Beauty and the Beast (2017 film)
đź•‘ 3 minute read || Updated August 27, 2024 || by Daniel Norther
8/10
It’s not as good as the original movie, but a lot of people will find it more fun. Some scenes, like the “Be Our Guest” performance, are (arguably) superior to the 1991 version.
Disney was right to leave the plot unchanged. Roger Ebert said this was the best Disney Renaissance film, and he was (always) right. Changing anything would have been a terminal catastrophe.
Animation can do things live-action can’t. Animation cuts deeper, stays longer. Animation is pure imagination, a crystal cabinet of memories that never go away. This live-action movie can’t hope to go as far inside our souls as the original, but in a universe with infinite possibilities, this is one of the best possible remakes it can be.
If I had a girlfriend, would I show her this movie? I’d be stupid not to. It’s the timeless love story of a female bringing out the best in a male. My (hot) high school math teacher said that her lifelong husband “makes her better”. Safe to assume she makes him better, too. We’ve all seen what happens when two people are right for each other, but we don’t pay attention to their stories until art seduces us.
Belle is misunderstood and ahead of her time. Beast is misunderstood and stuck in his past. When the two meet, they can make a future. If you comprehend what all of that entails, and why women LOVE this sort of stuff, then you understand why “Beauty and the Beast” has been a smash-hit success, twice. It wasn’t until I got older that I began to understand how beautiful these princesses are, how kindhearted their princes are, and how much I’d want my own kids to act like them. And only now can I remember how effectively these old cartoons got me to shut up and pay attention. A child’s intuitions are just as strong as an adult’s, but most children don’t know how to chase the clues. We know “something” makes these films good, but what?
Let’s examine the music for a moment. Don’t worry, they kept all the classics intact. Are the new songs as good as 1991’s? No, but they’re close. They’re not as good because the original songwriters were more talented. Way back in 1991, one of the Disney Renaissance songwriters was the lyricist Howard Ashman, a victim of the AIDS epidemic. Another was composer Alan Menken. Howard Ashman did the words, while Alan Menken did the instruments. A duo of amazing musical dudes. We rarely get virtuosos who can jumpstart the dead, decaying heart of a media empire the size of Disney. The new songs in the 2017 remake are not as timeless, but my mom likes them.
Let’s talk about bestiality. Back in 2017, people were joking about “beauty and the bestiality”, but there aren’t any nasty scenes. Some of the YouTube clips are even flagged as “for kids.” But the target audience is 20-something women.
Speaking of 20-something women, some people criticized Emma Watson’s singing. I’m pretty sure it was auto-tuned. Does that matter? No.
Beauty and the Beast is a story that doesn’t need to be fixed, only retold again and again, because it’s a pretty thing that every man needs to see. Millions of years ago, we were monkeys living in the grass, and we need to keep learning how to rise above our sorry state.
Read my review of the 1991 version here: “After all, Miss, this is The North. And a review here is never second-best.”
Alright, review’s over. The rest is deep analysis and speculation. SPOILERS:
Analysis
Beauty and the Beast would, in general, be better if it wasn’t so stuck on the romance aspect. But it’s trying to fit so much into so little time. It would take a world-class plotter to make space for more than romance. And the audience members know enough about reality to know what isn’t being shown. What’s missing is the larger world full of its problems and things outside of romance, but when people go home each night and see their romantic partner, things take a backseat. This whole movie rests every worry for 2 hours, and holds it all in place in a way that women will find delicious, like a box of sinfully good chocolates.
If we expanded the story, and gave it another three hours, we’d see more things that the boys would like: The Afterparty. We’d see what happens during the “happily ever after.” Maybe the prince using his castle as a home for magic wizard refugees. Or maybe Belle setting up a book-fund for impoverished girls. Or maybe Mrs Teapot’s son going off to school and encountering the perfect friend for the perfect adventure. Or maybe another enchantress has messed with another prince in far-away India and our heroes must give them tips and tricks! World-stuff. Life-stuff. Job-stuff. Then this story would feel complete.
But during Beauty and the Beast’s main feature, we only get the romance portion, a big beautiful lovey-dovey dessert. Sweet like candy but healthy like vegetables. It doesn’t fill our heads with impossible standards but gives us something to believe in, meaning that the value of the original film is still there. Movies like this are bite-sized pieces of a full life. We need them almost as much as we need life itself. It’s up to us to complete the story. Maybe that’s why Roger Ebert’s life-documentary was titled “Life Itself”.
*SPOILERS*
Now, we compare 2017’s version to 1991’s version.
Things 2017 version does better:
Plotting
2017 makes a few minor plot-changes that give it a slight edge.
Beast locks up Belle’s father because he stole a rose. In the 1991 version, he only locked him up for trespassing, which was a weirder reason.
In 2017, Belle replacing her father as prisoner by deceiving him is a more beautiful show of selflessness. In 1991, she didn’t trick him. This new trick is what I’d expect from an inventor’s daughter.
In 1991, Beast locks Belle away “forever” and within about 30 seconds Lumiere is already suggesting that Beast should give Belle a “more comfortable room.” This is jarring. 2017 gives more time for Lumiere to learn of Belle’s situation and offer to help. In 2017, Lumiere takes the initiative and doesn’t ask the Beast for permission to make Belle more comfortable. Better for plot, better for characterization. Somehow, they made Lumiere even greater than he was.
I thought 2017’s pacing was too fast, but 1991 is even faster. Belle is locked up, then Beast starts feeling bad within seconds. So much of 2017-Beast’s dialogue was reassigned to the side characters, who work better as hosts and explainers.
1991 saw Belle’s father getting chained up by an evil guy from the crazy asylum. This guy is much less evil in 2017, which adds a touch more realism, and removes the need to destroy him, since his character’s 1991 version deserved to die but annoyingly lived.
At the end, when the final dance begins, 2017 reunites the side characters with members of the village, who had magically forgotten them until now. Better than 1991’s lack of social reintegration.
Mise-en-scène
Can’t believe I’m saying this, but 2017’s got better stages, props, outfits, you name it. They spared no expense. Look at those old-ass French filigree, the golden detailing on every single corner of every wall. Gaudy, overdone, ugly, and perfect for the story. Note to self: Putting metal and paint onto wood doesn’t make the wood pretty.
Things 1991 version does better:
Cinematography
2D animation usually beats live-action cinematography. The camera can be put anywhere, anytime, with no real-life limitations. Seeing the castle gates for the first time, the camera is put at foot-level and tilted up, giving us a clear visual of this frighteningly big door to the unknown.
From the village to the castle, the entire world in an animated movie is made out of liquid, not solid matter. We can move a window for a better shot, or raise the ceiling 50 meters for a longer fall, and no one can say it’s impossible.
Seeing Beast for the first time as he steps into the light is a heavier image as a cartoon. Making him loom over us lets us see what Belle sees.
Inventiveness
Turning spoons and forks into olympic divers and cabaret dancers. This is the Moulin Rouge on steroids. The 2017 version of “Be Our Guest” owes everything to the original.
Beast has a magical, self-driving carriage that walks on four wooden legs. Absent in 2017.
Belle’s father built a periscope to serve as a front-door peephole. Absent in 2017. His talent as an inventor is more wild and free, but you have to admit that 2017’s version is just as lovable, if not more.
Lighting
I always know exactly what I’m seeing in 1991. In 2017, some scenes are poorly lit.
Music
1991’s music is simply better. Howard Ashman’s lyrics are eternal. Together with Menken’s instrumental genius, they made these songs a part of us, and gave Disney what I believe is its brightest gem.
1991 has the “human again” song that 2017 lacks. This song was a deleted scene until later editions of the 1991 film.
2017 came up with a heartthrob song for Beast to sing when Belle leaves him to help her father, but this song doesn’t dispel the fact that 2017 owes all its best music to 1991.
Things tied between both versions:
Acting
These actors are all amazing and I love them.
Sound design
2017’s crystal-clear sounds are superior to 1991’s. Obviously. But Beast’s voice is more beastly in 1991, and less nasal.
Characters
Belle: The unbelievably beautiful and smart woman who gives up her freedom to save her protesting father. A woman who isn’t a conceited fool. A woman with healthy standards for men. A real woman! 1991-Belle is a perfect, adorable nerd. 2017-Belle is more street-smart, and more fierce. Both versions are perfection, but I’ve got a harder crush on 1991. Hey Belle, uh, my phone number is 1-69-SIMP. Write to me! Uh, only if you want to!
Beast: A beast guy who’s receptive to the woman’s enlightenment. In 1991, Beast is more beastly. He’s aggressive. He’s mean. 2017’s Beast is at least 25% less cruel, acting more human, ruminative, and beguiling, though less intimidating. 2017 Beast wins by a small margin. If we could swap these two versions of Beast, then they’d be better matches for the respective Belles.
Belle’s dad: A funny inventor. 2017’s dad is less silly. 1991’s dad is every bit as pitiable. 2017’s dad is more lovable, especially when he talks about Belle’s mother.
Gaston: A hilariously pompous jerk who is the equivalent of a jerky modern gym-bro that is so utterly stupid he goes beyond villainy and into humor. “Belle is the most beautiful girl in town. That makes her the best.” He made me laugh more than any other character. 1991’s cartoonish, exaggerated evil in Gaston is better than 2017, because the actor playing 2017’s Gaston is a nice guy who can’t hide the fact that he knows Gaston is a moron. 1991 Gaston wins, especially with that deeper, boasting voice.
LeFou: He’s Gaston’s ugly right-hand man. He’s vastly superior in the 2017 version, where he’s a hilarious toady and a closeted gay who, somewhat, redeems himself.
Mrs Potts: Tied between 1991 and 2017.
Lumiere: 2017’s version wins by a narrow margin, by being slightly more charismatic. The plot lets him take more initiative.
Cogsworth: 2017’s Cogsworth is more like a flustered grandpa. 1991’s is more like a too-enthusiastic mid-level manager at a boring job. Tied.
Written without AI
