movie flows pretty well. There are some relatively amusing
moments, and just enough romantic tension and physical danger to keep the kids
(and us, to a lesser degree) interested. My only carp about the relationship
between Belle and Beast Is that it takes off too quickly – like, within moments
of their meeting which seems highly unlikely under the circumstances. It would've
made for a better story if this love affair were allowed to develop more slowly
– over days rather than minutes.
But it seems it was always thus, dating back at least to Jean
Cocteau's classic (live-action) 1946 dramatic film, La Belle et la Bête,
which itself is based on an 18th-century story – in all of which the seeds of
love take root most expeditiously.
Is Beauty and the Beast suitable for small
children? The film is rated PG which
suggests that some parental guidance is advised. Kids under four or five
probably won’t get it. For kids between five and eight, the physical appearance
of the Beast may be unsettling for some, and there’s a battle scene near the
end, after Gaston goads a mob of villagers to attack the Beast in his castle, that
might upset some youngsters. But remember, this is a Disney film. For older kids, there may be an opportunity
to discuss the seductive evils of populist rabble-rousing, demonization of the “other”,
bullying and related societal ills.
In sum, Beauty and the Beast is a pretty decent
remake of a classic. Not quite as good as The Jungle Book, but close. If
you resent Disney’s fiddling with its classic animation features, brace
yourself. More are on the way, including The Lion King (directed by Jon
Favreau), Dumbo (rumored to be directed by Tim Burton), Pinocchio, and more . Anyway, if you loved the 1991 Beauty,
you’ll probably like this one. It’s not as clever as the better Pixar
animations, nor as artistically inventive as films from Laika, Studio Ghibli
and others, but it’s entertaining, and the blend of live action and CGI is
pretty amazing.
Still, not exactly my cup of tea.
Grade: B
2 hours 9 minutes
In wide release.
No comments:
Post a Comment