A Woman With Memory Problems Yells About Disney

[aels]

What up, franes, I just got back from seeing the live action Beuaty and the Beast, here are my poorly remembered thoughts about it, MIT SPOILERS. As foreground, the animated BatB is my favourite Disney film, the first film I ever saw in the cinema, and probably one of the formative works of fiction of my life so no pressure, 2017.

Good things:

- Well, it looks amazing. The castle in particular is an astonishingly gorgeous set. I would have preferred a prosthetic Beast to a CGI one but I know that we live in THE FUTURE now.
- I thought Dan Stevens was miscast before I saw it and I still think he was miscast* but he turned in a very spirited performance and everything charming about the Beast's relationship with Belle came from Dan Stevens.
- I love the whole Fisher King thing where every time a petal falls from the rose, more of the castle crumbles
- Closest I came to tearing up was after the Beast 'died' and the servants slowly turned into objects. Very movingly done.
- Be Our Guest was done well, considering it's a very trippy number in the animated film.
- Cogsworth and Lumiere were very good BUT Cogsworth was portrayed as a total coward when one of the best parts of his character in the animated film was seeing him repel the mob while wearing his Napoleon hat and cackling madly. Ewan McGregor's French accent was terrible but I don't imagine Jerry Orbach's was better and he occasionally sounded a lot like Eddie Izzard pretending to be French, which is hilarious. I loved Plumette's peacock character design.
- Kevin Kline was very good. Well done, Kevin Kline. He wasn't as eccentric as the animated version but that's fine.
- There were some cute moments between Belle and the Beast. Again, they seem to fall in love within about eight picoseconds and Dan Stevens was doing all of the heavy lifting but the romance seemed very plausible. A+
- I sort of loved the prologue where pampered bewigged arsehole libertine prince does a sneer BUT see under bad things
- Luke Evans was legit the best thing about the film and I was delighted by him BUT he was sort of *too charming* in that I should not come away from 'Gaston' thinking that he actually is great and I would go to Wetherspoons with him. By the time Belle rejects his marriage proposal in the animated version, we already understand completely why she wouldn' want to marry that shithead. By the time Belle rejects him in this version, he's really done nothing worse than be a bit clueless and vain. One of the nastiest things about Gaston is his misogyny, which is erased to quite an extent in this version. He doesn't say that it's not right for a woman to read, he pretends to like books himself and says that the village isn't ready to accept her new ideas. He doesn't tell Belle to her face that he's going to provide her with several children and rub his feet, he says it to Le Fou. IDK, I just think Evans played it too likeably (that's not a word?) They knocked the edges off his character to the point where even while he's leaving old men to be eaten by wolves, he just seems like a dope rather than a brute. Anyway, Luke Evans, fucking brill.

Bad things:

- Emma Watson. Holy shit. Holy shit, you guys. Belle is the centre of the movie, her casting is absolutely critical. And they cast someone who can neither act nor sing. She is distractingly bad. I don't want to be like 'SHE RUINED THE FILM' but she did ruin almost every scene she was in because while Emma Watson seems like a nice person for whom I wish the best, she reacts to being menaced by wolves/her father's incarceration/the death of her one true love the exact way I react when a cashier says 'You know it's 3 for 2 on this, right?' She is all eyebrows, all breathy diction, and she has been autotuned to death. It's like Daft Punk had an adventure in provincial France. She also comes across as kind of a snooty asshole rather than a misfit. I don't believe she wants adventure in the great wide somewhere. Also, I, Ane Shrieking Feminist Harpye thought that the clumsy shoehorning of Belle's Feminist Principles was very awkward. She's the only woman in the village who can read! She invents a washing machine! She's like Malala Yousafzai but French! Also, the fact that she was played so badly compared to Dan Stevens' decent effort meant it felt much more like the Beast's story than Belle's. They needed a compelling heroine and they done fucked up.
- Some people are going to argue that I shouldn't judge this version next to the animated film because they're different films but if you're going to make bank on nostalgia from everyone who loved the animated version, you get to have arseholes like me comparing and contrasting, SO the decision to make certain minor changes were terrible ones. Firstly, in the animated film, Belle doesn't get to say goodbye to Maurice. In this one, she does, completely diminishing the impact of Maurice getting hauled out of the castle. They don't cut to a distraught Belle sobbing on her bed, they cut to Belle looking like I do when I can't remember if I left my electric fire on. Secondly, in the animated film, the Beast explains he let Belle go. One of the servants asks why, and the Beast replies '...because I love her'. In this one, Mrs Potts says 'Because he loves her' which why the fuck would you completely neuter such an emotional line by turning it into a third person observation by a teapot. Jesus Christ.
- Hattie Morahan's narration in the prologue kinda sucks. Sorry, Hattie. You were never going to win this one because you were up against Tony fuckmothering Jay. But the tone of the narration is completely different. Jay's narration is sombre and haunting, particularly his intonation of 'Who could ever learn to love... a beast'. Hattie Morahan's read more playful like 'Who could ever learn to love a beast ;););)'
- Holy shit, Mrs Potts is terrifying. Some of the enchanted furniture looks alright or even charming but whoever designed Mrs Potts needs to think about what they did because her face. Her face. The garderobe is pretty frightening as well.
- why are we suddenly in Paris in the past for this completely pointless sidestory about how Belle's mother is dead and it's sad? I don't care about this. Also the magic book is supposed to be an additional torment for the Beast but it's a magic book that lets him travel through time, i.e. objectively rad in every way.
- Why did they decide to have the enchantress appear as a character? Why is she a random villager? Why did she have to personally turn up at the end to break the curse? It added nothing. Also when she turned up at the castle, I heard 'Now where did this bitch come from?' in the voice of Keegan-Michael Key and that's probably not what I should have been thinking about.

Non-specific yelling:

-The new songs were fine. Some of them were pretty nice. Evermore was probably the best but the timing of it is terrible. In the original, a despondent Beast lets Belle go and falls into a depressive stupor, saying that the servants should let the mob come and kill him because it doesn't matter any more. In this, a despondent Beast lets Belle go and then goes into a sweeping, weirdy triumphal musical number. It just kills the mood.
- I don't know how to feel about the explanation that the enchantress cast a spell of forgetfulness on the whole village. Someone tell me how to feel about that.
- I suffer from a psychological condition where I pretty much burst into tears whenever I hear the prologue music. It is beautiful and perfect and kicks me straight in the heart.
- For real, why would you cut the 'Gaston' reprise and Cogsworth talking about flowers, chocolates, and promises you don't intend to keep
- The problem with casting anyone who isn't Angela Lansbury is that whenever you are not Angela Lansbury, I just wish you were Angela Lansbury. Her verison of Tale As Old As Time is the only one I recognise.

I didn't hate it. I was charmed in places. I just felt kinda disappointed because it could have been better. It could have been great. I WAS ROOTING FOR YOU. 'Aels, are you just a bitter old hag who is looking for reasons to hate a remake of a childhood favourite?' POSSIBLY I DON'T EVEN KNOW ANY MORE

*I just feel like the Beast should be someone convincingly Byronic and growly (yer Richard Armitages, yer Aidan Turners, probably even yer Luke Evanses) not Cousin Matthew Chinless Foppington III. Even though I assume they artificially deepened his voice, he didn't sound sufficiently bestial.

[Derived Absurdity]

thats definitely a lot of opinions

[BruceSmith78]

- I don't know how to feel about the explanation that the enchantress cast a spell of forgetfulness on the whole village. Someone tell me how to feel about that.

I felt like Disney watched Everything Wrong with Beauty and the Beast on YouTube and went, "Oh shit, that's right, we should retcon some bullshit to explain why the whole village acts like the prince and his castle don't exist."

[aels]

I like Achilles' explanation that everyone knows full well that the Prince and his castle exists but they're not particularly inclined to care what happened to him because they're no longer being taxed by a shitty aristocrat.

[Unvoiced_Apollo]

The spell of forgetfulness to me is the only "fix" they get right.

I was kind of pissed off when they opened the door to explain why the enchantress cursed the servants with the beast and just left it to some throw away lines.

There are two scenes IMO they should NOT have altered. One is the scene in which Belle PROMISES to stay FOREVER and is walked to her room by The Beast rather than simply agreeing to be a prisoner and then have the servants guide her to her room. By taking away that scene, the next time they have any interaction where a physical barrier isn't between then is after Belle is rescued by The Beast. In the first, he at least is trying (though clearly unsuccessfully and at the behest of Lumiere) to be kind. There's even a tinge of guilt animated to show he does have some remorse and opens him up to giving her a nearly all-access pass. Which also connects nicely to the scene when he tries to get her to come to dinner. There's no.connecting thread like that in the live action version. He has no guilt or remorse and when the invite to dinnner comes around it just feels like it was there because the original has it. Oh, and live action Belle makes no MEANINGFUL attempt to escape despite never making a promise to stay. She ties some sheets together, gets caught by Mrs. Potts, then does nothing until the West Wing scene.

Speaking of which, this is the other scene they should NOT have touched. In the animated version, Belle actually gets to the bell jar, lifts it, and nearly touches the wilting rose before Beast storms in, yelling at her for what she could have done. And yes, she could easily have cursed them forever. In the live action, she doesn't get within 40 feet of the jar before Beast rages at her and she runs off. In one Belle is actually very much a threat to their hope. In the other, it's the Beast being a fucking asshole.

[aels]

https://honey-lemon-dont-care.tumblr.co ... rist-belle

[phe_de]

I wrote this on the "General" board.

Not as funny as the animated movie. Less slapstick. More dramatic. Not a children's movie in my opinion.
But they kept all the original songs, and the parts they added add background information about the characters, which fits organically with the whole movie.

The acting performances were all good. The singing performances mostly too; but Emma Watson is better at acting than at singing.

And Lefou is much more likeable than in the animated movie.

I stand by it; just like to clarify that Emma Watson's singing isn't downright bad; she just doesn't have a great singing voice. But I found her acting good.
About the background story with the mother: I think it was brilliant. That's the part where I got teary eyed. It explains why Belle wants a rose.

The beauty about art and movies is that you get 5 opinions from 3 observers.

[maz89]

I finally saw this and I couldn't agree more with all of your thoughts, good and bad. I also have a strong nostalgic bond with the original, which I remember watching over and over again as a kid (and later as an adult). Which means I have the right to self-indulgently register my thoughts here, even if it means repeating everything you have already said.

So I'll start off with a repetition: it just seemed to lack the spirit of the original. When it was going for a scene-by-scene remake, the film fell short nearly every time. When it was adding 'new' content, it felt contrived and unnecessary. When it was actually changing events (i.e. the enchantress' wholly unnecessary reappearance in the climax), the film botched key emotional moments.

The first thing that struck me, though, (apart from the misplaced 'playful' narration) was how unpleasant Emma Watson's autotuned singing voice sounded. I might have even forgiven a little bit of autotune and I don't require my singers to be perfect, but THAT really did hurt my ears. Then, to add insult to injury, her performance turned out to be rather underwhelming. I liked her as Hermione but I wish we could have had a more versatile actress here.

It was also poorly shot with the cinematography not doing anything more beyond emphasizing the gorgeousness of the set with unnecessary wide angle shots. In the classic, the first encounter with the Beast is truly frightening and dark. Here, we are treated to a dimly lit beautiful mansion right from the get-go. WHY IS THERE SO MUCH LIGHT? Later, when Belle shows up to save her father, she ends up having a nice conversation with both The Beast (along with some heavy handed "rose" talk thrown in, which I could have done without) and her father, completely sucking the urgency and horror out of Belle's plight (the dungeon itself had a nice 360 degree view so it was a real upgrade from the damp, eerie prison cells the Beast used to have). In the animated version, Belle is truly shocked when she sees The Beast in the light - and if I recall correctly, that is when the audience sees him properly too. Here, it's more like a momentary "ew, what is that" disgust, the lighting is all haywire (because you can make out the Beast's facial features even before he steps into the light - and indeed, Maurice and the audience get a full glimpse of him earlier too), and most problematically, the Beast's appearance and voice is watered down to look and sound less horrendous.

In the original, Belle's curiosity pulls her towards the west wing and she is a second away from touching the Rose before the Beast shows up. Beast's animal roars terrify her and she flees while the Beast's servants shudder in despair in the blackened mansion. Here, Belle gets at least half a dozen clear warnings NOT to go to the west wing but she still goes, if only to spite the Beast. Her considered decision to dart towards the west wing seems bratty - and not born out of curiosity. The Beast shows up instantaneously in this one, barely allowing Belle to even take in the moment or get closer to the Rose, and as a result, this pivotal scene is over even before it begins. The Beast is more panicky than he is angry or even terrified, and although she later claims she was frightened, it really feels like Belle was gleefully taking a golden opportunity to escape, having accomplished what she set out to do in the first place: pissing off her host by being a terribly nosy guest. Meanwhile, the servants are just chilling and the fully lit up, lavish interiors of the castle are on full display during the time Belle is fleeing. Why do the visuals not back up what is going on?

Let's talk about the scene in which Belle is attacked by the wolves. I felt absolutely zero urgency in the way the film depicts what was a thrilling sequence in the original. The wolves do not tear her clothes and reduce her to a messed up, disheveled heap. The thin ice doesn't break nor does it threaten to drown her horse. There is no f-cking snowstorm. And once again, the Beast shows up instantaneously, and while he lets out a roar this time, his battle with the wolves looks relatively easy and painless.

You get the point. This complaint popped up in my head again and again throughout the film - that the film never 'presented' the plot in any visually thoughtful way, with the slight changes in approach doing more harm than good. On top of that, the film seemed to move really fast. The editing implied a lack of patience. It didn't flow organically like the animated version. The original has a significantly shorter runtime but its pacing was more measured.

I will concede there were some good things. Be My Guest was fantastic, as were the performances of Gaston and Le Fou, including their fun little number in the tavern. But mostly, I just have an itch to sink myself into the 1992 version right now.