Oancitizen's Review of "La Belle et la Bête: Part 1"

Oancitizen is doing a review of “La Belle et la Bête” with a few comparisons with the Disney version of “Beauty and the Beast!” :D

http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/videolinks/teamt/oancitizen/brows-held-high/44672-beauty-and-the-beast-part-1

I seem to be on a “Beauty and the Beast” kick lately, but, to be fair, so have the reviewers at ThatGuyWiththeGlasses. Phelous has already completed one review of a bad animated version of “Beauty and the Beast” and is doing a review of another bad animated version.

I loved the opening musical number with Kyle as Belle and the rest of the reviewers as the townspeople. Brought back so many memories. ^^

And, of course, Oancitizen is his usual eloquent and insightful self, analyzing Cocteau’s masterpiece and exploring its hidden layers.

Just some commentary on my part, since I adore both Disney’s version and Cocteau’s version of the fairytale:

-        Oancitizen seems to prefer Cocteau’s Beast to Disney’s because he has a self-awareness of what he is which Disney’s Beast, according to Kyle, only realizes later in the film. Oancitizen also says that Disney’s Beast is a bit too comfortable behaving like an animal. In response to this, I would like to point out that perhaps the reason why the two Beasts differ in this way is because they are set up differently. Cocteau’s Beast is, like the Beast in the original fairytale, simply an innocent victim of misfortune. He carries himself like a prince and wears the clothes of royalty because he is still the same person that he was when he was cursed. The only difference is that he now looks different on the outside and he’s constantly tempted to give in to his new animalistic impulses. Disney’s Beast, on the other hand, not only bears the shame of looking like an animal but also the burden of knowing that it’s his fault that he’s that way. He can seek no comfort in trying to act as he did before the curse since how he was before the curse is the reason why he’s in this predicament to begin with. He is not happy as a prince or as a beast. So, his surrender to his animalistic impulses in the beginning of the film is more of a submission to despair and hopelessness than it is with him being more comfortable as a beast.

-        Actually, I would argue that the makeup for Jean Marais as the Beast is still impressive even by today’s standards. Yes, he does look like a big cat (and I did laugh when Some Jerk with a Camera compared him to Cat!Hermione), but, like Oancitizen, I’m struck by Jean Marais’s expressive eyes whenever I look at him, and the elegance of his costume contrasting with his animalistic head is still striking. I would also like to point out that both films stress the Beast’s eyes as a key to his humanity.

-        I’m surprised that neither Oancitizen nor Some Jerk with a Camera mentioned that there’s a strong possibility that Joel Schumacher was inspired by this film when he made his film adaptation of “The Phantom of the Opera.” The scene where the Phantom brings Christine to his lair and they pass by arms holding candelabras is very reminiscent of the bodiless arms holding the candelabras in this film.

Overall, a fantastic review so far and I can’t wait to see the next installment!