Of all the live-action adaptations of the classic animated films Disney has made so far, Beauty and the Beast is the one that's most faithful to the original film. It is also the one that for a few times made me smile simply by harkening back to what is so incredible about the original film. With its eye popping visuals and charismatic performances, this movie, in some ways, shows Disney at its very best.
In other ways, the movie really shows Disney at its very worst.
Disney is a quality company. Unlike most other studios, they can't just pump out garbage. Their brand is associated with great timeless films. Just think about other big studios like Warner Bros or Fox or Sony. Although they do market their films, those don't often become big events. Those films rarely become representative of the studio itself. While the general audience can't really tell a Sony film from a Fox film, I bet most people will recognize if a film is made by Disney. There is a real stake to the success of their works. Now that they are in a period of renaissance, their brand is like a five star hotel, even when there's nothing special to it, it has to speak quality. Because of this, there is no way in this day and age that Disney is going to produce a technically awful film. They have all the technologies and they can afford the talents. In that case, what can go wrong?
Well, they can miss the point entirely. And nowhere is this clearer than in Beauty and the Beast.
As I said in my intro, this movie is visually great. It is a very well directed musical. It is well written, it is well acted. On the technical side of thing, this movie is fine. Yet I really doubt that it will last too long in the public consciousness
The issue with this film lies in the lack of creativity. This movie does almost nothing... absolutely nothing different from the original film. From the story perspective, the plot is pretty much the same. From the characters perspectives, perhaps only LeFou and Maurice see some changes in personality. The locations, the styles, the morals, everything remains the carbon copy of the original. And while that can be charming in the most nostalgic way, it is also not endearing.
I can sit here and talk about all the pretty things in this film. But I simply can't, because they are fading so quickly from my memory. I don't think I'll be able to recall them tomorrow. They put in the famous ballroom scene, but it is so clearly trying to recreate the original... I just don't know exactly how to feel about it all. I was conflicted. Part of me wanted to be enchanted by the beauty of the scenery and the music, yet another part of me was saying the original did it better, why am I paying to watch this twice. Now if this was the only scene that tried to replicate the original, I'd be fine with it. It would've felt like a call back. But this isn't the only scene where they explicitly try to make me think of the original movie. The sequence at the beginnning of the film where Belle is introduced used the same concept. It evens tarts with people opening the window singing "Bonjour". Belle sang about "the great wide somewhere" on top of the same hill. "Be Out Guest" occurred similarly on the dinner table. Belle and the Beast fell in love over the same montage! For me, this is just to much similarity. The movie keeps reminding me of the original. Even when I'm not comparing the films, there is a creeping sensation of fatigue and boredom that pervade the entire movie.
For me the concept could've been shifted for a more adult story. There are elements in the story that could've lent itself to revisionism. Gaston was meant to be the villain that looked like a hero. In the original film, he is played as an egotistic man-child. Luke Evans does the same here, quite brilliantly, I might add. But why not make Gaston seems even more like a hero. Perhaps his ego is channeled into himself more and he is the typical hero of today's film. Luke Evans culd've pulled off a genuinely charming prince. We could have an actual surprise when Gaston becomes villainous. But here, they evoke the same character as in the original... which is so disappointing. Belle does not need to be a perfect girl who reads. She could be another kind of strange. In today's world, what we perceive as strange would be different from in the 1990s. Again, why not utilize Emma Watson's charm more by allowing her to explore the different character beats that she could bring to the story. Here, she's forced to play the exact same character with most arbitrary alterations. The Beast could've been an even more complex character. Dan Stevens could easily pull that off. You could've explored his sense of loneliness in more details. And no, the film didn't have to do this, but at least it could've done something original like what Pete's Dragon did. Even Cinderella, which uses the same structure, changes up the story beats every once in a while and creates a more lively cheerful main character.
The fact is the movie chooses to play it beat by beat like the original. The dad is imprisoned. Belle follows the trail. She finds the Beast. She takes the father place. They fall in love. And so on. When it is done in such way, there is no escaping the comparison for me. I can't help but just sees the original as superior.
As beautiful as the movie is, as well acted as the characters are and as well-directed certain scenes are, I do not feel that they flow naturally. This is probably because of the antecedent feeling that this is just recreating the original film. The original blueprint is too obvious here. And yes, this is probably why Cinderella worked much better for me. That film did a lot of things different. Not everything it tried to do worked, but at least there was a feeling that the movie felt different.
I can't blame the filmmakers too much since recreating a near perfect work like Beauty and the Beast guarantees an extent of failure. But that's it, why recreate it if you're just going to risk comparison. This is exactly why I hate it when people complain about someone remaking something and not sticking to the original. The complain of someone not being faithful to the source material may be suitable for adaptations but when it's a remake, this should never be an argument. I have made the same case for 2016's Ghostbusters. The attempts to create what is already perfect will doom anyone. Because at the end of the day, it will always be living in the shadow of its predecessor.
