Wednesday, November 14, 2012

Tale as Old as Time

Film: La Belle et la Bete (Beauty and the Beast)
Format: DVD from NetFlix on Sue’s Mother’s Day gift.

Say “Beauty and the Beast” to someone, and you’ll almost certainly get a response that reflects the Disney film of that name. that’s only natural, since that’s the most relevant thing of that name in most people’s heads, and has been for the last 20 years or so (yes, 20 years). What I didn’t know until tonight was that a great deal of the look and feel of the Disney film comes from the earlier incarnation, Jean Cocteau’s La Belle et la Bete (Beauty and the Beast), a black-and-white fantasy that probably sticks a little closer to the original fairy tale and doesn’t involve a singing teapot.

In this version, Belle (Josette Day) does her best Cinderella impression as the maid and servant for her two sisters, Felicie (Mila Parely) and Adelaide (Nane Germon). She also has a brother named Ludovic (Michel Auclair) and a father (Marcel Andre). The family is going through difficult times because the father lost a shipment of goods on the high seas. Belle is forced to work for her sisters, who are hoping to land a rich husband. But good news comes in—another shipment has arrived safely, and the family is saved. He promises lavish gifts to the two mean daughters while Belle asks for a simple rose. Meanwhile, the wastrel Ludovic promises to pay off his debts to a moneylender (Raoul Marco), promising that worthy that if he doesn’t pay, he can take all of his father’s possessions.

But tragedy strikes. All of the profit from the shipment is used to pay off outstanding debts, leaving the family ruined. On his way home, the father becomes lost in the forest and winds up at a magical castle where candelabras are held and wine is poured by disembodied arms. Upon leaving, he plucks a single rose from the garden as a gift for Belle. This causes the appearance of the Beast (Jean Marais), who sentences the man to death unless he can get one of his daughters to take his place. Belle, who has a good heart and feels guilty for asking for the rose, agrees to take his place.

What follows is a drastic change from the story most people are used to. Belle, while unable to leave the castle, has free reign of it, and the Beast is not a terror, but generally gentle and sweet. While she is repulsed by him at the start, Belle quickly begins to warm to him, and the two soon become closer. He’s sometimes ferocious when his more bestial side emerges, but he is cautious for this to happen away from her whenever possible. It’s not long before the two are good friends. The only problem between them is that every night he asks her to marry him and every night she refuses.

Eventually, she asks to be allowed to see her father again, and the Beast grants her permission to go for one week. He entrusts her with a golden key that safeguards all of his treasures and a magic glove that can transport her to anywhere she wishes to go. Of course, things will never be this simple. In addition to her scheming and wicked sisters and her greedy and stupid brother, she also has to contend with Avenant (also played by Jean Marais), a suitor who isn’t that bright and appears to be jealous of her new animal-like friend.

So let’s get into the guts of this. La Belle et la Bete is wonderfully imaginative and beautifully filmed throughout. Cocteau’s vision of the Beast’s castle, for instance, is undoubtedly the inspiration for the Disney film. Unable to produce hordes of animated helpers, Cocteau instead gives us arms sticking out from the walls, holding candelabras and gesturing. Doors open on their own accord and some objects speak essentially through voiceover. The effect is still pretty decent even though there’s no mystery as to how it was performed. The faces that peer out from the fireplace are quite disturbing, but are a fantastic touch.

Similarly, the sets are lavish, particularly that of the Beast’s castle. The period costumes, coming from a sort of fantasy past, are also spectacular and worth the price of admission in their own right. While there’s no mystery that there is a man under the Beast’s makeup, it’s also extremely good work.

While these aspects sell the picture, it’s the story that really makes people want to watch this. For the most part, it will be a pretty familiar one, although there is no Gaston, or Cogsworth, or Lumiere, or Mrs. Potts. The differences, making the Beast a gentle creature right away, certainly makes the love story that evolves between the two characters far more believable than the (honestly) abusive relationship the pair shares in their animated cousin.

Children will have a difficult time with this, in large part because of the subtitles, but also because it does deviate from the more familiar version in so many ways. Adults not too immersed in the Disney-fication of the story, though, will find a great deal here to be charmed by and a story that is in many ways more compelling than the one they know and probably love.

Why to watch La Belle et la Bete: Sets, costumes, and a story you know.
Why not to watch: The unfamiliar bits will feel out of place to the Disney-fied.

14 comments:

  1. Good use of the word "wastrel". How long have you been wanting to work it into a review? :-)

    I agree that children might not be the best audience for this. I also agree that the sets, costumes, etc. were definitely visual feasts. I had sort of forgotten about the Cinderella aspects, but you are right about them.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I can think of a good half dozen other words I'd like to work into a review or two. "Vituperative" comes to mind, for instance.

    What I'd really like to know is how close this film comes to the original fairy tale.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I was very impressed when I first saw this--especially after having seen the Disney version. Cocteau was a magnificent filmmaker. I've seen many of his films and can't recall ever disliking one.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I wasn't that enamored of Orphee, but this one more than makes up for what I felt was pretty lackluster.

      Delete
  4. Steve, I caught up with this a few years back, and I was surprised like you by how many connections there are with the Disney film. It's a classic fantasy that worked a lot better than I expected. In a strange way, it also reinforces how good the Disney adaptation is at the same time. The creators of that movie found a way to go a different route while maintaining a lot of core elements of the story.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They did, but they also changed something I thought was key from this story. As mentioned above, the key element for me here is that the Beast is not a creature of rage. It makes the love story that much more understandable. I mean, really, the Beast in the Disney version is kind of an asshole.

      Delete
  5. I'll have to check it out and get back to you on how close it is to the original fairy tale (which I read, once up a time... see what I did there?).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think you'd like this. It would appeal to a particular part of your personality.

      Delete
  6. This is really a visually astounding film. I'm, amazed by some of the effects pulled off in this film and the general vision and mood of the film is superb.

    The original Disney still stands as my preferred version, probably more because it's one of the films of my childhood I still love, but I think this is a fantastic interpretation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. An entirely fair choice. There's some weird sexual politics in the Disney version--I really prefer this version of The Beast's character to the animated one, where he's kind of an abusive jerk. It makes more sense to me to have him be physically hideous but emotionally responsive--in this version, it's these qualities that make her fall for him. The Disney version smacks of Stockholm Syndrome.

      Delete
  7. I guess I am fortunate to see the Cocteau version before Disney. No problems with deviations from a known story there. I liked the beast. Besides an awesome outfit he was genuinely kind.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you look at my response immediately above your comment, you'll see that I agree completely. That also makes sense to me because it makes the story one of internal beauty rather than external, which seems to me to be the lesson being taught here.

      Delete
  8. The French film version Beauty and the Beast scores a total win.

    And one of its greatest assets is that lacks an elaborate musical number about how Belle is the target of public ridicule because she knows how to read.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There's a lot to like in this film. I like the Disney version, but in almost every way, I think the story of this one is superior, mostly because I genuinely like the Beast character all the way through.

      Delete