[CRITICAL] THE beauty AND THE BEAST

In his desire to restore his classics, Disney falls into the ease by adorning The beauty and The Beast that by all-too-small keys.

After the Jungle Book, the greatest company of entertainment in the world leans on his masterpiece, beauty AND THE BEAST to make a film of it by shooting actual twenty-six years after the release of the cartoon, which is one of the best film adaptations of the tale by Jeanne-Marie Leprince de Beaumont. By adding a handful of new features, this sort of copy-and-paste live has for main purpose to dust off the replay Disney in 1991, and especially, to give a good spotlight on this classic, which has a tendency to fade with the arrival of new entrants. Malin, the studio big-eared so do not allow those who grew up with the animated movie of rager on the likely deconstruction of this untouchable story, but find ways to rally effectively the new generation.

In this modernization, which does not betray its own version, Disney avoids still take too much risk, the “general public” (commercial ?) requires. In this sense, the enrichment of this story is not total. The weight of the cartoon and squarely that of the studio are so strong that they do, in fact, that very few of the liberties the film’s director Bill Condon, whose task boils down finally to do of beauty AND THE BEAST a remake filled with an abundant mass of already-seen. As well, the songs remain the same despite a few new, as is the storyline which is juxtaposed to that of the cartoon : we know already by heart what will happen to such a moment and to-the-minute, which makes the characters we know already operate in an environment that is certainly enchanting, but that one has already visited.

The arrival, meanwhile, of characters black or gay (which has also garnered some controversy, particularly in Russia, where the film is not for under 16 years of age !) would have been able to deepen the message of tolerance developed in the film. But the Disney universe, still quite conservative and puritanical, it does not go too far, only to play in the implicit. And the amenities that add depth to the characters in fact are all small keys. Yet, it is in these elements, which let you finally out of the cartoon, that this boring movie could have really become interesting.

“The live version 2017 of The beauty and the Beast is a pale copy of the cartoon of 1991” Click To Tweet

What works in an animated film does not always function in a live version, because it automatically asks for more credibility and realism. In this sense, one expects a little more ferocity or aggressiveness in the appearance of the Beast (embodied by Dan Stevens, with a mixture of various special effects which does not impose as much as it should, because it is too similar to that of the cartoon. As for the furniture, the means to make it “real” are laudable, but nothing compares to the strength of the design to give it and the humour and the fantasy that it is necessary in this Disney tale. Even the moments chansonnés, which one could say that they are in the old tradition of musicals disneyennes, do not work that well, so they borrow a little too much to codes of the cartoon. As well, this is cute, or original, in the animated film, can very quickly turn to naivety or even the silliness in the version taken from actual shots.

It goes without saying, however, that the way Disney tells this story centuries old still has a small effect on us. On this criterion, which was effective in 1991, is still in 2017 : the magic ball scene – on the original theme Beauty And The Beast – is the most beautiful example. As to the actress starred in the film, Emma Watson, although the game that is labeled for a long time as Hermione Granger in the film is quite poor, their choice is clever because it is, physically, THE reincarnation in the flesh of the Disney princess. But this does nothing to the version of 2017 of THE beauty AND THE BEAST to surpass that of 1991, only to play on the similarities. And it is, indeed, the major concern of the live version. To such a point that the question is finally on its actual usefulness, as his small contribution to this wonderful story does affirm the idea, once more, that the cartoon speaks for itself.

Yohann Sed

Your opinion ?