I do like the film a lot. There is a lot of enjoyment you can get this film such as the musical numbers and the performances of actors.
But then there is stuff that is left unexplained or ambiguous or really should be left like the original. Then there's the cinematography.
But let's get to the good part first before I express my confusion. I know there is a novelization but I am taking it from the film only.
The first thing I noticed was the fast pacing. It went along just as much as the original film's pacing.
The romance is much better handled. The Beast still gave Belle the library (and the love the adorable squealing Belle let out after he left) and they have a snowball fight. They have shown a connection through their likes but I wasn't sure if the Beast knew her inventive mind though. Now that I thought of her inventive mind, wouldn't Belle's scientific mind questioned the fact they are alive; well she certainly freaked out but grew to accepted their existence once she puts together they got cursed. Digressing again,
Belle here experienced little character development...which makes sense though. I mean at the beginning she hasn't shown any flaws that she needs to get over. As a character, she isn't a Mary Sue but does stay true for what she is; she didn't get the village's anti-intellectualism and Stay in the Kitchen tendencies. She is an inventor, perhaps a bit of a romantic given she likes Romeo and Juliet (given what the Beast expresses, either the writers fail to see that it's a tragedy or they just went with the misled view of the play which is pretty much universal; it's hard to tell to be honest....why couldn't her favorite Shakespeare play be Midsummer's Night Dream? I mean that's my favorite play of Shakespeare and always so magical to even watch it. Could even go into more analysis there, movie? I know this is a movie for all ages but seriously wouldn't mind a little intellectual talk about themes? Motifs? Metatalk?).
It's still the Beast's story though. I wish it was the Belle and the Beast's story, not just romantically but also character development-wise as well. Belle obviously wasn't perfect personality-wise; she's a strong female heroine and did that job well. I want to see more of her inventiveness than just her kindness and strong-will. I want to see her flaws.
I want to see more that Beast was a victim of circumstances and perhaps even grief that he allowed his father to consume him.
If the story's Aesop is "learning when you're wrong", then Belle also have to learn that lesson. Not just the Enchantress.
So much potential, character-wise in the main protagonists.
For what the film is now, it's okay in the character development department. I felt too much like a frame-by-frame adaptation...except much better executed. They got rid of the plot-holes but I feel overall that as an expanded adaptation, it did well. Not so much when there were potential there.
The musical numbers visually were great. Even though the cinematography didn't do as great justice as it did; for example, the Belle number has several close-up shots of Emma or sometimes group shots of people staring at Belle? I couldn't see because the shots were lining towards the walking Belle. There were times CGI of the castle doesn't do it justice like the Evermore number particularly towards the end where the camera backs away to have Emma leave the gates. It looks unnatural. They could've made it look like Cinderella 2015's set pieces at least, unreal but look real.
Any references from the fairytales or the Jean Cocteau version makes me starry-eyed. The rose request is something I always love to see just as I love the fact Cinderella asked for a tree branch in the 2015 film. The arm torches and the Beast's design are still amazing to see just as much as seeing the Cocteau and the later remake.
While I know in the original film in that stained glass prologue shows the prince as either a teenager or an adult, I thought it should have been left the prince a kid and show the passing of time much better around.
What I am going on about is the passing of time. Now we don't know how long it has been passed since Belle and Maurice moved into town. In my headcanon, they have lived there for about over two years. It was mentioned when Maurice was to leave for the market I think that he traveled before to buy for years. In a deleted scene, Belle revealed that she and Maurice moved into town 12 years ago. On that note, I really like the fact they are lifting the rose request from the fairytale that he had traveled the route before.
It makes it even more difficult to comprehend the time passing when we know of the ages. Had time been literally frozen in the castle's sphere? Or it had been passed just as much time in the outside world? The latter I go behind because it wouldn't make sense otherwise in the former. The Beast has mentioned he hasn't danced in years. In the prolog, we can clearly see him as an adult at what age?
I wonder if Belle and Maurice have been village-hopping until they settle into the village near the castle. I mean we don't know how long they have been there. Belle mentioned the village is small and she met all the boys already in town. We got that part of the lyrics of Belle that they 'came' to the village but how long they have been there is the question.
Given that the plague is going around in Paris, placing it around the Black Death era. Then there are the pompadours that they have in the beginning
No comments:
Post a Comment