Twenty-six years after Disney’s classic Beauty and the Beast swept into theaters, the studio’s live-action version starring Emma Watson as Belle will do the same, with all the pomp and circumstance befitting a Disney release.
The clip reveals a series of scenes faithful to 1991 animated feature — from images of the dark and dreary castle, to Belle's first meeting with the Beast, to all the magic that lies within the cursed walls.
The story is the same : After the Beast (Downton Abbey’s Dan Stevens) who lives on the edge on of town captures her father, Belle agrees to stay with him in exchange for her father’s freedom. The two start to fall for each other; the townspeople do not care for it; riots and true love miracles ensue.
But is this a good thing? The story looks unnecessarily dependent on VFX making it the center stage attraction. Talking tea-sets and candle holders are a great thing, but the story looks the same, and original story itself is too non-feminist for today's day and age.
The filmmakers could have taken a cue from the 1946 french film La Belle et la Bête directed by the brilliant Jean Cocteau. His version has a compelling tale to tell without taking the help of computer generated effects.
Also how did Emma Watson, who is a self proclaimed feminist, agree to do a film so deep rooted in patriarchy?And why is Disney taking a step back from producing pro 'girl-power' films after the spectacular Frozen?
The film is directed by Bill Condon (of Twilight fame) which will ensure grandeur and stunning visuals. But the same old story, even when told with spectacular visuals, fails to make us await the release on 23 March 2017. Till then we will make do with watching the equally regressive but melodious music video by Meatloaf titled 'I'd do anything for love, but I won't do that'.
Maybe the magic will unfold with the next trailer: