JUST A LITTLE CHANGE: THE ISSUE WITH THE BARELY DIFFERENT REMAKE
Photo Credit: Walt Disney Pictures, TriStar Pictures, Warner Bros, 20th Century Fox.
Some of the most memorable lyrics from the titular song from “Beauty and the Beast” say “Just a little change/small to say the least.” When I hear those words, I hear the voice of Angela Lansbury, and I visualize an animated singing teapot. Now, a new generation is about to grow up with a new vision and version of this classic. A version that, in my opinion, is subpar, with too little change.
This month has brought us a slew of remakes, “reimaginings,” and sequels. The issue arises when they are “ever just the same,” which begs the question: why are these being made if they’re going to be so close to the original? Is it purely for profit (hint: most likely since Beauty and the Beast dominated its opening weekend at the box office) and are we truly out of original ideas? No film raises this question more than the “Beauty and the Beast” remake.
First we had “Logan”, which I adored. I thought it was a shining example of what a sequel could be, when a sequel is willing to say kiss off to the franchise. It built on the best parts of our pre-existing affinity for its characters and ignored the baggage of its predecessors.
First we had “Logan”, which I adored. I thought it was a shining example of what a sequel could be, when a sequel is willing to say kiss off to the franchise. It built on the best parts of our pre-existing affinity for its characters and ignored the baggage of its predecessors.
Then came the star-studded “Kong: Skull Island”, which revamped the origins of King Kong. Revamped might be too generous, as Kong’s story more or less stayed similar to the 1933 or even 2005 version. The main change was the era and characters who discovered him. The film is set during the Vietnam War, and aside from the throwaway plot points about an overly large cast of human characters, the film still distills down to: giant ape fights things. The film most likely exists strictly to set up an upcoming Kong/Godzilla franchise.
Then there’s the 21-years-in-the-making sequel to “Trainspotting”, which reunites the original cast of Ewan McGregor, Robert Carlyle, Ewan Bremner, Jonny Lee Miller, and Kelly MacDonald with director Danny Boyle. In an interview I did with Boyle, he explained that while they’d explored the possibility of a sequel before, it was the amount of time that passed that ended up providing the compelling reason for the new film. The opportunity for a mid-life crisis plotline was the catalyst the storytellers needed in order to make the sequel work.
Then there’s the 21-years-in-the-making sequel to “Trainspotting”, which reunites the original cast of Ewan McGregor, Robert Carlyle, Ewan Bremner, Jonny Lee Miller, and Kelly MacDonald with director Danny Boyle. In an interview I did with Boyle, he explained that while they’d explored the possibility of a sequel before, it was the amount of time that passed that ended up providing the compelling reason for the new film. The opportunity for a mid-life crisis plotline was the catalyst the storytellers needed in order to make the sequel work.
At the end of the day, the sequel does lift many plot points from the original film. Everyone is older, moves a bit slower, but is up to the same old mischief. Nostalgia is such a huge factor that one could almost even identify it as a character. At least the film is self-aware enough to know when to blend the classic elements of the first, and when to infuse it with new shenanigans.
“T2: Trainspotting” and “Logan” set themselves apart from the likes of “Kong: Skull Island” as they have the advantage of knowing their protagonists through and through. They also focus on those characters instead of trying to weave together an ensemble with the sole purpose of squeezing as many actors’ names into the top billing as possible. They know they are sequels, instead of a bastardized remake or origins story.
Then there’s “Beauty and the Beast”, which is neither sequel nor outright reinterpretation. It comes in a long line of Disney live-action films based on the animated classics. Beauty and the Beast is probably the most frustrating perpetrator of the lot. There are times when they recreate sequences from the animated version shot for shot. To do so not just invites but demands comparison to the original.
They do add supplemental material to the film, but to me, only a few points truly served to add value. I will applaud them for a few additions: they add a prologue explaining why the Beast should be punished. This is a mild improvement over the animated version, which has an enchantress punishing what should have been a barely teenage child for not being particularly kind to a complete stranger. Clearly in the original, medieval France did not preach “stranger danger.” They also pepper in some additional material about Belle’s education and passion for books. It becomes a cornerstone for her and the Beast’s relationship.
Belle has always been an odd princess in the Disney family. She paved the way for some of her more ethnically diverse and non-romantically driven successors by being “different,” even if that difference was simply that she was literate. Disney did a great job in casting Emma Watson. This is not necessarily because of her acting, and certainly not because of her singing. But it’s hard to separate her real life persona and activism from the character, and you cannot fault a young actress who uses her fame to fight for women’s rights and education for taking a role that can be used to amplify that.
“T2: Trainspotting” and “Logan” set themselves apart from the likes of “Kong: Skull Island” as they have the advantage of knowing their protagonists through and through. They also focus on those characters instead of trying to weave together an ensemble with the sole purpose of squeezing as many actors’ names into the top billing as possible. They know they are sequels, instead of a bastardized remake or origins story.
Then there’s “Beauty and the Beast”, which is neither sequel nor outright reinterpretation. It comes in a long line of Disney live-action films based on the animated classics. Beauty and the Beast is probably the most frustrating perpetrator of the lot. There are times when they recreate sequences from the animated version shot for shot. To do so not just invites but demands comparison to the original.
They do add supplemental material to the film, but to me, only a few points truly served to add value. I will applaud them for a few additions: they add a prologue explaining why the Beast should be punished. This is a mild improvement over the animated version, which has an enchantress punishing what should have been a barely teenage child for not being particularly kind to a complete stranger. Clearly in the original, medieval France did not preach “stranger danger.” They also pepper in some additional material about Belle’s education and passion for books. It becomes a cornerstone for her and the Beast’s relationship.
Belle has always been an odd princess in the Disney family. She paved the way for some of her more ethnically diverse and non-romantically driven successors by being “different,” even if that difference was simply that she was literate. Disney did a great job in casting Emma Watson. This is not necessarily because of her acting, and certainly not because of her singing. But it’s hard to separate her real life persona and activism from the character, and you cannot fault a young actress who uses her fame to fight for women’s rights and education for taking a role that can be used to amplify that.
The rest of the cast boasts an impressive pedigree. Ian McKellen (Cogsworth), Ewan McGregor (Lumiere), Gugu Mbatha-Raw (Plumette) and Emma Thompson (Mrs. Potts) take on the mantles of the house staff we know so well from the original. Audra McDonald and Stanley Tucci voice Madame Garderobe and Maestro Cadenza respectively. They beget a storyline about a married wardrobe and piano that we could have done entirely without. Kevin Kline portrays Belle’s father, Maurice, who is a bit more grounded in this version, but still a bumbling necessity. Luke Evans is the spitting physical image of the animated Gaston, kudos to the casting directors on that one.
Finally, there are two characters who undergo the most dramatic transformation from the original: Dan Stevens as the Beast and Josh Gad as LeFou.
It’s one thing to see a 2D animated princess fall in love with a man-gorilla-lion-buffalo caricature. It’s quite another to see the flesh and blood Belle interact with a CG creature that has Dan Steven’s very human looking eyes. As a fan of Stevens from Legion and Downton Abbey, this was an odd role to see (or mostly hear) him in since most of his time onscreen is rendered by a computer. The overuse of CG adds a creepy hollow feeling that overshadows to their romance.
Finally, there are two characters who undergo the most dramatic transformation from the original: Dan Stevens as the Beast and Josh Gad as LeFou.
It’s one thing to see a 2D animated princess fall in love with a man-gorilla-lion-buffalo caricature. It’s quite another to see the flesh and blood Belle interact with a CG creature that has Dan Steven’s very human looking eyes. As a fan of Stevens from Legion and Downton Abbey, this was an odd role to see (or mostly hear) him in since most of his time onscreen is rendered by a computer. The overuse of CG adds a creepy hollow feeling that overshadows to their romance.
I would be remiss if I didn’t mention the “big controversy” of Disney’s first gay character – a character who appears in a film about a woman with Stockholm syndrome being held captive by a man-buffalo – but sure, let’s focus on the micro-moment of homosexuality. Gad’s LeFou is less of a clumsy henchman in this rendition, and more of a friend-zoned sycophant. He does get a redeeming arc that is dramatically different than the original film, but it’s not tied to his sexuality. The moment of acknowledging his homosexuality is SO minute that the uproar over it is neanderthalic.
Here’s is the issue: Disney did not push the changes far enough. If LeFou is going to be gay, have him be gay the whole time, not in a micro-moment at the end. If there are going to be people of color in this fantasy France, that’s great! But don’t relegate them to chorus members or minor roles of the house staff. Sure, take inspiration from the brilliant original score and animation, but don’t recreate it shot for shot, word for word, note for note.
The majority of the additions they did make only served to bloat the film. It runs 45 minutes over the original, and that time doesn’t accomplish much that the first wasn’t able to do more concisely. In fact, some of the additional scenes raised plot issues that the first did not suffer from. The redesign of the animated characters is unnecessary, and often unnerving. Also, for a film aimed at children, the one thing they did choose to push was the rating. I recall as a child having nightmares off of the G-rated original. I don’t envy the parents who are going to have to deal with the aftermath of some of the darker scenes in the PG remake.
The first “Beauty and the Beast “was far from perfect, but it was pretty darn good in my book. If it was going to be remade it needed to be dramatically overhauled, and Disney did not do that. Instead, they shot themselves in the foot by picking such iconic moments to recreate and ultimately only weigh down with waste.
At least “T2: Trainspotting”, “Logan”, and “Kong: Skull Islan”d knew that they needed to acknowledge the core parts of their predecessors without trying to verbatim copy them. So with all due respect to Emma Thompson as the new Mrs. Potts, I’m going to go ahead and put on the original so I can enjoy what will always be the tale as old as time.
Here’s is the issue: Disney did not push the changes far enough. If LeFou is going to be gay, have him be gay the whole time, not in a micro-moment at the end. If there are going to be people of color in this fantasy France, that’s great! But don’t relegate them to chorus members or minor roles of the house staff. Sure, take inspiration from the brilliant original score and animation, but don’t recreate it shot for shot, word for word, note for note.
The majority of the additions they did make only served to bloat the film. It runs 45 minutes over the original, and that time doesn’t accomplish much that the first wasn’t able to do more concisely. In fact, some of the additional scenes raised plot issues that the first did not suffer from. The redesign of the animated characters is unnecessary, and often unnerving. Also, for a film aimed at children, the one thing they did choose to push was the rating. I recall as a child having nightmares off of the G-rated original. I don’t envy the parents who are going to have to deal with the aftermath of some of the darker scenes in the PG remake.
The first “Beauty and the Beast “was far from perfect, but it was pretty darn good in my book. If it was going to be remade it needed to be dramatically overhauled, and Disney did not do that. Instead, they shot themselves in the foot by picking such iconic moments to recreate and ultimately only weigh down with waste.
At least “T2: Trainspotting”, “Logan”, and “Kong: Skull Islan”d knew that they needed to acknowledge the core parts of their predecessors without trying to verbatim copy them. So with all due respect to Emma Thompson as the new Mrs. Potts, I’m going to go ahead and put on the original so I can enjoy what will always be the tale as old as time.
This article originally appeared on KFOG.com on March 20, 2017