This review has taken a while to put together but we promised we would attempt to put our thoughts on record, so here it is. We've taken the 'let's look beneath the surface' approach, being that this is one of the themes of the fairy tale. It's broken down into the following parts and, being on the lengthy side you are welcome to only read as far as you wish (of course!). Have we covered everything? Nope. (This is now much shorter than it was!) But there's plenty here for you to chew on - and you may want to have a cup of tea to keep you company if you plan on staying with us till the end:
FIRST LOOKS - first impressions (our quick take-away review/recommendation)
UNDER THE SKIN - a critical look (the pros and cons of the live remake - we get picky)
AT THE HEART - the core issues (we get into some important but controversial territory here!)
REVIEW SUMMARY
FIRST LOOKS - first impressions:
UNDER THE SKIN - a critical look:
Top of our list are the nods to the history this film is indebted to (and we don't mean Disney). The "little town" is named Villeneuve, which, as all regular readers of this blog should know by now, is the author's surname of the original literary version of the fairy tale, Gabrielle-Suzanne Barbot de Villeneuve. A powerhouse fairy tale teller influenced by other fairy tale writers such as Madame d'Aulnoy and Charles Perrault, we're glad to hear her name in popular circulation! The emphasis on reading in the film and in the marketing products means there is a generation of people discovering who Villeneuve was, who never would have otherwise.
The other standout is the homage to the unbeatable La Belle et la Bête black and white film classic by Jean Cocteau. When Belle approaches the castle door she deliberately pauses to look at the torches, held by arms coming out of the wall. These are clearly modeled after Cocteau's iconic hallway scene when Beauty walks along a corridor of candelabra held by "invisible" servants. (We have a feeling there are more echoes in the castle in particular, but it would take another viewing to note them.)
Aside: While it was a little ridiculous seeing how magnificent a horse Maurice had (he never could have afforded him), the horses that were Philippe, deserve an Oscar for all they went through. (But why are we still using real animals? The Beast was 100% CGI... Erg. And this isn't even the controversial part of our review yet...)
The production design had an intense dedication to detail and was impressive (at times it was a little distracting actually, but that's a directing issue and not the designer's fault). Second, and more, looks will be needed to pay proper respect to the loving attention given to each location and the dressing of each one.
Belle, and Emma Watson's, love of reading was a solid theme throughout the film - from the independence of doing so, to encouraging it in others, to having that knowledge be a conduit to friendship between Belle and the Beast. Sharing stories and talking about books made the transition from prisoner and captor to mutual friends more natural and believable. It's also been one of the best marketing spin-offs for consumers to take advantage of! There are at least two beautifully printed. classic (non-Disney) editions of Beauty and the Beast available, not to mention a magazine that's made a sincere effort at tracing the evolution of this tale through history, to a spin-off of an adventure in which Belle gets lost inside a book, to a fancy little volume title "Belle's Library: A collection of literary quotes and inspirational musings" which is exactly what's it's titled, introducing younger readers to a variety of classic literary works, both poetry and fiction.
Almost all the male characters in the film have more dimension, giving the story more stability BUT it comes at the cost of making Belle less sympathetic. Almost all the female characters in the film - certainly in the town - are not more than they were, and are something Belle doesn't want to be (she actively looks down on them) and separates herself from, making her seem, not so much independent but elitist. She clearly sees herself in a different category from the enchanted staff in the castle too, by the way, something not many seem to have picked up on, which is bothersome.
As you can see from the above discussion of the largely positive changes, when you look more closely it doesn't take long to detect cracks in the truly lovely veneer of this movie.
Tapping into the classic songs and audio 'tones' was inconsistent at best. The most obvious issue, largely discussed is the autotune factor for Emma Watson, which, while admittedly was distracting, could have been much worse. It did reinforce the power of a good singer in a lead role though. Other inconsistencies just kept reminding the audience this wasn't the original. Emma Thompson just couldn't 'bring it' for Mrs. Potts (and we're huge Thompson fans). Her accent was just as awkward as Lumiere's (Ewan MacGregor) and Cadenza's (Stanley Tucci) and poor Cogsworth barely got any of his witty commentary or banter with Lumiere. All the dialogue suffered as a result, and much of the levity was lost.
The Be Our Guest showcase felt desperate and a little sinister. It wasn't a delightful distraction but instead felt disjointed (more like, "look at this irrelevant thing over here so you won't notice your captivity and time passing!"), with unrelated elements popping on and off screen for no detectable reason, and it didn't help that this was one of Watson's weakest acting spots in the movie too (it might have had something to do with taking a full month to film the sequence, but we shouldn't see that). We are wondering if Condon was under the 'big budget curse', which can dupe directors into being a little lazy on the staging, instead filling the scene with 'scenery', details and effects, rather than telling the story. Both Chicago and Dream Girls had established theatrical, storytelling set-ups from the stage but for Beauty and the Beast Condon appears to have only referenced the animated film, rather than studied what worked in a live context, such as the many variations of the Broadway play, a lot of which were delightful in this sequence. Since this was the one chance we were going to have to see something akin to the golden age of musicals all we can say is: "Quel dommage!"
The ballroom scene - to put it mildly, we were very underwhelmed. The choreography was unimaginative, the dress, though it moved well, felt too modern and plain for the Beast's garb and the pseudo-rococo surroundings, and Belle looked largely the same as she ever did. There was no nod to her trying to present herself at her best (Garderobe did all the work) and Belle's emotional landscape was fairly flat. There wasn't even a glow of blossoming love (which is what the scene was supposed to convey) about her. It felt contrived, a little tense perhaps, but not romantic. We weren't even close to wowed the way audiences were on seeing this scene for the first time in '91 with beautiful filmmaking. With all the live possibilities, we should have been blown away - we weren't. It was... well, deflating.
The Gaston song had the most heart to it, along with some true film-musical moments with the additional choreography but it was unnecessarily long, and wasn't staged consistently well - or as comedically - as the original. In a fantasy film where the director can push the boundaries of physics and reality, there is no excuse for this. Every classic filmed musical pushes back against reality and bends the edges. The camera work was just a little sloppy overall too - something that seems odd with both a classic film with the exact same song to mirror, as well as an entire golden age of musicals to study. Luckily we were treated to some stellar singing in the meantime but overall we were hoping for more, not less.
The extra songs are largely forgettable but the Beast's 'torch song' was the most annoying, continuity-challenged addition. This is yet another privileged individual begging the audience to side with them and restore them to their rightful place, so not a favorite theme of ours, but the staging of this song was very bizarre. Flashes of Emma, er, Belle, in the yellow dress on Phillipe, showed the girl taking almost 3 minutes to leave the grounds, not to mention being apparently stuck in a weird time loop in a couple of places that had her retracing her steps (that is, there were some continuity issues made more obvious by the pop of yellow flashing about the grounds in weird places as she was trying to leave). Everything grinds to a halt as we watched the Beast sing his 'manpain'. It felt long and we wished Belle would go rescue her father already and Beast would stop being a selfish melancholy beast-baby.
The curse in this film concludes - badly. Did anyone notice this? The last petal falls, the castle servants completely lose their last vestiges of humanity and become objects only, the Beast dies as a real beast. It's only due to the presence of the Enchantress who restores them all that they're even alive. True love didn't save the day by stopping the curse in its tracks. It's as if the Enchantress takes pity on beautiful Belle and transforms everyone anyway. (We're glad the Enchantress didn't turn out to be Belle's mother, as that might have smacked a little too much of fairy tale nepotism.) We can't help but feel that there could have been a better way to do this - even one that included the curse living out its complete cycle, as that would have given some interesting depth to the idea of curses and transformational magic.
Having so many i's dotted and t's crossed in the film means the attention to detail implies one other thing: when Belle utters her "Have you considered growing a beard?" line to the Prince, it no longer comes off as a funny throwaway line, but implies that this couple are in need of a conversation. Suggested in the '91 film, but not included, it's delighted many to have have this line added. At the same time, however, it's disturbed an almost equal amount of folks, in once again reminding them that Belle has supposedly declared "her real and romantic - I will marry you and all that comes with that package - love" to the Beast before he's transformed. Yeah. Apart from Villeneuve's extended literary devices that dealt with this pretty neatly on both the PG and R-rated levels, Angela Carter is the only storyteller who has satisfyingly dealt with this conundrum. (And she's definitely not PG.) Note: Cocteau designed his ending to disappoint. That was actually his artistic statement on the tale.
AT THE HEART - the core issues:
[Controversial Issues Alert!]
THE 'GAY MARKETING' FOOL: LeFou means, 'The Fool'. Most people likely knew that already. What was unexpected was the marketing ploy of labeling this character as the first acknowledged gay character in a Disney film. What was even less expected was how ridiculously understated this 'historic moment' ended up being. Blink and you'd miss it - altogether if you weren't expecting it there in the first place. While LeFou, along with other characters in Disney animation past, was originally broadly characterized with possible gay leanings, that Disney chose to confirm him as their first true gay character wasn't very considered. Despite having many gay artist and animators working on the 1991 film and others, since the early studio days, Disney has always been very unflattering in their portrayal of their 'coded gay characters' and LeFou is no exception. His '91 characterization is about as negatively-stereotypical as Disney could get in a G-rated film. Why Condon (the Director) would then choose LeFou as Disney's gay champion is a bit bizarre. The character is not a fair or flattering representation of the LGBT community in any way. That the live action LeFou (played by Josh Gad) was more nuanced and ultimately had a conscience helped soften this a bit, but it still makes for a very strange choice for representation - especially when the issue of his sexuality is, not being part of the story, barely there. So what is it, then, that's really being said? Sadly, because of the media hype, there's no good answer to this now. We have to then wonder if the 'fools' aren't really us, having our attention taken and being drawn in on yet another level of interest and controversy, and the film's Director in particular for making a big deal of something that should have just been 'normal'. To include - and acknowledge - gay characters in a Disney film is a big thing, yes, but that's not the intent of the film. And if we have to point it out and make a giant moment of it, doesn't that say a diversity of characters and orientations isn't normal? And, if it's so important, what does it have to do with the tale? As far as publicity goes, it worked extremely well for attention, but we have to wonder if perhaps it's done almost as much harm as good. At the end of the day - as far as the film goes - it doesn't really matter. But what does that say for the community for which it matters very much? We're not the only ones in a knot over this one. Basically - they made a mess of this one and, sadly, that may be what goes down in history. -sigh-
Don't get us wrong - we're thrilled that Disney is finally being more accepting of diversity in all its forms. We're just a little underwhelmed at the way this was both done, and feel Disney could have handled their 'historic moment' - if that's what it was truly created to be - much better. The question of orientation is more evident in the nameless character Garderobe dressed in women's clothing, and found himself delighted, than anyone else, but that's only a nod too. (As far as appropriate ratings go, the three now-brunette bimbettes are the characters who push the film closest to 'mature' consideration with their obvious sexual frustration! Yikes. Not to mention seeing live action Lumiere and Plumette get grabby. That was just... weird and distracting.) The Mouse House still has a way to go to respectfully represent different orientation, but at least they're finally on the road to doing so.
There is, however, another aspect to these 'controversial' and 'historic moment' headlines that has been bothering us.
So we can discuss this a little more cleanly, forgive us as we go 'back to school' briefly and get some clear and accurate definitions of Feminism*. Looking at a cross-section of widely available and used dictionaries, we define Feminism as: "the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes" (Oxford-English), "the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes"(Merriam-Webster), and the Urban Dictionary expands this as:
The belief that women are and should be treated as potential intellectual equals and social equals to men. These people can be either male or female human beings, although the ideology is commonly (and perhaps falsely) associated mainly with women.Okay - got it.
The basic idea of Feminism revolves around the principle that just because human bodies are designed to perform certain procreative functions, biological elements need not dictate intellectual and social functions, capabilities, and rights.
Feminism also, by its nature, embraces the belief that all people are entitled to freedom and liberty within reason--including equal civil rights--and that discrimination should not be made based on gender, sexual orientation, skin color, ethnicity, religion, culture, or lifestyle.
Feminists--and all persons interested in civil equality and intellectuality--are dedicated to fighting the ignorance that says people are controlled by and limited to their biology. (This includes skin color, race, orientation.)
- independence (alone) is not feminist - unless you are using it to help bridge the gap
- reading is not feminist- unless you are making sure everyone has the ability to be educated
- inventing is not feminist - unless you are using it to improve the lives of everyone
- riding a horse astride is not feminist
- refusing to wear a corset is not feminist (the modern equivalent: just because you're allowed to wear your bikini in public doesn't mean that it's always appropriate or respectful - or feminist)
- speaking your mind is not feminist
- wearing boots is not feminist
(We mentioned this is potentially controversial, right? Hang in there!)
- she could have shared her machine with all the women in the village, or at least attempted to
- she could have continued to teach reading after being challenged on in - even if subversively (eg via inventive signals and signs, and her father likely would have helped too)
- she could have shown respect to the other women of her village by not showing her underwear (!), perhaps still finding a way to show appropriate social awareness, non-patriarchal-driven modesty and chasteness, general good manners, etc while more subtly adjusting her clothes, and helping other women to do the same
- knowing she planned to ride she could have been prepared to have trousers, or culottes disguised as skirts underneath her skirt, which wouldn't have her exposing her private underclothes
- she could have been more respectful, and clever, in her discourse - speaking her mind while still retaining her manners and all semblance of properness so she had to be respected in return at least
- she could have helped women and other disadvantaged (including the servants in the castle) have their opinions and concerns heard and considered
- she could have had active plans for that gifted and drool-worthy library to share with Pere Robere and the girls of the village
- she could have pitched in with the servants of the castle and helped the Beast see he should be doing the same, rather than being waited on
- she could have encouraged the Beast to put Madame Garderobe in the same room as Cadenza (at least!)
- she could have not dissed (to put it bluntly) most of the other woman in the film
None of the above would have necessarily changed the main plot of the film, though it would have changed the emphasis on the core problem a lot and, yes, it would have been much more different from the original. It likely would have changed a lot about how we got from "little town" to "happily ever after". It might even have resolved some other issues. But perhaps not. Perhaps it only would have highlighted how much of a problem all this really, still is - for us, today.
Beauty and the Beast provides us with the character of Gaston, who is your classic, out-and-out, unreconstructed chauvinist. Indeed, he’s so stereotypically chauvinist you might forget for an entire hour that he’s not actually the one keeping a woman prisoner until she falls in love with him. Gaston might attempt to use Belle’s father as a means of coercing Belle to be with him; the Beast is the one who bloody well does it.Structurally, it turns out there’s very little Gaston wants to do to Belle that the Beast doesn’t actually do. However, the latter is excused because he does it while being a beast and hence has identity issues. Not only that, but the Beast’s sexism isn’t as clichéd and common as Gaston’s. If the latter reads FHM, the former reads Julia Kristeva. If Gaston stands for the easy-win, obvious, pussy-grabbing misogyny of the right, the Beast stands for the left’s more refined, complex, long-wordy woman-hating. It’s not for Belle to challenge it, but to listen and learn from it. (Glosswitch at NewStatesman)No matter how many singing objects distract you and how pretty the glitter is on the falling petals, the heart and bones of this is not a good situation. The biggest problem then, is that this love story, isn't a real love story after all. The next, most obvious, question then is: So, what is it?
For now, people will continue discussing this fairy tale, along with its redemptive qualities and problematic issues. For us, however, we hope that the conversation about diversity and representation, especially in family films, is continued and developed, but most of all we hope that the conversation about the need for equality continues. Are we empowering others and teaching the next generation about true equality, including the need for joining to a potential mate on equal terms? Or are we redressing old issues in attractive updates and compounding our problems? Let the conversation continue. Please.
*Sometimes definitions are clearer when you look at the flip side: what something is not. So Feminism is not:
- the belief that women are superior
- that someone has negative views of men
- that feminine things are bad
- the belief that everyone should be the same
- that someone is gay (yes, how backward is it that this must still be stated!)
(Thanks Bustle. If you want to read more about any of these points as well as a couple more, go read their post HERE.)
Note: Images throughout the post are from the Disney film. The ones at the head of the post are from the London premiere and from a poster.
