For many nostalgic movie goers, it’s a tale that is as old as the 1991 animated classic, and Disney wants to make sure that this tale is worth retelling. Except this year’s “Beauty and the Beast” live-action remake won’t age as well as the animated film.
“Beauty and the Beast,” like many of the classic Disney films, is widely known to be masterpieces that live on through this day. It’s a marvel to find a person who doesn’t know any of the stories from these classics.
Like the story from the 1991 animated classic, protagonist Belle has to rescue her father, Maurice, from the clutches of a mysterious beast in a seemingly abandoned castle. She learns the truth about the cursed castle inhabitants and finds out that, within the beastly exterior of the monster, lies the heart (and body) of a good man.
The film does sport an impressive cast of A-list stars ranging from Emma Watson as bookworm Belle, Dan Stevens as the cursed Beast, Ewan McGregor as the candelabra Lumière, Ian McKellen as the clock Cogsworth, Luke Evans as the narcissistic Gaston and Josh Gad as loyal henchman LeFou.
In comparison to the animated film, some background additions to characters are welcomed and, in fact, improve their motivations and goals. Gaston is now a former soldier who misses the excitement of war, Maurice has a better reason for protecting his daughter from society and LeFou has unrequited, romantic feelings for Gaston.
With the latter being the highlight of controversy in some countries against homosexuality (particularly Malaysia and Russia), the change on a sexuality is an odd choice when regarding the original source material. While the United States have accepted same-sex relationships that led to the inclusion of a gay character in a major Disney film, Malaysia originally banned the film primarily because of the said inclusion until overturning their ruling. Even some theaters in the U.S. refused to screen the film. Having a gay character sets a precedent for children who need to realize it’s okay for two men or women to love each other.
However, with the live-action retelling of “The Jungle Book” providing a marvelous backdrop of India’s forests and its fantastical creatures, “Beauty and the Beast” missteps on the classic by lacking a sense of wonder in the time-period fantasy.
Despite the impressive $160 million budget, most of the money was primarily used on the CGI scenery and characters. Some of the money would have been better spent on expanding the sets, as almost every location is unimpressively small and looks like it would be a perfect part of a Disneyland attraction. It’s no surprise that most of the film takes place in the castle, but it lacks the grandeur style that the cartoon was originally known for.
Perhaps a good example would be the famous ballroom dance, which in the remake, doesn’t have a proper build-up and lacks the scale and wonder. While it does capture the neo-gothic setting down to a perfect degree – as with many of the various sets scattered throughout the castle – it lacks the soul of what made the animated film a classic.
There is an abundance of CGI scattered throughout the backgrounds, the buildings and the characters. Since the Beast is the second star of the film, he has to be maliciously designed to serve as a fearsome monster on the outside, but with human empathy waiting to be opened by his true love. Every expression radiating from his brutish personality sets him up as a tragic character, which is most impressive since he’s mainly CGI.
There isn’t an exact beauty within the film, but like the Beast himself, there is still some good hiding within. Now, let’s all hope the film doesn’t get a live-action straight-to-DVD sequel.