Deep Dive Disney: Wes Looks at Beauty & The Beast (2017)

Welcome my friends to another addition of Deep Dive Disney. Well, even though I know it may cost me my credibility as a Disney nerd, I feel as though I must clear the air before we move forward with this article. As we touched on way back when we covered The Jungle Book and again when we covered Cruella, I actually have no problem with the Disney Live Action remakes. In fact, I actually think that, in theory, it’s a pretty cool idea. The whole reason I started this retrospective is because these films are considered classics and worth revisiting with modern eyes. Why not use the technology that wasn’t available twenty some odd years ago to brings these stories to life in a way that couldn’t have been accomplished when those films were originally released? Sure, I’m a believer in “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it” but I still believe that remakes have their place in the world of cinema and Disney is no exception to that. Mind you, Disney doesn’t always stick the landing. Tim Burton’s Alice in Wonderland films didn’t seem to understand the point of the source material, The Lion King remake was just as unnecessary as it was unpleasant and the remake of Mulan felt like two hours of watching static. However, just because not every attempt hits a bullseye, that’s no reason to write off every one of the live action remakes without at least giving them a chance. I’ve heard people argue that they’re a soulless cash grab, which is fair, but there are plenty of far worse offenders out there and it doesn't necessarily mean that the finished product is of low quality. An even lamer argument I’ve heard against the Disney live action remakes is, “they ruined the original." Uh... no they didn't. Even if the remake isn't good, it's not like it replaced original in perpetuity or anything like that. Oh, but here's my favorite, "they ruined my childhood.” For anyone who says this, I have two words... shut up. The original Aladdin is a film that holds a special place in my heart and seeing the remake (which we’ll also be covering eventually) didn’t retroactively make the experience of seeing the original somehow lesser. Your childhood is just fine and if it somehow isn't because of something as inconsequential as a live-action remake of a cartoon from the 90's, you got bigger problems on your hands pal. You are in no way obligated to watch these movies, and if the idea of a remake offends you so much, either ignore it and watch the original or sit your reactionary ass down and let everyone else enjoy the movie. Speaking of, as you can see, the subject today’s article is the 2017 remake of Beauty & The Beast. A film that just so happens to be my girlfriend’s favorite movie, and the film that forced yours truly to reevaluate the original and ultimately see it for the masterpiece that it is. And you know what, I like this movie, and I'm not ashamed to say it. Would I say that this movie as good as the original, I don’t know if I’d go that far, but I still feel that many judge this film unfairly simply because it's a remake of a classic. I said it all the way back in my first Deep Dive Disney article, a film is to be judged for what it is, not what it isn’t, and I feel that applies now more than ever. Frankly, I think this is a fine movie and I’m going to tell you why. We'll skip any kind of plot summary for this one since... we already did that. If you want my thoughts on the first movie, I'll leave a link to that article right here. That out of the way, let’s look at the 2017 remake of Disney’s Beauty & The Beast.

Main Character:

Like last time, Belle & Beast share the role of main character in equal measure. There’s not a whole lot to say about them in this movie that we didn’t cover back when we discussed the original. Belle this time around is played by Emma Watson. Now, a lot of people don’t particularly care for Emma Watson in this role and I don’t know if that’s fair. Watson is a great actress and does a perfectly fine job as Belle. I do have one minor nitpick, and it’s less a problem with this movie and more just general issue with the translation from animation to live action. See, Belle is described as “The Most Beautiful Girl in the Village.” This is easily accomplished in animation, but it doesn’t really work like that in real life since everyone has different things they find attractive. I’m not saying that I don’t find Emma Watson to be pretty, a poster that hung on my wall throughout middle school and high school certainly says otherwise, I’m just saying that it can be difficult for any casting department to find an actress who meets such a description. Still, I rather liked Watson’s performance and feel that she’s a credit to the character she’s playing.

Before we discuss the Beast, I just need to say something I feel is important. The Beast has a name! It’s Adam! After Descendants kept simply calling him Beast even after he’s been turned human, I just really felt the need to put that out there. I’ll keep referring to him as Beast just so you all know who I’m talking about, but that really had to be said. Anywho, while I think that Beast has been dumbed down a bit in the translation to live action (animated Beast thought right away that Belle had the potential to break the curse while remake Beast had to be convinced by his servants) Dan Stevens still does a really good job. By the way, if you’d like to see Stevens’ talent on display without his face covered in CGI and prosthetics, check out a film called, The Man Who Invented Christmas where he played Charles Dickens. It’s actually a pretty good film to watch at Christmas time if you don’t mind a few historical inaccuracies. Anywho, despite a few flaws, I actually really like this version of the Beast. He’s a lot more stubborn than the original, but you can still see the positive influence Belle has on him over time. Actually, Watson and Stevens have really great chemistry and while it’s different than how Belle and Beast fell in love in the first film, their scenes together are actually pretty enjoyable. I especially like their more casual conversations about literature and the like. Relationships are more than just giving away libraries and waltzing, sometimes it’s equally important to just be able to chat and enjoy one another’s company.

Villain:

I know that this movie isn’t perfect, but man, Luke Evans nails Gaston. He’s every bit the conceited toxic male bro-douche his animated counterpart was, and yet retains said counterpart’s inexplicable and ironic likability. I couldn’t exactly put my finger on why it is I love Gaston so much despite the fact that the dude is such an asshole. Maybe it’s the fact that he’s such an over-the-top cartoon stereotype of toxic masculinity that he kind of becomes this oddly endearing parody of it. In any case, Luke Evans, that guy everyone assumes is Orlando Bloom until they realize he isn’t, does a great job. You actually can see why the whole town believes Gaston’s bullshit since he does imbue the character with a lot of charm and charisma. If it weren’t for how much of an entitled creep he was around women, I’d even say he’s a blast to hang out with. Actually, they did a bit in this movie to make Gaston even more despicable in a few ways. Some subtle, like how he approaches courtship with a hunter’s mentality, leading him to be attracted to Belle simply because she’s the most difficult to woo. Others not so subtle, like how he ties Maurice to a tree and leaves him for the wolves. It’s all great and it’s a nice live action representation of one of the classic Disney Villains. Something I sadly can’t say for the next remake we’ll be covering, but we’ll get there.

Side Characters:

All of our lovable cursed household appliances are back and they’re just as much fun as they were the last time. Ewan McGregor and Sir Ian McKellan do an excellent job replicating the great chemistry between Jerry Orbach and David Ogden Stiers ha as Lumiere and Cogsworth. Also, this is the closest we’re ever going to get to Obi-Wan Kenobi and Gandalf sharing the silver screen, at least until Disney inevitably buys the rights to Lord of the Rings, so we may as well enjoy it while it lasts. As we established back in our Cruella article, Emma Thompson can do no wrong and she does a great job filling the shoes of the absolute legend that is Angela Lansbury as she steps into the role of Mrs. Potts.

They add this weird, yet often entertaining, romance between the wardrobe and the harpsichord played by Audra McDonald and Stanley Tucci respectively. It’s cute, but the fact that the poor Maestro has to have severe dental pain every time he plays his music is more than a little unsettling.

Moving out of the castle, Maurice, played by Kevin Kline in this movie, has been changed in this movie and in my opinion, for the better. There’s this interesting subplot that eventually leads us to learn that Maurice was forced to leave his wife who was dying from the plague in order to keep his daughter safe, and that even though leaving his beloved wife tore him up inside, he still has no regrets about saving Belle’s life. It’s actually really sweet and adds a bit to his character, making him more than just the good-natured bumbler he was last time. Actually, I appreciate that they made Maurice a lot smarter than he was in the original. Remember, animated Maurice encouraged Belle to date Gaston, likely not knowing what a creep he really was, whereas this guy, much like his daughter, sees right through Gaston’s bullshit and outright refuses to let him marry Belle.

Finally, let’s talk about LeFou, Gaston’s sidekick. I didn’t really talk about him all that much in my original Beauty & The Beast article because his character didn’t really amount to more than being Gaston’s lackey and hype man. Here, they expand on his character quite a bit, and no, I don’t just mean how they made him gay, though I do appreciate the LGBTQ representation. LeFou is played by Josh Gadd this time around, the same guy who played Olaf in Frozen. As you may recall, I love Olaf and Josh Gadd brings a lot of that same comedic timing to the role of LeFou. Here, while he’s still a massive Gaston fanboy, possibly because he’s in love with him, LeFou is also one of the few individuals capable of reigning Gaston in when he goes too far, and I appreciate that he does eventually realize that Gaston is a monster and joins the good side. Weirdly enough, I kind of was hoping that the film would change the ending, spare Gaston’s life, and have him end up with LeFou. They actually make a much better couple than Belle and Gaston ever could have. I hope the rumors of a Disney+ mini-series all about these two turns out to be true.

Songs:

Well, all the songs from the original soundtrack are back and they’re still the great songs they’ve always been. And hey, no one’s rapping Be Our Guest this time so that’s also a plus. I will say this though, one of the criticisms of Emma Watson that I sort of agree with is that she’s not a great singer and relies to heavily on autotune. While Watson doesn’t even come close to Paige O’Hara, a very tall order for anyone, I’ll admit, while it's not great, her singing doesn’t ruin the movie for me. In terms of new songs, we have How Does a Moment Last Forever and Days In The Sun, which are nice but don’t really stand out that much, especially against Howard Ashman’s classic compositions. One’s about Maurice pining for his wife, the other is about the servants pining for their lost humanity. Not bad, but nothing special.

Evermore, The Beast’s big solo number, is an entirely different story. This song is awesome. It happens right after Beast lets Belle leave. Belle was his last hope to regain his humanity, and now she's walking out the door. Beast sings a melancholy song about how happy he was to have had Belle in his life, even if it was only for a short time. He then goes on to imagine a scenario in which Belle comes back and stays with him for the rest of their days. I like how the Beast appears to be in a sort of denial here. He knows that Belle coming back is a long shot, but he still refuses to give up hope. The song is almost triumphant and mournful at the same time and Dan Stevens really sells it. I’m probably going to get lynched for this one, but I honestly believe that Dan Stevens is an even better singer than The Beast’s original voice actor, Robby Benson (no relation to Jodi, I checked). Stevens just puts so much power into his singing that the song really sticks with you.

Memorable Scenes:

I’m pleased to report that my favorite scene remains the same in both films, that being the scene in which Beast gives Belle the library. What’s interesting about this is how it’s my favorite scene in both movies but for different reasons. While the original had Beast getting all excited to give Belle a gift to show he cares, this one comes about a little differently. It starts with a friendly debate over their conflicting taste in literature. Yeah, they made Beast just as well read as Belle in this version. As Beast says he had an "expensive education." Maybe this change rubs a few purists the wrong way, but I like it. Anywho, while Belle prefers romantic stories like Romeo & Juliet and the like, Beast is more into books about adventure and swordplay, like King Arthur. When Beast sarcastically suggests that Belle needs to broaden her literary horizons, he takes her to the library. Now Beast has probably been in and out of this library thousands of times, so to him, it probably doesn’t seem like much, but Belle is absolutely in awe of this place and that gets the beast to realize, yeah, this library, my castle, the beautiful landscape outside of it, they are pretty awesome. As such, he decides to give Belle the Library and even cracks a few jokes showing that he’s finally starting to loosen up.

Story:

I went into the themes and morals of Beauty and the Beast in great detail in the original article and I’m happy to say that the theme of putting forth the effort to change and be a better person remains more or less the same as it was in the first film. However, that’s not what I’d like to discuss here. Last time around, I briefly touched on the popular theory that Belle has Stockholm Syndrome. Not being one learned in these matters, I was not able to give a definitive answer as to whether or not Belle suffers from Stockholm Syndrome or not. Well, I’ve done a bit of research since then. If you want a more detailed information from an actual therapist, I’d recommend checking out the YouTube series Cinema Therapy who recently did an episode on Beauty & The Beast, but if I may summarize, I can now safely say that Belle does not have Stockholm Syndrome. Here’s the thing, Belle does not fall in love with the Beast, at least not until the very end. Remember, The Beast needed to be loved in return in order for the spell to be broken, so if she did fall for him, the spell would be broken. I think there’s a part of Belle that wants to love the Beast once they start to get close, but she can’t, because as long as she’s The Beast’s captive, and a well-treated is still very much a captive, she cannot be happy with him. Belle says herself, “can one truly be happy when they’re not free?” It is only after Belle is released that she is able to admit her feelings for The Beast. Now, I don’t have a degree in psychology, but I’m pretty sure that’s the opposite of how Stockholm Syndrome works.

The Dark Disney Factor:

Okay, we have to talk about just how fucked up the Enchantress’s curse really was. We’ve touched on this in the past, but this spell affected everyone kind of disproportionately. I don’t really see how it’s fair that The Prince gets turned into a badass animal creature and everyone else gets turned into furniture. I do appreciate the fact that they try to give a reason that the others were cursed as well, they felt guilty for not intervening when The Beast’s abusive dickhead of a father corrupted him and made him turn out the same as he was, but that’s hardly enough to justify such a harsh punishment. Oh, and it gets worse. See, this time, it’s officially established that the Enchantress wiped the memory of everyone in the kingdom of the castle and its inhabitants, meaning that Mrs. Potts’ husband forgot that he had a wife for god knows how long. And even worse, once the time limit on the curse runs out, all the servants lose their sentience and become actual inanimate objects, effectively dying. Jesus! And worse yet, we have to watch this happen. Yeah, Belle cuts things a bit close to the mark in this one and the spell starts to take effect, causing all of these characters we’ve grown to like over the course of the movie lose their humanity one by one. It’s actually super unsettling. What was the Enchantress’s problem anyway? Yeah, Prince Adam was an asshole and probably had this coming but everyone else living in the castle, who in my opinion ended up with a far worse punishment, were mostly innocent.

Final Thoughts: Is this film as good as the 1991 Disney masterpiece? No, it is not. Keep in mind though, the original is one of the most celebrated works of animation of all time. Trying to match it is no easy task. If I may use a sports metaphor, I'm sure that even the greatest boxers of today would probably feel no shame taking a loss to Muhammed Ali in his prime. However, I feel that this movie is still very much a loving tribute to the original that I don't think deserves its negative reputation. Is it perfect? No, I don't think so. Personally, I don't know if I believe there is such a thing as perfect. That said, I still think the film is very good and I hope that this article has convinced some of you who have written it off in the past to give it another chance. Next time, we revisit another one of our favorite franchises as we cover Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales.