So, for some reason I get more requests
for this movie than for any other movie. Okay! Jean Cocteau's 1946 black and white
classic La Belle et la Bête, famously opens with an appeal to viewers asking them to open their hearts and minds to the innocent and magical world view of a child, to allow themselves to believe that castles can be enchanted and that yes, the heart of a man can beat beneath the hide of a beast. Well, I did some digging and it turns out that the live-action Beauty and the Beast
originally had an homage to Cocteau's opening for their 2017 remake of the
original Disney animated classic. It said "We invite you to open your hearts and minds to the magical world view of pedantic nitpickers who point out plot
holes in fairy tales which we are now kow-towing to apparently. Here's a movie for you, Guy who kept pointing out that according to math that prince was only
11 when he got turned into a beast that's pretty messed up right that's not
logical open your heart like the pedantic *BLEEP* who opines 'how did the town forget that don't forget that the monarch had disappeared? Plot Hole DING!' Wow! I hate it! So, apparently the intent with the remake of Disney's animated classic Beauty and the Beast was to respond to every bad faith criticism lobbed at the original, like-- 'Well, why were the servants enchanted, too? they didn't do anything wrong!' and, 'Belle's not feminist enough, make that she reads an active act of transgression against the patriarchy.' MAN: Teaching another girl to read? MAN: isn't one enough? Lindsay (VO): And give her an invention subplot that goes nowhere. Effectively Disney has gone and made a movie which differs in content only in
that it appears to exist to appease the pedantic *BLEEP* of YouTube with their
decades of bad faith criticism. And for ever having enabled that atmosphere of pedantic *BLEEPERY* that led to the creation of a film that goes out of its
way to address the plot holes of the film that it is based on I will never cease my penance walk. But I am going to complain about this movie for a really long time so strap in. It's important to contextualize this movie in the trend that it is the current apotheosis of-- that being Disney live-action remakes. And these live-action remakes seem to pose themselves not as simple remakes but as responses to criticisms of the films that they are remaking. For 'Maleficent' it posits that Maleficent was misunderstood and that the narrator of the original movie was unreliable. For 'The Jungle Book' it posits that, hey, maybe Shere Khan had a point and Mowgli is dangerous. But for 'Beauty and the Beast' that response seems to be fixing plot holes that weren't actually problems or plot holes to begin with. MRS. POTTS: Oh! Oh Mr. Potts! And you may be asking yourself, 'is this
really an over-long nitpicky complainy video complaining about how over-long
nitpicky clickbait film criticism has influenced the actual text in the
current trend of live-action Disney remakes?' Yes. We begin not with the bad
bitch who got this party started, Maleficent nor the original animated 'Beauty and the
Beast' or even the evil genius current CEO of the Disney Company A.K.A. boringly competent daddy Bob Iger. It starts with the Robert Moses of the Disney Company daddy-of-daddies Michael Eisner. Because important to remember is that
Michael Eisner was Bob Iger's mentor in the 1990s and early 2000s and that the reason Iger had the opportunity to enjoy this long run as CEO of the Disney Company was because of his unwavering fealty to the Regina George of Hollywood
CEOs, Michael Eisner. In a 1981 letter Eisner wrote to Paramount executives before he jumped ship to become CEO of the Disney Company he penned what is widely considered to be his ethos and possibly the most 1980s thing ever
written. Lindsay [VO] This was an ethos carried through
to his time at Disney. That said, Eisner was also super cognizant of the value of brand prestige and ironically in his earlier years he was super resistant to
the whole concept of releasing Disney classics under VHS as this he worried
would lower the prestige of 'The Brand'. But boy, did he change his tune when
'Pinocchio', the first released to VHS because it was considered lower rung
among the classics sold out of its first run. Lesson learned here: repackaging
Disney classics is a safe lucrative bet. This would reach its apotheosis with the
downright parodic phase of direct-to-video sequels producing such
classics as 'The Hunchback of Notre Dome 2'-- Jennifer Love Hewitt: [singing] I was lost but now I'm found-- Lindsay [VO]: 'The Fox and the Hound 2', and 'Cinderella 3: A Twist In Time' the best one of this lot-- yes I will stand by that I have seen
them all because of *BLEEPING* course I have. SEBASTIAN: Ursula's crazy sister! Lindsay [VO]: During this era we also saw the expansion of Disney Renaissance properties adapted for Broadway. This became a trend that continues to this day, In the 90s we saw Beauty and the Beast, The Lion King and Aida? Yeah that was a Disney
joint. AIDA: [singing] Such elaborate lies-- But the thing that we are presently living through was not the first attempt at repackaging Disney classics for live-action. Lindsay [VO]: Seeing the success of properties like Beauty and the Beast on Broadway and VHS sales, Eisner took an eye towards live-action remakes of animated classics beginning with 'The Jungle Book' in 1994-- This one had a sexy Mowgli. but Eisner's real event was '101 Dalmatians' in 1996, starring Glenn Close. CRUELLA: I've no use for
babies. Lindsay [VO]: Both of these movies did... okay? '101 Dalmatians' did really pretty well, raking in 136 million in domestic box office grosses and unleashing an avalanche of plush dogs and other merchandise and eventually garnering a sequel. During this period they were also remakes of old live-action movies like 'The Parent Trap' starring Lindsay Lohan which unexpectedly grossed 92 million dollars proving that there was indeed a market for this sort of thing. But these were not huge successes and after event movie 'Pearl Harbor' was eviscerated by critics
Eisner became much more bearish on the whole concept of event movies in general. Movies like 'The Jungle Book' '94 and '101 Dalmatians' didn't really start a trend where newer films like 'Maleficent' and 'Cinderella' of 2015 did. The final element to the formation of this version of 'Beauty and the Beast' is one we can't
really pin on Eisner and that is the recent trend for Disney movies to make
meta-textual commentary on the Disney Company and the Disney brand in general. Lindsay [VO]: It's there in Moana-- MAUI: If you wear a dress and you have an animal sidekick you're a princess. Lindsay [VO]: It's there in ' Enchanted'...like, the whole movie And dear God, 'Frozen'. KRISTOFF: Who marries a man she just met! ANNA: It's true love! Lindsay [VO]: Audiences love it when Disney knowingly pokes fun at itself CINDERELLA: Do animals talk to you? VANELLOPE: No. SNOWWHITE: Were you poisoned? VANELLOPE: No! TIANA/AURORA: Cursed? VANELLOPE: No! RAPUNZEL/BELLE: Kidnapped or enslaved? VANELLOPE: No! Are you guys ok should I call the police? Lindsay [VO]: And they really loved it with 'Beauty and the Beast', didn't they? BELLE: I'm talking to a candle LUMIERE: Candelabra! Thanks I hate it! Lindsay [VO]: Eisner's story as CEO of the Disney Company is very much a mixed bag. He oversaw the success of the Disney Renaissance, yes, but he was also responsible for a string of acquisitions and bad ideas which
could take up many many many episodes but I'm not going into here.
Iger certainly took to heart Eisner's wisdom of not being obligated to make
art or history, but to make money which manifested as safe investments. But Iger invests safely and much bigger than Eisner ever did. As a result Disney stock has quadrupled in value since Eisner's departure in 2005. Iger in 2018 is able to execute Eisner's vision of repackaging Disney properties for live-action without making the brand feel cheap like Eisner eventually would
with his reliance on direct-to-video sequels. In effect, Iger has mastered what the Disney Company refers to internally as brand integrity. And moreover the Disney Company under Iger has figured out the secret ingredient:
it's not enough to just do a live-action remake of a beloved classic starring
Glenn Close. New live-action Disney needs to be meta textually responding to some criticism of either the Disney Company, the brand or of the property it is remaking. So now we know how we got here. Let's take a look at what we got. In my grand tradition of flaccid
attempts to be balanced I'm going to first try to list the things I don't hate-- but I gotta be honest there's not much here. Lindsay [VO]: At least Phantom of the Opera
had Patrick Wilson and Minnie Driver Okay I am going to find some stuff I
don't hate. Let's see. There's gotta be some stuff. Okay Lumiere and Cogsworth have a different dynamic in the remake than they do in the original. Rather than
them squabbling and Cogsworth constantly trying to restrain Lumiere, here they
don't really fight and Cogsworth wants to stand up to the Beast: COGSWORTH: You can't talk to us like that I forbid it. Lindsay [VO]: And Lumiere's kind of trying to help him with that? Of course that doesn't really go anywhere,
Cogsworth never does stand up to the Beast so it's an arc that is added with no payoff-- It's different. I mean it's not good, but I guess I don't hate it. Oh but we still had to no homo-- WOMAN: I've been so lonely-- COGSWORTH: Turn back into a clock-- Lindsay [VO]: God this is hard-- um...Tooch and Audra McDonald! Love those two-- Don't love the characters, they are
superfluous and add nothing but I always love me some to Tooch, and Audra McDonald should just be in more everything, so... Sure. Um. This owl? Damn that is a sweet owl, love that owl. oh and Kevin Kline. Okay this is actually one change I
unambiguously like, like turning Maurice from an infantilized man baby into a
gentle sensitive clock maker, and Klein sells it, that actually really really
works And...that's it. The original DVD release of 'Beauty and
the Beast' in 1991 included a commentary track in which directors Kirk Wise and
Gary Trousdale and producer Don Hahn were already audibly frustrated with
people trying to over explain and outsmart the logic of an enchanted
castle. The most relevant bit that sticks out in my mind is where they try to explain--or rather kind of infer they shouldn't have to explain-- the internal logic of Be Our Guest. COMMENTARY: "Every piece of flatware doesn't necessarily have a corresponding human equivilant but it was a lot more fun to have dancing flatware, dancing silverware." Lindsay [VO]: Like, it's an enchanted castle. Ergo, the stuff in it is also enchanted. That doesn't mean that everything that moves in the castle has a one-to-one human equivalent. But because one of the selling points of
this movie is the over explanation of everything, everything needs to be
explained in the dialogue I'm talking to BELL: I'm talking to a candle-- LUMIERE: Candelabra, please! Lindsay [VO]: Yep that's weird, glad you pointed out unlikely that is so I can take off the
million layers of logic Armour in which I have adorned myself so that I can
suspend my disbelief. We can't leave things to people's imaginations, then they might go make an Internet about it! Lindsay [VO]: See, it's stuff like this that legit sucks the magic out of parables and fairy tales, but it needs to be explained to modern audiences that no, not every object in the castle has a human corollary. BELLE: Hello, what's your name? COGSWORTH: That is a hair brush. Lindsay [VO]: Like, Madame Crapper, the helpful toilet. BELLE: Hello, what's your name? MADAME CRAPPER: Ma Belle, your dress it is stuck in your belt oh ho ho, don't worry it happened to me all the time back when I had legs. An even more frustrating addition is that the movie explained that yeah, the servants in the castle see themselves as kind of on the hook for the Beast being a jerk. MRS. POTTS: You see, when the master lost his mother and his cruel father took that sweet lad and twisted him out to be just like him, we did nothing. Lindsay [as MRS. POTTS]: Well my dear we were kind of enablers. Lindsay [VO]: This is like victims of abuse saying they had it coming and it was
their fault because they shouldn't have made him mad MRS.POTTS: We've made our bed, and and we must lie in it. Lindsay [as MRS. POTTS]: I understand that movie nitpicks dot-com has some complaints about us being punished for the actions of a ten year-old but you see my dear, there's a perfectly logical explanation for that too. Lindsay [VO]: This is another addition that gets dragged out because there's also the added element
that the Beast's parents were neglectful and shitty and the staff knew but they
didn't really do anything because it was, you know, an absolute *BLEEPING* monarchy. But whatever they see themselves as kind of deserving of their punishment because
they didn't help the prince be better when they had a chance so we're clocks now. Thanks I hate it. But the overwritten thing I hate the most is when the staff of the castle just explains the plot to Belle. BELLE: What happens when the last petal falls? LUMIERE: The master remains a beast forever and we become-- MRS. POTTS: Antiques. Lindsay [VO]: Another major change
in this version was adding more stakes to certain aspects of the plot. Which you know in theory, fine. Instead of the rose falling apart now the entire castle is falling apart. it's not just the possibility of everyone remaining as
they are for all time, the staff are becoming more and more inanimate as they inch closer to Rose-mageddon PLUMETTE: I grew three more feathers and I just plucked yesterday. Which you know, again, fine-- not the worst thing ever as it adds clearer stakes. But this adds to the problem is by adding these higher stakes they don't account for plot elements that they do keep from the original animated movie. Namely the punishment of basically condemning his entire castle of ceasing to exist doesn't really jive with his decision to let Belle go. BEAST: I let her go. COGSWORTH: You..What?! LUMIERE: Master, how could you do that? Lindsay [VO]: Adding more stakes around the staff adds a whole host of problems namely turning the beasts lack of concern for his staff
from anger-management problems and general immaturity into being actually
morally reprehensible. BEAST: I set her free. Sorry I couldn't do the same for all of
you. Lindsay [VO]: I guess boss of the year. Sorry, cave daddy. So adding these higher stakes kind of zaps the meaning from the moment where he decides to let Belle go. It turns the Beast's decision from a moment of personal growth into a trolley problem: whose life matters more? Maurice or every living being in the goddamn castle-- In this version, the Beast's
letting Belle go is no longer him placing Belle's needs in front of his
own but instead deciding that Maurice's life is worth more than everyone in the
castle who he has now doomed to death. Point being here, that the movie wanted
to up the stakes, fine, but it fundamentally changed what is supposed to be the emotional core of the story. That being beast's growth is a person who
can put other people's needs before his own. Because this rubs up against the
whole thrust of the story. The higher stakes kind of necessitates that the enchanted objects explain their plight to Belle BELLE: What happens when the last petal falls? LUMIERE: The master remains a beast forever and we become-- MRS. POTTS: Antiques. Lindsay [VO]: Yes, logically it would make sense for Lumiere, Cogsworth and Mrs. Potts to do
this but it diminishes what should be the emotional core of the story; that Belle develops these feelings on her own terms in her own time. She doesn't do it because there are fucking lives on the line. She does it because she falls in love
with him because he begins to live as his best self. Not because of a trolley problem which she proceeds to ignore any way because Maurice needs help. And while we're here on the topic of terrible editing what is this? MRS POTTS: Chip! Have you seen Chip? He's run off! COGSWORTH:Oh no-- What was Chip jumping from? Why is this
happening? Was this scene really in need of more stakes out of nowhere? Lindsay [as CHIP]: If I can't
live as a cup I'll die as a cup! Lindsay [VO]: See, over explaining everything in this case not only insults the intelligence of the audience-- which is perhaps deserved because there is a certain sect of film commentators who have built careers off of complaining that their hands are not being held through the entire narrative-- It also diminishes what should be a fairly simple but powerful story about love, forgiveness, redemption and discovering your best self. But it's really hard for the Beast to
discover his best self in this movie because there isn't one. Lindsay[VO]: The Beast was a challenge in the original movie because he had to be scary, repulsive, a huge jerk and eventually, extremely likeable. Part of this is accomplished through the medium of animation, which, with a skilled animator, is much better able to capture clear and complex emotions. This shot early on in the film shows an inner conflict in complexity at a point the narrative where he's still the bad guy and all with no dialogue. The Beast's transformation is inspired by wanting to do right by Belle, and Belle
being kind to him in turn is earned. She doesn't become his life coach nor
does she train him in the art of being nice but she does give credit where
credit is due. 2017 Beast is a massive prick BEAST: Idiots! Lindsay [VO]: And I don't mean like he's an arrogant prick but then he learns the error of his ways
like I think...I think this is supposed to be charming. BELLE: Actually Romeo and Juliet is
my favorite play BEAST: [groans] Why is that not a surprise? BELLE: I'm sorry? See, this is what is called a "neg", popularized by Neil Strauss' 2005 book The Game. No I don't have a copy of The Game lying around BEAST: All that heartache and Pining. Lindsay [VO]: The Beast saves Belle from wolves and while he's out cold Mrs. Potts explained that it's kind of the staff's fault he
grew up to be a jerk and when he comes to and Belle professes her fondness for
Romeo and Juliet-- Classic neg. BEAST: When I enter the room, laughter dies. Lindsay [VO]: Well it might be because you abuse them and they're afraid of you. See this moment could have
paid off by adding like one line where she explains that his staff is afraid
of him and maybe it could be a growth moment. BEAST: When I enter the room, laughter dies. Lindsay [VO]: But. Nah. There are a lot of small, bewildering changes to the Beast's character that are just-- I don't understand why they're there. Gone is this humanizing moment
where the Beast realized his anger got the better of him and he made a huge
mistake BEAST: [roaring] GET OUT! BEAST: GO! Lindsay [VO]: So when he shows up to save Belle from wolves it's kind of out of nowhere because he never has that emotional beat
of realizing he made a mistake. In this version Belle doesn't have a deal with the Beast so she can't renege on it. LUMIERE: Where are you going? BELLE: Promise or no promise, I can't stay here another minute! Lindsay [VO]: Which not only begs the question of why she sticks around, it also adds a particularly yikes dynamic to the scene where she's running away and everyone in the castle is trying to imprison her Here he is beating her in the face with
a giant snowball. Which he then laughs about. Not even like
an 'Oh shit!' Bet she broke her nose. Then followed by the change in the
library scene. In the original it follows the Beast's change of heart. He wants to do something for Belle that she will appreciate. BEAST: I've never felt this way
about anyone. I want to do something for her. Lindsay [VO]: In the remake it's just him showing off BEAST: So many better things to read BELLE: Like what? BEAST: Well a couple of things in
here you could start with. Lindsay [VO]: Check out my library. It's pretty sweet. You can look at it. I guess. All of these small changes add up. Beast doesn't earn Belle's affection so she's trying harder than he is and ends up his *BLEEPING* life-coach like
she was in Belle's 'Enchanted Christmas' and ends up doing all the *BLEEPING* work. The Beast is just a mediocre man who fails into success by possessing the right objects despite never making any effort to rise to her needs and figure
out what she wants. Lindsay [as BELLE]: Fine I guess I'll go down to your level. Lindsay [VO]: And this scene doesn't read that way in the animated movie where the Beast actually makes an effort to use a spoon but he physically cannot. But the worst thing is that these two have no chemistry at all BEAST: It's foolish I suppose. For creature like me to hope that one day he might earn your affection. Lindsay [VO]: But all the same I never really buy that she grows to care for him. It's honestly hilarious how
quickly she ghosts him when he lets her go. And then at the end when she's crying
over him it's just--there's just no chemistry here I just don't buy it. And this scene is super not helped by the freakin enchantress barging in on
what is supposed to be a private, intimate moment Thanks for that, Becky. It would have been great if he nagged her after he turned back into a man said something like, 'like wow your pores are much less noticeable now that I have human eyes', and she's like, 'it is you!' Movie needs to be longer! So it pads itself with a bunch of crap that doesn't go anywhere. Some of these additions are plot related. A small example is the rose thing. A plot element from the original
story, Belle's bitchy sisters ask their father for niceties, where the virtuous
humble Beauty asks only for a single rose. In the original movie The Rose is a
gift offered by The Enchantress which then turns into the film's ticking clock. The '17 remake decides 'hey, why don't we have both?' So the new movie keeps the rose and adds a backup rose as in the original story and this goes nowhere and
I hate it. Belle doesn't have bitchy sisters who
ask for nicer things with the humble Belle asking only for a rose here Belle
asks for a rose because: MAURICE: What can I bring you from the market? BELLE: A rose. Like the one in the painting. Lindsay [VO]: I don't know, something to do with the mom. Oh, we'll get to the mom. Food and water is fine but don't you dare touch my roses. MAURICE: Apparently that's what happens around here when you pick a flower! Lindsay [VO]: Oh but it doesn't stop there because we have to over explain everything the Beast is like, traumatized by roses. BEAST: I received eternal damnation for one, I'm merely locking him away. Lindsay [VO]: He explains this with his words and that is why he locks up Maurice. Another truly bewildering change is Lumiere and Cogsworth going behind the Beast's back. rather than having that humanizing moment and having it be his decision to
put her in a nice room instead of the tower. BEAST: I'll show you to your room. BELLE: My room? But I thought-- BEAST: You want--you want
to stay in the tower? BELLE: No. BEAST: Then follow me. Lindsay [VO]: Therefore it is Lumiere who told her not to go into the West Wing LUMIERE: The castle is your own now, so feel free to go anywhere you like! COGSWORTH: Except the West Wing! COGSWORTH:Oh. Which we do not have. Lindsay [VO]: Not the Beast. BELLE: What's in the West-- BEAST: It's forbidden! Lindsay [VO]: Soooo there is no tension and there's no betrayal in this scene because the Beast never laid down that boundary which she
then crossed. BEAST: WHAT ARE YOU DOING HERE? Lindsay [VO]: Why you mad bro? But some of the changes are character... depth-ing. I think the intent here was to make the town sympathetic and redeemable which they weren't really in the original and that was kind of the point. The original movie actually has a rather cynical opinion of the masses, SINGING: We don't like what we don't understand in fact it scares us And this monster is mysterious at least Lindsay [VO]: That people are easily duped in the face of things that are strange and foreign and it doesn't
pull its punches on that point. But the '17 remake does by making the town
redeemable, which isn't really earned nor is there any emotional payoff when, I
don't know, Mrs. Potts reunites with Mr. Potts and Cogsworth is reunited with his apparent nag of a wife and then begs to be turned back into a clock. Thanks I hate it. So on one hand there's this bid to make Gaston kind of sympathetic by implying that he has PTSD a truly stupid and insulting change that
adds nothing. Look, Gaston doesn't need damage he is the high school jock everybody admires. He's a hunter. He doesn't need to be more than that, he
just needs to be a big handsome dummy everyone loves because he's arrogant and
good-looking. Because that tends to be how it happens in the real world and that's kind of the point of the movie. So the addition of 'Gaston was in the war" is awful. Not only does it add backstory that goes
nowhere but as the film goes on it's less 'he was in the war he's damaged' so
much as he's like, a blood psychopath that appears to
be aroused by the mere thought of violence. LEFOU: Think happy thoughts. Go back to the war! Blood...explosions...helpless widows... GASTON: Widows-- Lindsay [VO]: The remake has guests on giving
Maurice the benefit of the doubt and it seems to be going in the direction of
making Gaston kind of more reasonable
and sympathetic-- but then BOOM, Blood Rage! So instead of Gaston being widely admired not only is his characterization
inconsistent and splotchy-- GASTON: Wonderful book you have there. BELLE: Have you read it? GASTON:Well, not that one, but, you know...books. Lindsay [VO]: The town is kind of skeptical towards him. TOWNSFOLK: Gaston, did you try to kill Maurice? Lindsay [VO]: So much that during 'Gaston' Lefou is paying people to sing WHY add this? Why can't Gaston be genuinely admired by a small town who is taken in by a good-looking guy who is secretly internally monstrous? Why do we need to make the town both more bigoted and more sympathetic? They are a poor provincial town! They're basic! They take everything at face value including Gaston, Belle and the
Beast, that's the whole point, I hate it. But the worst addition has got to be the
book of teleportation. [SCREAMING] Lindsay [VO]: OK, so Belle's plague mother backstory change is a suggestion that should have been killed in the screenplay stage because it is so
so pointless and adds nothing. So Belle's mother was an artist and died
of plague. Maurice never tells Belle for some reason. BELLE: Just tell me one more
thing about her. Lindsay [VO]: But don't worry Beast has like a book that not only transcends space but also time So towards the end they go to Paris, Beast makes a tourism joke-- BEAST: The Champs Elysees? No, too touristy. Lindsay [VO]: Belle talks about the Paris of my childhood. BELLE: [singing] This is the Paris of my childhood-- Lindsay [VO]: There's a plague
mask and Belle's like, I get it now. And I guess they bond over their mothers
dying young and tragic. Then later in the scene in the padded wagon: BELLE: I know what happened to my mom. Lindsay [as BELLE]: I learned about tragic backstory, papa. Lindsay [VO]: And now we can resolve the conflict we didn't have and also has nothing to do with the story The addition of the space-time book begs the question of why they never used it
later. Hmm if Maurice is in danger it sure would be handy if we, I don't know, had some sort of device that got us from point A to point B in an instant. The worst aspect of this is that it adds inner conflict that doesn't really need to be resolved. Bell wants to know her backstory, what happened to mom. Fine. what does that have to do with her learning to love the Beast? What does that have to do with the Beast learning to put her needs before his own? Hell, it doesn't even really drive a wedge between Belle and Maurice. It's not driving a conflict between her and anyone, it really has nothing to do with
Gaston, it's just jammed in there and it feels like it's yet another
metatextual response. "Where are all the Disney moms?" ask the click bait sites. Well here's your answer. She dead. Does it add anything to the story? Does it enhance the characters? Does it deepen any relationships? No. But it does offer a response to the complaint that Disney princesses have largely absent mother
figures, which itself wasn't really a criticism of this story so much as a question of the broader trend in Disney movies. Where are the moms? Hey did you know that this movie has the first Gaaaaaay? Lindsay [VO]: When it was announced that Lefou would become the first out gay character in a Disney movie the L's, the G's The B's, the T's and of course, all you filthy, filthy Q's responded with uproarious applause. So yeah the LGBT community responded
overwhelmingly with '*BLEEPING* really ?" Which got upgraded to "are you *BLEEPING* kidding me?" when
we saw the final product and the only out thing about Lefou that wasn't completely subtext was this shot. Wow. Such gay. Very representation. So a lot of people were very validly annoyed that this was the best that we could get for the first out gay in a Disney movie LEFOU: Well, I used to be on Gaston's side but we are so in a bad place right now. MRS: POTTS: You're too good for him, anyway. Lindsay [VO]: The Buffoon character whose name translates to 'the fool' you're welcome, gays. But the worst offender on the front of cheap, safe Hollywood liberalism is Belle. Feminist icon. MAN: What are earth are you doing? Teaching another girl to read? Isn't one enough? Lindsay [VO]: Introducing #BeastforShe. Feminism written by straight white men
whose feminism appears to have pretty much began and ended with Disney
feminism from the 90s. JASMINE: I'm a fast learner. HERCULES: --damsel in distress? MEGARA: I'ma damsel. I'm in distress. I can handle this. Have a nice day. Okay, and I honestly don't want to shit all over #HeForShe I think a lot of people in America and the UK miss that it's supposed to be, like, you know, a global thing. This is not a dig on Emma Watson who I honestly think is a net positive
and I really respect that she uses her platform to advance a more globally
oriented brand of feminism. But-- somewhere along the line Disney decided 'hey as long as we're using this movie to respond to every criticism lobbed
against the original, we should probably go ahead and appease The Feminists while
we're here'. So Belle helps Maurice with his clocks-- Maurice calls her ahead of her time-- She leans in. Belle attempts to escape the castle twice which is so much more feminist than the
original where she attempts to escape a mere once. Jesus Christ I'm surprised
that they didn't like have Belle like look directly into the camera and ask
the audience if they thought she was developing Stockholm Syndrome. The biggest and most egregious addition is of course Belle's goddamn washing machine a thing she invented while also promoting female literacy, but oh no here
comes the patriarchy. MAN: What on earth are you doing? teaching another girl to read? Isn't one enough? Lindsay [VO]: Wow it sure will be
satisfying later in the movie when this guy learns the error of his ways and
that female literacy is important Oh wait. Lindsay [VO]: And then they smash her washing machine destroy it. I mean at least you tried
Belle. BELLE: All I wanted was to teach a child to read. Lindsay [VO]:Too bad that washing machine or your inventing skills will never be mentioned in the movie again And I honestly hate to point out historical accuracy issue in a Disney movie because I do not care. I realized that this is a sticking point
for a lot of people complaining about the accuracy of the era that inspired
the film but I don't care. Boy, there's no depth to how much I don't care about that line of thinking. However-- Lindsay [VO]: since the movie decides to play up the historical aspect of the film and decides to definitively set the film in a period of French history that wasn't looking too bright for absolute *BLEEPING monarchs-- LUMIERE: [singing] After all miss, this is France-- Lindsay [VO]: Female literacy was not a thing that was exactly frowned upon in this particular culture in this particular period in history. There were lots of magazines
specifically for young women. The original Beauty and the Beast was
even published in one of those magazines. So this was not a thing and I hate this
because not only was it not a thing, it doesn't go anywhere. Lindsay [VO]: At no point does
this guy or anyone in the town really ever have a come-to-jesus moment and
realize that like, sexism is bad and literacy is good. But hey, #BeastForShe. Likewise Belle being an inventor also never pays off. She never like invents a thing that helps the beast or the castle staff. Hell she doesn't even get them out of the padded wagon at the end. In the original Chip blasts them out. CHIP: You guys gotta try this. Lindsay [VO]: In this version Maurice does it but don't worry he uses Belle's hairpin. Lean in, Belle. The worst thing about this is that the movie kind of implies that the bigotry of the town is A) partially enchantment induced, which yuck. B) a
problem that can / is solved, all they need to do is get woke. It adds all this
crap about bigotry without understanding its underlying causes which are neither
rational nor enchantment. Lindsay [VO]: The original movie is actually really good about this subtext. It gets that the bigotry of the town is heavily emotion driven and not
really dictated by logic. That's kind of the point. And that's why Gaston is so easily able to manipulate them. GASTON: The Beast will make off with your children! He'll come after them in the night! Lindsay[VO]: The Beast will make off with your jobs! He'll come crossing over the border at night! Wow these villagers sure do have a lot of socio-economic anxiety. Meanwhile the New York Times is over here writing like 800 profiles on anti-Beast villagers and why they still follow Gaston. But in the remake the
villagers see the error of their ways while not demonstrating that they have
actually learned anything. But don't worry they won't be sexist or bigoted
anymore and suddenly he wasn't racist Flight of the Conchords: And suddenly he wasn't racist...any more Lindsay [VO]: Problem solved. Flight of the Conchords: [singing] Albi the Racist--well not anymore-- [singing] Dragon Lindsay [VO]: Boy that was easy. #BeastForShe. So it's not even that these common bad faith criticisms of the original movie exists and they're such popular talking points. Yeah that is kind of annoying and basic
but you know, whatever. But the key to success under Iger where it never took
off under Eisner is that these live-action remakes have to add
something to their originals, make meta commentary on them. Lindsay [VO]: So here we have a
film that fixes plot holes that don't need to be fixed adds dimension to characters that don't go anywhere tacks on weird plot crap that likewise does
not go anywhere and shoves in some lazy hat tips to their version of progressivism. But that this formula has proven so successful-- Boy I can't wait for Dumbo, now with more emotional support, and Mulan--but not a musical
because China doesn't like musicals. Lindsay [VO]: But the worst thing to me is how much this new approach doesn't feel like Disney. And by Disney I mean Walt, who
independent of Cocteau had a similar approach to storytelling. According to Walt Disney; The original Beauty and the Beast feels in the spirit of both Walt and Cocteau, but the new one is just cynical. The merger with Fox Studios is another
major element here that means fewer movies will be released in general. And given how safe these event live-action remakes are more resources will be put into far fewer productions. Lindsay [VO]: Again to go back to that Eisner memo: So Disney under Iger certainly makes money congrats for that. But they are no longer making history. This is just safe regurgitation of brands we've already seen catering to a nostalgia hungry market. Lindsay [VO]: And that wouldn't be so bad but more and more this comes at the cost of the creation of anything new. And when Iger saw the breadth of his domain he wept, for there were no more properties to remake. Parts of this episode were inspired by reading James B Stewart's
book 'Disney Wars', an audio book I listened to while stuck in traffic and I liked to listen to really long nonfiction like this book while stuck in
traffic. This episode was sponsored in part by Audible Audible has the largest
selection of audiobooks on the planet and there was a lot of really great long
non-fiction that is perfect for your otherwise wasted hours stuck in traffic. Audible members get a credit every month good for any audiobook regardless
of price and unused credits roll over to the next month. If you don't like an
audiobook you can exchange it with no hassle plus your audiobooks are yours to
keep forever even if you cancel. You can go to audible.com/LindsayEllis yes it's just audible.com slash my legal given name to get started or via text you can text Lindsey Ellis to 500500 to get started You can also find a link in the
summary. This episode was also supported in part by our patrons on Patreon.
Wow I never noticed how bad some of the changes were till now.
Can't wait to see how they change Mulan. If the Huns become more redeemable, I wonder if they will keep Mulan slaughtering 99% of the Hun army in the film. Can't show a modern disney princess with a direct kill count in the thousands.
URSULA'S CRAZY SISTER
cavedaddy lmao
I haven't watched this movie but why is everything in the interior so dark.I cant see a thing.
Loved this video. I enjoyed about half of the live-action remake, and the town's rabidly anti-feminist stance always seemed weird to me. In the original, there was a feminist stance, but it was super subtle. The town didn't really get what Belle's deal was and Gaston just wanted to make her into a housewife, while Beast respected her as a person and facilitated her love of books. Now the town is so openly hostile to feminism and learning that it starts a riot and openly harasses Belle when she makes an invention and teaches a girl to read.
Seriously, is this town really so anti-intellectual that they're going to harass a girl for making laundry easier?
I would like to see a live action Emperor's New Groove.
Starring David Spade and John Goodman.
And Patrick Warburton.
I love Lindsay’s videos so much.
So cheerfully, "thanks I hate it!"
So this movie was made in response to nitpicks to the original. The next remake will be in response to the nitpicks of the 2017 movie shown in this video, the one after that in response to nitpicks of the 3rd remake and so on.
It's like the perpetual motion train from Snowpiercer but it's the money train.