Review: Beauty and the Beast (2017)

Confession: The Little Mermaid will always be my first Disney obsession, and Ariel will always be my favorite Disney princess, but I have no memory of seeing the movie. I have memories of my obsession, and wanting All The Happy Meal Toys, but not watching it.

I do, however, have a very strong, very vivid memory of seeing Beauty and the Beast in the theater. I remember watching the opening scene, as it zoomed in to the castle, and leaning over and asking my mom if we were at the right movie because the movie couldn't start this way. (Little Me didn't know about prologues and backstory.) She said something like, "of course we're at the right movie," because obviously not every movie was animated (but that's all I knew when I was 7). And I remember loving the fact that Belle read books, because even little Lisa was a total bookworm, and that she was a little different. Adult Me has been a little disenchanted with the movie, but I was so excited for this version. And, thankfully, I didn't have to wait too long to see it. (#godblessbabysittinggrandmas).

There's a very spoiler, full review below the cut, but, spoiler alert, I loved it. Accurate gif of me walking out of the theater yesterday afternoon:

The other day, I came across this article from i09, titled "The Live-Action Beauty and the Beast is Fine, But Also Completely Unnecessary." Full disclosure: I didn't make it past the first two paragraphs. Trendacosta writes, in the first paragraph, that "It’s when it tries to be different that it stumbles, and those problems drag down the good parts where it gets hard to overlook its flaws, making you wonder if you should just watch the animated version again." 

Yeah. Nope. Not reading any further. 

Granted, at this point, I hadn't seen the movie yet, but still. I'd read enough about the development of the script and the characters to be extremely optimistic about a movie that I'd grown somewhat disillusioned with as an adult. As a general rule, I avoid reading reviews before I see a movie -- movies that I'm definitely seeing, that is; sometimes I use reviews to determine whether or not we should make the effort to see it in the theater -- because I like to form my own opinions. I like to go in unbiased. 

The basic gist of the article -- at least, I'm assuming from the title, since I didn't read the whole thing -- is that Disney shouldn't really be re-making it's animated classics, that the animated classics are classics for a reason, and it's unnecessary at best, a shameless money-making-ploy at worst. 

But I respectfully disagree. 

Don't get me wrong--I love the animated films. If you know me at all, you know that my love for Disney knows no bounds, and I will staunchly defend the company against vitriolic attacks (or, at least, offer counter-narratives to complicate the matter). 

Does that mean I think Disney is perfect? Absolutely not. I've gone on many a rant myself about things -- in the films and in the parks -- that bug the crap out of me. 

Do I think the animated films are classics? Absolutely. 

Does that mean they're perfect? Of course not. 

And, since Disney announced that they were doing a live-action version of Beauty and the Beast, I've been pretty open about my concerns (e.g. can Emma Watson sing?!) and my hopes for the plot/script (so.many.plot.holes.). I've also been pretty open about my optimism about the film, as the casting and details were slowly released. 

I'm happy to say that I was positively enchanted. I thought the movie was absolutely magical -- and was the perfect example of why live-action adaptations are necessary. Yes, it's basically the same Disney story -- they didn't reinvent the wheel or doing something revolutionary or radical with the story. The characters are the same, the plot is the same, the music is the same -- it's just better.  There's a quote from an interview Luke Evans did with Entertainment Weekly that sums up the reason for the remakes quite nicely. The interviewer asked Evans how LeFou fit into the backstory Evans created for Gaston, and Evans responded, "The LeFou in the animation can only work in animated form. He’s a bit of the brunt of everyone’s jokes — he gets sat on by animals, dumped in a muddy pond, constantly being flattened by cymbals. That’s not what Josh came onboard to do." Evans is absolutely right: some things can only work in animated form -- and animation, however wonderful and creative you can be within the medium, does have some constraints. But the live-action adaptation, with human actors who bring a degree of realism and depth to the characters, can transcend those constraints.

Okay. The specifics. Let's start with what I didn't like, because that's a much shorter list to get through:

• Emma Thompson as Mrs. Potts didn't fully enchant me. I don't know why...because I adore Emma Thompson. But maybe Angela Lansbury's Mrs. Potts was so iconic, and therefore a hard act to follow, I felt like Thompson's Mrs. Potts was just a little over the top. 
• The magical book that allowed the Beast to take Belle to Paris was a bit...meh. There was a lot of potential there, and (1) I liked the item itself and what it represented (i.e., the cruel irony of having this item that could take the Beast anywhere, but he'd be forever ostracized because of his appearance) and (2) what it allowed the plot to do (i.e., take Belle to understand what happened to her mother and to cement the similarity between Beast and Belle, since they both lost their mothers), but...yeah. It was a bit thrown in and then not seen again. Maybe if it had replaced the mirror, that could have worked, but nope. The mirror was still there.
• There was not enough Cogsworth and Lumiere. They felt very underused to me, which is sad, because Ian McKellan and Ewan McGregor are both fantastic. 
• The Prince did this weird little growl thing at the end, in his human form, that I found very weird and off-putting. 

And....that's about it. Maybe on a second viewing I'd find more that I didn't like because I was focused on the things I did like, but nothing really stands out to me. So, on to the things I think the movie did fantastically well (a by no-means exhaustive list, as I stopped short of taking notes during the movie):

• PLOT HOLES WERE FIXED! At least, the major ones--and it didn't even take a ton of additional information -- just some minor changes and additional lines:
• First--we find out why the Beast was cursed -- and it wasn't just because he was a snot-nosed 11 year-old kid who didn't let a stranger into his castle. He was a full-grown adult who, in addition to being spoiled, selfish, and unkind, he also taxed the crap out of his people to throw lots of useless, frivolous parties for pretty, shallow people women. (Not a whole lot of men at this party.) So, yes, in addition to turning away the beggar woman because she was ugly and only offered him a rose, he does a lot more, as an adult, to warrant being cursed as a beast for the rest of his life. 
• Second--we find out why no one in the town seems to know about the prince and the castle. After all, the town is close enough to the castle for the villagers to walk there in a few hours (they do it in one night during "The Mob Song") and the castle's grounds are fairly expansive. Surely they should know about it, especially if a French prince/nobleman is living there? Well, that sneaky enchantress has that covered -- she curses everyone in the village to forget. Kind of a bitchy move, because if nobody remembers the castle, you're probably not going to get a lot of visitors, thus reducing the chance of breaking the curse.
• Which--as it turns out, the servants in the castle have connections to the village (again, reinforcing the idea that the village isn't that far away). The elusive Mr. Potts -- a.k.a. Monsieur Jean -- lives in the village -- finally answering the question of where Chip comes from! -- as does Mrs. Cogsworth (I'm assuming. She seems happy to see him, but he seems less enthused to have her back in his life...). I can see where this plot point might irk people, but I didn't mind it. I thought it worked. 
• Third--the movie addresses how the bookseller in the village (in the animated version) stays in business if (1) no one but Belle reads and (2) he gives away books to his best (and probably only) customer. Turns out, there is no bookstore. There's just -- what I'm assuming is -- a tiny church library with a few books that Belle reads and rereads. 
• Fourth--Gaston explicitly states why he "loves" Belle -- and it's not the purest of emotions. (Shocker.) You could argue that this really isn't a plot hole, but I would say that it is -- on our way to the theater yesterday, my husband and I were debating the merits of Emma Watson as Belle. My husband pointed out that, yes, Emma Watson was a great actress, but he didn't think she was beautiful enough to be the girl who captivates Gaston's heart as the prettiest girl in town. To which I replied (1) it's a small French village and Emma Watson is plenty beautiful and (2) it's not really about that: Gaston wants her because she doesn't want him. She's (1) a challenge, an obstacle, a prize to be won and (2) different, odd, and unique -- which makes her different than the rest of the village girls fawning all over him. The movie gives him a nice scene with LeFou where he articulates that exact sentiment -- I'd love to have to the direct quote, but he basically acknowledges the ideas above, making that explicitly clear.
• Fifth--we get confirmation as to why the servants were cursed along with Beast. After all, it's kind of a bitchy move for the enchantress to doom the servants along with their master, if they were innocent of any character flaws. My students have speculated as to why the servants are enchanted as well, and it turns out that they were right. Mrs. Potts (I think) explains that while they are good people, they didn't exactly step in and stand up to the Prince when he was being a spoiled ass. 
• I can't decide if their fate is better or worse than Beast's, if the curse isn't broken. He has to live as a Beast forever -- but they get the (comparative) bliss of actually turning into objects. While their lives are cut tragically short, they at least don't have to live with that what-might-have-been that the Beast does. Plus, Beast then has to live with the guilt of basically killing all of his servants. A deviously ingenious plan by the enchantress.
• Sixth--a minor plot hole, to be sure, but Beast can read in this version. Which always kind of bugged me -- even Little Me. After all, even when I was 7 years old I knew that a Prince should be able to read and if he couldn't, why would he have a library? As a member of the upper class, he would have definitely had an education, and the live-action adaptation addresses this. He does know how to read, he has read most of the books in his library, and he jokes with Belle that he had an expensive education. And sure Belle doesn't get to bond with Beast as she teaches him to read, but isn't it better that they approach each other as equals and can bond over their love of reading-as-escape? 
• Seventh--ditto with Belle knowing how to waltz. After all, how would a girl from a provincial village know how to beautifully waltz? Well, her father taught her. One line, and that question's answered.
• Finally--again, a relatively minor thing, but after Beast saves Belle from the wolves (and I think the acting in that scene was superbly nuanced), she tells him he has to help her by standing up so she can get him back to the castle. If I remember correctly, this isn't in the animated version and it begged the question of how a tiny scrap of a girl got that big hulking Beast back to the castle without any additional help? Problem solved. He got on the horse himself (of course, since it's not animated, he's not that much bigger than her, but still).
• Lumiere's Lasciviousness: One of the big things I noticed was that Lumiere was not as creepily lascivious as he is in either the animated film or the Broadway play (<--I think he's actually super sketch in the play, very...womanizing). He actually seems to love Plumette (rather than just desire her) and their relationship is a lot more consensual. 
• Beast's Anger: As an adult, I have a hard time getting past Beast's anger issues in the animated version -- he is so violently angry, that it comes off as abusive and it makes it really hard to understand why Belle falls for him. But. In this version, his anger is toned. down. so. much. He's brooding and angsty, for sure; as he points out, he got eternal damnation for not accepting a rose (which...not the point. This isn't The Bachelor). But, for the most part, he's not irrationally or excessively angry. He loses his temper, once, I think -- when Belle "breaks into" the West Wing, but even the scene where he invites her to dinner he's not excessively angry. Maybe if I didn't have the animated version to compare this one too, it would seem a lot worse but, in comparison, it's a significant improvement. Which...speaking of improvements to the Beast...
• Beast's Backstory: We get some clues -- not nearly as much as I would like or as I think the story could have used -- but we do learn that his mother died and his "cruel father" turned him into a version of himself. Damn patriarchy. Not that having a crappy father excuses behavior, but at least we can speculate as to why he's spoiled and vain and kind of a crappy guy. Which...speaking of...
• The Rose Theft: I. Loved. This. Change. In the animated version, Maurice stumbles upon the castle, the enchanted servants offer him hospitality because, servants apparently aren't whole without a soul to wait upon, and when Beast finds out, he gets super pissed off, irrationally angry, and inexplicably locks Maurice into a cell. Trespassing, maybe? I don't know. It's really unclear. But in the new movie, Beast seems pretty chill with sheltering a stranger and letting him warm himself and eat a hot meal. He obviously knows he's there but, you know, looks like a beast so he keeps his distance and lets his servants do their thing. It's only when Maurice takes a rose on his way out of the castle that Beast gets upset and throws him into a cell. Is the punishment excessive? Of course -- and Belle points that out, and I think Beast knows it too. But at least the theft gives Beast a legitimate reason -- both in light of his recent hospitality and in terms of his status as a ruling noble -- for imprisoning Maurice. It's also a nice nod to the original literary version of the tale in which Beauty asks her merchant father for a rose and the story plays out pretty much the same way. (There aren't too many other similarities, but still. I liked the nod to the original version.) 
• Highlighting The Bond Between Belle and Beast: Points to my husband for pointing this out, but this version really emphasized that Belle and Beast were kindred spirits and, perhaps more importantly, equals. In the animated version, there's a weird motherly, teaching, reforming relationship between Belle and Beast where she basically teaches him how to be human again, and there's a little bit of this here -- but not too much. She does help him reconnect with animals, but there's no teaching of manners or reading -- because, as it's been established, he was an adult when the curse was cast, and he merely forgot these things. But the scene with Belle and Beast in the garden--that was beautifully and subtly done. They're both reading and they can hear the servants laughing and Beast says something like, "The laughter dies whenever I enter the room" and Belle says, "Me too." This works, for me, so much better than the teaching-relationship, as it establishes them both as outsiders who are different from the rest of the people in their "homes" and creates a more powerful bond between them -- a bond that's highlighted by their desire to see more of the world. 
• Belle's Backstory & Mother: Letting us learn that Belle was born in Paris and moved, by her father, to the provincial town as an infant is crucial to her character. Some Disney critics lambast her for wanting out of her small town (why, I'm not sure--I think they view it as ungrateful or something), but this (sort of) addresses it. She knows they lived in Paris and there desire to "want adventure in the great wide somewhere" is partly a desire to go back to Paris and understand her story, the one story her father refuses to tell her. While I'm not sure I love the plot device that got them to Paris, I did like the scene by itself, where Beast has to gently explain to her how her mother died, and then realizes that he and Belle are more similar than he might have thought and that he misjudged her father. I really like that arc for him. 
• Kevin Kline as Maurice. Just...that whole casting. He brought such a relatable humanity to "crazy old Maurice" that pleasantly surprised me.
• Emma Watson seeing the library for the first time. Not gonna lie, I basically had that same reaction in the theater. So. Many. Books.
• Sidebar: I loved that they "recycled" the line "If you like it that much, it's yours" -- in the animated version, the bookseller says it to Belle, in this version, Beast says it (about the whole library). 
• Luke Evans as Gaston. Just...that whole casting. That interview with Entertainment Weekly really helped me understand the depth he brought to the character, and while I would have still loved him in the role if I hadn't know all these details, they definitely helped. Plus, Luke Evans can sing -- I did not realize that he had Broadway training/experience.
• The two interracial relationships -- very subtly thrown in (and I highly doubt that they were historically accurate) but maybe that's a good thing. Audra McDonald and Stanley Tucci as the singer/piano player were DIVINE (and Audra was highly under-utilized) and then Lumiere and Plumette. Kudos, Disney. 
• JOSH GAD AS LEFOU: I know that there was a lot hullabaloo over this whole "exclusively gay moment" but I didn't see a moment, I saw a character-arc. And I loved it. 
• Thought #1: I'd like to think that I would have picked up on it if I hadn't known about it, but...there's no way to know now. I knew about it, and I was looking for it.
• Thought #2: There's been a lot of backlash about the first gay character being a villain's sidekick -- but I LOVED that LeFou wasn't a sidekick or a minion. Josh Gad really did bring a lot of depth and complexity to, as Luke Evans pointed out in that interview, a bit of a bumbling joke of a character. Some of depth -- that LeFou and Gaston were at war together -- isn't explicitly clear without reading the interviews and knowing the backstory, but the facts that they're best friends and that LeFou is clearly increasingly conflicted about Gaston's actions are clear. His numerous sarcastic asides from the beginning of the film clearly indicate that he knows that Gaston is a bit of wild-card, and the scene in the woods with Maurice shows that he knows how to talk him down -- and that it isn't the first time he's done so. But there's that great additional line in "The Mob Song" -- and I need to go buy the soundtrack to get the specifics -- where LeFou basically says, "Hey. Yeah, we are going after a monster, but I'm not sure it's the guy in the castle." He knows that Gaston is doing despicable things, but he also doesn't know how to stop him. 
• Thought #3: Again, I didn't think there was "one moment." I know the moment Bill Condon was referring to -- the dance scene at the end -- but I think Condon undersold it. There are a few moments, leading up to the finale, that could count. Or maybe the finale is the "pay-off" for LeFou....either way, my favorite moment was when Gaston is complaining about how Belle resists his charms and has this quality that helps her do so. (Something like that.) LeFou basically says, "Dignity?" and Gaston replies that, yes, that's it, and isn't it an attractive quality? At which point, LeFou looks in the mirror, adjusts his cravat and straightens up -- all in a very dignified manner -- and says, "Yes, it is." That was the first moment for me. And sure, much of the other interactions could just be relegated to subtext as they were in the animated movie, perhaps, but to me they were subtly explicit. 
• Thought #4: Anyone who boycotted the movie over that moment, or that character...well. It was completely unnecessary. It was subtle, and I wonder if it would have caused an outcry if Bill Condon had never said anything. There's certainly no agenda being pushed -- certainly not with the number of heterosexual couples in the film; 6.5, I think? -- and there's certainly no sinister, ulterior motive on Disney's part. That's my $0.02 anyway.

The one character I don't quite know how I feel about was Agatha/the Enchantress. I called her being the enchantress as soon as Gaston called her a crazy spinster (unmarried woman = witch, after all) but...yeah. I like how she was always around...and she did seem to "correct" things, since Belle technically didn't declare her love until after the last petal fell and the Beast was dead and the servants had turned into lifeless objects, but...I feel like magic is smarter than that. Like, the curse didn't specify that the girl who loved him had to say it aloud, just that he had to learn to love and be loved in return. I don't know. Not sure how I feel about that yet...

Overall, I loved it. Unabashedly. I thought it was magical and I laughed and I cried and even my Academic Cap couldn't seriously dent my opinion of it.