Coastal View News
“Beauty and the Beast” is a strange story when you think
about it. It self-advertises as a tale as old as time. But what part of it?
People falling in love with animals? Or does its narrative pedigree have more
to do with the fact that a good-looking person ends up with a
not-so-good-looking person? But, wait, the prince turns out to be really
handsome! It must be that the tale as old as time—the song as old as rhyme—is
the bit about how people can change. With enough prodding, we can become better.
At any rate, in case you lacked a childhood, here’s how the
story goes. Once upon a time, there was a handsome French prince who was a real
jerk (totally unrealistic, I know). While his people suffered, he partied in
his mansion—in fact, he partied in his mansion on their dime! They were
starving, he was living large and not caring.
Then one night an ugly old beggar comes to the prince’s
and asks for help. With disdain on his face and hate in his heart, the prince rejects
the beggar. But it turns out she is a super powerful enchantress. So she goes,
“All right fine, I’ll show this guy,” and turns him into an ugly beast. She
adds that he will stay that way forever unless he gets someone to fall in love
with him in the near-ish future.
Meanwhile, on the more modest side of the France, Belle
(Emma Watson) is walking around, singing, reading, and having a gay old time.
Aside from people making fun of her kooky dad (Kevin Kline) and some unwanted
advances from that burly dolt, Gaston (Luke Evans), all is well with Belle.
But then her dad goes missing. Belle searches after him
and finds out that the beast—or just “Beast” (Dan Stevens) for short—has
captured him. She pleads with Beast to let her take her dad’s place as
prisoner. Beast seems to think that trading an old, scraggly dude for a pretty
girl is an all right deal, so he goes with it.
The upside for Belle is that the furniture in Beast’s
mansion is pretty nice. The candlestick, Lumiere (Ewan McGregor), the clock,
Cogsworth (Ian McKellan), the tea pot, Mrs. Potts (Emma Thompson), and the cutest
tea cup this side of the Seine, Chip (Nathan Mack), welcome Belle with open
arms. They seem like genuinely nice people.
But they also have an ulterior motive: They want Belle to
fall in love with Beast and thereby lift the enchantment (which applies to them,
too, for some reason … the enchantress making the staff suffer does seem kind
of ironic, now that I think about it).
But who could love a beast? Well, Belle. She starts to
warm up just as the rest of the town cools to the idea of a monstrous beast in
their backyard. So, once his prisoner, Belle finds herself Beast’s prime
defender. She ends up being his only means of salvation.
Again, this story is strange. And yet, it’s not like it’s
hard to get into “Beauty and the Beast”. In fact, somehow it seems like the really
weird—really perverted—reaction would be to not
root for the Belle-Beast connection … even though he is, yes, ugly, but also mean,
prone to bouts of violence and rage, condescending, demanding, possessive, and
indeed, he is some species of animal.
Regardless, I applaud this movie’s effort. I like the
original Disney “Beauty and the Beast” (though for a really good version, see the 1946 “La Belle et la Bete”). And this
movie sticks very closely to the Disney version (including the music, story,
script, etc.). So although this movie doesn’t get too many points for
originality, it does score high in reflected glory.
Is that enough? I don’t know. I wouldn’t say this version
of “Beauty and the Beast” is an improvement
on the Disney version. Still, it’s hard not to like Emma Watson, Ewan McGregor,
Ian McKellan, and Emma Thompson. And this is also a very pretty movie, which is
a plus.
So this “Beauty and the Beast” is kind of like another
copy of your favorite novel, perhaps with different cover art and a new
introduction. It’s not something you need, or covet, or even something you
would’ve asked for. But, hey, why not?
