A Second Look at 'Beauty and the Beast (2017)'

Written by Mike Cervantes

THIS IS THE EMERGENCY SPOILER ALERT SYSTEM...YOU ARE ADVISED TO READ AT YOUR OWN RISK...

I already kinda feel like I’ve spilled over a bit on this one. After all, I did do a review of Pete’s Dragon, which also contained a significant amount of complaints about Disney’s recent remake of The Jungle Book. I’ve made the firm assentation that there’s no point in Disney making live action remakes of their animated classics, merely because the most intriguing thing about all those previous movies is, you know, the animation. I felt the web was with me, since when this movie was announced, the very first thing a lot of people asked is…Why?' Compound that with an announcement a week before the film was released wherein the character of LeFou, played here by Josh Gad, has a moment where he realizes that he accepts being gay, and the subsequent yet somehow still meaningless fallout of that, and you ultimately still have a movie that’s worth reviewing just so you can unpack everything that’s there.

And that would be all there is to that, except for the fact that, by the time the final credits rolled on this unnecessary live action re-make of Beauty and the Beast, I have to admit, I actually enjoyed it.

I can’t pinpoint precisely why. I suggest that maybe a generation has gone past, and there might be a reason or two why we need to understand the themes of this film once again, but even then you have to look at the fact that, as a medium, live action cannot do what animation does with ease. Take a line from the now-standard Alan Menkin songs on the soundtrack, like 'I use antlers in all of my decorating.' In animation you can smash-pan to a whole room of Gaston’s trophies the instant he sings it. In this version you see Gaston, played by Luke Evans, belt out the same line, without the punch, except for the fact that the bar scenery around him already has quite a few antler chandeliers inside it.

But it’s all still here, note for note, shot for shot, scene for scene, and it is all pitch perfect. The sets are gorgeous and the timing and pacing runs like Cogsworth, er, clockwork. Emma Watson is the perfect Belle, as Dan Stevens is the perfect Beast, as is Evans the perfect Gaston, as is Gad the perfect LeFou. To my great surprise, Kevin Kline is the perfect Maurice…and that’s not even getting into the voice cast.

So….let’s get into the voice cast.

---

At first glance you’d suppose each of these individuals is here for star quality: there’s really no reason to throw out actors like Angela Lansbury and David Ogden Stiers. Nevertheless we have Sir Ian McKellen as Cogsworth, Ewan MacGregor as Lumiere, Emma Thompson as Mrs. Potts, and Nathan Mack as Chip. Their transitions in the role are so seamless you’d swear you were still listening to the original actors. There’s a few expanded roles: Gugu Mbatha Raw plays Plumette the enchanted feather duster in a way that’s mercifully more consensually in love with Lumiere. Audra McDonald is the boisterous Madame de Guarderobe, who in this version is married to an original character, Maestro Cadenza, a talking harpsichord with the voice of Stanley Tucci.

The overall art style conveyed by the CG characters takes a little bit of getting used to, especially when it comes to the motion captured performance of Stevens as The Beast. It’s much more John Tenniel than it is anything previously made by Disney, which is a smart choice, since it all blends in well with the live action. When you feel immersed, you can appreciate how much effort is put into a movie that still needs to be at least 70% animation sometimes. A sequence in the middle of 'Be our Guest' actually reminded me quite fondly of Disney, that is Walt Disney, as they created for a split second a kaleidoscope image of several dishes and flatware betwixt the already frenetic dancing of that scene. 

The bulk of this movie really is an attempt to re-create everything found in the original film, from the scenery, all the way to the motions that the characters take when they move from scene to scene. There is a lot of new stuff in here, including three new Alan Menkin songs, but it all only exists to remind us that the animated film wasn’t perfect either, and succeeds in closing a few of the plot gaps left by that film. For example, Belle spends a lot of her time imprisoned in the east wing tower tying together bedsheets that she can hang out the wall to escape. Belle has a whole backstory that wasn’t present in the original movie, as does the Beast, and Gaston…doesn’t get a backstory as much as a subtext that explains why his cruelty and vanity seem to go hand in hand. The only part of the story lacking new context, ironically, was the widely advertised sequence with Gad as LeFou. Sure, I can see his misplaced affection at times, but I also did in the original film.

The live action remakes that came before this one failed because the live action somewhat detracted from what the animated films could do for plot. The Jungle Book failed because it went back to Kipling, only to toss in a few bars of 'Bear Necessities.' Pete’s Dragon doesn’t even resemble the movie it’s based on despite the fact that it too was partially in live action. Beauty and the Beast solves this problem by being 100% faithful and even respectful to its original animated source. It’s proof to even a stone-hearted film critic like yours truly, that a good film can be made out of even the simplest concept.  

---