Posted on 03/24/2017 9:35:31 PM PDT by ctdonath2
Having bought premium tickets in advance of the "gay moment" revelation, I ended up seeing Disney's remake of Beauty and the Beast. No point in wasting good money over an alleged 2-second problem in a 2-hour movie. FWIW, I saw the standard-format 2D version.
WARINING: SPOILERS. Not that you're really going to find them spoiling, since you already know the story and the hysteria, but if you're worried about spoilers anyway then stop here already.
Overall, it was a worthy remake of the hit animated film we all recall. The new generation is growing up with photorealistic animation (vs hand-drawn outlines), so the new "live action" version was compelling in the 21st Century. The castle was intricately detailed & vast, the Beast believably rendered, the acting was well up to Disney standards, the slightly modified story quite faithful, major animated characters (Cogsworth & Lumiere) were staggeringly well done, and the wolf attacks duly terrifying. Hermione held her own as Belle, and Gaston was perfect.
Before the sordid bits you're probably reading this for, let me note that there were two overtly positive Christian references. Early on, Belle exchanges books with the priest with a prominent crucifix or two in the background. In the grand musical number Be Our Guest, there is the lyric "praise the Lord". Backing these are pervasive expressions of heterosexual monogamous romance, chastity, courtship, self-sacrifice, respect, honesty, and other solidly Christian / Western values.
There is just barely enough injection of obligatory Disney / fairy-tale "magic" to set the stage (which is very bluntly & spectacularly set at the beginning), being necessary to the classic story. Set as bookends, this is matched at the end in predictable form (yet still sneaks up on the viewer) with a slight but very proper twist. We are talking about a talking clock, candelabra, harpsichord, etc. all under the responsibility of a hideous (and almost distressingly handsome) Beast.
The technological angle of this production is, on the whole, magnificent. Close-range graphics & compositing are perfectly done, to the point that children are going to have a tough time ever believing the animated characters aren't in fact real. The long-range backgrounds do, for those of us hypersensitive to such details (years back I worked at Kodak's digital cinema division), have an oddly imperfect feel which might be explained by their nuances actually being deliberate (the "pond bridge" scene being the most pronounced), recalling the exact flaws of old-school cinema.
The "gay moment" causing much consternation in recent weeks is, as later noted, subtle to the point of being overlooked if you're not actually looking for it. There are actually two, both being actually quite unflattering. The first is LeFou ending up, at the conclusion of a major musical set, in the very heterosexual Gaston's arms and asking "is this too awkward?" with Gaston emphatically agreeing it is. This is practically a Bugs Bunny gag. The second, which literally lasts only a second, is at the very end, amid a dancing crowd where many couples are reunited, LeFou - having finally gotten it thru his thick skull that the radiantly heterosexual (have I made that point enough yet?) Gaston is never going to fall for him and actually finds him expendable - finds himself the focus of an undoubtedly/flaming gay "diverse" character never noticed before in the movie. If anything, LeFou's subtle/obvious preferences end up rather repulsive: he's an unpleasant, annoying, grotesque character pursuing someone who rejects him on several levels, keeping him around only because he's useful & expendable. If any cinematic character is going to promote homosexuality, it's not LeFou.
There is also a momentary cross-dressing scene, where a vicious and matronly wardrobe, in heat of combat, defeats three very male opponents by inflicting women's attire & makeup on them. Two, very distressed, flee. One, reminiscent of a Bugs Bunny moment, revels.
Some of the "diversity" is awkwardly forced (such as Lumiere's pure-white object of affection who isn't when returned to human form, absolutely nothing objectionable but is needlessly startling). This is, after all, an old story set in medieval France where one would naturally expect the characters be genetically French. (Likewise, I won't expect Caucasians in the future live-action version of Mulan; maybe forcing the issue will be over by then.)
Obviously the movie being for children primarily, it is at times rather intense for that age. The sheer realism of the Beast & the wolves (multiple attacks depicted), and the total believability of the sentient furnishings, will be the stuff of young nightmares (my 7 year old promptly explaining to me that he will have them for one year as the result of this viewing). Many children are exposed to more than this, so it may not be an issue relatively speaking; evaluate your kids' sensitivities accordingly. The hotly-debated sexual undertones are quite subtle and likely invisible to the prepubescent; considering all the other places such content will arise in life, I don't see this as a reason to censor the movie outright.
Stockholm Syndrome aside (to wit Belle's comment "I cannot love if I am not free"), it is a solid classic tale of sacrificial devotion parent-for-child, child-for-parent, and equal-to-partner; even the witch setting the spell (fairy tale that it is) loyally bides her time that the prince properly learns his lesson. Romantic love comes in time as a result of devotion, sacrifices are made knowing full well the cost, and even the self-aggrandizing oft-misguided Gaston just wants to settle down properly.
How is this even acceptable in a movie?
Forget the faggotry, change up the sexes and make LeFou's object of affection be some unattainable/disinterested woman.
They'd say it is offensive and presumptive that he should even impose himself on "her", let alone persist in such flirting after repeated rejection of advances.
And no complaining about being in the friendzone, just be happy that you are a friend and quit imposing your sexual desires on the relationship.
Am I right?
not taking kids to see a ‘man character’ prancing around in a dress and liking it-
I thought the film was for teens and adults, those who like musicals, those who saw the original in their younger days, and those who are in performing arts classes. Do primary aged kids watch musicals with live actors?
The original Disney animation is firmly a classic. They did use computer animation for the ballroom scene, which was considered a massive breakthrough in animation at the time. This new version is pervasively photorealistic computer animation, well done (with a few quirks which few will notice). The hand-drawn classic being being so famous, much of this one had to follow the same musical score, though there are a couple new songs worth revisiting.
To wit: this version is a faithful remake of the prior Disney foundational classic, featuring much of the same musical pageantry. It just takes the hand-drawn excellence and brings it into photorealistic rendering.
As for your mention of “Russian Ark”:
I watched that twice - once with my wife (who fell asleep 3 times), and once alone listening to the director’s commentary. It was a tour-de-force (single take, 2000 actors, extremely dynamic set), yet staggeringly boring. Today’s Beauty And The Beast is far more engaging.
You’ve seen it in many movies.
Heck, it was a staple of Looney Tunes.
That was a very minor character depicted for 1 second.
Don’t miss the 2 hour movie depicting classic Western values because of it.
[[If you’re going to boycott everything over every little thing, you’re going to miss out on pretty much everything.]]
prancing around in women’s clothing isn’t a ‘little thing’- and noone is ‘boycotting —everything— over —every little thing—
Sure as heck aren’t going to pay money for kids to have to see that crap- Don’t care what the rest of the movie was like- Disney tried pushing the envelope here- and it’s just going to get worse- They’ve lost a customer-
“Do primary aged kids watch musicals with live actors?”
They do now. It’s basically the same movie you & I knew way back when, just remade with better animation.
“There’s a teen Belle “
aged 26
You’re missing out on 2 hours of good solid content because of 3 seconds of comedy.
And you regulate your life by the Old Testament in other ways, right? You don’t eat pork or shellfish, you never work on the Sabbath (Saturday), you don’t cut the hair on the sides of your head, and you never eat cheeseburgers.
PG of today doesn’t mean the same as PG of old.
No one wants a G rating for movies trying to bring in teens and young adults.
Planet of the Apes (original) had nudity, violence/action, and profanity and was still G.
There was a time when studios were adding profanity to get a PG or PG-13 rating, and other times when movies got a PG or even R because the subject was too boring (not even sexy, violent, or horrifying).
[[You’re missing out on 2 hours of good solid content because of 3 seconds of comedy.]]
No I’m not- they introduced filth- period- regardless of ‘how quick it was’ - My life will be just as rich tomorrow after having not seen it as it is today- Not interested in compromising just to watch a cartoon
I’ve heard good things about that 1946 live action version.
But modern audiences hate subtitles and black and white and the pacing of old movies.
And the director was gay.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Cocteau
That’s the ONLY one everyone should watch!
Do you even know the fairy tale as it was written?
There are countless adaptations of this story. A new French adaptation just happened last year.
Is this better than the 1946 version? Better than the 1990s cartoon? In the top 5 versions?
I have no love for GAyBCDisney and neither would Walt. He’d be sickened by what’s become of his magic kingdom.
The View/Shrew is part of the daily face of a Disney product. That is a fact.
Thanks.
I’m not the audience for this film.
I may someday see the 1946 version (preferably in a movie theater and projected from film, your mind is affected differently by strobing still images in rapid successions than by video) and may still watch Russian Ark some day.
I doubt I would sit and watch the whole pencil test version of Beauty and the Beast but I have seen some pencil test segments (cut/unfinished) from Snow White.
Today’s SJWs will tell you that unrequited love is merely an imposition by an offensive person.
These same SJWs were OK with Bill Clinton dropping trou and demanding that some underling “kiss it” while he was Governor.
Heck NOW says that the first grope is free (if you have their back on abortion).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.