#17, Beauty and the Beast
I'm back!
I've actually managed to find a few hours during my life where I'm either not busy or completely exhausted, so I decided I'd finally come back here after more than a month's absence. I'm a little surprised to see that my website has actually received almost 100 unique visitors. How many of those visitors have checked more than once, however, is another matter entirely. In any case, I want to apologize to anyone who has continued to check my website and continued to be disappointed. I'll try and amend that problem now.
I could spend a while talking about what's happened to me in the past month, since I like to think its' pretty interested (I'm in college now!), but instead I think I'll just start out with a review. So, without further ado...
Okay, this isn't the Beauty and the Beast that you grew up on, kids. It's a 1946 black and white French film, widely regarded as a classic (As far as I can tell, anyway. After all, it's one of the few films listed on both imdb.com's Top 250 AND the website I like, theyshootpictures.com. Pretty impressive for a film more than 50 years old). You would assume, then, that it would be a landmark in story-telling, aesthetic, direction, and acting. There must be something unique and powerful to it. At least, that's what I expected going in. After all, I'm a sucker for old foreign films.
Sadly, I was rather disappointed. I don't know, I just didn't like it very much. It was...ho-hum. For one thing, the voice of the actor who played the beast was consistently irritating throughout the entire film. Rather than any sort of low rumble or growl that you would expect, it was a kind of high-pitched, strangled rasp that caused me to burst out laughing the first time I heard it, and I could never quite get past it. Furthermore, I wasn't impressed by most of the acting. It was very hammy, especially from Beauty and Beast, though I do think the sisters did a good job (I also did not find the actress who played Beauty all that attractive, but that's a shallow, unnecessary sort of thing).
Another thing that bothered me was a seeming lack of temporal awareness in the film. I don't know whether it was intentional on Cocteau's part or not, but it was very difficult to get a sense of the progression of time, which was particularly frustrating when they would make specific references to its passage during the film (i.e. come back in a week). This only served to weaken the evolution of the story and the characters, and by the time the film started to wind down, I felt very dissatisfied by the development of the story. It seemed very threadbare.
There's really not that much more to say. The film was simply unremarkable. There were simply too many distractions to what seems like a very loosely held together film. Ontop of the Beast's voice and the skewed sense of time, the Beast's castle interior, while interesting on some levels, seemed mostly like an undecorated black box with an ill-conceived layout. The ending was confusing as hell, and the specifics of it did not tie very well into the plot elements or character traits demonstrated earlier in the movie.
The film wasn't terrible, of course. The camera work was certainly above average; excellent, even, with some captivating angles and beautifully composed shots, and the director did do a good job of creating an atmospheric sense of almost surreal fantasy (Perhaps this was the point of the lack of temporality) through set and costume design in addition to the cinematography. Still, it wasn't enough to save this thoroughly mediocre film, and I found myself dozing off at points. Why are French films automatically assigned enormous artistic worth just because they're French?
Highlights: Good cinematography with some exceptionally attractive shots, a well crafted-atmosphere, decent acting from some characters, French.
Downers: A few hokey set pieces, the Beast's voice makes you want to scratch your ears out, consistently confusing and simplistic.
5/10
I've actually managed to find a few hours during my life where I'm either not busy or completely exhausted, so I decided I'd finally come back here after more than a month's absence. I'm a little surprised to see that my website has actually received almost 100 unique visitors. How many of those visitors have checked more than once, however, is another matter entirely. In any case, I want to apologize to anyone who has continued to check my website and continued to be disappointed. I'll try and amend that problem now.
I could spend a while talking about what's happened to me in the past month, since I like to think its' pretty interested (I'm in college now!), but instead I think I'll just start out with a review. So, without further ado...
Okay, this isn't the Beauty and the Beast that you grew up on, kids. It's a 1946 black and white French film, widely regarded as a classic (As far as I can tell, anyway. After all, it's one of the few films listed on both imdb.com's Top 250 AND the website I like, theyshootpictures.com. Pretty impressive for a film more than 50 years old). You would assume, then, that it would be a landmark in story-telling, aesthetic, direction, and acting. There must be something unique and powerful to it. At least, that's what I expected going in. After all, I'm a sucker for old foreign films.Sadly, I was rather disappointed. I don't know, I just didn't like it very much. It was...ho-hum. For one thing, the voice of the actor who played the beast was consistently irritating throughout the entire film. Rather than any sort of low rumble or growl that you would expect, it was a kind of high-pitched, strangled rasp that caused me to burst out laughing the first time I heard it, and I could never quite get past it. Furthermore, I wasn't impressed by most of the acting. It was very hammy, especially from Beauty and Beast, though I do think the sisters did a good job (I also did not find the actress who played Beauty all that attractive, but that's a shallow, unnecessary sort of thing).
Another thing that bothered me was a seeming lack of temporal awareness in the film. I don't know whether it was intentional on Cocteau's part or not, but it was very difficult to get a sense of the progression of time, which was particularly frustrating when they would make specific references to its passage during the film (i.e. come back in a week). This only served to weaken the evolution of the story and the characters, and by the time the film started to wind down, I felt very dissatisfied by the development of the story. It seemed very threadbare.
There's really not that much more to say. The film was simply unremarkable. There were simply too many distractions to what seems like a very loosely held together film. Ontop of the Beast's voice and the skewed sense of time, the Beast's castle interior, while interesting on some levels, seemed mostly like an undecorated black box with an ill-conceived layout. The ending was confusing as hell, and the specifics of it did not tie very well into the plot elements or character traits demonstrated earlier in the movie.
The film wasn't terrible, of course. The camera work was certainly above average; excellent, even, with some captivating angles and beautifully composed shots, and the director did do a good job of creating an atmospheric sense of almost surreal fantasy (Perhaps this was the point of the lack of temporality) through set and costume design in addition to the cinematography. Still, it wasn't enough to save this thoroughly mediocre film, and I found myself dozing off at points. Why are French films automatically assigned enormous artistic worth just because they're French?
Highlights: Good cinematography with some exceptionally attractive shots, a well crafted-atmosphere, decent acting from some characters, French.
Downers: A few hokey set pieces, the Beast's voice makes you want to scratch your ears out, consistently confusing and simplistic.
5/10
posted by William Cirocco at 2:37 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home