Fairy Tale Media Fix: Beauty and the Beast (2017)

THEY DID THE BIT WITH THE ROSE!

Ahem!

I’m getting ahead of myself.

I recently went to see Disney’s latest adaptation of the fairy tale “Beauty and the Beast” starring Emma Watson and Dan Stevens and directed by Bill Condon.  And as the centerpiece of Beauty and the Beast Month, I present my reaction/review of it.  Beware, for there may be SPOILERS ahead.

Before I go any further let’s acknowledge something about this movie: it does not reinvent the story of Beauty and the Beast.  This movie follows the same basic plot as the 1991 animated movie.  If you’re looking for a “twist” on the story, this isn’t that movie and it’s not trying to be.

When it comes to adaptations of well-known stories like this, the more important thing is the details and how they’re handled.  And if you want my opinion, this film handles those details very well.

This version of Beauty and the Beast even makes a point of fixing some of the holes in the original film like why the Prince’s servants are cursed too, how old the Prince was when he was cursed and how people managed to just forget about a member of the royalty after he was cursed.  And all these things are woven into the story in a way that doesn’t halt the story or take anything away from it.  In addition, we learn more about our main characters.  The reason for the Beast’s heartlessness when he was human comes forward.  We learn more about what happened to Belle’s mother.  Overall, the entire movie just offers a deeper look at what the animated movie set forth.

Heck, even some of the most unexpected side characters get some depth.  Take LeFou, for instance.

Yes, LeFou.  The guy who’s had this whole controversy surrounding him because the movie depicts him as gay (for the record, I don’t care).  In the animated film, LeFou was a tiny comical toady who followed Gaston around and did his bidding.  He was the human equivalent of an animal sidekick in a movie where most of the sidekicks are housewares.  His crowning accomplishment in the animated film is that he sang the song “Gaston”.  In the live action film, he starts as Gaston’s sidekick but is quickly shown to be a man with a conscience but a weak will.  He even finds the nerve to change sides later on.  LeFou is one of the characters that had the most growth in the move from animation to live action.  And his sexuality ,or the tiny hint there is of it, really kind of pales in comparison to the fact that he actually feels like a character now.

Gaston himself shows his malicious side a lot sooner in the live action film.  Whether you like that or not is likely going to come down to personal taste.

There are other things I like.  For example, the Beast and Belle actually bond over Shakespeare in the live action film.  And it’s not just “I love that book too”.  They actually disagree about it.  Score a point for intelligent conversation.

The production design is gorgeous.  They really seemed to go all-in for the French Baroque opulence on the Beast’s castle.  The designs for the enchanted objects are all entertaining and interesting.  I especially like the birdlike design of the Plumette the feather duster.  There’s even a nod to the Cocteau film with two lamps held up by arms outside the entrance to the castle.  Though, I think that detail may have been in the animated film too.

The film has all the songs from the animated film except the reprise of “Gaston”.  There are also three new songs.  “How Does a Moment Last Forever” is the new end credits song and both Maurice and Belle get to sing a bit of it.  “Days in the Sun” is a song primarily sung by the enchanted servants about their hope to be unenchanted.  And “Evermore” is a torch song for the Beast.  And these are all really new songs.  I checked to see if they were ported over from the Broadway production and they weren’t.  The new songs are all pretty good.  One little issue about the music, though.  You can tell that some of the actors aren’t really singers.  They’re not terrible, but you can tell that they’re not really vocalists by profession.  They still commit themselves admirably to the task.  It didn’t bother me, but it might bother other people.  It certainly didn’t stop me from buying the soundtrack.

There are other flaws.  The reasoning for the Beast’s cruelty when he was human is introduced and moves by very quickly.  That moment probably could have been given some more exploration and time to breathe.  Also, while it was great to learn more about Belle’s mother and Belle’s desire to know more about her does connect to one very important scene, that importance is maybe a little too understated .  Also, Ewan MacGregor’s French accent as Lumiere is pretty bad.  But these are minor things, really.  Even with these flaws, it’s hardly Disney’s worst Beauty and the Beast production.

Well, I guess that really is it and I . . . oh wait, I forgot about the rose scene.

Now, this is a part of the film that doesn’t necessarily make it a better movie, but makes it a slightly better fairy tale adaptation in my book (after all, I’m not a professional film critic so take my assessments with a grain of salt).  But one of my biggest pet peeves about the 1991 animated film is that they dropped the part about Belle asking her father for a rose.  In the fairy tale, when Belle’s father is going on a business trip he asks his children what he should bring them back.  Belle’s sisters ask for jewels and finery but Belle asks for a rose.  Belle’s father then gets lost and gets treated to some mysterious hospitality at the Beast’s castle.  But on the way out he picks a rose for Belle.  This angers the Beast who accuses him of stealing and that kicks off the main action of the story.  Now, the animated film cut that part out.  Probably because they also cut out Belle’s sisters and that negated the point of her asking for a humble gift.  The rose was repurposed as a symbol of the Beast’s imprisonment and the story’s proverbial ticking clock.  But it’s still an awful shame to cut that part.  It’s one of the most iconic parts of the story.  The live action film reintroduces the rose request, but how do they do it without Belle’s sisters being put back into the mix?  They make it a symbolic connection to Belle’s long lost mother.  I don’t know about anyone else, but I think it works.

Overall, I think this is a highly entertaining film.  It’s beautiful, adds depth to some established characters, has some entertaining songs and tugs on the heart strings.  It’s maybe not going to please everyone (for example: if you still see the whole story as an ode to Stockholm Syndrome, this film is not going to change that.  Sorry).  But I think if you like Disney’s previous reimaginings of its classic properties then I think you’ll like this.

Four-Color Fairy Tales: Fashion Beast.

You know, I feel like for Beauty and the Beast Month I should really tackle something with some more bite to it.  Something that’s edgy and offbeat and subversive and very much not for kids.

How about a version of “Beauty and the Beast” set in a dystopian version of the ‘80s fashion industry and devised by the creator of the punk movement and written by the man who created the deconstructionist superhero comic book Watchmen?

Fashion Beast, as this comic is called, was created from an idea by Malcolm McLaren.  McLaren was a British impresario and artist in many fields but is probably best remembered for managing the pioneering punk band The Sex Pistols.  It is written by writer Alan Moore, a man best known for deconstructing superheroes with Watchmen as well as creating other groundbreaking works like From Hell, V for Vendetta and The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen.  The story is adapted to the page by Antony Johnson and Facundo Percio.

Fashion Beast was dreamt up by McClaren as a fictionalized version of the life story of designer Christian Dior mashed up with the fairy tale “Beauty and the Beast”, with a heavy influence from Jean Cocteau’s film adaptation.  The Introduction by Alan Moore states that the story for Fashion Beast was originally devised as a movie during a time when McLaren was experimenting with film.  For various reasons, the movie wasn’t made and the screenplay for it languished in obscurity until William Christensen from Avatar Press discovered it and asked Moore if they could adapt it into a comic book.  Moore asked McLaren and pretty soon things were off and running.  The collected edition of the comic hit stands in 2013.

The story itself takes place in an undisclosed city in a world that’s on the verge of nuclear winter.  The main character is a woman named Doll Seguin who works initially as the coat check girl at a nightclub.  This lasts until a fateful encounter with an aspiring designer named Jonni Tare gets her fired from her job.  Seeking employment, she goes and auditions to be a model or “mannequin” for reclusive designer Jean Claude Celestine (notably, Jonni Tare also works for Celestine as the person in charge of dressing the models).  Celestine is a man who no one sees because he never leaves his studio.  Rumor is that he’s ugly and deformed, a wretched-looking reclusive genius.  During the course of her audition, Doll leaves the building while wearing one of Celestine’s designs and gets assaulted by a mob.  The dress is now ruined but rather than run away returns to explain what happened to the dress and return it to its owner.  This sets Doll on her path as Celestine’s chief model and the heroine of a surprisingly good “Beauty and the Beast” adaptation.

Alan Moore has a reputation of being one of the best comic book writers in the world.  Personally, I’ve always found his work to be more of an acquired taste.  Sometimes I like his work, sometimes I don’t.  However, I’m impressed with this.

It’s interesting to see all the parts from the original story that find their place in this one even if they’re in an unexpected place.  Doll Seguin is Belle, but she’s also Belle’s father.  She’s the one who goes to live with the Beast in his castle, but also the one who loses her source of income and goes to recover it only to pluck the metaphorical rose.  Doll doesn’t have shrewish sisters in this story, but they are reborn as Celestine’s shrewish keepers.  Jonni Tare is essentially the Prince reborn in a separate character from the Beast (a reading that will make more sense if you read the comic).  And Celestine, of course, is the Beast.  There are even “blink-and-you’ll-miss-them” callbacks to the original story.  In many versions of the story, one of the traits of the Beast’s garden is that half of it is always in Summer while the other is always in Winter.  In one scene between Jonni and Doll, Jonni notes that even though they may be on the verge of nuclear winter there are only two seasons in Celestine’s salon: Spring and Fall.  This is because there are a Spring collection and an Fall collection.  Perhaps a little bit of a stretch for some to notice, but a nice callback nonetheless and one that fits in the fashion world depicted in the comic.

The somewhat haggard-looking Mr. Alan Moore.

The nature of this comic also allows Moore (as he usually does) to make some commentary on the wider world, as well as to outwardly state some of the subtext that could be seen in the original story.  In one scene, Jonni Tare talks about why he thinks Celestine designs clothes the way he does.  He describes both Celestine and his designs as being too demure and sexually repressed and muses on what the effect of being locked up like that is.  And come to think of it, that could be a perfectly good allegorical reading of the Beast himself if you’re into that sort of thinking.  Man’s more animalistic, sexual nature but isolated and locked up and held at bay by his own shame.  In many versions of “Beauty and the Beast”, the Beast is often depicted as something of a passive-aggressive sad-sack who is prone to some degree of self-flagellation.  Celestine is certainly no different.  Almost to underscore how sterile everything is in Celestine’s salon, the seamstresses and tailors who put together his designs do so in uniforms that resemble surgical scrubs, complete with face masks.  Celestine himself engages in a speech about fashion, clothes and the power of appearances that is frightening but also has a ring of truth to it.    Even those who are interested in the study of gender in fairy tales or comic books might have an interest in this because according to the introduction, Doll is supposed to look like “a woman who looks like a man trying to look like a woman” and Jonni is supposed to look like “a man who looks like a woman trying to look like a man”.  And that is largely the tip of the iceberg when it comes to commentary.

Fashion Beast is an interesting and challenging take on the “Beauty and the Beast” story.  It’s also one that has a few twists to it that I won’t spoil.  I’d definitely suggest it for anyone looking for a decidedly different take on this story.  Perhaps not Alan Moore’s most definitive work, but one that’s definitely worth a look.

Fairy Tale Media Fix: Beauty and the Beast (2014)

Hey, everybody!  Guess what!  It’s Beauty and the Beast Month here at Fairy Tale Fandom.

That’s right!  For the rest of March I’m going to focus on posts about that tale as old as time, “La Belle et la Bete”!  This will include a review of the new Disney adaptation at some point.

But for today, I thought I’d focus on the version of Beauty and the Beast that beat Disney’s live action outing to theaters by a whole three years.  The difference is that this movie came out in France.

This specific version of Beauty and the Beast is directed by Christophe Gans and stars Lea Seydoux and Vincent Cassel as the two title characters.  For a long time, I thought American audiences wouldn’t get to see this version.  But thanks to the good folks at Shout! Factory, it’s now available on DVD with an English dub (Good old Shout! Factory.  How can you hate someone who gives you DVDs of French fairy tale movies, Japanese superhero shows and Mystery Science Theater 3000?).

The basic story is the same as the one set forth by Mme. Villeneuve and Mme. Beaumont.  Belle is the daughter of a rich merchant and has two spoiled sisters and three mostly spoiled brothers (the youngest brother is kind of okay).  The family loses all its fortune when three of the patriarch’s ships are lost at sea.  So, they retreat to a small house in the country where everyone acts like a spoiled pain in the neck except Belle herself.  When the father finds out that one of his ships has been salvaged, he goes to the port with a list of gifts for his children in hand, including Belle’s request for a rose.  The father’s luck does not improve as his ship’s cargo is seized by his creditors and he gets lost in the forest on his way home.  In the forest he finds a seemingly abandoned castle where he finds food and gifts laid out for him to take.  However, on his way out he picks one rose for Belle.  This angers the Beast who owns the castle.  He allows the father to return home and say goodbye but demands he return on pain of death.  “A life for a rose”, he demands.  And if you know this story, you know Belle does not take this lying down.

So, yeah, that was an awful lot of recap I dropped on you.  But I wanted to make a point.  Namely, that they included a lot of the stuff that got left out of the Disney version.  In fact, they include a lot of stuff that no one would blame them from dropping.  They even keep the dreams Belle has where she sees the Prince, though they’re often used here to explain the Beast/Prince’s back story.  Though, there are things that are left out.  For example, Mme. Villeneuve’s version of the story ends with Belle’s mother showing up to reveal that Belle is actually a fairy princess or something like that.  A lot of adaptations ignore that part, and this one is no different.

The one thing in “Beauty and the Beast” adaptations that it seems like everyone gets to do their own take on is the backstory of the Beast.  In the earliest version by Mme. Villeneuve, the prince simply turned away the unwanted advances of a fairy.  The fairy cursed him because she was being petty and vindictive.  In Jean Cocteau’s famous version, he was punished because he and his family did not believe in magic (yes, that’s about all the explanation that’s given).  In Disney’s version, it was because the prince turned away an ugly old beggar woman who turned out to be an enchantress.  Now, this movie also has its own take.  You see, it’s revealed through Belle’s dreams that the prince was constantly involved in a hunt for a golden deer.  He had other things in his life including a court and his wife, but the hunt seemed to take up a good part of his time.  One day, he finally manages to hunt down and kill the deer.  However, it turns out that the deer isn’t really a deer.  The deer was just another form of a person, and it was a person that he knew and loved dearly.  It’s then that the “god of the forest” curses the prince to be a beast.  On top of that, the rose bush is shown growing from where the golden deer fell, explaining why the roses are so precious to him.

It’s a different take.  It’s an unexpected take.  And it’s kind of a fitting, interesting take.

The overwhelming moral or lesson or theme that’s long been associated with “Beauty and the Beast” has always been “look beneath the surface” or “don’t judge by appearances”.  There’s still some of that in this version, but there’s another theme that runs through the whole thing and you might not even see it at first.  The theme is the damage and harm that people can inadvertently do to each other.  If you think about it, it’s always been there in the story.  Belle’s father thinks he’s doing right by his family by giving them everything they want, but instead he makes Belle’s siblings spoiled, lazy and arrogant.  Belle thinks asking her father for a rose is a simple request, but it turns out to be a request that has a big impact on her family.  She also doesn’t think it’s a big deal to stay away from the castle longer when the Beast lets her go, but it’s a decision that nearly kills the Beast.  The new villain who’s added to this movie also supports this reading.  It’s not strange for new villains to be added to the story of “Beauty and the Beast”.  Jean Cocteau’s version added a hunter named Avenant who was also a suitor for Belle.  Disney did much the same thing but named theirs Gaston.  In both cases, they were handsome men who were monstrous underneath the surface.  Gans’s film takes a different approach.  The villain in this version is a thug named Perducas.  Perducas is neither beautiful on the surface or underneath.  He also has no desire to stake a claim on Belle.  In short, he’s nothing like either Avenant or Gaston.  Instead, he’s a criminal who Belle’s brother owes a lot of money to.  He’s also the one that Belle’s father is running from when he goes into the forest and stumbles on the castle.  At the end of the film, Perducas along with his own men and Belle’s brothers go to the Beast’s castle because Belle’s brother has convinced Perducas that it’s filled with treasure (specifically, enough to pay off his debt).  Perducas’s involvement is another way that someone’s choices have an unforeseen impact.  In this case, it’s the brother’s debts that now impact the life and home of the Beast.

At least, that’s my reading of it right now.  Ask me after the next time I watch it and I might tell you something different.

Visually, the film is absolutely stunning.  Every frame is gorgeous to look at.  Even when some of it takes a turn for the strange, like the introduction of the strange doglike creatures called Tadommes, everything else looks beautiful enough that it’s easy to overlook it.  Though this version is far more elaborate and features far more special effects, it’s easy to see the influence of JeanCocteau’s classic 1946 film in it.  The Beast’s design is essentially a modernized version of the one from Cocteau’s film.  Lea Seydoux’s stern and reserved resistance to the Beast while in his custody is reminiscent of Josette Day’s performance in the 1946 film.  Even the prince’s hunt for the golden deer is reminiscent of elements of classical mythology that Coctea drew on in his film.  Yet, the film always feels like it’s paying homage rather than simply aping Cocteau’s film.

I like this film.  While it may not be quite the drastic reimagining some people might want, I think it’s a solid adaptation that still manages to find its own voice.  Give it a try if you get the chance.

Fairy Tale Media Fix: Duck Tales episode "Scroogerello"

Well, let’s see.  I just watched The Tale of Tales.  And there’s some controversy over one of the characters in the new Beauty and the Beast movie being gay . . . Honestly, none of that seems like much fun to write about right now.

I know.  Why don’t we wallow in unabashed nostalgia instead?

I don’t know how many of you follow the world of TV animation these days, but if you have been then you know that Disney XD has a new Duck Tales series in the works.  They even released a new trailer for it.  Duck Tales is a cartoon series inspired by the Donald Duck and Uncle Scrooge comic books by artist Carl Barks.  The cartoon and comics follow Scrooge McDuck, the richest and possibly greediest duck in the world, and his great-nephews Huey, Dewey and Louie and other assorted characters as they travel around the world hunting for treasure and getting into all sorts of adventures.  I used to watch the original Duck Tales cartoon from the late ‘80s when I was a kid.  It’s safe to say I’m hyped for the new one.  As I mentioned in my “Me and the Mouse” post from way back when, I actually have more nostalgia for Disney’s animated TV shows than for their animated movies.

Carl Barks: The Good Duck Artist

So, why am I talking about Duck Tales here and now?  Well, the thing is that it’s a pretty common practice in cartoons from the ‘80s and early ‘90s and even today to have a fairy tale themed episode in which the characters take on the roles of fairy tale characters.  It’s a common enough thing that I’m surprised I haven’t found a TV Tropes page about it.  Most of the time, the inspiration will be “Cinderella” but it’s not unheard of for other popular tales to be used and sometimes they even do mash-ups of various stories.  I remember that Alvin and the Chipmunks had a “Cinderella” one.  Muppet Babies had one based on “Sleeping Beauty” that was heavily inspired by the Disney film.  Rocko’s Modern Life had one that was a mash-up of various fairy tales.  And of course, Duck Tales had one.

Woo-oo!

I know what you’re going to ask now: Is he really going to do a whole post about one episode from a cartoon that’s over twenty years old?  Yes.  Yes I am.  Perhaps we’ll come up with some interesting thoughts or discoveries along the way.

The episode “Scroogerello” (Season 1, Episode 47) starts with Scrooge and his nephews eating breakfast.  Scrooge though, is rather the worse for wear as he seems to have a bad cold.  Scrooge’s family and servants notice this and after much hemming and hawing manage to get Scrooge to go back to bed.

Scrooge, however, is still pissed and he’s taking it out on the servants.  Especially after the nanny/housekeeper Mrs. Beakley threatens to throw away some of his precious money if he doesn’t stay in bed and the butler Duckworth tries to feed him some cod liver oil.  It’s at this point that little Webbigail comes in with a conspicuously heavy bowl of soup and proceeds to accidentally spill it in Scrooge’s lap.  Webby then proceeds to try and make Scrooge feel better by reading him a story, so she proceeds to tell him the story of “Cinderella” as Scrooge drifts into a fevered sleep.

Now, as Scrooge dreams, what we get is a gender-flipped version of “Cinderella”.  At least, for the most part (more on that a little later).  Naturally, all the roles are played by Duck Tales characters.  It starts with Scrooge in the part of Cinderella or rather Scroogerello.  Scroogerello’s wicked step-brothers are played by the Beagle Boys (Big-Time, Burger and Bugle, if you want to get specific) and his step-father is his arch-nemesis Flintheart Glomgold.  As is expected, Scroogerello gets the usual Cinderella treatment, having to work like a dog for his step-family.  While Scroogerello is gathering water, he overhears his step-family plotting to attend Princess Goldie’s ball so they can get their hands on all her money.  Realizing they’re being overheard, the Beagle Brothers grab Scroogerello and throw him in the basement, where it seems they’ve thrown everyone who’s angered them.  This includes three Junior Woodchucks (Huey, Dewey and Louie) who were selling cookies and Glomgold’s old butler (Duckworth) who was locked away for trying to give his employer cod liver oil (“Subconscious guilt delivery for Scrooge!”)  Soon, who shows up but Mrs. Beakley playing the Fairy Godmother and Webby as the Fairy Godchild-in-Training.  From here, the “Cinderella” story plays out pretty much as expected with some small changes.  The boys take the roles of the mice/chauffeurs and their boxes of cookies take the form of the coach/limo.  And Scrooge is dressed up in a golden tuxedo and magic top hat.  Naturally, he goes to the ball and Princess Goldie falls for him.

Now, this is where the story goes off the rails.  You see, rather than deal with any competition, the Beagle Boys and Glomgold decide to just kidnap the princess.  What follows is a chase that ends abruptly at midnight, a trek through some woods and an encounter with Prince Lilypad McQuack (Launchpad McQuack in a Frog Prince riff).  This is roughly the place where the fairy tale riff gives itself over much more to the brand of high-spirited comedy adventure that Duck Tales is more known for.  There are magic spells that get tossed around and transformations that happen.  Probably the stand-out in all this is Princess Goldie.  The princess here is played by Scrooge’s old flame from his Klondike days Glittering Goldie.  Throughout the first part of the episode, she was prone to giving a sly commentary on all the guests at her ball.  In  the second part, we find out that she’s a princess who’s more than capable of taking care of herself but willing played the damsel-in-distress to some degree so that Scroogerello could rescue her.

And then, it turns into a “Cinderella” spoof again.

No, really.  Scroogerello decides he doesn’t want Goldie to see him looking like a peasant and hides from her.  Then, Webby gives Goldie the magic top hat that will only fit on Scroogerello’s head and proceeds to try it on every head in the kingdom.  It goes pretty much as you’d expect except that the Beagle Boys show up again at the end to take Scroogerello with them to be their servant again.  That’s where Scrooge wakes up, though.  And he apologizes to his servants.  I think that’s supposed to be the take-away, that he’s learned to appreciate his servants after having to play one in his dream.  I’m not sure that works as well as it should, though.  We only see Scroogerello being made to work for a few minutes at the beginning of the story.  And it’s easy to forget about all that after it goes off book and turns from Scrooge’s regular fairy tale fever dream into even more of a fairy tale fever dream.

It wasn’t a terrible episode, but it wasn’t great either.  It’s definitely one of Duck Tales’ weaker offerings.  But part of that is because there are so many fairy tales that would fit better as Duck Tales episodes than “Cinderella” would.  Both “Jack and the Beanstalk” and “Ali Baba and the Forty Thieves” come to mind right away.  But it’s probably hard to resist playing on the familiarity of possibly the most famous folk tale in all of creation.  If you want to see the episode for yourself, someone did upload it onto YouTube but the quality’s better on the volume 2 DVD.  I'd suggest tracking that (and the rest of the series) either to buy or at your local library.

While maybe not much, writing about this episode has made me reflect on the various fairy tale episodes of cartoons I’ve encountered since my own youth.  For example, I realize now that a whole lot of them use the plot device of someone hearing a story while sick in bed  (Rocko’s Modern Life, Dexter’s Laboratory, Muppet Babies and this episode of Duck Tales are the first that come to mind).  Also, a number use the plot device of someone dreaming the story.  Will the new Duck Tales have a fairy tale episode?  Who knows?

If you want some far more scholarly insight into fairy tales on TV, including children’s cartoons, you may want to check out VisualizingWonder.  It’s a blog and online database entirely devoted to fairy tales on TV.

That’s it for this swim in the nostalgia pool.  Fairy Tale Geek signing off.