+++ Opinion +++
Disney’s lineup of remakes of its cartoons is of inconsistent quality. But there is one rule of thumb for me: I like remakes that go their own way, like “Cinderella”, more than films that mainly imitate their originals, like Jon Favreau’s “The Lion King” or Guy Ritchie’s “Aladdin”. But they always exist: the famous exceptions that prove the rule.
Released in 2017, Beauty and the Beast, starring Emma Watson and Dan Stevens, is closely based on its cartoon. Very close. And yet I am enchanted by Bill Condon’s remake, which is now once again being shown on free TV: Sat.1 shows “Beauty and the Beast” tonight from 8:15 p.m.
The story should be well known: Belle (Emma Watson) is an outsider – and her rejection of the advances of the popular bully Gaston (Luke Evans) further damages her reputation. The progressive bookworm is only backed by her clumsy father Maurice (Kevin Kline). When he angers a reclusive beast (Dan Stevens), Maurice puts it in a dungeon. Belle offers to take on her father’s punishment – a show of kindness with big consequences…
The best version of the “Beauty and the Beast” story is and remains the animated film from 1991. The directors Gary Trousdale and Kirk Wise have created beautiful animated cinema with the colorful fairytale musical – with the intensive colors and fluctuating feelings of a young love. The romantic scenes are heart-pounding moments. The humor makes you laugh out loud. And the sorrow is great. All this in less than 90 minutes running time.
But the heart doesn’t constantly yearn to be transported (back) into the great languor of the cartoon Disney classic. Sometimes it wants to wallow. Sigh instead of sobbing. Smile instead of grinning broadly. That’s exactly what the Disney stage musical for “Beauty and the Beast” was originally for. It is longer, more dignified, a bit more serious than the trick classic – and generally highly regarded. For me, however, the spark never jumped: I neither like the design of the stage play, nor do most of the new songs catch my ear.
To me it is, to put it bluntly, the cheerless version of the cartoon. Yet Bill Condon’s live-action “Beauty and the Beast” achieves for me everything that the stage musical wants to achieve. Yes, in 129 minutes it tells a story that was previously excellently told in under 90 minutes. But when decelerated, sighing and smiling reinterpretation I find him really beautiful. The lack of originality doesn’t strike me as it does in Favreau’s The Lion King. Instead, I think, “Finally, I have my alternative to the stage play!”
In The Lion King, where Favreau uses the sandblaster to remove all color and use the animation like a storyboard, Condon acts like a theater director reimagining a tried and tested play. Yes, all cherished elements are retained. But Condon strives for a voluptuous, calmer mood, which he consistently pursues with appropriate dialogue changes and staging ideas. The production and set design also underline the approach: the remake transfers the ideas of the template into a magnificent, baroque, detailed style – and in turn lets it fade for the time being.
Condon’s musical fairy tale is set in a world that has left its pageantry behind, just as the characters have had times when they were more at ease. But the will to reignite the fire is there – as reflected, for example, in the Beast’s castle brightening and regaining its luster. Also the re-arrangements of well-known, timeless melodies by Alan Menken fit into the approach of this remake. Unlike Guy Ritchie’s “Aladdin,” in which some of the old songs are given pop arrangements that sound like “Eurovision Song Contest” midfield.
Here the character of the originals written by Howard Ashman is preserved. Yet at the same time they appear larger, filling the vast, lavish spaces in which the remake takes place, and more restrained. The exuberance of the dynamic cartoon characters and their world becomes the deliberation of the live-action characters. Except for Gaston’s rogue song, which is simply “more”. Funnier, bigger, meaner.
Not least because of this, my acting highlight in Condon’s “Beauty and the Beast” is Luke Evans, who turns the illustrated braggart Gaston into a dry-funny ignoramus. He lacks book knowledge and cosmopolitanism, but certainly not social intelligence. Evans’ Gaston has the people of his home village under his thumb from the start and controls them like a hobby demagogue – all with a cheeky grin on his cheeks. This Gaston isn’t necessarily better than the one from the cartoon, but it’s probably his equal. And so different that it helps the remake to develop its own identity.
Dan Stevens also finds his own spin. His beast is more sorrowful, not covering up his self-pity so angrily – an approach that was also chosen in the stage version. But Stevens’ beast isn’t as crushing as that from the play, whose theatrical solo doesn’t quite match the powerful beast song newly written for the live-action film. It’s just a shame that Emma Watson remains pale as Belle. At times, Watson seems intimidated by the iconography of her role – and her faint singing voice doesn’t help a bit.
However, it is amazing how little it harms the “Beauty and the Beast” live-action film that its main actress leaves me cold. Their low-profile performance denies the film another plus point, but it doesn’t become a disadvantage for me. The look and sound of the film, Condon’s “temperature shift” of emotions and Luke Evans’ Gaston successfully shoulder the musical. The cartoon remains the better version – but the remake not only earned a right to exist. It even has a “Sometimes I’m just more in the mood for it” status.
