Bah, humbug. OK, maybe I don't feel quite as much of a committed party-pooper as old Ebeneezer himself, but I can't help it - I've always seen "Beauty and the Beast" in comparison to other films and it's always felt like the lesser movie as a result.
I first saw "Beauty and the Beast" when it came out in 1991. I loved the quality of the hand-drawn animation, which had been dropping at Disney even since their Golden Age classics, as well as the way it was enhanced by (carefully buried) computer-enhancement to create the swooping 'crane shots' in the ballroom and the dance of the plates.
But the narrative felt too simplistic and too sentimental and although the Beast looked hella cool, none of the characters really stuck with me. It also felt to me, though I don't know if I would have articulated in this way at the time, that the sentimental love-story wasn't really integrated with the more enjoyable comic relief of the enchanted household items that had been the Beast's human servants before the curse.
Then I saw "Aladdin" the next year and there was no doubt - "Aladdin" and not "Beauty" was the Disney renaissance I'd been promised. Better spectacle, silky smooth animation, a more tolerable song and the best possible use of Robin Williams' bipolar style in the Genie.
As it is, the best thing about "Beauty" is the supporting cast, with loveable Angela Lansbury, charming David Ogden Stiers and a brilliant Jerry Orbach (of all people) as the outrrrageously French candlestick, Lumiere. Paige O'Hara and Robby Benson do just fine as the titular Beauty and Beast, but they're not given much character material to work with.
It's still a fun movie. It's still a pleasant way to pass 90 minutes in the company of Disney's animators. But it'll always be second fiddle to me. Now, if only I could shake that bloody earwig of a theme-song...
No comments:
Post a Comment