BOP is hosted by Crystal Tech. Click here to sign up.

Movie Review: Beauty and the Beast

By Ben Gruchow

March 24, 2017

What did you say about my movie?

New at BOP:
Share & Save
Digg Button  
Print this column
So no, this new film doesn’t change anything about the story from before; what it does do, somehow, is accelerate it. Belle’s journey from encountering the Beast, to trying to escape, to the two of them becoming friends and something more, seems to take place in between crucial scenes, so that each time we see them, the plot has inched forward by some degree. The earlier film used music and montage to navigate the requisite amount of story time within its compact frame; this one is possessed by too frequent an urge to pad those transitory moments with dialogue, and it takes us out of the process just enough to notice that there doesn’t seem to actually be much momentum building, just mechanical forward motion in fits and starts. This version of the story has always had a continuity problem with fitting its incident into the amount of chronological time allotted to it, but never was it put so front-and-center.

If the film were absorbing enough on the level of visuals or music, it might’ve helped make up for the unearthed shortcoming; unfortunately, what we instead have is an object lesson in what happens when a story that clearly favors the medium of animation is forced into live action in the age of photorealistic CGI. Most of the movie has a stage-bound look to it, whether outdoor or indoor. Belle’s village, which we spend most of the opening sequence in, seems curiously confined and insulated and walled-off for what is supposed to be the open French countryside; nowhere is this more evident than the strange relocation of her house, from the outskirts of town seemingly right into the middle of the village square. The Beast’s castle is made up of smallish sets in individual scenes and antiseptic CGI in any medium to long shot; scenes between characters that take place outdoors are flatly composited against digital backdrops in ways that diminish any sense of scope.

The characters, too, are unappealing in transition: the trio of Lumiere, Cogsworth, and Mrs. Potts are robbed of the aesthetic given to them by the animated film, which allowed them to bend and flex and change shape by enough of a degree that we saw the personality before the function. Here it's the opposite: photorealism has clearly been part of the directive in crafting the effects, and no matter what is done with lighting and design to make the props in the Beasts’ castle human and endearing, Lumiere is never anything but a candelabra gained sentience. It's creepy, and not in a way that is backed up by any other facet of the production.




Advertisement



The Beast himself is the film’s biggest weak spot, and this owes more to him being, as designed, uniquely suited for animation and uniquely unsuited for realistic fur and limb and muscle movement. I recall the scene from the 1991 film, where the Beast rescues Belle from the wolves, and we see the animalistic façade fade from his face a second before he collapses from injury. Implications of character motivation aside, it's a great moment in the expressive power of animation, and one in which this new version’s equivalent - and there are a lot of equivalents here - is entirely incapable.

The movie’s thundering inessentiality and hidebound nature toward its predecessor never quite stop being a liability. Good narratives allow us to feel the presence of an invisible hand guiding events and developments in organic ways. With this film, the hand guiding it is explicitly a film that carried out its events in superior ways, and after we realize that nothing is going to be different (this realization takes all of a couple of minutes), we become that invisible hand by virtue of our familiarity with the story. We know what's about to happen, and it's a deflating feeling.

This fealty and predictability is also what somewhat insulates the movie from being worse: yes, it's an inferior photocopy, but it's also adhering to a story and characters strong enough to be functional even in watered-down form. And yes, there are isolated moments where that strength allows us to feel something for these versions of the character: not the Beast, but occasionally Belle courtesy of Emma Watson’s committed performance, and Luke Evans gives his Gaston at least the promise of an additional dimension that lets us view him momentarily as something more than an antagonist. It's just all overruled by banal decisions either loyalty-based or all of its own making (ex: taking the character of Le Fou and, pointlessly, making him gay in a way that only serves to resurrect the Evil Queer archetype, no matter where his loyalties ultimately lie). By the end, as the wispy strands of the movie begin evaporating, we realize we've just spent two hours sitting and listening to Disney tell us, “Remember that thing you loved? Here it is again, in the same way, but longer and with less visual distinction, and a few wrinkles.” There are worse ways than this to spend our time, but there are also incalculably better.

2.5 out of 5


Continued:       1       2

     


 
 

Need to contact us? E-mail a Box Office Prophet.
BOP is hosted by Crystal Tech. Click here to sign up.
Tuesday, December 12, 2017
© 2017 Box Office Prophets, a division of One Of Us, Inc.