DIScussions - Beauty and the Beast

[Prince Phillip]

I was having difficulty sending me "review" into the DIScussions thing, so I just decided to post it straight on the board. It is my first one so I don't know that it is perfect yet, but hopefully it will give the board something to talk about. I thought the Alice in Wonderland one was cool, so hopefully this will be too.

What is the measure of a good film? So many Disney classics are hailed as being great, but does that mean they are on the same level? How do we separate the exceptional few? It is my opinion that a good, no GREAT (Disney Animated) film must have the qualities, or include the following:
- It must be enjoyable by all audiences, or at least a vast majority/variety.
- It must have characters that the audience can sympathize and empathize with.
- It must have a good story. (That is enjoyable the whole way through)
- It much touch the audience and evoke emotions from it. (This goes further than just laughing. It must make the audience cry at the right times, get excited at the right times, ect…)
- The Animation MUST be GOOD! (There are very few (generally liked) Masterpieces that are ugly if any. The movie must be beautiful to look at)
- It must have great songs.
- It must be timeless.

Beauty and the Beast is one of those exquisite and exceptional films. Beauty and the Beast appeals to all audiences and is loved by all audiences, no matter their age or gender. Many Disney films, while they may also be enjoyed by anyone, appeal primarily to children, as that is their target audience. And while a child may grow up with, oh lets say Oliver and Company and enjoy it for no other reason than that, if an adult were to see the movie for the first time, he/she might be put off by it, and it’s child targeted theme. This is not so, with Beauty and the Beast, as it is a primarily adult themed movie, but not in the way The Hunchback of Notre Dame was. (Hunchback was a great movie and may be discussed in another DIScussion, so I am moving on.)

In addition to appealing to a variety of audiences, the movie must also have enjoyable characters, this also helps add to the variety of people who enjoy the movie. The movie contains many characters that the audience instantly falls inlove with, and as the movie continues, the audience continues to feel each of the characters happy points, sad points, angry points. All of the characters in the movie are 3 dimensional, personality wise. They are not just one way, as with other Disney films, but rather multifaceted. Audiences can relate to the characters. And while all Disney films seem to have those goofy sidekicks, love them or hate them; it is more apparent in other films, what the characters are and that they are to distract from the serious parts with their humor. (These characters are usually for the children’s benefit.) BATB also has these characters, but they are so well done that they may not at first be recognized as such. All of the characters serve important roles in the story, even the ensemble roles. For me I was amble to empathize with all of the characters, but mostly with the Beast and Belle.

The story has to be good and has to touch the audience. I think the BATB story is wonderful, and is a story that has the power to deeply move me. It is the only Disney movie that has ever made me cry uncontrollably. I was 4 ½ years old when I saw the movie for the first time in theatres and I remember crying and crying leaving the theatre, I believe this was sparked on by the Beast’s “Death” and my mom kept reassuring me that the Beast was alive, and I think I knew that, but it didn’t matter. Whether crying spell was solely to blame on the movie, or other factors I don’t remember, but till this day, every time, the Beast laying dying, and he says the words, “you came back…” I get choked up. Even now writing this and thinking about it, and I am not a person who gets emotional easily. Another part in the film does this for me and that is when the Beast let’s Belle go, so she can tend to her sick father. Giving up his dream of ever becoming human again, because he has finally learned to love and puts her happiness above his own. (the only other animated films to choke me up were, The Iron Giant, where the giant says “superman” as he crashes into the comet, and The Land Before Time) In addition, BATB has the power to make me laugh at the right parts, feel good at the right parts, and angry, and worried at the right parts. The score for the movie and the story make it so wonderful to watch.

In addition to a wonderful score and story, BATB has wonderful animation, and it isn’t just the style of drawing, but also the scenery, the characters, clothing, color techniques, matching the moods of the film with the changing seasons.

Beauty and the Beast also has great songs. Everyone of them is enjoyable, and adds to the story/movie. It has the musical feeling, and well, it’s now a musical. But it also has a gothic feeling at times, and a special close intimate feeling at times. This is another example of the multi dimensional feeling of the film. Well, I can’t really pick a favorite as they are all good, but I think the title song Beauty and the Beast, song by Angela is very nice.

And I believe that we can all agree that Beauty and the Beast is a tale as old as time. This story will never age and will most undoubtedly remain of favorite of the audience for as long as it is around.

[Luke]

If you'd like me to, I can put it on the site, as a formatted page a la Alice.

What problems were you having sending it?

[2099net]

Beauty and the Beast also has great songs. Everyone of them is enjoyable, and adds to the story/movie. It has the musical feeling, and well, it’s now a musical.

Philip, the film version of Beauty and the Beast was already a musical, and it's this which I feel has proved to be the main appeal of the film. It's a musical in every sense of the word – not a film with songs in it, which some other Disney films turn out to be. Of course, Ashman and Menken had a long and distinguished career writing for the stage before working for Disney and in Beauty and the Beast it really shows.

So what do I consider vital to a "true" musical? two things. Each as being as important as the other. Firstly each song should further the story and secondly each song should come naturally from the characters. And it can do these either through lyrics or staging (and ideally both!). I would say all but one song in Beauty and the Beast does this. For example, "Belle" not only provides lots of information on the town – both in the lyrics and in the staging - but also informs us of Belle's feelings towards it (and the reprise builds on what we learn from "Belle").

Out of all the songs in the film, I would say that "Beauty and the Beast" is somewhat redundant – ironic when considering this is the title song. Something about it just doesn't play right when I watch the film.

This is not so, with Beauty and the Beast, as it is a primarily adult themed movie, but not in the way The Hunchback of Notre Dame was.

I'm not sure I agree with this statement or not. The enchanted castle staff are clearly aimed to appeal to children (just as Hunchback felt the need to include the animated gargoyles). But the relationship between Belle and the Beast is probably the maturest relationship Disney has ever shown. I find myself asking would the film have been better without the enchanted objects? Just as I find my self repeatedly questioning the gargoyles in Hunchback.

As an older viewer, I find the subplot of the enchanted objects quite weak. After all, why should the fairy punish the staff as well as the Prince? If the Prince is condemned to live out the rest of his life as a Beast why should the staff remain as enhanced objects? The answer to these questions is never fully explained in the film (or, if I remember correctly, in the Enchanted Christmas which actually shows the fairy performing the transformations). It may be a little thing, but it's something that nags at the back of my mind whenever I watch the film.

I perhaps would have liked the castle to be populated with a few remaining staff – perhaps those most loyal or most unequipped for life outside the castle, but in human form. Their characters and interactions could remain mostly the same.

If we're really going to analyse the presence of the enchanted objects, perhaps their real reason is to act as a form of visual shorthand when communicating their characters. Of course, you may view this as a stroke of genius and there's certainly an argument for this.

[Maerj]

[quote="2099net]

As an older viewer, I find the subplot of the enchanted objects quite weak. After all, why should the fairy punish the staff as well as the Prince? If the Prince is condemned to live out the rest of his life as a Beast why should the staff remain as enhanced objects? The answer to these questions is never fully explained in the film (or, if I remember correctly, in the Enchanted Christmas which actually shows the fairy performing the transformations). It may be a little thing, but it's something that nags at the back of my mind whenever I watch the film.

Guilt by association?

Also, perhaps its the castle that was enchanted... the entire thing with everyone in it? Like a blanket policy style curse? You may have to ignore the events of the sequels, but thats okay.

[Prince Phillip]

As an older viewer, I find the subplot of the enchanted objects quite weak. After all, why should the fairy punish the staff as well as the Prince? If the Prince is condemned to live out the rest of his life as a Beast why should the staff remain as enhanced objects? The answer to these questions is never fully explained in the film (or, if I remember correctly, in the Enchanted Christmas which actually shows the fairy performing the transformations). It may be a little thing, but it's something that nags at the back of my mind whenever I watch the film.

I perhaps would have liked the castle to be populated with a few remaining staff – perhaps those most loyal or most unequipped for life outside the castle, but in human form. Their characters and interactions could remain mostly the same.

Well I think this is so with many fairytales. It isn't just the protagonist that's cursed, it's also his/her staff, like in Sleeping Beauty. In all of the stories, disney and the rest, it is the whole court who also fall asleep. If the staff and such had not been cursed in either or these stories, what would have kept them from just leaving, they need to be there when the spell is broken, for the happy ending.

I guess if you think there should be a reason other than that, why they should be "punished" maybe the enchantress thought it was partially their fault that the prince was the way he was, or maybe she knew he would need them to eventually brake the curse.
It seems strange though, that it seems it is up to everyone else to brake the cures. Belle comes and the Beast falls inlove with her, but then again how hard is it to fall inlove with a truely beautiful person, Beautiful on the inside as well as the outside. Though I guess maybe this was dificult for the Beast. It seems to me though that Belle got the brunt of it though, as she had to fall inlove with a monster, on the inside,at first, and the outside.

Besides, with out all the enchanted objects it could never have had that musical feeling.

(I don't think that if the servents had stayed human they would have stuck around. Also the as Mearj said the whole castle was transformed. The enchanted aspect of the castle may have been a big turn off for any other girl besides Belle.)

[Loomis]

I like it.
I really like it.
It is fun, good looking and sweet (much like me ).

With anything it comes down to personal taste, and this car was just parked in the same garage as mine.

'Nuff said.

[2099net]

Well one solution would be for the fairy to enchant the castle so if any of the staff left the grounds, they would forget about it. That way most of the staff could have left, and only the most faithful and loyal have stayed in a hope of helping to break the curse on the prince.

Don't get be wrong - I'm not saying that I dislike the film. It's just that while Disney does seem to have made the effort of creating an animated film with stronger, three-dimentional characters and interactions than normal, the enhanted objects do, in some respects drag the film down to a more juvinile level.

I'm not really sure how I feel about this - part of me does want Disney to go flat out and make a more mature animated feature. On the other hand a traditional fairytale probably isn't the ideal film to choose to do this. I also know if Disney did do this their returns would not be as great. So in a roundabout way I'm saying Disney were probably right. We can imagine how alternatives would play out, but none of us know.

All I know is that when I first saw the film, the scenes and moments that stuck with me weren't those which involved the objects. I remember Maurice being chased by the wolves in the woods (excellent animation - better than the often-praised Beast's transformation IMOHO), Gaston's song, Belle's introduction, Belle entering the library for the first time, and of course Belle's heartfelt "I love you" to the dying Beast.

I've since softened my opinion of the enchanted objects upon subsequent viewings. I cannot deny that they are great Disney icons. And as I pointed out the selection of object is a clever visual shorthand to the character's personality and purpose. I just have to wonder, were they a comfortable fit in a film with a script and soundtrack so polished as Beauty and the Beast's was? Or are they indeed vital in making the film appeal to the younger viewer? My daughter (who's coming up to seven) seems somewhat indifferent to them, but adores Belle. Would the film have been as popular without them?

Regarding mature animated films, as many of you know Hunchback is my favorite Disney animation, and I do applaud it for it's adult themes, but ultimately by rewriting the ending it's still a children's film playing at being a grown-up film. I'll perhaps write a DIScussions article on this in the near future, but if Disney decides to adapt a book well known for it's "darkness" it should have the courage to stay faithful. After all, although killing Esmaralda would upset the children it didn't stop Walt from filming the ending of Old Yeller did it? And upsetting endings never hurt the original Grimm fairytales or Aesops Fables either.

Disney have only made one truly mature animated film, and distrubuted another - but I'll start a new thread to discuss these.

[Maerj]

Don't get be wrong - I'm not saying that I dislike the film. It's just that while Disney does seem to have made the effort of creating an animated film with stronger, three-dimentional characters and interactions than normal, the enhanted objects do, in some respects drag the film down to a more juvinile level.

I'm not really sure how I feel about this - part of me does want Disney to go flat out and make a more mature animated feature. On the other hand a traditional fairytale probably isn't the ideal film to choose to do this. I also know if Disney did do this their returns would not be as great. So in a roundabout way I'm saying Disney were probably right. We can imagine how alternatives would play out, but none of us know.

I'd say that they have made an all out mature film. Since we are talking Beauty and the Beast... I don't feel that the Enchanted Objects drug the film down to a juvenile level. Adults laughed at them as much as children did, they were comic relief! Just because a character or even several are thrown in with the intention to be funny or to appeal to children doesn't mean that they are dragging the film down to another level.

Did not Shakespeare add bawdy humor to his plays in order to entertain the masses as much as the aristocrats and scholars? Just because he added that kind of humor, it did not drag his work down. You don't find it in the comic section of your local book store! Nay, it is found under literature! Just as Beauty and the Beast was looked at as a mature and wonderful film, so much so that it was nominated for Best Picture by a group of adults, not children.

[Prince Phillip]

Well, I don't think 2099 meant it that way. I see both of your points. It is kind of a shame Beauty and the Beast did not win best picture, but Silence of the Lambs is also a good movie.

I personally would love to see a disney film, wear someone other than a parent dies. Though I think so many people were already so critiquel of Disney for doing Hunchback that if they did keep, say, the whipping scene, or they did let Esmerelda, and if I'm not mistaken, Quosimodo die, there would not have been a good reaction from the audience, and it might have even failed in the box office, although I wouldn't mind personally seeing an alternative version of this classic. But that will never happen.

Also, they were planning on turning Don Quihote into a feature, but thought it to dark, and the visualists of the film did not want to change it. As I hear Backrounds and character Art that were maticulously worked on were beautiful, but are now collecting dust in the archives.

[Matty-Mouse]

I'm gonna keep this short.
I LOVE Beauty and the Beast!
Its easily in my top 5 disney films. Great songs, great characters, great story. Everything is right with this film.

[Joe Carioca]

For me, 'Beauty and the Beast' is perfect in every sense of that word! I think it is the best thing Disney has ever produced. Great story, wonderful songs, magical score, sympathetic characters... Everything is perfect about it.

I never had any problem with the enchanted objects. They aren't annoying and intrusive as the gargoyles in "Hunchback". Actually, I don't think the movie would be the same without them - the enchanted objects are a very important piece of the story. After all, they join Belle and Beast togheter and they give the audience another point of view on the Beast's plight.

"Beauty and the Beast" is GREAT... it deserved the Oscar!!

Also, they were planning on turning Don Quihote into a feature, but thought it to dark, and the visualists of the film did not want to change it. As I hear Backrounds and character Art that were maticulously worked on were beautiful, but are now collecting dust in the archives.

That's right! "Don Quixote" was going to be directed by the talented Brizzi brothers (the directors of "Firebird Suit" from Fantasia 2000 and the responsible for the wonderful prologue of "Hunchback"). But the executive thought the movie was going to be too dark, and they canceled it.
______________________
"Pato Donald! Como vai você? Como vai essa força? Como tem andado? A quanto tempo que não o vejo! Or, as you American say: What's cooking?"
-José Carioca, "The Three Caballeros"[/quote]

[MickeyMouseboy]

Beauty and the Beast- what can i say i was a young kid back then when it came out. i remember the anticipation and the excitement in the air when this movie came out and before it did, the disney stores were packed getting B&B merchandise before the movie came out and after video release. for me to see it in theathers was very magical, Beauty and the Beast will remain one of my favorite disney movies! the animation was very nicely done and use of computers in the ball room scene was the best of all! and seen this movie again in IMAX brought that feel i got back in november of 1991! I so remember watching tv and B&B spots will come up just like the ones on the DVD hehehe also the celine dion and peabo bryson soon played 24/7. newspapers everywhere were talking about it and praising disney like they never had lol it was a exciting event and will always remain been Disney at it's best even after Walt's Death. and i think after this movie was released disney executives new that this new generation of animators, script writers and others, could make great classics! it also had everyone's (public) eyes on Walt Disney Pictures next release and that it wasnt the Disney of the 80s, it had matured up to the level to create superb films and you can notice that will the films that came after. also the songs that Walt put on his movies and were loved by the audience came with Little mermaid and down the line with the Feature animation. so you could say Disney found its way back to making great stuff. like i will always say the Disney of the 80s-90s was the best disney

80's -Disney Channel, Disney Stores and older obscure tittles getting release on Home Video and also re-releases in theathers.

90's- best age of Disney Channel, great merchandise @ disney stores, great animated features, more collector's stuff, release of all the classics on home video.

this is the Disney that i will so dearly miss!

[herman_the_german]

OK, first post here. Don't get me wrong, I like most of the Disney classics, some I consider masterpieces of the cinema. But there is more and more the tendency to find stuff to criticize as we get closer and closer to the present date.
I will state my opinions strongly, but please do not feel insulted by anything I say. I do not mean to insult anybody, and if you disagree, that is fine with me, I do not necessarily wish others to agree with me and will accept opposing viewpoints...



Why is it implied that Belle is an intellectual and liberated woman, when in reality she is just looking for the same thing that Snow White, Cinderella and all other Disney heroines are (all non-liberated types)?

Also, if she fell in love with the Beast, what the hell is she going to do with that prissy Prince she ended up with?

I don't know about you, but I was certainly disappointed. Supposed for example he had turned into somebody like Gaston's lackey. Not that I have anything against short men, many short men project a powerful presence that is very appealing, it is just a "for example".

My point is not one that criticizes Belle as if she were a real person for not truly loving somebody for what they are inside (as opposed to outside appearances).
I am criticizing Disney for doing the same thing over and over again and acting as though they show a modern liberated woman. I have nothing against falling in love with a handsome man or woman. But if you are making a point about loving somebody for what they are inside, then why do you need to make the prince a conventionally handsome man? Making this artistic choice in effect invalidates any point you have previously made regarding appearances. (for example, look at Shrek: a hideous Ogre ends with an overweight, green Ogress. Thus your artistic point regarding outside appearances remains valid).

I would have preferred that the Prince keep some of the physical qualities of the Beast, maybe he would be a rugged hairy guy type. But you could also go the other way and have somebody totally unexpected, like I said before, maybe somebody who is short, or some other quality not necesarilly associated with Disney prince types.

I like the movie. But the two things I do not like are:

a) Gaston is merely a one dimensional villain. If he also had a good side to him, then he would be a really good adversary to the Beast. And Belle would have a really tough time choosing which one he likes best. As it is it is the easiest thing in the world for her to reject him.

b) The faux feminism hiding merely traditional chauvinistic points of view. Belle is presented as an intellectual who seeks more than life than being somebody's wife (see first song). But she ends up with an anti-intellectual pseudo beast (who has merely learned to be tender, but is not even aware of Belle's desire for intellectual growth).

I think this forum is there for us to analyze films (and maybe overdo it, once in a while), so allow me to go on...

I don't really know when or where the story takes place. It happens in a fairy land that doesn't really have anything to do with history or historically accurate situations. The fact that Belle is meant to be a liberated woman within the context of the fairy tale does not bother me.
What bothers me is all the hidden stuff (all the stuff you see only when you've reached a certain point in your analysis.)

The thing about fairy tales is that they keep working (at different times in history) because they are very simple and they deal with very universal (not tied to a time and a place) images. When you try to develop the situation by adding details you run into the problem of ending up with unnecessary details. Thus, in Disney's Snow White, the main character is hardly developed, the developed characters are the dwarves, characters who remain incidental. And, in this way, the power of the fairy tale images retain their strenght. Snow White does not even have a moral (other than "Evil shall perish", maybe).

Beauty & the Beast does try to be didactic. There are several morals the viewer is supposed to "get". One of the things that was injected is this version was Belle's feminism, mainly due to the criticism previous Disney heroines had been subjected to. Belle becomes a strong, intellectual woman, who seeks something more "than this provincial town" can give her. But Disney remains a conservative organization (it has to be), and the ambitions of their female character are compromised.

Please compare Belle's predicament with "Antz". In this example an ant is not satisfied with its role in ant society, and seeks to rebel. As the story develops he falls in love with the ant Princess, overthrows a military group that seeked to develop a master race of only soldier ants (a faulty plan, if anything). Eventually things go back to normal, and the ant learns to accept its role in society. This cannot be construed as anything but a conformist and conservative movie: accept your role in society, don't shake the boat, etc.

Belle's situation is something similar, as the story starts she is openly an intellectual (she reads!), takes iniciative, her liberal views are not accepted by the rest of he society, etc. But as the story ends she has quietly accepted the role of wife to her prince. She will still not be accepted in town, the town is too conservative for that. But she has taken the role of norturer and educator of her beastly prince (who by the way, has not kept up with her in his reading skills. The reading scene you describe is there, but the Beast reads haltingly. Reading has not a priority to him all this time, even though he does own that huge library). She has taken it upon herself to mold the Beast into something resembling a human being.

Belle's feminism is flashy and noticeable, but her acceptance of a woman's traditional role in society is very quietly achieved. You don't even notice it. Ultimately the message of the movie is conservative, not liberal. Same as Antz.

[STASHONE]

hahaha youve got an awesome screen name!

[Prince Phillip]

Herman, it is good to see another person who is not afraid to rock the boat with ideas.

However, I am afraid I have to disagree with you on many points.

You said something about the beauty within thing being trashed because the prince is not ugly, but rather hansome? That is not true. Belle fell inlove with his personality, with him, and he wasn't even human. I guess from a pschological perception or whatever, one may say he should be ugly, but why? Isn't Belle intitled to a happy ending? Yes so it turns out the monster she fell inlove with was a hansome prince, that only makes it that much better, and more accepted by the audience.

Gaston, was a multi-demensional character, because he went from being this hansome arrogant snob, to a comical goof, to a deviase man, to a murderer who would kill the beast, not because he was dangerous, but because he, Gaston, was jealous. The fact that Gaston was the way he was, does not mean he was a complete turn off for Belle, as many women, even the feminist ones, are for some reason turned on by arrogant jerks most of the time. This could have been the same between Belle and Gaston. Refer if you will to Han Solo and Princess Lea.

I wouldn't call Belle a feminist so much, but she wasn't a brainless ditz either, she was a free thinker/spirit or liberist, I guess. What she really wanted was Adventure, to live in a fairytale of her own, like in all the books she read. And by the end she gets that. She is not simply a house wife in a broing town, but a princess in a castle with the love of her life, she is gaurenteed the happy ending that most villagers wouldn't get. (Even if her and Gaston were inlove and got married, her eventually were her down to nothing and then go after younger prettier girls, while she raised the children cooked and cleaned). Belle got her fairytale, she got everything she ever wanted. She did not give in to societal norms, if anything she proved them all wrong, she did go on to something better, achieve something more, she became a princess and can spend the rest of her life reading by the fireplace with her prince, any children they might have and most impotantly, be happy.

That's just what I think anyway, but hey thanks for bringing something new to our attention and welcome to the board!

[herman_the_german]

In Marriage of Figaro, The director has two options in the manner in which to portray Count Almaviva, he can either play him as a buffoon, thus increasing the comedy, or he can play him straight and serious, and in this manner increase the intensity of the drama.

When Rosina apparently leaves Figaro for the Count the whole thing play better if the Count is played straight, the spectator may think that she may actually choose the Count over Figaro. If the Count is played for laughs then this intensity does not happen, there is NO WAY she will chose this clown.

This is what happens in B&TB. Belle at no time seriously considers Gaston as an option, either he is too macho or too much of a clown (or both). I believe this is a weakness in the story. Remember the basics: Boy meets girl, boy loses girl (to another boy), boy gets girl in the end.

In Cocteau's version of La Belle et La Bête, Avenant (the equivalent to Disney's Gaston) the Beast's competitor is actually loved by Belle, and it is he who convinces Belle to remain. Thus we have a nice love triangle, and actual competition between these two males. We have more intense Drama and we actually have more Romance (we also have a weaker Beast, but that is in keeping with the original tale).

Please also see Tarzan for another unrealized love triangle. Clayton SHOULD have been a contender (even according to Burrough's novel). But ultimately he isn't. Jane is too obviously taken by Tarzan, and Clayton is too much of a one note character to be of interest to her.

Think of all the episodes in which Olive seriously considers choosing Bluto over Popeye, and compare them to the episodes in which Bluto is at no time a threat to the Popeye-Olive relationship. The former are stronger and more interesting than the latter.

By choosing to play the characters in such black and white notes, we lose a LOT of dramatic potential to the detriment of the story.

[Prince Adam]

Despite all its flaws (I admit-there are just a few) I LOVE Beauty and the Beast. It's my #1 favourite movie of all time.