Disney's Remake of Beauty and the Beast: Should You Mess With a Good Thing?

Disney's Remake of Beauty and the Beast: Should You Mess With a Good Thing?

You should never mess with a classic. Disney's been doing a lot of that lately.


Normally you should never touch a classic, and Disney has done a lot of that lately

Beauty and the Beast is one of my favorite Disney movies, definitely one of my favorite Disney Princess movies, and I consider myself a huge fan of the classics. I was sick for most of this week and went to my fall back of watching Disney movies as a way of comfort and distraction since I'm an entirely overwhelmed college senior, and my normal mode of writing my novel to evade stress was unsuccessful. I've had the DVD since it came out in July and decided to watch it whilst my boyfriend was at work.

Since Disney released the cast for the live-action version of The Lion King last week, I thought it was about time I threw in my two cents in on the newest Disney live-action remake. I loved the original 1991 animated release. I loved Belle and her love of books. I loved her nerve at standing up to the Beast and also seeing the good in him. Lumiere, Cogsworth, Mrs. Potts and co. added some great theatrical and comical aspects expected of Disney sidekicks.

In the live action remake Emma Watson was a wonderful acting choice for Belle. Although her singing was admittedly not the best.

The chemistry between Emma Watson and Dan Stevens, who plays the Beast/the Prince was phenomenal, particularly when they discuss books in the table read, available on YouTube.

Dan Steven’s singing voice is also great, and the dialogue was witty and did much for the plot.

I loved Disney stayed true to the plot of the 1991 movie, rather than doing a variation like their reinvention of live-actionTarzan.

Josh Gaad was a perfect Lafoue, same with Luke Evans as Gaston.

As a teen and adult, I had several questions arise about the logic of the movie. While I've heard the argument for Stockholm Syndrome I discount that because of how Belle is given overall freedom after the Beast saves her from the wolves and how the movie plays with time. The audience doesn't know if it is months, weeks, or days that pass. The relationship is no less problematic than that of any other Disney princess.

The curse is extended to the village. But why are there some members of a family, such as Mrs. Potts and Chip who live in the castle, while Mrs. Pott’s husband remains in the village with no memory?

However, one of my burning questions left by the remake: what decade is Beauty and the Beast set in?

The dress and technology indicate 1760s to 1790s France but I wonder would the fear the village has for dark magic exist because of the Enlightenment? Is the village too far out geographically within France to be affected by either historical phenomenon?

Or did the curse predate the French Revolution and the Prince was spared?

The plague was mentioned. Many consider the plague to be a medieval phenomenon, but the plague returned about once every ten years or so to some degree of severity. I loved the remake but the way Disney played fast and loose with the history really intrigues and digs at me.

Yes, they brushed the dust off a perfect masterpiece and made it better. Except for a few questions about the time period and a raised eyebrow at Belle’s singing, the movie was perfect.

Report this Content

More on Odyssey

Facebook Comments