Beauty and the Beast (2017) Disney

[cinemabon]

Beauty and the Beast (2017) Disney Studios – directed by Bill Condon

If you liked the Gary Trousdale and Kirk Wise film (1991), you may find this adaptation more down-to-earth; with expanded backstory and dramatic presentations not possible in 1991’s style of animation. Director Bill Condon brought Alan Menken and Tim Rice aboard (who wrote four additional songs as well as score the film); they’d also written the Broadway score and libretto. This gave Condon the opportunity to make a big musical production. Disney initially wanted a gritty version with no music. Condon explained when he first refused: “It’s got to be a musical. All the songs are perfect. There isn’t a bad one in the bunch!” Disney offered again and this time sweetened the pot with a larger budget.
Grand sweeping gestures open this fantastic film that brings the original tale – La Belle et la Bête, written by French novelist, Jeanne-Marie Leprince de Beaumont (also an adaptation of an earlier 18th Century version) – to full life and in some instances, 3-D. I saw the standard screen version as I wanted to make comparisons between the live action and animated move. However, after seeing this film, there is no comparison. They are two distinct versions of the same story.

The opening number – crucial.

Belle makes her entrance and Emma Watson lights up the screen with her presence. No one else could have captured Belle’s sense of boredom mixed with curiosity as she does. Later, when lead roles require great depth, Watson delivers with all the dramatic presence a lead actress requires. And then there’s her voice. Shocking at how good she is and surprisingly easy on the ear; a definite pleasure. She moves about with easy grace, dancing through the opening scene with ballet precision. After seeing her for only ten minutes, I nominate her for the Julie Andrews club of English actresses gifted with great singing voices. Her voice is that good.

We’re all familiar with the opening; we even recall the Broadway critic’s remark in 1991 that “Beauty and the Beast is so good, it’s the best Broadway musical of the year.” Condon built on what the original film first showed in dramatic terms and expanded its depth by adding additional background.


The street action choreography is excellent. The sets realistic, kudos to props, well lit; the extras properly costumed; the secondary parts distinct, though hardly French (only a smattering in the animated version, too). The scene comes to a big “Consider yourself…” finish with a pull back and rousing chorus. I get chills just thinking about it. Disney hasn’t made a musical this good since “Mary Poppins.” The musical numbers are far from over. The four new songs reveal more about the character’s feelings. Alan Menken and Tim Rice have crafted some of the year’s best original songs.

The Drama

Kevin Kline has a difficult part – Maurice, the inventor – that borders on the fringe of getting it right; the same way Dick Van Dyke did in “Poppins.” However, he’s given some marvelous props and has some strong emotional moments with Belle, as in the prison scene and in the shop. Kline brought as much of his character as Ed Wynn brought to his character driven “Poppins” role. Given his history with film, Kevin Kline comes up to task when he needs to deliver in the crisis scenes. I’d say, here’s your Best Supporting Actor nom.

The choice of making the Beast a CGI character must have been a difficult decision for Condon. We’ve seen some CGI people (LOTR and Avatar) who are so good, you want to nominate them. It takes great care and precision to create those characters. Condon didn’t have the luxury of time that someone like Jackson had. Still, Beast is so good in several shots that you’d believe he was there.

The other major part – Luke Evans as Gaston – is given great bravado by Evans whose cautious riverboat ferryman in Lord of the Rings, brings down the dragon. Here, Gaston tries to slay the beast. Evans plays the egotistical hunting-maniac with comic perfection in the opening scenes and is one of Disney’s most complex villains to date. He’s just a huntsman who wants the girl. What’s wrong with that? In order to make him a villain, Condon and screenwriter Steven Chbosky do a slow reveal to his character that evolves throughout the film. Evans is another strong actor in a strong cast.

The musical numbers – how many times have you heard the song?

We all want to get on with it – we know the outcome – and get to our favorite songs! True? Of course, right. And when the movie finally gets around to the title song, we’re ready for it. Those sweeping camera moves but this time on a real set with real actors. Again, to mention the technical aspects, the photography by Tobias A. Schliessler A.S.C. surpasses work by “Poppins” D.P., Edward Colman (nominated for an Oscar). Outstanding photography in every scene, multiple angles, great lighting on the moody sets; this movie thrilled me start to finish.

I’ve made comparisons to “Mary Poppins” because if you had to create a gold standard for live action Disney films, “Poppins” would be the measure. “Beauty and the Beast” is a film that Walt Disney would be touting to the Academy as worthy their highest praise; right up there with other classic filmed musicals. Condon needs the directorial nod as well. In fact, if I had to nominate a movie for Best Picture of the Year today, this would be on the list. A thrill for those younger than twenty not used to seeing the animated film. To this generation, this will be one of their greatest musicals – one that surpasses any Broadway adaptation we’ve seen over the past two decades. Yes, Beauty and the Beast is that good. As a musical – and I know musicals better than anyone else I know, critic-wise – this one is a gem. Highly recommended.

[tabuno]

I didn't enjoy the live action version as much as the animated 1991 version. It live action didn't have the magic of animation and its ability to wondrously exaggerate the villain and the hero. I felt the live action performances were more constrained by the actual physical limitations of the human performances whereas the animated version could go where no human physiologically could. Considering that this is a fantasy movie, a live action version just didn't have the same magic for me.

[cinemabon]

Evidently your experience is in the minority as Beauty and the Beast (2017) is not just the most successful Disney movie of all time; its in the top twenty biggest Box Office films of all time, earning more than a billion dollars. I've seen it twice. My granddaughter adores it. While the animated film did so much for Disney and helped support several "musical" animated films (such as Lion King and Aladdin that followed); I found the new film made the case for studio musicals (versus the "reality" of the sing-on-the-set version in Les Miserables). Emma Watson surprised all of us with her great voice and range. She out-shined her Potter work with more depth than her previous work allowed. Also, I felt the villain of the piece in this instance more threatening with less cartoonish quality and more motivation.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/...ebeast2017.htm

Tony Scott's review: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/03/m...view.html?_r=1

[tabuno]

At least we are both consistent. The sing on the set version of Les Liz made it one of my top musicals. My preferences for movies seems to rely on realistic authenticity when it comes to period pieces about a real revolution where the music and song and lyrics stand in for a way of replicating the vibrant and emotional messages of a French revolution amid the thunderous emotional personal turmoil of each of the characters. Dubbed voice overs of a musical distance the audience from the reality as a fake device seeking for an unrealistic perfection that in itself isn't real.

As for Beauty and the Beast, I was not interested in a more "threatening" villain in such a fantasy, magical fairy tale, but a more fantastic use of imagination that one might be able to replicate in one's own dream world which animation appears for me to better fit with the medium of fantasy and the particular tone of the tale of Beauty and the Beast. As for using box office popularity as the determining factor of the quality of a movie, just look a the top grossing movies of all time and then decide how such a criteria fits in which critical reviews of movies. It seems to become a popularity context among the common dominators of a movie audience that seeks more action and spectacle for more base desires than critical acclaim.

[cinemabon]

You and I both know there is nothing "real" about breaking into song... in the middle of a revolution. Singing on the set is fraught with difficulties, the least of which are singing performances. That's why it isn't done, EVER! Singers do live performances. If they flub, audiences forgive them. On the set of a million-dollar production, that kind of mistake is costly. While in the past, directors have asked singers to sing with their playback for better performance. William Wyler requested Barbra Streisand sing with her play back. She won the Oscar.

However, this argument is redundant. You have your interpretation and I have mine. Mine is right, of course.