datenightcritics-blog

[datenightcritics-blog]

“Beauty and the Beast (2017)”

Steve:

Every shot you see is wonderful to look at. The actors, the lighting, the way the shots are framed, the CGI, the sets the production team needed to build are all visually stunning. Every shot contains a great actor, a great piece of animation, or a great statue that someone needed to build.

The story is mostly unchanged from the original. No spoilers, but a couple plot holes are fixed from the original story. The changes feel right, but it doesn’t change too much of the original script.

I wish to sidetrack for a moment so I can better explain my next point…..

There is a famous stunt. A stunt that has been performed in many films. Most of these are westerns, although some adventure films have done this as well. Here it is. Picture the main character (it could be anyone), they are trying to escape from danger, they are on an elevated surface (possibly the second floor of a bar/saloon). To escape the danger they call for their horse, jump down from the elevated surface, land on their poor horse’s back, and ride away. It’s a cool, famous stunt that many films have done. We’ve all seen it. Why am I telling you this? I bring this up because Beauty and The Beast made an awful attempt to replicate this iconic action.

This is the one moment in the film that I take issue with, and if I didn’t tell you about it you’d probably miss it. It’s that quick. Maurice (Belle’s father) is trying to escape a pack of wolves. He is sliding down a snowy hill, with wolves at the bottom. Maurice calls for his horse. “Phillipe”. (The horse has a French name).

Edit Cut. Next shot is Maurice riding away on his horse, safe and sound away from the wolves.

THE FILM ACTUALLY HAS THE AUDACITY TO IMPLY THAT A FAMOUS STUNT WAS PERFORMED!!!

You don’t IMPLY stunts. You SHOW stunts. The film implies that the old man landed on the horse after jumping, but we (the audience) don’t get to see that. I would’ve liked to see that.

As far as the actors performances go, everyone was great. A few of the actors don’t have French accents, but it’s not a big deal. This is after all “Fantasy France” not actual France. If everyone had french accents, the movie would be unwatchable to American audiences. It would be obnoxious. Have you ever tried to watch a french film? Exactly. The movie emphasizes the fantastic story and characters rather than historical accuracy. It’s very well done.

Other than implying that a famous stunt was performed, and not showing the audience, the film is great. It’s a solid family movie, perfect for most ages.

Megan:

I must admit, I do not remember much about the original, animated version of “Beauty and the Beast”. First of all, I was -2 years old when it came out. Secondly, I was never much of a “Disney princess” kinda gal. That being said, I know I did see it, so I did go into the theater last week with a basic idea of the storyline. Plus, I know and love the original soundtrack! Unlike most ‘90s babies, I really did not go into the 2017 remake with any sort of expectations, let alone high ones.

I already remembered that the story is supposed to be taking place in France. This is also introduced to us immediately in the movie- we are told about the cruel French prince and his lavish parties, and in Belle’s opening scene, where several people are speaking short French phrases. Here is where I encountered my first irritant- although the characters are supposed to be French, several of the actors either had British accents or American accents. Not a single person really had a French accent, and if they did, I just did not notice because I was too busy being annoyed. I even stopped to consider that children (especially children of royalty) had tutors who often taught English. As a bilinguist myself, I know that often a foreign language learner will take on the accent or dialect that he or she “was taught”, or rather the one that the tutor or teacher used. I realized that this would explain perhaps why the prince might have had a British accent, but it would not explain anyone else. Belle might have had a hint of a British accent, being that she is well-read and her parents seemed to be as well. But the local townspeople would certainly not be. It is stated clearly and several times in the movie that hardly any of them knew how to read and many were poor, so I cannot imagine that they had private tutors.

There is a significant gap in the storyline that was not quite addressed, and that is exactly how long everyone was under the spell of the old woman. In “Be Our Guest”, we are told 10 years. That would be 10 years of everyone living with the proverbial wool over their eyes; everyone simply forgetting about their loved ones and forgetting that the prince even existed. I guess this might be some of that Walt Disney magic that I never really got on board with as a kid. The whole idea seems a little hard to grasp for me-- in a blink of an eye, an entire village of people could forget all about their loved ones and their monarch, and then just as quickly, all recollection could return. Also that under the spell, the villagers and staff could forget some people and some things, but not others was silly to me. For example, Mrs. Potts and her son Chip were completely unaware of Mr. Potts until the very end, when it suddenly dawned on Mrs. Potts that she even had a husband. Though she was completely aware of her son Chip throughout the entire movie. But, Lumiere the candlestick, and Babette the featherduster were obviously lovers as humans, and remained this way even under the spell. To me it seems like the spell should have been consistent.

Something that I really loved about the movie was the message of equality in relationships, and Belle being a feminist. From a historical point of view, both of these qualities were taboo, however, they did occur from time to time. I know that these were part of the original storyline as well, but I think that the Emma Watson’s off-screen involvement in the women’s rights movement really magnified these ideas. I feel as though Beast and Belle do a great job of building each other up and being vulnerable with each other. There were two different scenes that I loved and that I feel truly magnify the idea of shared vulnerability.

The first scene was when Belle escaped, and Beast chased after her. Belle was attacked by the wolves in the forest, and Beast threw himself in front of her and he was attacked by the wolves instead. Ultimately, Belle nursed Beast back to health, but not before Beast was feeling very vulnerable, and how! How powerless Beast must have felt-- to be bleeding and injured in front of the woman who is supposed to be his captive; the woman who is supposed to be afraid of and intimidated by his every move. Later in the movie, Belle and the Beast found transported themselves to the one place Belle wanted to go more than anything in the world, Paris. Belle got a glimpse of the attic in which her parents lived. For the first time, Belle learned how and where her mother died; she felt and experienced it as though it was happening in real time right before her eyes. Belle said that her mother’s death was “the one story her father could never tell her”. Emma Watson did a fantastic job with making her audience feel this too. It was incredible. Belle had her turn to be vulnerable in front of the Beast, and without hesitation, he was right there to build her back up. I felt that this was very unlike the typical Disney movie-- a big strong man that never wavered, and the helpless Damsel in Distress that could not do anything to help him, let alone herself.

This is definitely a movie I would recommend for most ages. I especially would recommend it to any family that has a young daughter. I think that Belle is a stunning example to girls-- better than any of the other “princess movies”.