
by Dennis Polifroni and Sam Juliano
When Disney’s animated Beauty and the Beast opened in November of 1991, the New York Times’ famed theatre critic Frank Rich called it “the best Broadway musical of the year” even though the object of his praise was not a play, but a movie. Fully stocked with melodic music and Busby Berkeley-styled show stopping tunes, the film did indeed invite comparison with the Broadway shows of old and musically eclipsed anything that was being done on the Great White Way at that time and several years hence. The second release in the ‘Disney Renaissance’ that began in 1989 with The Little Mermaid, and ended in 1999 with Tarzan, the Gary Trousdale-Kirk Wise-directed feature was a major triumph of traditional animation and computer-generated imagery. The celebrated score by Howard Ashman and Alan Menken is the most vital ingredient in the film’s success, as it represents the high water mark of their musical collaboration, wedding energy and audacity with lyrical felicity and melodic invention. Rising to the demands of the story’s emotional underpinnings, composer Menken wrote some of his most ravishing melodies, and lyricist Ashman responded with his own measure of poetry. Ashman, who died from AIDS complications eight months before the film released, never got to see the resurrection of a genre that had in large measure laid dormant for decades. Ashman, who wrote the lyrics for The Little Mermaid, also provided the words for four songs that were used in the final cut of Aladdin, releasing in 1992. But while the interest in musicals were beginning to take hold with those films, Ashman never could have imagined where he would be taking the genre with Beauty and the Beast. By many critics’ accounts, Beauty and the Beast is the musical by which all modern musicals are now measured.
Though it follows the 1946 French classic of the same title by Jean Cocteau, it’s as far removed from that brooding tale as it is from the original French source, a 1740 story by Gabrielle-Suzanne Barbot de Villeneuve that was abridged several times before being adapted for the stage and film. Numerous books have been published with slightly altered story lines through the years, and this includes lavishly illustrated hardcovers through Classics Illustrated comic editions (I have myself collected several of these, maintaining ownership of two. -SJ) Yet, since Cocteau’s version, and the altered versions that preceded it (not to mention a wildly-successful decade long CBS television series) it is this incarnation that stands second only to Cocteau’s original film. While it is undeniable that the Cocteau film is the first point of visual reference for the filmmakers, it’s clear enough that several homages came through, including the sequence when Belle runs across a grassy hill near her village singing the opening of ‘Belle,’ in a way that immediately recalls Julie Andrews in The Sound of Music. Of course when the mob lays siege on the Beast’s castle, one is reminded of Universal’s Frankenstein, and the opening look at that gothic structure brings Citizen Kane into focus.
Lost in the woods, Belle’s father (in the film an inventor rather than a merchant he is seen as in other versions) stumbles into what appears to be a deserted castle. But the castle is inhabited by the Beast, once a prince, now under a spell that will last forever unless he finds love before he turns 21, who locks Belle’s father in the dungeon. Belle comes after him and offers to stay in his place. At first antagonistic, she soon finds the Beast appealingly gentle and kind, wounded in spirit, rather than cruel. Gaston (Belle’s blustery boyfriend) tries to get the father committed, saying that his talk of the Beast shows he is delusional. When Belle proves that the Beast exists, the townspeople form a mob to kill him, and she is helpless to interfere. In a fight with Gaston, the Beast is badly wounded. Belle tells him she loves him, which ends the spell. He becomes once again the handsome prince, and they live happily ever after.
The story’s romance, which inspired King Kong and The Elephant Man, is one that tests the true essence of love, and attracts an intense level of audience empathy. Belle is one of the most detailed and well-rounded characters Disney has ever presented. She’s strong-willed, intelligent and fiercely independent, and as drawn by the animators she’s probably more flexible than any other previous Disney heroine, running the full gamut of emotions including fear, sadness, skeptism, sarcasm and wonder, which are woven into her animated conteur. Far from being one of the cliquish blonde bimbos who have nothing better to do than to let Gaston bench-press them, she outwits Gaston’s unwanted advances and stands up fearlessly to the Beast’s unchecked temper. She is no Snow White, deciding it is fun to clean little men’s houses and take apples from strangers, or Cinderella, who can do nothing but cry about the ball. But Belle is no rampant feminist either. Unlike sword-weilding Mulan or Jasmine’s “I am not a prize to be won” attitude, Belle wears her femininity with grace. She wears dresses and let’s the Beast pull out her chair for her. She allows him to grow into the part of a gentleman, and not insisting on always having the leadership. She is capable of caring for herself, but does not dominate those around her. She is smart, but not remotely arrogant, brave but not masculine, beautiful but not vain. Of course what ultimately makes Belle a true heroine, however, is her attitude of self-sacrifice. She is more concerned for her father than for herself. She faithfully supports him in his eccentric inventing and leaves her budding romance with the Beast to tend to him at his bedside. She even offers herself to the Beast in her father’s place, one of the most beautiful gestures in all of Disney. Her character is the integral aspect of the movie’s exploration of the meaning of beauty. Gaston has the good looks of a story book prince, but these conceal a rotten heart. This role reversal is one of the film’s narrative innovations. The Beast has fangs and lives in a gloomy castle, but has a kind and sacrificial nature. His own act of self-sacrifice of course defines the depth of his own love and devotion.
What sets Beauty and the Beast apart from other love stories is that it proposes that love is grown and not “fallen into.” The early stage of the beauty-beast relationship is wrought with argument, temper and mutual obstinance. And the concept of ‘beauty in the eye of the beholder’ is one that’s been part of the simplest philosophies practically since the beginning of time. The story reaches it’s emotional climax with the superb use of the ‘rose’ devise, where the falling of pedals signify fleeting love.
The score is at turns rollicking, exhilarating, spectacular and deeply moving. It fuses pop with show tunes, but it reaches operatic heights, especially in what is arguably it’s best song, “Belle” where our heroine sings:
Oh, isn’t this amazing?…
It’s my fav’rite part because you’ll see,
Here’s where she meets Prince Charming.
But she won’t discover that it’s him ’til chapter three.
The film’s stylistic centerpiece, the song “Be My Guest” is the real Ziegfeldian show stopper, sung by “ze” very French candlelabra Lumiere (voiced by Jerry Orbach) who has said in an interview that he wanted to sound like a cross between Maurice Chevalier and Pepe Le Pew. The other teacups and candlesticks (formerly the house servants) join in a spectacular welcome, with the animation reaching design and choreographic bliss. The boisterous “Gaston” establishes the boastful demeanor of the hefty villain in a spirited song, while Angela Lansbury as Mrs. Potts, the motherly teapot, renders the lovely title song “Beauty and the Beast.” Both Orbach and Lansbury were Broadway veterans who knew how to deliver a song. The score’s immense popularity was the catalyst to inspire a Broadway musical based the film, and on April 18, 1994 Beauty and the Beast opened at the Palace Theatre. Five years later it moved to the Lunt-Fontaine, continuing until July 29th, 2007, when it closed after 5,464 performances, the eighth-highest total in Broadway history.
In conclusion, no matter how many people have seen the stage version, the film is really the key to this this property. On a personal level it’s not simply one element of the film that has buoyed the entire production, (although the justly-lauded song score is a major highlight) but in fact a flawless fusion of both the score and the intricately-detailed character animation that, combined, reveal a tenderness between the two protagonists that is rarely seen even in today’s live action films. It was, is, and will always remain not only the key musical on film in the past thirty years, but it is also one of the most affecting examples of true romance on screen.
Note: This is the first time at WitD where two writers collaborated on an essay. It was a great experience for both Dennis and Sam.
How Beauty and the Beast made the ‘Elite 70′:
Dennis Polifroni’s No. 14 choice
Allan Fish’s No. 22 choice
Sam Juliano’s No. 26 choice
Pat Perry’s No. 27 choice
Judy Geater’s No. 75 choice






The shame of it all is the death of Howard Ashman. Had he lived, there is no telling where he would have helped the musical to go. A tireless worker (it’s said he was forcing work on ALADDIN through the BEAUTY AND THE BEAST recording sessions), I’m sure we would have seen a whole lot more come out of this guy. As it is, Menken has gone on to further acclaim writing music for lyricists like Tim Rice…
I think BEAUTY AND THE BEAST was just the tip of the iceberg for these guys. The proof was in the pudding. LITTLE SHOP OF HORRORS was a smash hit and the song score was, and still is, admired by audiences and music people in the know… THE LITTLE MERMAID (in my mind just as good in quality terms of the score as BEAUTY) is a sumptuous song score… ALADDIN sees the lyrical pinnings of a stage musical, again, infused within the fabric of the music…
What a wonderful piece, Sam and Dennis. It’s one thing to simply gush about a favored film, but what you guys have done is offer up praise but also a flowing analysis of the film’s components — not to mention a keen comparison with other incarnations of the original tale.
For sure this is one of my favorite film musicals. Frank Rich was exactly right in his allusion to Broadway. The score is top-level stuff.
In this animated version, the 3 lead characters seem to have been updated to reflect Disney’s cultural position on the relationship of the sexes. As you suggest, she has been “feministad up” a hair or two to manifest a common denominator of the ever-so-slightly liberated “young woman of today.” Gaston, then, is characterized as a buffoon for traits that 40 years earlier would’ve been presented as masculine. And the Beast, of course, was drawn to reflect a new, more sensitive figure as a modern model for the masses.
For sentimental reasons, the title song is my favorite, but with so many others to enjoy — including the masterful instrumental passages — it’s hard to choose between perfection.
I’m particularly impressed by Orbach’s rendition of Be My Guest. That man was one of the most talented American performers we’ve ever seen. And versatile, too.
Thanks, again, for the entertaining and insightful write-up!
Pierre—
I can’t thank you enough for the stellar comment and very kind words!
I am furthermore delighted to hear that this is one of favorite musicals, a position of course that I share lock, stock and barrel. Yes, Rich and well over 90% of the critics and audiences have adored this one – and time has definitely been kind to it. I think this would have been the best choice to win the Oscar back in 1991, but the voters there just weren’t ready to crown animation.
Thanks too for the further enrichment on Belle, the Beast and Orbach and for mentioning your favorite song, which of course is a gem. Great to see you so enthused my friend!
Yes, PIERRE the reconfiguring of the chracters is substantive and one of the most effective constructs of this version of the famed story. However, what I find really interesting is that the Beast was even more headstrong, self-centered and abusive than Gaston before the spell by the enchantress was leveled at him to teach him his lesson. The Beast is only gentle and kind deep down because of his years of punishment and true reflection…
I’d have to go with “BELLE” as my favorite song from the film. It’s the set-up piece and it clearly illustrates the yearnings and the femanist position that makes up the main charracter. However, it also illustrates Belle as a woman and that she is not so armored that she cannot or doesn’t wish to be swept up off her feet.
The other reason for it being my favorite song in the film is purely visual…
“I want adventure in the great wide somewwhere…
…I want it more than I can tell.”
It’s the singing of those words that sees the camera do a giagantic close up and then a spin around the character, arms out (as she spins the other way) in the vastness of the hill of wheat. Here, the directors allude not only to the opening shot of THE SOUND OF MUSIC, but the tempered emotional close up Fleming gradually creeps up to on Vivien Leigh in the famous “I’ll never go hungry again” moment in GONE WITH THE WIND. Its this moment in BEAUTY AND THE BEAST that I understood the film would be a perfect balancing act of intimacy and sweeping drama and all at the same time…
A great film, a very powerful contender for the Disney studio’s best. However, while everyone talks about Belle as an icon of female empowerment among the Princess characters in their repertoire, or the knowing ways that Ashman and Menken’s songs skewer romantic idealism or male chauvinism (“Gaston” is a hoot), there is one element that I always felt the film got terribly wrong, and it’s the same element that Cocteau himself admitted that he got wrong, in his film– the Beast’s transformation at the end. We’ve come to know and love him as the Beast. Belle has come to know and love him as the Beast. Isn’t it something of a disappointment to see him reduced to a mere Prince Charming, at the end?
” Isn’t it something of a disappointment to see him reduced to a mere Prince Charming, at the end?”
Are you really surprised by the conclusion of this animated musical? This is Disney right… I doubt they would promote something as subversive as bestiality lol. Prince Charming must appear to evaporate any sense of non conformity. Conservative values must be held up until the bitter end.
Maurizio be careful in taking Disney to task– there are those amongst us that will label you extreme or lacking the ability to see all sides.
I however will not as there is a special place in hell for Disney and Pixar, so I’m in agreement with you.
If some viewers love Disney and their conservative message, then more power to them. Everyone deserves their own plot of land to plow. I’m just wondering why Bob was left so befuddled by the conclusion lol. It would seem obvious that Prince Charming’s appearance is necessary in the worldview Disney promotes.
Well that and it’s how the fairy tale ends.
Well its a traditional fairytale with many different versions throughout the ages. I wonder if they all end with the emergence of Prince Charming at the end.
A good question, quickly doing a bit of research I didn’t come up with anything. The only one I’ve seen that is slightly different is the Juraj Herz (of the great THE CREMATOR fame) one, where the Beast is a bird like figure who changes throughout the story as the Beauty falls for him. It’s more an evolutionary change then a sudden ‘poof’ change. It’s probably more accurate on how one actually falls in love over time rather then instantly.
I would like to see one where the Beast stays a beast though, would be quite a bit more interesting, and have the Beauty profess the love at the climax, rather then at the films close so you can have the resolution contemplation on why him staying a Beast is closer to the creature she feel in love with.
I will say my personal favorite take on the story (excluding the Cocteau of course) is the Borowczyk version. It’s easy to find (it’s on netflix after all), and must be seen to be believed (I think Allan and I have discussed it before), as a reviewer once said of it: “Finally! I saw a wolf-like beast creature ejaculating repeatedly on a naked Victorian woman. My life has come full circle.” Great extreme erotic eastern euro cinema from the 70′s. They really don’t make ‘em like that anymore. Not for all tastes sure, but if you like this kind of stuff it’s a hoot.
Indeed Jamie. I own that version (PANNA A NETVOR), acquiring the Czech DVD at the same time I received THE CREMATOR. As you can well imagine it’s visually striking and most imaginative. I was tempted to bring it up in the review, but though it too obscure for most.
Jamie –
Jesus Christ, what draws you to these extreme films? You sure the Victorian recipient of All That Jizz (#634 on the Musical Countdown) isn’t Georgina Spelvin? Lol.
“I would like to see one where the Beast stays a beast though”
Shrek, for what it’s worth – though I’m not sure it fits the rest of your comment.
mark, it’s a perfect synergy of having different taste, liking trash that is super Arty with a capital ‘A’, and not having sensibilities that are ever offended. A perfect storm for this sort of stuff (plus an advanced ability to scour the net).
I hope to one day highlight stuff like this more, but the Beatles Series has taken most of my formal blogging capacities at the moment. One day the DEATH LAID AN EGG’s of the world will grace Wonders I promise you!
Disney movies aren’t above changing the particulars of the stories they’re adapting, even the endings. Princess Aurora only sleeps for a couple of nights, at most, instead of 100 years to fit their telling. Ariel doesn’t commit suicide, and her Prince slays the campy sea-witch. And don’t let’s get started on how they eventually treated the likes of Pocahontas and the Hunchback of Notre Dame. Granted, in each case they’re more or less adapting the tale to fit into the contours of traditional good-triumphs-over-evil/love-conquers-all moralism, but given the manner in which Cocteau himself admitted that changing the Beast back to man at the end was a mistake, it’s a shame they couldn’t think to use that in their paradigm. After all, there’s also an element of wishy-washy liberal sensibilities in some of these movies too, at least in the Disney Renaissance era, full of intended female empowerment and send-ups of traditional male-dominated authority (again, Gaston). As such, I think it would’ve been within the intellectual reach of their imagineers to , say, let all of the candleabras and teapots turn back into people, but let the Beast stay as he is, with Belle remaining at his side– “because it’s what’s on the inside that really matters”, a message that’s nice, happy and romantic, and when you get right down to it just as much bullshit as anything else these movies sell. But it’s a nice kind of bullshit, at least (and yeah, Joel, “Shrek” did pick up on this kind of idea with their ogre-princess who doesn’t turn back into Cameron Diaz at the end of the movie).
“Maurizio be careful in taking Disney to task– there are those amongst us that will label you extreme or lacking the ability to see all sides.”
I assume, JAMIE, that I am the one that you are referring to in the words I have captioned above?
Just because I thought you guys were being harsh on MARY POPPINS…
Ughhhhhhh….
LOL!!!!!
Don’t worry Dennis, I think he’s also taking a subtle (or not) swipe at me lol.
Probably, MAURIZIO, but there’s no question that I’m considered the major offender after that mammoth plea for understanding on MARY POPPINS.
LOL!!!!!!
Then again, I DID warn you guys that I will go to the mat for these films…
Violently, if I have to…
Actually NEITHER of you are what was in my head when I said that…
And then there was one…
I stand corrected, JAMIE-
What’s the saying about people that ASS-U-ME?????
LOL!!!!!
“Finally! I saw a wolf-like beast creature ejaculating repeatedly on a naked Victorian woman. My life has come full circle.”
Either that reviewer actually meant to say “my life is complete” or he has the conception story to beat all conception stories…
Bob—
Your high praise for a Disney film is indeed a major rarity, but it’s most welcome. Of course your one disclaimer here turns out to be the highest compliment for the film, since the ending is really onlt a bookend. The Beast is indeed a complex and endearing character, and his morphing into Prince Charming will always be a letdown to those who grew to love the monster with the big heart.
Thank you for the great comment.
Bob —
Garbo echoed your disappointment exactly when she famously uttered, ‘Give me back my Beast,’ after watching the Cocteau film.
The only way I can answer Bob’s statement is that I feel that the character is so brilliantly performed and defined on the screen that we’ve actually grown to love these two people. Like MacMurphy (played by Jack Nicholson in ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO’S NEST), the performers (and in this case the animators) so fully fleshed out the charaters that they have become someone close to use, a pal, someone we know…
JAMIE- I would love to see that Herz version. Do you own it? Where did you find it? It’s sounds amazingly interesting…
I do and can get you a copy, give me a minute…
“What sets Beauty and the Beast apart from other love stories is that it proposes that love is grown and not “fallen into.” The early stage of the beauty-beast relationship is wrought with argument, temper and mutual obstinance. And the concept of ‘beauty in the eye of the beholder’ is one that’s been part of the simplest philosophies practically since the beginning of time. The story reaches it’s emotional climax with the superb use of the ‘rose’ devise, where the falling of pedals signify fleeting love.”
Brilliant essay to both Sam and Dennis and I love this paragraph. Beautifully written and thought through and is a great example to the care and passion for this film that you both have taken. Our family has of course been reintroduced through the eyes of our children, who have started watching this when we bought it last Christmas. Our oldest Holly, who is almost 4, does get scared at a few parts (that we have to fast-forward), but she really does love the story and music, as I know we all do. I remember seeing this in the theatre when I was 11, with my whole family. It was a big deal to have all 5 of us go to the movies to see the same thing, which probably only happened a couple other times in my childhood. I have fond memories of that and also my love for the film has never waned. It’s not only one of the best musicals of the last 30 years, but one of the very best animated films of that time period as well. Bravo on this essay!
Jon—
I purposely saved this titanic comment for last as it’s clearly one to be savored and read over. With the personal anecdotes about the great affect the film had on you oin your teen years and how you subsequently took in the joy from seeing the reaction of your four-year old daughter Holly, well it’s clear BEAUTY AND THE BEAST has won a place in your heart. One doesn’t even have to read what you rightly say about the film’s pre-eminence as animation, to see the glow shine through in this ultra-appreciative response. You have indeed chosen a paragraph here that in vital in sizing up this film’s artsitic and thematic worth. You stand tall my friend. Thanks so much!
Wow Sam thank you for the kind words! It’s really nice to read essays that bring up so many personal memories for me, so thanks for reminding me of these things. I was glad to share!
Most of Disney’s films have a direct line into my childhood and youth. I also tend to feel that you can truly measure the power of film when you place an innocent child in front of one of them and watch their eyes light up and their jaws slowly, but surely, hit the ground.
I remember being modestly impressed by the off-the-wall humor of HERCULES when the film was first released but really loving what is did to Sam’s oldest, Melanie, when she reacted to it. I cannot accurately describe in words the way TOY STORY or A BUGS LIFE impacted Sam’s kids when we took them to see those films in inital release.
I will tell you though, and this is interesting, that Sam I and I saw A BUGS LIFE three times in the theatre together because we were both totally bowled over by the irreverant humor and the over-the-top jokes that were running through the film. Doesn’t make a difference if it’s animation or not. if it hits an emotional chord with us (whether funny, romantic, dramatic or scary) we’ll bite…
The “rose” is the key to the whole film in my mind… It’s that ever ticking time clock that not ony reminds the Beast that he has little time to spare in winning Belle’s affections and breaking the curse set on him by the Enchantress…
But, I also see the rose as the big symbol of the film and it the representation of time, and wasted time most of all. Say what you will about the “conservative agenda” of this film (I don’t see it at all, some read into this stuff. To each his own) but, the real message for me, and I think most of the gargantuan audience this film has had over the years, is that so much time is wasted on negativity.
Like with Cocteau’s original and this mammothly popular rendition of the tale; life is way to short for grudges, negative thinking and holding out for too long to tell that special person how you feel about them…
THE LION KING never ceases to amaze me as well. You can put any child in front of that film and the moment the camera does the 360 as Mufasa explains to Simba that “everything the light touches is our kingdom” and goes on about his time ending and the sun rising with Simba as the new king, you can hear every kid in the audience echoing Johnathan Taylor Thomas’ on=screen reaction of “WOW”. It’s a perfect moment on film where the visuals, writing, voice work and score hit all the nails on the head.
I know that Sam has seen me, literally, cry durung that moment of the film.
Then again, there are moments throughout the history of the Disney feature film that have moved me, emotionally, to tears. Sometimes the tears are from sadness (Bambi’s mother dying at the hands of the hunters, Simba’s frantic reaction when he realizes that Mufasa has just died), joy (the reuniting of Woody and Buzz after the rocket chase in TOY STORY, Pinocchio’s leap into his fathers arms after he has been changed into a real boy), or romance (the spaghetti eating sequence in LADY AND THE TRAMP-my vote as the No. 1 romance moment in all film)…
Fact is, whether you see them manipulative or not, the reactions coming from these “cartoons” is as real as they come. I envy you getting to see these films with your child on their first time out…
It’s truly amazing and it never leaves your mind for as long as you live. These films build fond memories…
The film is a testament to love’s perseverence under the sternest test. I think this is the best Disney film post 1970, and the score is one of the best they’ve been blessed with through their history. Sam and Dennis, you guys have done a terrrific job with this engaging essay. Love the collage.
Peter—
Thanks for the astute comments and kind words. Yes, Disney didn’t have a score like this since the Sherman Brothers won Walt’s affections. We were pleased with the way the collage turned out.
Actually, the collage was found by Sam. I was apposed to using one as I always feel a simple image from the screen during a key moment says volumes (I wanted just a single frame of the Rose hovering under the bell jar as the image)… However, Sam showed me this one and we both fell in love with the idea of family photos, like this film has been handed down, generation after generation like old heirlooms…
Thanks for the nice sentiments, Peter, I’m glad we’re in agreement on this film…
Yeah, I really disagree with you an iota here PETER. I think the essay summed up our feelings on this film being the new benchmark by which all animated features and all musicals are measured.
In all honesty, if it weren’t for BEAUTY AND THE BEAST, I really feel that films like CHICAGO, DREAMGIRLS and RENT (just to mention a few) would have never seen the light of a projector…
I meant to say, PETER…
“I really CANNOT disagree with you an iota….”
Goddamned keyboard on the fritz again…..
(Grumble, grumble, grumble) GRRRRRRRRRRRRRR…..
Good job guys on a film I’m not very crazy about. Jean Cocteau’s version will always be the only adaptation I find essential. For me, these later day Disney films are missing some sort of magical spark that was present in the earlier works. Great essay as we have now approached the heart of the countdown.
Maurizio—
I can buy it. It’s different strokes for different folks. But I most assuredly agree with you on the Cocteau masterwork. Thanks for chiming in and as always for voicing enthusiasm for the remainder of the countdown my friend!
MAURIZIO-I can agree with you and I don’t at the same time. 99.9% of the time I’ll always cite the film or the book or the record that the current hottie is riding the wave from… But, in this case I think the animated version holds its own evenly with Cocteau’s version in the departments of emotion and visual romance, the sense of fantasy in the real world surrounding it.
But, they really are two totally different kind of films… So, I can’t say which is better or worse. I think the animated film actually, perfectly, compliments Cocteau’s film and anyone in love with that French Classic (you can count me in as one of them), should look at this version as a great companion piece to that original stunner…
As for THIS film being one of the great Disney or that it’s missing the “spark”, I think I’d have to disagree on this one and this one alone. I think the elements that made films like Pinnochio and Bambi are here and the sense of wonder that those first five have is firmly in place. This is the one modern animated feature that I think Uncle Walt would have adored beyond compair…
Dennis and Sam -
Congratulations on a wondeful post that more than does justice to this fine film.
When I first saw BEAUTY AND THE BEAST back in 1991, I remember thinking that it had the best musical comedy score written in at least 10 years, probably longer, and it’s held up magnificently in the intervening years. I think this is the best of the Disney animated musicals.
I’ve seen the stage version of this musical a couple of times, and while it’s fun, it just doesn’t have the impact of the film.
Pat—
I never got to see the Broadway show, despite numerous opportunities. I’ve see THE LION KING musical though. Great to know you are fond of this film (I saw your telling placement too) and totally agree it has held up. I also feel it is the best of the Disney animated musicals, and could well figure the stage version could never touch the film.
Thanks so much for the very kind words my friend!
PAT-I have seen the stage version and I couldn’t agree with you more. There is something, I don’t know, stinted about it. Now, don’t get me wrong, the stage play is full of electricity and there’s a definate love and respect for the score and the songs and the characters to gie it a big, giant, Broadway feel to it. But, I find that boldness and brashness actually holding the quieter more intimate angles of the love story and the relationship that is growing between Beast and Belle down and actually intruding on the key thing that makes this story work better that all others in the recent Disney canon…
Great idea to collaborate. And a marvelous result. I honestly do not see what there is not to like in this film, but to each his own. Detractors are there for anything and everything in all shapes and sizes. The power of love is a tricky concept, but in this lovely animated film it achieves full consumation. I’ve always loved the score, especially “Be My Guest”.
It is rare to have Bob Clark in the affirmative. Interesting.
Frank—
Thanks as always for the kind words of support. Yes, there will never and can never be unaninimity on anything, but this is one case that pushes close.
The most telling case for the film can be forwarded by mentioning that both Allan Fish and Bob Clark are huge fans.
That says it all. But those who don’t like it are cool too. It’s a sensibility thing, and everyone comes to it from different places. Fair enough.
Yeah but Bob and Allan also love Heaven’s Gate. Lets take a poll on how many other readers would agree with that unholy union lol.
Ha Maurizio! What do you mean? Those two are joined at the hip I’ll have you know!!!
How much did Allan Fish love the film, some may ask?
Well, he placed it at #27 on his 90′s countdown, and provided this glowing review:
http://wondersinthedark.wordpress.com/2009/11/09/beauty-and-the-beast-special-edition-no-27/
I wouldn’t call myself a “huge fan” of this. I’m not really a huge fan of anything Disney. I like it, but doubt it’d be on my list of the 90′s, at least if I were to make one now.
Bob—
I am going by what you said at the very outset in your initiial comment on this thread. Here is what you said:
“A great film, a very powerful contender for the Disney studio’s best.”
Wouldn’t most think you have more than a modest regard for this film? To equate “great” with “huge fan” is a no-brainer.
Yeah, but I also think “Waterworld” is a great film. Or a great movie, if you want to get into hierarchy semantics. I’d call myself a huge fan of that flick before this one, probably.
Really Bob? How has that never came up?
I was probably waiting for that “guilty pleasure” post you’ve mentioned once or twice. Not sure that’s what I’d call what I think of the film, but it’s probably around those rungs on the totem-pole.
Bob—Fair enough, but the point is I only responded at surface value at your use of the word “great,” which for you is employed sparingly.
I did not at that point think to question the authenticity of what you were saying.
Bob did mention he loved Waterworld during our last get together on Monday. Naturally I gave him a look of incredulous disbelief. What surprised me even more was his pick of favorite film of 2011 so far. I won’t give away the actual movie as he may want to do a year end post on here. Lets just say me, Sam, and Joel were extremely surprised by the selection. Deep down I think Bob secretly hates film and can’t find it in his heart to really love anything other than Lucas and Heaven’s Gate lol. One minute he calls something great, the next he swears he’s not a “huge fan” of the picture.
On another note, I’m watching The Beast by Borowczky as we speak. What a horrendously shitty movie. Ed Wood could of done better with this material. The Polish girls are beautiful (par the course to be honest), but the movie is an absolute piss take on anything approaching decent. I guess you can consider it a trash masterpiece, but for me thats just another word for disposable garbage. I rather watch Steven Spielberg beat ET with a wide angle lense for two hours. Also the rape turned pleasure scene I’m now enduring is surly in extremely bad taste. I know so many women that become enraged by these adolescent male fantasies that seem to appear in movies so often. Borowczky must of ate some foul begos or pickled herring the night before he took on this atrocity.
LOL!!!! That’s absolutely, fucking, hysterical MAURIZIO as I have often wondered the same thing about our friend BOB.
But, I gotta say, his back and forth between loving and hating a film and his off-the-wall-you’d-never-expect-to-hear-that choices for some of the best in his personal favorites are so interesting, maddening, original and just down right flabber-ghasting that I look forward to every contribution he makes here.
I used to refer to him as my “late night nemesis” but in actuality, and after finally meeting him, I have to take that back and embrace him as one of the truest originals here…
Actually, Mauriz, I think you’ve confused my #5 with my #1, as I was going in ascending order. I’d actually already written a review for the film that I’m considering for #1 a while back, though the year isn’t over yet. With new releases in live-action and anime alike coming up, anything’s possible.
I will say this– if late releases of films from 2009 counted as 2011 films, “Evangelion 2.0″ would easily be my pick for best film of the year, and I doubt even George Lucas making a surprise release of Episode VII with quadruple-ended lightsabers galore could disuade me.
And also– “great” is a relative, and usually casual term. It’s definitely not a reliable barometer of fanaticism. Suffice to say– I don’t own “Beauty and the Beast” on DVD, and don’t really consider it too gaping a hole. Actually, I don’t think I own any Disney movies anymore, unless something like “Tron” counts.
Oh, and I said that I like “Waterworld”. Not love. I’ll take it out to dinner, but only if we go dutch.
So Maurizio I shouldn’t send you a recommendation for his IMMORAL WOMEN anytime soon? lol.
But, I did want to offer the thread a polite counter, to what I feel is an extremely hyperbolic (to the point of somewhat incredulousness) take on Borowczyk’s ‘The Beast’ (La bête) from 1975. It does fall into the genre of Euro Sex-Horror so it is something that must be approached correctly and from an insiders (meaning appreciator of the genre) perspective. It is also an art film, gorgeously shot (to compare any film of his, just on visual grounds to an Ed Wood film is either incredibly misguided, OR you don’t have a large enough ‘exploitation-cinema’ thesaurus in your mind, meaning ‘anything-that-is-bad-is-compared-to-Ed-Wood’, even if as filmmakers they couldn’t be any more different. And I already know the rebuttal will be “I’m wasn’t really comparing them…”) and has many fans on its side (just offered as a counter, as it shouldn’t be watched on my or Maurizio’s take). It has a 74% rating on Rotten Tomatoes (which says nothing really other then it’s not a ‘horrendously shitty’ movie), and noted French film critic and Cahiers’ writer, Ado Kyrou is an ardent supporter (of the Director as a whole and specifically this film, calling it his masterpiece).
Plus, from a career perspective, Walerian Borowczyk was talented (again don’t read the Ed Wood comparison as accurate), having one film almost win a Palme d’or (‘The Story of Sin’ in 1975— in fact that film and “The Margin’ are great entry points to his career, as they are less pornographic so most will have easier times approaching them as straight art films about sexual relationships) and another compete for the Golden Lion at Venice. In short, he was talented, but just highly eccentric. He’s described on wikipedia as “lauded by some for their unique surrealist vision and derided by others as contentless pornography” which is about as accurate as you can get; you may love him OR hate him but ultimately it comes down to you NOT his talents. (What sensation, other then extremely piqued can you approach a director that’s career is described as such: “If the masterful IMMORAL TALES sounded the call that Walerian Bororwczyk was not going to fall easily into the accepted European art mode, then his 1975 feature THE BEAST closed the door on it entirely. Frank, shocking, possibly pornographic (depending on who you ask) and completely unforgettable, THE BEAST became one of the seventies most controversial and reviled productions. It would close off Borowczyk from the critical Establishment and the mainstream film world for the rest of his life, and I can’t imagine he would have wanted it any other way. (Although both THE BEAST and THE MARGIN had serious defenders in France with critics such as Robert Benayoun, Ado Kyrou, and a few others.)
After the flabbergasted reception of THE BEAST, Borowczyk scored a surprise almost hit with STORY OF SIN from the same year. STORY OF SIN felt different than the master’s other films, emotionally it was more moving and resonate. It would be these qualities that Borowczyk would bring to the film he would begin shooting just after wrapping STORY OF SIN, namely THE MARGIN.”)
And yes, to say you’d rather watch ET is assumed, if you don’t like the oddity that this genre (illicit sex-horror) offered in this era (probably the most risque peak), then you will want blockbuster child entertainment.
As a parting point, I recall the words of the earlier mentioned Ado Kyrou, who in his essay entitled ‘The Marvelous is Popular’ (from his larger collection ‘Le Surrealisme au cinema’) stated this beautiful point (it’s applicable because he correctly viewed Borowczyk as a surrealist filmmaker):
Let’s have the guts to proclaim that some of the semipornographic shorts we used to see before the war in slot machines (the more recent ones are clearly in decline) were masterpieces. What could be more mysterious and unusual than those ladies in fur coats getting out of their bourgeois cars to plunge with dancer’s steps into the forest where they revealed themselves to us in some strange rite or other? Much more then simple and base stimulants for old men, these short films constitute the sincerest, purest expression of cinematic magic. Automatism, objective chance, revolt, and love have met the most poetic of rendezvous in an immense commercial machine which they can transform from top to bottom. Obviously, these flashes of the spirit are scuttled (and for a long time yet) by mercantile and reactionary propaganda, but I SEE THEM, I see only them. From the screen to me perceptible links of great importance form, flashes that only a few poems have been able to ignite up to now.
I ask you, learn to go and see the “worst” films; they are sometimes sublime.
Brilliant.
Jamie I love that you respond with a rather long well articulated retort countering my position (with a few inaccurate mentions about me preferring blockbuster entertainment) but fail to note my strong condemnation for the rape turned pleasure scene. How many times should male filmmakers get away with showing such dubious material? You have been claiming lately that you seek highly moral content in the films you view. Well why not criticize another movie that depicts a woman being forced against her will into a sexual encounter, and then loving every second of it once penetrated. Don’t you think such imagery is morally reprehensible and just another adolescent male fantasy about male empowerment and violent sexual dominance over his female counterpart (something The Beast does not critique in any way). The fact that the rape scenario is actually meant to get the male audience off is somewhat disgusting. This kind of imagery has clearly had an affect on society (pornography has a whole sub genre of this kind of violent fascistic content) and gives off the impression that it is okay to engage in this form of behavior, because the woman will eventually enjoy it once you subdue them.
And yes, I brought up Ed Wood as a way to describe in the most easily identifiable way to any one else reading, that The Beast is a ludicrously plotted film with sophomoric content. You can go into major flights of fancy and prescribe all sorts of other reasons why I decided to conjure up his name, but I’m sure no one else will be buying it but you. I also would not rather see ET over The Beast which I made perfectly clear in my comment. Both are total crap in their completely extremely different ways. Saying this, I hope the three people bothering to read any of these WITD rants go and actually find Borowczyk’s film and watch it for themselves. It is available for free on the net, and then they can make their own informed decision. I wouldn’t like to think that my admittedly hyperbolic toned response would be taken as gospel by anyone, and dissuade them from giving the picture a chance to be scorned or praised.
Yes The Beast has a 74% on Rotten Tomatoes. Would you like for me to list what every Pixar and Spielberg film has generated as a score? Would you also like for me to post some of your own hyperbolic putdowns of those “ass clowns” as you once brilliantly put it (and I swear I’m not being sarcastic when I say brilliant). And yes, send me that recommendation of Immoral Women as I will definitely watch it when I get time. Better to watch something and criticize, then not watch at all….
Nice discussion though I have to wonder why exploitation cinema demands the sensitivity of an “insider’s view” but blockbuster entertainment doesn’t. In one case, the insiders are in the minority, on the other not, but astute criticism of either would seem to demand an understanding on some level.
I’ll seek out The Beast since it’s so readily available. It’ll take a backseat to the Netflix and other assorted DVDs by my TV, but I’ll be sure to elevate it above the Disney on my viewing queue, since I at least haven’t seen this one yet.
Because blockbuster entertainment is, by definition, for mainstream mass appeal (it attempts to be lowest common denominator reducing–or highlighting depending on vantage point– everyone to an ‘insider’, thus there is no such thing as ‘insider’ or ‘outsider’). Subgenre cinema (or any subgenre art) is coded in specific subculture queues and messages, therefor appreciating and understanding them becomes a large part of the appeal.
But everyone isn’t an insider, as your own vehement reaction (and Maurizio’s too) shows. You guys don’t LIKE these movies – it isn’t just that you find them ideologically objectionable, they don’t work for you. Now, to a certain extent can you understand by proxy how others might react? That’s possible, though you’re bound to to miss nuances or details that fans might see – and it’s on such a basis that most negative criticism can take place. But this requires some sort of acknowledgement of the film’s virtues, and anyway the best negative criticism starts from an appreciation. But I’ve never seen you do the Robin Wood “These films work for me, but I can’t say they’re good” thing, it’s always like you want a barf bag upon viewing. Which is fine, but really no different than Maurizio just not taking a liking to the exploitation film. One film has a wider group of insiders than the other, but neither is all-inclusive.
Also, E.T. is not a very by-the-numbers film. It and Star Wars are sui generis, taking influences in a new direction (especially E.T.; SW is something new formed out of homages whereas E.T. is unlike much that came before). Attack for his sentimentality if you must but Spielberg is an original. You might not like what he does with that originality, but it’s a unique film, a creative one, and to be honest probably more unique than a lot of exploitation films which follow genre codes (which doesn’t make them better or worse – I don’t see the need to choose, as cinema’s a very big tent).
Yeah but their are examples of blockbuster films being part of a subgenre as well. Halloween is loved by both mainstream audiences and genre “insiders” equally (sometimes for the same reasons). It just seems that one group is smaller and has decided to fetishize a certain type of film, while the larger group is uninterested in such actions. Just because small blocks of people decide to engage in this form of behavior doesn’t mean the movement of said films inherit some worthier degree of greatness or need of understanding. If The Beast was a good film I would not need to be an “insider” to appreciate it. Just like you don’t need to be a “noir expert” to see that something like Decoy is shit. You may enjoy the flawed aspects these films immerse themselves in, but it would seem strange to criticize derision from those that don’t drink the kool-aid.
HALLOWEEN became a blockbuster financially but it wasn’t made as such, which is a huge difference worth noting. Besides that’s not really a subculture film as it’s pretty easy to understand what is going on.
“It just seems that one group is smaller and has decided to fetishize a certain type of film, while the larger group is uninterested in such actions. Just because small blocks of people decide to engage in this form of behavior doesn’t mean the movement of said films inherit some worthier degree of greatness or need of understanding”
It’s not that they fetishize a certain type of film, it’s the perspective or philosophy that is fetishized (as for example, there are many Sex-Horror films that I dislike strongly). And no, this doesn’t mean they inherit a ‘worthier degree’ on this alone, but to someone within the group they do. Which is all I’m really interested in here (it’s the sort of idea that destroys canons and promotes the individual, or group of specified individuals). I think all art works in this way (especially the more ‘pop’ forms like pop/rock music, graphic design, and film).
This sort of dovetails into your thoughts on DECOY, as from things you’ve said before you’re as interested in hallmarking and bowing to canon films about as much as I am (and maintaining said existing canons), so rather then seeking some ‘objectified’ acceptance of a film or its contents (which would mean DECOY gets roundly trashed and its proponents turned to lepers) it’s better to just strip these away so film (or art) discussions can evolve as they normally would without the debate just become ‘it sucks’ or ‘its great’ (or a listing of star ratings). And, this only really works in sub-, or genre art.
Then from here I attempt, or hope to attempt to eventually get to the point where the genre aspects of the debate CAN be removed so films can stand on their own without the designation (which I feel THE BEAST does), but by that point genre thinking would be an innate thought process almost.
_ _ _ _
I will return to the earlier line of discussion as soon as I finish the post. I’m at work so I’m having to write as time permits. I want you to know that I’m not moving on and will give you argument the time it deserves.
How is something “made as a blockbuster”? And why does E.T. qualify, simply because it has an alien in the cast? It has a tiny cast, limits its action to one locale, has no real action sequences and the giant spaceship is only glimpsed for a few moments. Mostly it’s an intimate tale of a lonely boy and his family. But you’ve decided Spielberg is the Journey of filmmakers so you refuse to ever recognize the personal, idiosyncratic elements of his work.
You also wildly misunderstand canonical thinking, especially as it applies to cinema but that’s been true from the get-go. The canonical approach is far more flexible than you allow (something you should acknowledge, given that you are a fan of Rosenbaum’s) and you can’t apply the rubrics which apply in painting or music to the film world, where there has usually – especially since the Cahiers era, which is where virtually all current film criticism and scholarship stem from – been an appreciation of genre conventions and works that don’t fit conventional definitions of art. You’re battling a strawman.
Your reading of the rape scene is incredibly reductive, and glib in its immediate emotional response. It asks for contemplation at least a little due to the surrounding scenes and circumstances of the film. Like IRREVERSIBLE you seem to only be able to view rape in art as the act, not the symbolic nature it may be being used as. No two rapes are created equal in art, nor are murders, nor robberies or any other act which we as an audience must view in moral terms (a sentence I never thought I’d be writing today). The rape in THE BEAST, isn’t the same as the one in RASHOMON, or the ones DELIVERANCE or IRREVERSIBLE, or the one in THE ACCUSED (and a few here are reprehensible in their sensationalism, others brilliant in their articulation of central points). Flatly stating what you do (that THE BEAST is JUST being used as erotica) relegate the central points of it to nil. In fact, the heightened response that you have for rape in cinema, while correct, is strange as it isn’t in line with a larger moral stance towards brutality in cinema. You understand that a murder in HEAT isn’t real, or is being used to color a larger point,but that a rape is only its real life implication seemingly (and the HEAT point is fantastic as there are a few senseless murders in that heist sequence that are incredibly crass, such as a woman walking out of a grocery store and just gets housed by automatic gunfire— human life reduced to no character just target practice).
Now to the actual film in question, 1975′s THE BEAST. First off, it is a dream sequence meaning it isn’t happening for real as an act depicted as happening and therefore isn’t an act with moral consequences. That’s number one, and this could be an easy ploy (a cop-out if you will) if the director wasn’t so nakedly willing to be subversive or erotically charged as Borowczyk is (see the ‘is it real, or is it fake’ happening in something like BLACK SWAN—a film I detested as you know—), meaning that he does use it as a dream but he presents it so realistically and it grounded in such symbolism that you must contemplate it as real (and ‘real’ here can be ‘real’ as in a real act, or a ‘real, not fake imllusion’). But the point remains to contemplate it as an intellectual puzzle or moral question not a real act. Number two then is what actually needs to be contemplated, and that is the rape as a symbolic image (or rather symbolic collection/sequence of images). To read this as morally I think is actually pretty easy within this film, and certainly in his overall career. His is a career of acute class consciousness, and its accompanying social and decorum order.
The film opens with a foreshadowing of the rape actually as the rather slow witted (but wealthy, this is important) aristocratic family breeds horses. The breeding of livestock is show as it is, the seeking of producing something worthwhile (another horse), against the animals will, and without any heed to love or affection. When the story unfolds we realize the family is rather doltish, no doubt a sharp critique of a certain class (and how it attains that position) from Borowczyk, and the only way to continue its rank is to have their beautiful daughter marry Mathurin, who is depicted as a brutish half-wit, a beast if you will. The story continues, taking swipe at every institution that enables this sort of arrangement. Most of the film is rather dry actually, intentionally I feel because the clinical banality I feel Borowczyk feels in necessary for its treatment. The Church is implicated (the marriage is stipulated that is must be preformed by the Cardinal), as are her parents, as is the hypocritical sexuality of the day (erotic drawings are found behind art works is a symbolic image, and in a more meta-way the actual perversity of reading fairy tales realistically), so by the time the dream sequence ‘rape’ does happen it’s been set up with parameters of how to understand it:
Either she likes it, which is sick (as an act, and from being created by the artist’s hand) but it’s important to understand that this idea would be put forth by Borowczyk because she’s been put into an atmosphere where arranged marriages relegate love, and the act of making love as akin to the breeding of beasts (the Beast is obviously a symbolic stand in for Mathurin) so therefore she’s been subverted against her natural predilection of sensitive lovemaking. Reading the film this way—the correct way IMHO— creates a film of a very moral highly charged satire.
Or you could read it that she doesn’t like it, and that she’s violently against it. This sharpers the film then more towards pure comic satire, less towards horror or sex-horror or sometimes art-drama, because she is seen more as the idyllic, naive waif of a real life fairy tale. It shows the insular world of the farm (that symbolizes civilization as a whole) as vicious, corrupt, and spiritually devoid. It shows then how beauty (or in this case of character Beauty) would get tarnished, destroyed, and left to either become evil itself or perish. But, in this case reading the rape scene as immoral (as you have) is incorrect, incorrect in that this is a world of NO moral barometers. That isn’t to mean that we all have license to act as savages, rather it means that a denouncement of this kind isn’t feasibly possible as morals are just hypocritical stances.
Had the sequence appeared as it was originally meant— as one sequence in his collection of 4 shorts combined to create one cohesive film, IMMORAL TALES— as just a stand alone rape, with no accompanying perspective or cultural/class underpinnings your denouncement would be slightly more correct (I just say slightly more as we’d have to deal with the framing the other shorts would offer). I wouldn’t be as quick as you of course, but I perhaps would also denounce it. But that is not how it exists. Your pointed comments about this rape sequence and the one in IRREVERSIBLE as little more then ‘stuff to get men off’ is more about what you’re thinking about the act, and it’s ‘intent’ (I put this in quotes because I think you’ve interpreted it incorrectly) not anything that the films actually articulate as a tightly controlled series of loaded images.
Then there is this (from a review of the film): The reason for the ban was the infamous bestiality rape scene, which just shows how absurd film censorship really is, since there was no rape scene. What there is is a fantasy sequence, and I don’t think any reasonable person could interpret it even as a rape fantasy. You just have to look at the expression on the woman’s face when she sees the beast – her reaction is the reaction of a fairy tale heroine. The whole sequence is a dream inspired by fairy tales and by an overheated imagination.
Which is true. There is no actual rape in the film. It’s a satirical sequence where the woman desires partaking in the act with the beast. She desires it so much in fact that by the end of the dream sequence the beast dies of exhaustion. You can act like the supplanting of her desires as wanting this is an exploitative comment by the director, but you’d be wrong. That is another of his central points; as children we are told fairy tales, ones that if accurately depicted would produce cruelty, depravity, and in this case bestiality (I mean, hell, earlier in this thread you come down on Disney’s ‘conservatism’ for altering the beast back into a man. If you got your wish, that is a story where the beast stays a beast what do you think the lovemaking would be like other then downright savage and highly animalistic? It seems when a director of Borowczyk’s daring does come along and show what others refuse you just want to right him off as quickly as possible. Add in the societal and class distinctions I’ve already discussed he’s made in the film and you have a Director making a highly moralistic film using highly charged imagery.
_ _ _ _
Your continued desire to place female friends opinions in the mix, or articulate some truth on the depiction of rape because ‘most women would find it reprehensible’ is actually rather simplistic and actually misogynistic. It implies that women can’t decide on their own the comments being made about rape, or can think rationally about it (in the IRREVERSIBLE thread, if you recall I answered a similar retort with the strength of a women like Tori Amos, who contemplated rape, and its aftermath in her highly personal song ‘Me and A Gun’ from her great record ‘Little Earthquakes’. She was an actual victim, that took the topic head-on, and you never touched the comment), and that somehow the majority of males also don’t find it reprehensible. When the rape of a female occurs within a society she is the victim, but every man, woman, and child suffers, as it’s an act that reverberates and pushes untold negativity into the world. A negativity that anyone sensitive enough can feel. Just as when you walk past a homeless person– regardless of your gender or theirs, or your financial situation it’s a pain you (should) feel.
_ _ _ _
I also think something that most miss about Borowczyk is his sense of humor. It comes off as 70′s camp a bit (and why I said if you aren’t familiar with these type of films they’re hard to approach. For example if you started watching a lot of giallos many people are off put by the dubbing. Sometimes it’s so atrocious that the films then feel amateurish, when really it is just a technical limitation. A a shame too because its such a minor thing to like about the films), but I just find it so gloriously offensive– the best type of comedy. This joke of an aristocratic family is trying so hard to impress but everywhere the camera turns he’s undermining them as a joke by either showing how they act, or what they desire to become (and everywhere a huge phallus is there to mock us). Perhaps much of his sense of humor is lost in translation, or difference of culture/era, or because he’s often put forth as an ‘art-director’ but I find him hilarious. He’s like Buñuel meets Zulawski with a little bit of, I don’t know Jess Franco (?) for the trash aspect. Maybe Ferreri too (certainly something like ‘La Grande boucle’ or ‘Don’t Touch the White Woman!’ are applicable, but without all the nudity)?
_ _ _ _
Yes The Beast has a 74% on Rotten Tomatoes. Would you like for me to list what every Pixar and Spielberg film has generated as a score? Would you also like for me to post some of your own hyperbolic putdowns of those “ass clowns” as you once brilliantly put it (and I swear I’m not being sarcastic when I say brilliant). And yes, send me that recommendation of Immoral Women as I will definitely watch it when I get time. Better to watch something and criticize, then not watch at all….
Yes, I agree it means nothing, hence why my complete usage of it was “It has a 74% rating on Rotten Tomatoes (which says nothing really other then it’s not a ‘horrendously shitty’ movie)”. I was just trying to alert others that this film divides people so it should be watched, not avoided. As perhaps all films should be (which you also state).
_ _ _ _
In the end you can hate this film, and never watch it again and I’d be more then happy with that. Opinions will always vary in these things. But, good or bad it is a fascinating movie, and I think there is no debating that.
My reading of the rape scene is actually from a desensitized position because I’ve been subjected to such imagery over and over again in many films throughout the years. My problem with the rape scene in Irreversible is not the symbolic nature, but the fact that Noe lingers on it for 9-10 minutes and allows its possible effectiveness to switch to exploitation. We get his point after one or two minutes, everything after is simply filler/voyuerism. The fact that media reports mention he was laughing with glee as patrons walked out of the screening says it all… another wind up merchant. Nothing wrong with that in the larger scheme of things, but I have stressed repeatedly that those kinds of artists simply don’t interest me. Just like I’ve never cared for death metal or gangster rap, I find most of what you title “extreme” to be lacking in subtleness and for me, artistry devoid of fascination. In the end these fundamental differences cannot be solved. We keep going in circles (sometimes insulting each other) and we always end up in the same position again. Neither of us is going to bend in the end, so at some point a stalemate must be announced. Outside of this admittedly large aesthetic chasm, I usually find myself agreeing with you when you tangle with Bob or Dennis. But I must stress that I tend to naturally question anything that resides too far from one side of the spectrum to the other with art. The reason I have consistently denounced both “extreme” and Pixar in equal measures since my time at WITD. They both lack shades of grey that are enduring to my appreciation for cinema.
Also if I remember correctly, barely anyone is shot in the Heat heist sequence (which is actually a flaw since more dying bystanders would of been the realistic scenario). The ones that were shot/killed proved the key element to what Mann was trying to say in the film. Something you probably glossed over due to disinterest. Remember the diner scene with Pacino and De Niro meeting up. Its the most important moment, as the glaring distinctions between the two characters is finally laid out. Up to that point Mann frames the criminal and the cop like professional dopplegangers who’s similarities are startling. That climactic confrontation where they finally face off over coffee and toast reveals the real difference when Pacino utters “but I tell you, if it’s between you and some poor bastard whose wife you’re gonna turn into a widow, brother, you are going down.” De Niro responds with “What if you do got me boxed in and I gotta put you down? Cause no matter what, you will not get in my way. We’ve been face to face, yeah. But I will not hesitate. Not for a second.” This exchange is exemplified in the shootout as De Niro is heartlessly spraying ammunition towards anyone who gets in his way. Pacino instead is serving two duties.. subduing the criminals and trying to save civilians. Thus it is absolutely incorrect to say that human life has been reduced to target practice. Mann is giving visual signifiers as to why one character is a force for good while the other is an evil criminal. The shootout is a further thematic device to separate the motivations of the two characters into separate camps. Now you may find his narrative unworthy of whatever you deem important in cinema, but your casual uninformed dismissal of it and me as misogynistic later in your comment proves you are not above indulging in the same behavior you prescribe to me throughout your retort above. Its the same accusation you lobbied at Joel today. You get angry when he says something that you take as a personal insult, but you have no problems calling me something I find highly offensive. Self awareness please. I can’t believe you would contradict yourself so thoroughly. It makes it hard to take you serious at times.
Your description of The Beast and its various moral, political, and social implications is brilliant (much better than the actual work). I wonder how much of that is actually infused in the film, or simply projected into it by you (which I feel you did with A Serbian Film, when I could not find any of your positions/views on the actual movie). I only watched The Beast once and was struck by the overwhelming surface silliness that perhaps prevented me from seeing what you describe in depth any further. This for me is an overwhelming insurmountable flaw that reduces the possible message ingrained within the text of the picture as a missed opportunity by the filmmaker. The fact that it resides in celluloid oblivion may or may not prove my point. It first has to please aesthetically and have the viewer focused deeply and seriously before the message can be extracted from its core essence. Alas I just found The Beast to be overwrought and frankly corny. A great movie has to naturally be effective in many different areas. I cannot appreciate possible virtues if the film is wrapped up in asinine content that I cannot take serious (just my opinion of course). Now even after your revelatory description about The Beast and its artistic aim, I honestly doubt that I will revisit it again. I just chalk this picture up as another that you have recommended that I find to be quite plainly a bad film. Yeah maybe there is a worthy intellectual core, but it seems to be wrapped up with such flimsy acting, shoddy editing, laughable content, and a Euro silliness (that would make the “Barbie Girl” group Aqua proud), that I find myself apathetic towards it. Philosophy and politics alone do not make great cinema.
I’m not sure how to respond to you telling me that “Your continued desire to place female friends opinions in the mix,” as some sort of flaw in judgement. Why would I not listen to a female perspective that I myself am not privy to because of biology? The way you actually begin this paragraph seems more sexist and chauvinistic then anything I ever said. Your telling me to discount the views of people that are close to me and whose opinion I value. Yeah Tori Amos comes at the topic from a different angle, and if I ever said unequivocally, that all women would find something offensive (or be unable to contemplate it from a opposite line of thinking) in all rape sequences then I was wrong. What I remember stating in the Irreversible thread is probably true though to a large degree. I guarantee you that if we took a poll of a thousand women, that the majority would find the rape scene despicable. I’ll lay you 12 to 1 odds on that outcome. Does that really prove anything in the end? Maybe not, but it would be empirical evidence that some exploitation is probably amiss lol. Sorry that I never responded to your Amos inquiry as I barely remember it. You have also at times gone missing when I have posed a pointed question towards you. I specifically remember the Horror Countdown final list, where we got into an argument over visceral horror films and The Seventh Victim. I made a comment about Val Lewton’s films being an alternative to stuff like The Wolfman (in direct contradiction to what you were arguing) which you never bothered to continue further. It happens both ways my friend.
Well I probably missed some stuff that you directed towards me above, but I spent enough time this Saturday morning writing this response. By all means feel free to retaliate. Just letting you know that I probably won’t come to the site again until Monday morning as I will take a weekend break.
You guys need to understand that I don’t attack you or contradict myself; when I call your argument line misogynistic it’s an attack of an idea you’ve said and can alter if you wish, but I’m not calling you misogynistic (you may or may not be I don’t know, but I’m definitely not calling you personally one). This goes for virtually everything I say to you guys, and what makes Joel essentially telling me what I am (and incorrect at that) different. He and I have already discussed it personally so I’ll leave it at that. (But you’ve probably noticed by now as you’ve seemingly telepathically followed suit, is that I’m trying to be Peaceful Pearce as hard as I can, so there is a concerted effort, and I’ll try and be a bit sweeter when I’m told I’m being a bit brash)
I do recall the moments in HEAT you speak of, and though your reading of Mann’s character implications are correct, meaning he has characters espouse a philosophy that they must then live out fully within the films duration for them to mean anything. I’ve always gotten that, but contemplating it a bit more (perhaps even on moral grounds) it essentially amounts to the ethos of a terrorist (which isn’t bad in and of itself, but it’s not something Mann’s conservative social underpinnings has ever believed in or sought to fulfill. He’s using it as a tool to distance the characters from him or us, and he doesn’t find them ‘normal’ so it’s a little disingenuous). So while the film may be thematically consistent, it may just be philosophically gross/inconsistent.
That’s fair, as I said, that you find THE BEAST corny and probably won’t return it’s a sensation many have had with the film. It won’t be the last oddball I recommend that you’ll feel this way about. But I am hoping to have a Halloween post that quickly covers a few recent out there films that some can find and see a little artistry and interest in (and some are just highlighted for their audacity). I will add, in closing that I’m baffled you couldn’t make some of the connections I did in regards to THE BEAST’s content, or that you think I’m adding something that isn’t there. It’s such the films intent that you almost have to try to not find it to not find it. If that makes any sense. Plus, if you knew more of his canon you could better look for his auteuristic ideas, and understand his voice both conceptually and stylistically (which is what Allan is getting at below and you strangely don’t feel is applicable).
_ _ _ _
Of course listen to females, all females. That’s my point. I’m willing to bet that you associate yourself, more or less, with ideologically the same female. And this is normal, there is a prevailing ideological undercurrent in both genders in this country (of a specific class and generation we find ourselves in as well) that will reject this content just out of hand regardless of how any of the scenes are framed (what this says or why this is I refuse to touch with a ten foot pole!). I was merely stating to not take this (relatively) small sample size as some sort of ‘truth’ of the contents perceived sensationalism as there are females who will approach this stuff with a more open mind and give it intellectual discourse. These are the types of females I desire to surround myself with (and the type of males too obviously), and surprise(!) I’ve only met about 3 in my thirty years on Earth. But, in short these kind of statements just say more about the people we associate with (or not in my case), not the films content. That must be hashed out between ourselves.
Or, the conversation could come into a larger debate/discussion on the nature of the male gaze in all the arts and how possibly incorrect/immoral it is to women. But at this point we’d be probably throw out 98% of cinema that has been made, and I don’t think this is an endeavor you’d wish to partake in.
But I do recall several of the THE SEVENTH VICTIM like conversations during the Horror countdown and I recall continuing several to the end on a wide spectrum of angles, be it the extreme evolutionary timeline (that essentially THE SEVENTH VICTIM could be seen as a ‘showing’ extreme film of it’s day [it 'shows' it with dialogue] since it’s so nakedly open about its core philosophy), actual content (that would be more concerned with modern films), and just the actual difference of ‘showing vs. not’. You can through the Horror countdown posts and find the conversations springing up about 5 times.
_ _ _ _ _
“Philosophy and politics alone do not make great cinema.”
I respectively disagree. That’s all art is, and all the artist’s impulse is. Philosophy and Politics. Even if it’s wrapped up as expressionistic, visceral, or technical it’s coming out as a means to expound or exhibit a philosophical (and/or Political) urge that artist(s) has, or wishes an audience to understand.
The effectiveness of a film is bound to more than just philosophy/politics. Cinematic techniques must also be taken into account. The way a director frames a shot, edits it, and dresses his concerns in cinematic methods or appropriate content. These things are just as important to me. Numerous movies pertain philosophical aspects that fascinate me, but the good ones wrap it up in a manner that I find worthy of returning to. Otherwise I would just read a book on philosophy. Of course we all look at art in very personal individual ways, so I guess no viewing method is completely correct in the end.
I think the argument with The Seventh Victim back then was about extremism in horror due to what is shown. Dennis was praising The Others which you found flawed and regressive in nature. My argument was that the same critique could be placed on something like The Seventh Victim which was a more restrained alternative to the Universal horror stuff, and less explicit in showing grotesque subject matters. I guess the philosophical extremism you broach is probably correct and accurate (though unlike most modern extreme stuff I don’t think anyone was horrified by the content back then), but I’m not sure if that was part of the debate we focused on specifically at that moment.
I’ll get to other stuff a bit later….
I never really analyzed the ideological disposition of the people I know (some of who would be labeled conservative, others who are extremely liberal) in any specific way. I’m just relaying the feedback I have been given as to matters we are discussing here and what stirs a response within me. I try not to indulge in emotional knee jerk reactions (though at times I’m sure I fall prey to this) and look at certain situations in a logical and detached perspective. Remember, you will never catch me calling for anything to be censored, and I will always view something you recommend regardless of my skepticism initially. I will always examine something before I tear it apart. Implying that I associate myself with certain types of people ideologically that conform to my beliefs (while understandable) is actually inaccurate. I frequent social circles that are vastly different from one another and would not merge smoothly if joined together. I value vastly different perspectives immensely, and perhaps this is why I find folly with drastic extremes. I refuse to blanket myself with only one line of thinking, or surround myself with only like minded individuals. So actually, I associate myself with a wide array of unique people. I’ve had female friends/girlfriends/family/etc that cover a wide spectrum of feminine perspectives all the way from Snooki to Janeane Garafolo. This would be more enlightening than saying that “These are the types of females I desire to surround myself with (and the type of males too obviously), and surprise(!) I’ve only met about 3 in my thirty years on Earth.” which implies an insular way of looking at things or establishing ideas/ideologies. Perhaps an unbendable approach which is elitist in nature, and not entirely accurate with how women see certain imagery lacks proper context.
Corresponding with someone through the internet is obviously not the same as in person. I’m sure at times we all misunderstand each others intentions when reading something. I agree with your first paragraph and don’t doubt your truthfulness. Though we do have a history of crossing the line and trading insults, I’ll accept wholeheartedly that you were not attacking me personally when saying I was misogynistic. Either way, I’m over it anyway lol.
One last thing before I take a 12 step WITD withdrawal program and disappear for a few days… I don’t really know Michael Mann’s “conservative social underpinnings” and can’t say beyond a doubt what his complete and totally undeniable philosophical aim is while making Heat (a contemplative statement that he would never endorse the ethos of a terrorist is beyond my knowledge of him as a person). I can only view the film from my own individual interpretation and what the film says to me. I don’t see him as that conservative since one of his thematic concerns is the blurred line between criminals and law enforcement. Yeah Pacino finally shows why he is different from De Niro, but Mann still wants you to ponder if the way they live their lives and affect those around them are all that different in the bigger picture (its like they both would drop loved ones to carry out their duties). This is something that most social conservatives would scoff at I would think, and label as socially subversive. The shootout is really where we see the fundamental difference in the characters and why the heist is not some callous violent set piece with no brains attached to the action. His views on his characters has a definite amount of ambiguity that corresponds with the noir milieu. So in passing I think your putdown of Mann’s film as “philosophically gross/inconsistent” is really only your subjective opinion which I do not agree with for one second. Your examples for coming up to this conclusion are tenuous at best. Still all these conclusions we reach within ourselves should be respected. We are all unique individuals with our own particular concerns. It would seem more constructive to not take the low road during every discussion and throw insults like children (unless done in a lighthearted way like the Mary Poppins thread)… this goes for just about everyone on WITD obviously lol.
FRANK-The collaboration came totally by accident. Sam had much of it written when I walked into his office yesterday. But he was sitting quietly at his desk, staring at the screen and muttering under his breath. Figuring this was just SAM getting pissed at a particular comment or an annoying email I was about to leave him alone and just go see what kind of trouble the kids were getting into (Water-Baloons thrown at tonights company from the roof? I’m there in a heart-beat!!!!!)… However, as I turned to exit the office he asked me to do a proof-read of the stuff already written and hit me with the ultimate, guilt-inducing words (“cause you really ARE one of the supreme authorities on this film and Disney”)…
From there it was just making a few minor suggestions in the wording, and adding one element to it to help it make the whole thing hum better than it was already humming.
Really, though, my participation was minor compaired to Sam’s contributions. He laid in the foundation… I came in with the window dressings….
Trashing Borowczyk? Jesus, you don’t mind putting it out there, do you, Maurizio? Come back to me when you have seen Goto, Blanche and The Story of Sin as well. You don’t get La Bête, which is fine, but don’t insult the intelligence of those who do. He’s one of the great erotic rhapsodists of the cinema and Blanche one of the great unknown films – especially in the US, at least we had a VHS release in the UK back in the day. Likewise, Story of Sin is only available in the UK.
I only trashed Borowczyk in relation to The Beast. I stated in a separate comment that I was open to watching some of his other stuff. Your comment reminds me of the Vilmos Zsigmond debate, where you had to let everyone know your favorite 57 cinematographers. Okay you get a gold star for seeing three other Borowczyks. What that has to do with my opinion on The Beast I don’t know.
A great read, and amazing smooth for the co-authorship nature of it, and I can still detect both of your voices shining through. Nice job.
I recall really liking this film when I originally saw it at 11 or 12 (it immediately tied THE SWORD AND THE STONE and ROBIN HOOD as my favorite animated Disney features), I haven’t seen it since so I can’t say more but I should revisit it. I recall finding the Beast incredibly sympathetic, charismatic, and moody (early in the film he’s a great ‘don’t want to get out of bed’ depressive). Just a great characterization.
I’d agree that the Cocteau is infinitely better, but that’s no disparagement, Cocteau’s films are better then most.
Jamie—
Thanks for the acute-eyed assessment. I am delighted you were able to detect the two voices here. I am definitely a fan of THE SWORD AND THE STONE too. That one had me enraptued in those long ago days. I completely agree with you on that great assessment of the Beast, and the position on Cocteau’s film, which as you rightly note is better than most, period.
As always thanks for the kind words my excellent friend!
Sam –
‘The Sword and the Stone’ suffered the terrible box-office fate of being released days after JFK was shot.
Mark, that is quite true. I had forgotten that.
JAMIE-I totally agree. This film is really a compliment to the Cocteau original and, like you, I see them both standing on there own and causing no challenge to the other.
As for the voices in the essay, I know exactly what you are saying as a trained eye can tell when the other author is stepping in. I won’t tell you what paragraph I completely authored but I think it’s pretty obvious just from reading our individual work for a while…
I’m really glad you liked this one…
And, just so we’re clear on this…
I wanted NO credit on this essay at all as I felt that SAM had done the bulk and the lion’s share of the work on it. As always, though, he wouldn’t hear of it and he stuck my name in there as a co-author as well. In actuality, I just brought up some points about the film that I felt he needed to add more focus on or include altogether and merely helped him reword a few passages…
The figuring on the importance of the “Rose” was really where we both felt the essay needed to strengthen itself on as it’s the key story-element of the film…
The final paragraph, as I’m sure Jamie picked off, is pretty much my over-enthusiatic wordings of praise….
So, collaborative? Somewhat…
Mostly Sam, though….
Sam and dennis, I thoroughly enjoyed your very skillful collaboration here. I found the play between this and the Cocteau version very engaging. Exposing one of the vast territories of my ignorance, I have to admit I’ve never seen this picture. But I’m going to fix that this week. Maybe with basketball on hold I can catch up a bit. But it will take years to come close to the coverage most of the others here have.
Jim—
I’d say it’s odds-on that you will come away with profound appreciation for this, and will negotiate some compelling instances of indeptedness, even while this hybrid stands by itself it the way it fuses so many disperate elements. The timeless score will forever enconse the film in the affections of movie goers, and children may well be able to identify the first time they ever saw it, similar to the way that some remember where they were when they heard about JFK’s assassination.
Thanks for the very kind words my friend.
I’ll add him Jim that you abiding reverence for Cocteau’s work would give you an added impetus here to check out this Disney.
Actually, JIM, seeing this film should nbot be a really difficult thing to do as the film has just been re-released on home video a few months ago.
I know that NETFLIX is currently renting out botht the DVD and the BLU-RAY and the BLU-RAY still has a few weeks of shelf life left at the local video outlets and places like COCONUTS and FYE.
If you do intend to rent or purchase then please, please, please go with the Blu-Ray. The picture quality is astounding but the newly remastered score in DTS surround sound adds a whole new level of enveloping experience to the home viewing. As Sam and I have said, the music is the key here…
Another thought on the subject of this and other Disney musicals. Belle is far and away my favorite of the Disney heroines (but then I’m partial to ANY character who loves to read and finds the library to be the most enchanting room in the castle!).
Am I alone in finding the most recent Disney outing, TANGLED, to have an wonderful score and a heroine nearly as wonderful as Belle? It’s been largely overlooked, I think unfairly. I found it delightful, and, in particular, loved the ‘performance’ of Broadway veteran Donna Murphy in a key role.
Pat—
You most assuredly are not alone! I haven’t seen TANGLED again since my theatrical viewing with the family upon the film’s release, but I had a positive reaction to it. The song “I See the Light” is a real show-stopper, both for the music and visual design. It may seem to have been overlooked, but the reviews were actually most impressive. Good point about Donna Murphy! I am tempted to pick up the blu-ray.
Yep Belle has special qualities!
Haha Pat! Yes you are not the only one! Tangled is a huge hit at our house with two young girls running around. Holly loves for me to tell her Rapunzel stories every night before bed because she loves the movie so much. I actually really liked it too!
PAT-You can count me in as a THIRD on the admiration of TANGLED which, as a Sam annointed Disney “expert”, is probably the best musical to come out of the “Mouse House” since the glowing reviews of BEAYTY AND THE BEAST swept the papers. I found the characters in TANGLED as detailed and complex as the ones talked about in this essay and the music is the icing on the cake for a film dotted with visual ingenuity and a tight little script.
Matter of fact, TANGLED would have probably been the animated choice for last years BEST PICTURE nomination at the Oscars if it wasn’t for the slightly better and far more emotional TOY STORY 3….
‘Tangled’ isn’t a great film, but I’ll agree it is much better than I expected.
IMHO, when Disney moved to the Xerox process in ’101 Dalmatians’ and then on to computer-generated animation, the films lost all the delicacy and beauty of the hand-inked, hand-painted cels (‘Pinocchio’ being the pinnacle of Disney animation). IMHO.
But Dennis’ and Sam’s countdown essay is a beautiful defense of the best cartoon of the Disney renascence.
Yes, but it’s a necessary step to keep production up and increase the scale and scope of what they can do, at times. Speaking as a big anime fan, I’ll admit that I miss the days when things were all done with cel-animation, but you can’t deny that there’s positives to new computer techniques. There’s more animation out there, for one thing, and from more independent sources. Even the big-budget fare gets a boost, from what they’re able to do– the shapeshifting angel from the Operation Yashima set-piece of Evangelion 1.0 would’ve been next to impossible to do in traditional cel-animation, and certainly was back during the creation of the original series back in ’95, especially with the budget Gainax had.
Yup, yup…
Gotta agree with BOB on this one… But, I think it goes even further than that… The computer, when used as a tool and not the star of a film, can be god-send in creating something that would never come off with the natural shaking tendencies of the human hand…
Love the film or hate it, but think of what a mess JURASSIC PARK would have been, and how absolutely fake and unbelievable it would have looked had it not been for the computers. Originally, the Dinosaurs would have been done in traditional stop-motion animation and that, in itself would have slowed the production and, visually, never come as close to convincing as the computer generated imagery did. The Dinosaurs look absolutely real in JURASSIC PARK and it’s because Spielberg had the critical eye to say “sorry, less won’t do”.
Jurassic Park…possibly the last movie to unqualifiably benefit from CGI .
No. Even if we’re gonna be conservative, let’s say “Fight Club”. There’s one-of-a-kind imagery in there that you’d never be able to do without CGI, and the anarchist sensibilities of the work are all the better served by it, puting a genuine scale and scope to the politics at work that makes it that much more epic. Fincher might’ve gone a little overboard afterwards with “Panic Room”, and retreated way too much since “Benjamin Button”, but what he achieved there is something of a miracle– even moreso that he used those kinds of resources and got away with it.
Eh. I’m lukewarm on Fight Club at best, but I’ll admit it is visually impressive. I know my statement isn’t quite true, but I like the sound of it and believe in the spirit. Putting aside animation (which has benefitted from CGI) I think digital effects have done more damage to the credibility of special effects than anything since rubber monster suits became popular in Japan. And at least those had charm.
I’ll grant you that when it’s well-used it’s not trying to mimic real-life but rather create something that couldn’t exist in the real world (not couldn’t as in isn’t there, but as in has nothing to do with the physical properties of the material world – like that Ikea thing in FC). Even Avatar works only when you see it as a Roger Rabbit type thing where a young soldier meets Toons from another planet.
I’d say this appropriate use of the computer animation is pretty rare; in general it’s used as a lazy substitute for models or animatronics and it just looks crappy in comparison, all weightless and chimerical and just not quite “there” or convincing, like Christopher Lloyd trying to pass for human to return to the RR example. I’d prefer even matte paintings for the most part.
Yes, MARK, I would, for the most part, agree with you on your statement…
However, once Katzenberg took over the animation wing of the studio the things that bothered us were the things that bothered him and they were jettisoned. There is absolutely no hint of the “ghosting” that the xerox process was giving the films back in the days of 101 DALMATIANS and THE SWORD IN THE STONE and ROBIN HOOD. Here, with BEAUTY (and actually started with THE LITTLE MERMAID), the animation has a final line and there is none of the choppiness that was a signature of those lazy times.
PINOCCHIO is, indeed, the finest example of Disney’s feature work, but it wasn’t the limit for trying to achieve excellence as both FANTASIA and BAMBI are superlative films that came right after…
Dennis, you’re right, of course.
And ‘Fantasia’s ‘Dance of the Hours’ sequence, with its riotous send-up of high culture, is my favorite piece of Disney animation, hands-down.
Mark, you make a fair enough point there, though as we stated in the review this was a blend of two styles. Thanks for the generous words my friends!
Great teamwork, Dennis and Sam… and I’m very interested to learn more about the teamwork of Ashman and Menken! I’ll admit I’m not a big fan of Disney in general, which is probably because I hardly saw any of their films as a kid – then saw their more recent offerings too much as an adult, as both my children insisted on watching various films time and again. If I ever see Aladdin again it will be too soon. But I do like this one for the fantastic score, especially the title song and ‘Be Our Guest’, and also for its humour such as the way Gaston, who looks like an identikit Disney square-jawed hero, turns out to be an annoying idiot. I have seen the musical on stage but must admit I don’t really remember it properly.
Judy–
In behalf of Dennis and myself, thanks as always for the support and very kind words! Thanks too for the frank assessment of the Disney titles, and your acknowledgement that this one is special largely because of the memorable score. Ashman and Menken collaborated on LITTLE SHOP OF HORRORS, THE LITTLE MERMAID, ALADDIN and BEAUTY AND THE BEAST and the former’s tragic passing deprived the world of further musical glories. It was so sad he died at such a young age.
I know, JUDY, I know…
My nephews did the same and it almost makes you wanna kick in the TV screen and sell the kids off for medical experimentation afterwards. Sam’s kids did the same…
However, whereas they rewatch these films cause they’re fun and the music is catchy (I remember a period where most of Sam’s kids were constantly singing HAKUNA MUTATA from the THE LION KING-that song is the undisputed favorite for kids of any song in recent Disney), I have revisted them for other things. The delicacy of the animation, the references to other films that work there way into the visual inspiration (as an example: both Spielberg’s RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK and Lean’s epics have a firm grip on ALADDIN), and, most of all, the character developement and the music (the characters are far more real in the “renaissance” period than they ever were back in the days of classic Disney)…
Some will vehemently lash out at current Disney for being too preachy or “conservative” and they may well have a point. But, where some don’t see it, I see these films (and I see it all the way back from those meager beginnings in the 20′s all the way up to todays newest features) as an artform that is slowly going extinct from the onslaught of todays easier and quicker way of making them (computers). Not that I’m saying that I hate PIXAR, actually I love their work, but its a shame that there seems to be no more interest in the traditionally hand drawn animation that made Disney what it is today…
PS, Yet more great work by Dee Dee on the sidebar! It would be great if we could have a list of some of the sites she’s highlighted with information on all the musicals at the end of the countdown, though not if it is going to cause loads more work for her, of course!
Indeed Judy! Great idea. She’s really unearthed some gems!!!
If I had known about that “ROSE” poster that Dee-Dee unearthed for the side-bar, I’d have cropped it and insisted that Sam use it as THE image of the film for the main image of the post…
Dee-Dee is a miracle with this kind of thing…
Finally got a chance to read the essay, and it’s great! Really engaging work by you two on a film that remains compelling after all these years. I haven’t seen it in a longer time than probably any other major Disney film (except maybe The Little Mermaid) though my cousin has a kid and whenever I visit it gives me an excuse to rewatch the kids’ films I haven’t seen since childhood (though I do own several Disneys).
I feel like I’ve blown hot & cold on the Disney “renaissance” films – when I was a kid of course, just about the right age for them (6 – 10 between Little Mermaid & Aladdin), I loved them, but later I felt they couldn’t hold up compared to the Disney originals, as Mark S says. Lately I’ve been reconsidering, especially after watching the film Waking Sleeping Beauty. The doc is a bit of an inside-job propaganda – it was co-produced by a former Disney head (though one could argue that might make it more likely to make it negative!), and it while it covers all the friction and drama it does put a bit of a gloss on it and even tries to make us like or at least not hate Michael Eisner, of all people.
But it really tuned me in to the fact that Menken and Ashman (whom I always want to call “Howard Shore” for some reason) were quite probably the creative powerhouses behind the renaissance. I think part of my assumption that the new films couldn’t hold a candle to the old (and I still don’t think I’d necessarily put them in the same class) was that old Walt was in a certain sense an auteur, and the later films, however good, were works of committee, with all the concomitant compromises and generality that presumes. But seeing the duo, especially Ashman (who the doc focuses on) as the creative personality behind the renaissance, with his passions and creative vision expressed through the creative decisions of the film, helped me see these in a new light.
Of course the ultimate irony is that all this assessment and reassessment is done purely based on memory, as I haven’t watched these films that much since I was a kid! If I can get through the movies waiting to be written up, the Netflix I’ve had sitting around for weeks, the movies Sam & Allan generously gave me, and the hundred or so movies I bought this summer in a madcap spending spree, maybe I can find time to re-watch this!
Once again, very nice piece. Congrats.
I never bought the “Disney has a special place in film hell” argument JAMIE is often spurting around on these threads.
Like you, I see Ashman as the driving force, both in his life and in spirit through Alan Menken and Tim Rice, of a creative time when the old ways were put back into use.
Katzenberg should be given credit alone for insisting on the practices of yore when he insisted on cleaning up the visuals and making them more crytalline and pure like the one from the big five period when Walt was the watchful eyes over everything, and for having the brains to hire Ashman and Menken in the first place. Say what you want to about what the company means in the long run and that the other films (live action primarily) are an insult to the senses of those that really do see the art in film but, for the most part, the new breed of animated films that have come out of the MOUSE HOUSE are closer to the original intentions of Disney (an artist back then) than the mid section (with slap and dash flicks like SWORD IN THE STONE, ROBIN HOOD, THE BLACK CAULDRON and THE FOX AND THE HOUND) than ever before. The reason for this is simple; they tell the stories well and they have a never ending line of imagination thrust onto them rarely seen in movie making today. I include PIXAR’s work in this bunching as the work from that house has, for the most part, been exemplary. It’s all just good story telling done with brains, imagination, ingenuity and a want to create fun. No more than that…
I think the problem is that most high-brows read into these things rather than sitting back and just enjoying the ride…
I feel increasingly lukewarm on Pixar, and I think it’s because to a certain extent they play it safe in a way the best Disney’s don’t – they are very clever and enjoyable, but (except for Wall-E) without the emotional depth or resonance that comes in the exposure of feeling you can find in the Disney renaissance films or the early Disneys. This is true in ways hard to pin down, but I think it’s also true in fairly obvious ways: how may truly troubling or stirring moments are there in Pixars compared to Disney’s (not just “scary” but actually “disturbing” or “upsetting”)? Mainly I can think of Sid’s toys in Toy Story, the love story in Wall-E; I haven’t seen all of Up but I’m given to understand that the opening minutes have it too. Vs. Pleasure Island, Bald Mountain, Bambi’s mom, Dumbo’s mom (and his exclusion), the Tramp’s seeming death (and the whole class dynamic brought up by that film), and so forth. And in the newer films Ariel’s teenage yearnings, the complex love affair of Beauty & the Beast, the father’s death and Hamlet-clone drama of The Lion King.
I don’t want to bash Pixar (Stephen & Jamie will be happy enough to do that) and I’ll defend them from attacks that they are the spawn of Satan – they’re not that, and are basically oases of well-made entertainment in a sea of mediocrity (and worse) that is contemporary Hollywood. But I’m not sure for the most part they’re much more than well-made entertainment. There’s just something sort of safe and self-satisfied about them I think, maybe that’s why I always enjoy them when I see them but I never rush off to see them in the theater.
I’d also add that a film doesn’t have to have dark elements to be great, though it usually helps – Singin’ in the Rain is a great example of a masterpiece that is entirely light-hearted (not to say it is simplistic or lacks any edge; its hero is a heel for much of the picture, among other things). But I don’t think Pixar achieves the grace of Kelly/Donen.
Dennis-
“I never bought the “Disney has a special place in film hell” argument JAMIE is often spurting around on these threads. ”
is a misquote, I never specify that it’s a ‘film’ hell. I just say ‘hell’, which gets more to the root of my argument. I believe hell is a place for greedy men who distract and slow civilizations process, and deter humans from accurately and compassionately showing genuine affection to one another. On these grounds Disney (and Pixar) certainly deserve eternal damnation.
To denote it as a ‘film hell’ is to much about the medium. They are bad films for the most part (offensive in their genericness) but they have way to many fans to ever see that treatment. No, the hell must be broader as it about their impact on culture and society.
“I believe hell is a place for greedy men who distract and slow civilizations process, and deter humans from accurately and compassionately showing genuine affection to one another.”
How do extreme films do this? (I know you will say they “wake us up” but if they alienate most of their viewers, can it be said they really achieve this?)
I think there are two Jamies: the one that likes film for the aesthetic experience, and the one that subordinates pleasure to social good. I think the first one always wins out (I think you genuinely don’t LIKE Disney, Pixar, Spielberg and if you did you’d find excuses for them), and that you find a way to mask that first Jamie under the second which is as it should be. The fact that you’re an aesthete first & foremost even if you won’t admit it makes me like you (or “you as critic”) more than if you were subjecting your intuitive grasp of a film to some sort of intellectual dogma, but it does make for some frustrating discussions as you won’t recognize what other people might like in the works you don’t.
I think there is one Joel that likes making glib psychoanalysis on those he’s never met.
I said “you as critic” and I’ve met that one plenty of times.
I like that it’s an either-or proposition. Either I think something is pleasurable OR it does a social good, because you know something can’t do both or one can’t approach something with both in mind. As is the case in pretty much all base-level psychoanalysis you end up saying more about how you view art or approach the world then how I do.
“Either I think something is pleasurable OR it does a social good”
I eagerly await your exposition of where I said this. What I did say was “one that likes film for the aesthetic experience, and the one that subordinates pleasure to social good.” The key is “subordination” not “social good.”
“the one that likes film for the aesthetic experience, and the one that subordinates pleasure to social good.”
Seems pretty cut and dry to me, though you can always just go back into wordpress and edit what you originally said.
Actually, I directly quoted the original post without changing a thing.
But lying about what I’m doing is as good an approach as any to short-circuit a real discussion, which often seems to be your goal. It won’t work in this case, because I’d rather get to the bottom of all this. I made what I think is an accurate observation about your way of criticizing movies and you’ve yet to prove me wrong, just play a lot of semantic games and change the subject. I trust anyone who’s been following your comments for the past few years will see what I’m saying.
It’s not personal, and has nothing to do with your “offscreen” life. We all have our quirks and idiosyncrasies, just some of us are better at owning up to them than you.
I don’t have to proof you wrong, you’re incorrect, and you’ve created a highly charged environment where I can’t say anything to alter an opinion you’ve made about me and are now trying to claim is factual. It’s condescending as hell, and I don’t really feel the need on a/n (otherwise) enjoyable Friday afternoon.
I would be like me starting a conversation by saying, “There are two Joels; one is politically ignorant, and the other is culturally devoid.” Prove me wrong, otherwise it’s factual. And if you don’t it’s because you like hijacking debate.
It’s asinine.
Hey, at least ONE of my characterizations of you were positive.
You read way too much into my comments – I can critique your attitude or approach without critiquing you personally. That’s what intellectual discourse is supposed to be about. And, incidentally, I’m still waiting for your definition of “postmodernism” along with many other threads you abandoned when it became clear I
was(WAS NOT – correction in WordPress, mea maxima culpa) going to bow down before your superior knowledge which you always conveniently neglect to demonstrate.Glad it’s nice in Chicago. It’s raining cats & dogs in New England, which is why I’ve got time to do this (although really I don’t given other things on my plate, I just can’t resist).
Incidentally, is it too late to add my “THIS” to Bob’s?
I mean this:
It’s not personal, and has nothing to do with your “offscreen” life. We all have our quirks and idiosyncrasies, just some of us are better at owning up to them than you.
!
translate: It’s not personal, but personally you don’t own up to anything, you despicable POS. I mean, jesus. Really?
I never offered a definition of post-modern, and you’ll find I also won’t get into politics that much around here as what’s the point, my vantage point has already been (supposedly) sussed out and articulated by others (again supposedly).
But you told me my definition of postmodern was wrong, and then refused to articulate your own. That’s the issue, and it was a low blow. You want to attack from a position of immunity.
Nice tune, though your point is cryptic as always – if anyone seems to have their arms “wrapped around the answers” it’s you, and a bit too snugly. Mind loosening your grip to let others have a look?
It’s a glowing piece from Sam and Dennis, two of Disney’s greatest cheerleaders, though in this case it’s certainly justified. Just one statement made me smile, however…
By many critics’ accounts, Beauty and the Beast is the musical by which all modern musicals are now measured.
Yes, that woulc be because there are no fucking good modern musicals. When Chicago’s the best of the bunch, you know you’re scraping the bottom of the barrel. It’s like calling Titanic the best disaster movie of modern times.
‘Chicago’ and ‘Beauty and the Beast’ are among the best musicals of the recent two decades. I don’t think that is small praise at all, but rather a validation of their excellence.
The trashing of CHICAGO here is laughable and just shows that the musical form in large measure has never been your cup.
Still, thanks for the very nice words.
Jamie amd MovieMan –
Isn’t Blier’s ‘Going Places’ (1974) considered the first postmodern film? Or am I wrong?
Mauriz –
If you’re feeling desensitized toward film rape these days (and who isn’t?), Bergman’s ‘The Virgin Spring’ will re-sensitize you to its horrors in a big hurry. Bergman’s rape scene here may be the most genuinely unsettling on film.
I actually think that one is pretty tame (physically there have been many much worse–obviously by smuttier directors, and the emotionality of it is too since his building up of her purity and parents worship doesn’t seem like Bergman totally sympathizes with), and Bergman isn’t really sure what to make of it either. I think the brutality of it is contained in the murder.
I think that the scene’s ‘tameness’ (as compared to the cheapjack, nauseating exploitation of sex and violence these days) actually deepens its horror; and the rape/murder is a catalyst unleashing a chain reaction of senseless brutality (von Sydow’s indiscriminate killing of the young boy who was innocent of any crime, and who was physically sickened by what he saw).
The slamming of the boy against the wall is almost as horrifying as the rape/murder. Here again it’s Bergman questioning, questioning, questioning, always questioning, pushing the viewer past his comfort zone; about the existence of God, about divine justice, about the power of superstition and about medieval morality.