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.
And this was a movie for children?
I agree with your review.
I saw it a week ago, and had exactly the same impression.
It was not propaganda.
So there’s a somewhat gay character. So what? He’s just among all the other characters, a realistic and non-ideal guy just like the rest.
It was a good movie, in my view.
Though Kong was my favorite. Very like that film.
:D
And why would anyone wish to contribute a dime to Disney?
Even in medieval/renaissance times, outside ethnics weren’t entirely unknown there. There’s a few portraits of North and sub-Saharan africans in European settings from that period.
Good point Eli. But why? Because folks are not paying attention....even FReepers it seems like.
Maybe, caught up in the “issues”, I failed to expand on that - probably because everyone knows the story and the set pieces already, and most readers here want to know the sordid details bandied about in the media of late.
This IS a children’s story, suitable for adults. There’s a teen Belle who simply wants to read books and admire her eccentric tinkering father, but has to ward off the advances of an amorous Gaston, and ends up maturely falling in love with a prince. There are several musical set pieces, involving much spectacular dancing by either townsfolk or brilliantly animated furnishings. It’s the classic fairy tale, brought more to life than any production has. Romantic intimacy is nearly non-existent, save for Belle’s passionate kiss with the Prince at the end. It teaches classic Western cultural values which children need absorb.
The PG rating likely comes from the intensity of the fight scenes, and that mostly from the brief but vicious battles with wild wolves, and Gaston’s final attempt at killing Beast.
Saw this movie here in China. Watched the 3D version with the wife. It was ok.
On a scale from 0 to 10, with 0 = terrible, and 10 = fantastic, I would give this movie a strong 5. It’s an ok version of a kid’s movie that I neither hated nor liked when I was growing up.
As Dr. Bruno Bettleheim wrote, fairy tales are GREAT for children, because it helps them work things out, in their minds, especially the loss of a parent, a cruel parent, etc.!
Beauty and the Beast is a cojoining of the ancient Greek & Roman myth: CUPID & PSYCHE and Cinderella; themes that can be found, world wide, in tales and myths.
Personally, I'd rather parents read fairy tales to their children, since Disney has ALWAYS bolloxed them up. For instance...there's NO character like Gaston, let alone Gaston, in the original tale.
exactly- not taking kids to see a ‘man character’ prancing around in a dress and liking it-
Deuteronomy 22:5
A woman must not wear men’s clothing, nor a man wear women’s clothing, for the LORD your God detests anyone who does this.
Sorry- no gray area here- men prancing around effeminately is an abomination
Disney’s most subversive works these days are their teen and tween television shows. The cool kids always have smart-mouthed replies for their parents and/or other adults. There is plenty of subtle propaganda in those shows. I block the Disney channels.
Maybe it is worth a view.
Beauty and the Beast is my favorite Disney film... although I like Fantasia a lot, too.
If you're going to boycott everything over every little thing, you're going to miss out on pretty much everything. I am _very_ fond of the basic La Belle et la Bete fairy tale, and this is an excellent performance of it.
I also expect people to use my software (likely millions once we finish this package) even if they disagree with my sociopolitical opinions (being to the right of the Tea Party).
Some of the “outside ethnics” in this performance seemed forced. Some I had absolutely no problem with, as they integrated with the setting quite well; others, well, you’ll know what I mean when you see the ending.
Where does the original fit into the canon of film these days? Classic? Good for its time?
The studio released the full pencil test edit (if I recall) on laserdisc (workprint or somesuch name). Don’t know if that was included with the DVD.
Wasn’t there computer assist at least on backgrounds or shadows?
I guess the remake may hold favor for those looking for musicals or pageantry.
When I saw the digital transmission of the final Monty Python reunion performance, they aired some trailers indicating you could see live hi-def stage performances from London and New York in movie theaters too. So that is one way to translate the “stage” experience.
But on the pageantry is there anything to rival this film (which I have not seen, only saw the trailer theatrically screened before it opened). Period musical all filmed on one single continuous take with a cast of 2000, 3 live orchestras, and elaborate staging:
Russian Ark
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZV1kphEEXn8
It doesn’t tell the same tale as Beauty and the Beast or have those songs or anything but the scenery appears to be the sort the palace was modeled after, the costuming is close, etc. With the novelty of one continuous take and such involved participation, I don’t even care if it is any good. I watched Richard Linkletter’s 3 hour “Boyhood” tale and was unimpressed but aware of the novelty of watching the cast grow up over 10 years. David Carradine was making a film with his daughter as Mata Hari that was filmed over 30 years I think but who knows if it will ever be completed.
“The 1946 French film version of Beauty and the Beast is really lovely.”
Try the Criterion edition with the Philip Glass replacement audio/music track. Absolutely wonderful; I got to see a live performance. Remembering it makes my spine tingle.
Actually, the movie _did_ present cross-dressing as an abomination. There was nothing flattering about it. The one guy portrayed as enjoying it was clearly off his rocker.
That I can agree with. I’ve largely prevented _any_ form of regular TV from entering my home.
The blockbuster Disney movies, however, are a completely different category.
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.