|
 (032517)
Disney has done very well for themselves with their recent corporate decision to
make live-action versions of their animated classics, putting a new coat of
paint on old stories and familiar characters, with passable interest in
restoring elements of source material. “Alice
in Wonderland” and “The
Jungle Book” both made a billion dollars at the box office, while “Cinderella”
made half as much but won the war of quality. Now the suits have turned their
attention to “Beauty and the Beast,” which, is considered one of the finest
Disney animated efforts of all time. And what better way to celebrate such an
important chapter in the studio’s history than to mount a live-action take
that’s largely without heart, soul, musical achievement, visual appeal, and
judicious editing. Perhaps maybe, just maybe, we should all confront the reality
that Bill Condon isn’t a very effective director.
Living in a small village with her widowed father, Maurice (Kevin Kline, 1998's
A Fish Called Wanda), Belle (Emma Watson, of the Harry Potter series) dreams of
a free life filled with books to read and personal achievement without the aid
of a husband, making her a target for derision by her small-minded community.
Hoping to win her hand in marriage is vain brute Gaston (Luke Evans, 2014's
The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies), who’s joined by pal Le
Fou (Josh Gad, 2013's Frozen), using his blunt presence to coax Belle into
submission. When Maurice gets lost in the woods while a special delivery, he
ends up in the castle of The Beast (Dan Stevens, cureently on tv's Legion) and
his enchanted staff, including Lumiere (Ewan McGregor, 2005's Star Wars: Episode
III – Revenge of the Sith), Cogsworth (Ian McKellen, 2015's
Mr. Holmes), Mrs. Potts (Emma Thompson, 2013's Saving Mr. Banks), and
her son, Chip (Nathan Mack). Imprisoned by the angry creature (and former Prince
Adam), Maurice is soon freed by Belle, who takes his place, trying to reason
with her captor. However, a curse on the Beast and his staff is about to expire,
inspiring them to make Belle comfortable, helping the Beast to win her hand,
allowing true love to set them free.
To keep things fresh-ish, “Beauty and the Beast” has been fattened with new
material to keep direct comparisons to its animated predecessor minimal.
However, the production isn’t shy about replicating the 1991 Oscar-winning
movie, with large portions of the effort simply recycling the sights and sounds
of the earlier take on the original 1740 fairy tale by Gabrielle-Suzanne Barbot
de Villeneuve. The feature opens with a prologue explaining how the Beast came
to be, cursed by an enchantress, keeping Alan Menken’s wonderful score front and
center to best lubricate expectations as screenwriters Stephen Chbosky and Evan
Spiliotopoulos introduce a few new characters to the mix, detailing a party
sequence that showcases Prince Adam’s cruelty and the extent of his hired help,
including Cadenza (Stanley Tucci), a harpsichord player with terrible teeth.
It’s a widening of scope that’s not necessary, but not unappealing, offering a
look at life with Adam before his transformation into the Beast. It also permits
Condon (who previously helmed two “Twilight” pictures, and “Dreamgirls,” ) a
chance to set the musical mood early, with co-star Audra McDonald receiving the
first opportunity to belt out a new tune.
Watson is also an impressive hire, looking just like the animated Belle, also
making her a tougher, more dignified character who dares to showcase her
intelligence to a judgmental world. However, when Watson sings, the illusion is
snapped, finding the actress unable to muster much power in the vocal
department. The auto-tune is pronounced during Watson’s numbers, making one long
for a professional singer in the role, to spin soundtrack gold. Once Belle’s
introduction is made with an eponymous tune, it becomes clear that something is
off about this “Beauty and the Beast,” with vocal limitations joining the
feature’s rather gloomy atmosphere, making the romantic adventure feel
suffocating, not tender and wise.
There are a host of problems in “Beauty and the Beast,” including the casting of
tiresome ham Gad as Le Fou, and while Evans has the pipes to portray Gaston, he
doesn’t have the bulk, making the character look easily defeated. CGI takes care
of the rest of the cast, with the enchanted staff missing their cartoon
features, looking far more nightmarish as living, breathing clocks, candelabras,
and tea sets. And the Beast is a needless motion-capture performance, burying
Stevens under digital layers that never looking convincing. There’s no reason
for the creature to be a completely computerized effect, with extensive make-up
more in step with the human needs of the material. It’s hard to root for Belle
and the Beast to get together as a couple when Condon has trouble arranging
basic lip movements for the horned co-star, while dead-eyes and stiff movement
always break the illusion. The CGI just isn’t there. This movie is crying out
for fake fur.
Still, for every up, there’s a down, with “Beauty and the Beast” lingering on
suffering, including an extended ending where the enchanted staff prepares to
die after their hopes for a lifted cursed are shattered. And there’s a newfound
concentration on explanation, adding length to the picture with flashbacks, as
Beast has been gifted a teleportation device of sorts to visit anywhere around
the globe, inspiring Belle to return to the place where her mother died.
Cheeriness is not important to Condon, who enjoys the darkness, rehashing
threats from wolves and Gaston, who’s not the pompous goon from the 1991 effort,
but a newly obsessive monster.
Superfans will recognize many things in the new “Beauty and the Beast,” which,
at times, is a shot-for-shot remake of the animated film. The production
attempts to establish its own personality through diverse casting choices and a
weird fixation on personal sexuality, but Condon comes up short most of the
time, only succeeding at bloating the picture past the two hour mark. The 1991
feature is precious Disney cargo, and it deserves a finer live-action
representation than Condon’s “Beauty and the Beast,” which always feels more
cacophonous than endearing, with its digital wizardry cold to the touch and
vocal stylings disappointingly augmented.
While watching the film, I found myself thinking about Gus Van Sants' 1998
slavish remake of Psycho. The Beauty and the Beast remake at times even reaches
the shot-by-shot fidelity of Van Sant’s film, to the point that you wonder if
the filmmakers were watching the old film on set and trying to match the shots
up perfectly. Thus, what was considered insane and absurd in 1998 is now
accepted Disney policy. On the whole, though, this is corporate strategy in
place of a movie. The original is so charming that you’ll still smile from time
to time, the way you might smile when you watch little kids re-enact one of your
favorite scenes from a beloved classic. Actually, wasn’t there already a movie
about this?
That is the primary sensation of watching Beauty and the Beast. A bunch of
people re-enacting a classic—not remaking, not rebooting, but just re-enacting
it, like it’s a Civil War battlefield. There isn’t a single thing here that’s
better than it was in the original animated film, and the original is very
available. So, dust off the DVD of the 1991 original - or go long and dial up
Jean Cocteau's 1949 "Beauty and the Beast," still the greatest movie version of
this tale as old as time.
|
