Beauty and the Beast (2017)

There's Something There That Wasn't There Before...
or
Be Our Grist

Okay, a big confession out of the gate: I didn't like it.

Now, big back-pedal: I'm a huge, huge fan of Disney's animated version of Beauty and the Beast, thinking it a near-perfect movie and a damn near perfect musical—you can't argue with the wit and artistry of song-writers Alan Menken and Howard Ashman in their prime, and the two men had a strong hand in the production of the film, the construction of it, and the Disney animators, emboldened by their work on The Little Mermaid, stretched their imaginations and the medium's potential, creating what was literally the strongest animated film of that golden era of Disney's resurgence as the preeminent producer of animation in the world.

So...I kinda liked the original, as you can tell. So, my ambivalence to the live-action of it—even the idea of it—has nothing to do with the material.

It is entirely due to presentation.

For example, compare the animated version of "Little Town" ("Belle")...

 

...with the "live" version:

Now, my impression when I watched the film on the big screen was that the song had been slowed down. You look at the two together here and they're actually close to the same tempo...but the presentation is slowed down, parsed, and robbed of momentum in the live-action version. The cartoon version pranced. This one kinda ambles. It feels longer than its 129 minutes (by contrast, the animated version zips by at 84 minutes). It costs more to create a minute of animation as opposed to a minute of film, even in this CGI-laden production world. So, it was to the animation team's advantage to make things quick, quick, quick. But, the pace helped the film, as well.

Emma Watson "Julie Andrews" it as Belle

But, Bill Condon's direction of the live action version is a bit leaden (it works for Gods and Monsters and the "Twilight" films, but destroys musicals like Dreamgirls), as if he wanted you to notice all the ornateness that went into the making of the film. That's nice when it comes to Technical Oscar-time, but it sure makes Beauty and the Beast a little turgid. Early on, I began to worry that the "Beauty and the Beast" sequence, the weakest part of Disney's animated version, would be interminable in this one...and it is...but there were some other changes not to the film's betterment.

1. Padding: Some songs are streamlined, some are shortened or have replaced lyrics ("And every last inch of me's covered in hair!" is Naired out of "Gaston"). But, there are new songs, the most significant of which is "Days in the Sun," by Menken and lyricist Tim Rice, an "I Want" song sung by the ensemble in which the transformed castle staff remember what life was like as humans (which, story-wise, replaces the Menken-Ashman song cut out of the original—"Human Again" which is too bad). The thing about this and the other new songs is that you can immediately tell it's not Menken and Ashman because Rice's lyrics are so godawful uninspired. Where Ashman took chances with humor, subject matter, and a complexity of vocabulary, Rice's libretto is as bland as vanilla. In "Gaston," Ashman ended lines with "intimidating," expectorating," "decorating," and "anticipating," Rice stops at single syllable words, the most egregious song of which is an uninspired "Farewell" song sung by the Beast, "Evermore," where the title is the most complex word of the piece. Other new songs include: "Aria"—an unnecessary performance piece for a ball sequence in an equally unnecessary prelude showing the Prince's pre-Beast narcissism; a song for Belle's father "How Does a Moment Last Forever?"; "Home" for a diversion to see Belle's house growing up; and that "Days in the Sun" thing, which adds a good sub-text to the story, but brings up story issues that we'll get to later.

2. The Beast: Here's where the animated Beast has it all over the CGI Beast—expression. Disney animators, especially Glen Keane, gave the transformed Prince a bullish bear look that had a malleable range of expressions from rage to gob-smacked delight. The CGI folks must have been trying to concentrate on realism and making the thing look fearsome because the "live-action" Beast barely cracks a smile.

When he does, it's a wan thing that reminds me more of George C. Scott (who actually played The Beast in a 1976 Hallmark Hall of Fame version with his wife Trish van Devere) when he wanted to smile charmingly without exposing his teeth (which could be pretty frightening). Perhaps that's the way Dan Stevens played it in his motion capture suit, but it makes The Beast a bit "johnny-one-note" and, more than that, makes you wonder what Belle would see in this glum mountebank. I mean, geez, let's see what might appeal to her, so she doesn't seem like someone who'd "settle." 

As it is, this Beast has none of the range of the animated one. It is hard to see his potential, and, frankly, hard to see what Belle sees in him, so dour and morbid he is. In fact, the only reason she might think him beyond appearances is his decision to let her escape to try and save her father (Kevin Kline), who is also a little down in the dumps the whole movie. Hm. Maybe that's what she sees in him. "Daddy issues."

3. Gaston: The villain of the piece in Beauty of the Beast is a piece of work, a boorish, uber-male who's an exaggerated portrait of the worst tendencies of the male animal: vain-glorious, destructive, clueless, and not thinking too many inches away from his own needs. He's what Tom Wolfe called a "Master of the Universe" in his "The Bonfire of the Vanities" and he's just some degrees separation from the standard square-jawed "hero" type—"He's such a tall, dark, strong, and handsome brute." It's just that the only "love-interest" for him is himself, as he sings of "Belle" "Here in town, there's only she/Who is beautiful as me...", missing her passing-by due to his gazing at himself in a mirror.

It's hard to think of any actor who might be able to play such a cartoon without injecting him with some ballooning steroids. Henry Cavill, the current "Superman," maybe, but that causes a problem because you want Gaston to, at least, be entertaining. Luke Evans has the attitude (if a bit more petulant), but not the girth to play Gaston and he's a light bass at best, when Gaston's voice should be as deep as Tony the Tiger's. Gaston is such a victim of high-T and 'roid rage, it's hard to see him as anything but a buffoon. But, Luke Evans just won't go there, treating Gaston as relatably human instead of a figure so ridiculous, he's dangerous. And, speaking of Gaston...

4. The "Gay" Thing: Anybody above the age of 12 knows that the character of Lefou is such a fawning victim of his bro-mance with Gaston that there must be something more than friendship going on. It's such a dysfunctional relationship it reminds one of the abuse-fest between Harley Quinn and The Joker...or Abbott and Costello. Gay? Yeah, and the way Josh Gad plays him, well, denial's not just a river in Egypt, honey. Unless you're in Alabama, where denial's a bloody flood-plane.

Because Gad would be in traction if he did the slapstick of the animated version, Lefou's swishy behavior in the live version is the replacement for the comedy. I don't know what Alabama is worried about, you'd think the LGBTQ community would be the one's protesting. The whole made-up "controversy" is a bunch of hooey, blown up out of promotion by a bunch of bigots who claim to be doing it "for the children." Nah, they're doing it for themselves, and the publicity will only help this movie and may damage them. Live by the sword...

5. The Furniture: The one aspect of the "live" Beauty and the Beast that really complicates things is the supporting players. Trapped in The Beast's castle, consigned to their fate as knick-knack's, kitchen utensils, tchotchkes, and anything common in a Bed, Bath and Beyond, they are tied to his curse if he fails to find or give love. Lumiere (a candlestick), Cogsworth (a mantel clock), Mrs. Potts (a teapot) and the rest are played by name-celebrities who are surprising to see once they take on human form (although I guessed one of them, a veteran of a couple Condon films, and was glad to see the writers didn't give him an in-joke-line "YOU shall not...PASS!"). In this version, they are re-united with  their loved ones in the village. This light-bulbs a question: Didn't anyone realize they were missing...for years? I didn't see any flyers posted...or pictures on milk cartons. It's nice for these characters to have a more complex history than as indentured servants, but it doesn't make any sense at all if one thinks about it.

And that may be the biggest problem with this Beauty and the Beast—the makers know it is what it is, one of the best products of "The Disney Version." As they're doing these live-action versions of their past features—Alice in Wonderland, Cinderella, Jungle Book, Maleficent (can't wait for what they're going to do with Dumbo and Song of the South and, yes, that is sarcasm)—it might be a bit too soon at 25 years, to go back to this well. But nothing can stop Disney once they get dollar-signs in their eye like Scrooge McDuck. It makes you realize that everything, every childhood memory is merely grist for the Disney mill—maybe they should have that as their corporate symbol rather than a castle.