Beauty and the Beast

 It’s no secret Disney has been working hard to both monetize and update its own history over the last several years. It began with a tentative, hey-why-not version of Alice in Wonderland directed by Tim Burton. Even though the movie itself was a murky, CGI-infested Tim Burton film (which ought to be enough to scare off anyone who likes movies that, you know, make sense), it made a lot of money and emboldened Disney to try it again. With each remake, the company tried to update its image of 1950s patriarchy with tales of female empowerment and social enlightenment. Malefecent retconned a witchy villain from 1959 and turned her into a wronged feminist avenger of the 21^st century. Cinderella turned from a mushy, pushover milquetoast to a strong, intelligent lead. Even though it wasn’t a remake per se, Saving Mr. Banks, the sort-of-but-not-really behind the scenes story of making Mary Poppins, gave us a Walt Disney who was vulnerable, avuncular, and kind and completely left out the pop-culture raiding, bloodthirsty capitalist shark side of his personality and business practices.

Up until this point, all remakes and retcons have been practice leading up to Bill Condon’s live-action version of Beauty and the Beast. It’s the first remake of a film from Disney’s modern era and it’s of one of their most beloved works. The 1991 animated version was the second part of a one-two punch that, along with The Little Mermaid, saved Disney animation after its dour and mediocre period during the seventies and eighties. The 1991 version is almost universally beloved for its music, strong characters, and gorgeous hand-drawn animation combined with early CGI.

So why remake it? The cynical and probably correct answer is that kids who saw it in the theater with their parents almost 30 years ago are now parents themselves with disposable income and a need to do something on Friday nights. Rather than rereleasing the original on DVD or Bluray for the umpteenth time or issuing more inferior direct-to-disc sequels, Disney doubled down and remade the entire thing with 21^st century actors, technology, and sensibility, so that oldsters like me will go see it out of curiosity and so I’ll pay to take my kids to see it with me. By funneling a 160 million dollar budget and A-list talent in front of and behind the camera, Disney hopes to make old things new – but not too new – just new enough to make a lot of money and create a new generation of fans.

One thing is for sure: when Disney decides to do something, it doesn’t scrimp. The live version is replete with ornate, lavish production design and state of the art special effects. The film stays mostly faithful to the original, adding some backstory for both Belle and the Beast. There are a few new songs, including  “Evermore,” the lovely, Broadway-style showstopper sung by the Beast when Belle leaves to return to her father, which stands up to any other song in the film.

The performances are all first-rate, and while Emma Watson as Belle is the weakest singer in the cast, she’s an effective and compelling actor. The scenes between her and Kevin Kline as her father in particular are funny, sweet, and genuine. Some of the best moments in the film have nothing to do with elaborate sets or songs or CGI creatures – they just feature talented professionals doing what they do best. Another standout is journeyman actor Luke Evans as Gaston. Evans has been around for years it’s likely that this is the role that finally catapults him to stardom.

Despite the mercenary thinking behind its creation, the live action Beauty and the Beast is a good movie and a really pleasurable moviegoing experience. Even the most jaundiced doubter will be hard pressed to resist the joy of the happy ending – mostly because it’s just so frickin’ joyful.

You might as well not resist. Disney wants you and wants your dollars, but at least it will give you a really good movie in return.