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.
That’s the argument I always get from stooges promoting the homosexual agenda,
I didn’t realize Satanists loathed the Ten Commandments so intensely.
Well, yeah!
The problem with the argument is that we are no longer under the Jewish customs and specific Jewish and old testament law- people who like to ridicule Christians always throw out arguments condemning Christians by claiming we are breaking the laws of God as laid down in the old testament- they apparently are unaware that God freed man from the Unique Jewish customs and Jewish only law that governed old testament children of God who were specifically and uniquely set aside to live righteous lives for the purpose of fullfilling the role of God’s uniquely chosen Nation- The shed blood of Christ took care of what man could not take care of through observing certain customs and Jewish only laws- The law system was impossible to keep hence the need for a Savior to die for the sins of those who turn to Him- Some folks though demand we still be slave to Jewish customs and unique Jewish laws- Christ and later Paul and the Desciples actually condemned such a law-keeping religious culture ie the pharisees and Sadducees- but I guess some folks wish to either be still beholden to laws and customs or demand that others do to in order to ‘prove their spirituality’
I certainly don’t support the homosexual agenda but maybe you should do more listening and less spouting nonsense.
Why did they replace the music?
I love old movies. I love black and white movies. I don’t mind subtitles. Which explains why I liked it.
The whole soundtrack was replaced as an opera (for lack of a better word) by major composer Philip Glass. He did the same for the old Dracula. Very worthwhile.
I will definitely check it out.
The language of movies is changing. They are shot on video and edited like music promos these days.
And I can’t handle the shaky cam. It isn’t cinema verte, it is a handheld video camera (high end) without a steadicam and it is deliberately done.
I blame MTV for planting the seeds of attention deficit disorder because a camera shot changed every 7 seconds.
One little thing I didn’t mention: the movie was edited with a slightly frantic feel. Not _bad_ mind you, but it did pop from shot to shot a little quicker than “usual”.
I almost forgot to get back to this conversation after some things came up.
Your answer attempts to muddy the waters, and create confusion where there is none. It’s disingenuous. You can try to stick on me what you’re guilty of yourself, but you’re only fooling yourself.
And as I’ve written here on FR, I used to live as a lesbian myself. I testify to the fact that God’s moral laws don’t change.
Couldn’t agree with you more but too many Christians cherry-pick the sins that offend them and get wrapped around the axle about that particular one. All sin is wrong to God, Who doesn’t grade sins as to whether one is worse than another. That said, a nonpracticing homosexual is no more sinful than a nonpracticing murderer. All can avail themselves, as you have, of God’s grace and mercy.
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.