Must Walt Disney Studios Redraw Its Future?

Rating: 7/10 (7 June 2017)

Disney presides over the current film scene in terms of money and art. The company founded by Walt Disney and Ub Iwerks benefits from film studios with higher profitability on the market, which are the owner of retributive franchises such as "Star Wars," "Indiana Jones", Pixar Animation Studios' works and the complete universe of Marvel Comics. The money amount it earns periodically with each of its proposals is unheard-of, either original ideas, those that turn to imagination without employing creative precedents, or remakes, audiovisual productions reproduces the narrative thread, the atmosphere in which the story runs, characters, and even pre-existing songs, in this case, from unreproducible animated classics.For a person who loves and understands film substance, it's dishonorable and enervating to see how celluloid world isn't being handled by creative artists, but by financial managers and accountants presiding artificial productions at box-office designs' expense, shelving true meaning of cinema. An archetype of this is the hybrid that I mentioned earlier, etymologically known as live- action. Hollywood executive's greed is derisory, greediness brazenly covers up under the shadow of hypothetical homages or reinventions for the audiences of the 20th century, those who have not had the opportunity to familiarize yourself with the likable unalterable animated characters and stories. However, we cannot declare that live-action feature films presented are strictly a way to make money, this is the hidden purpose, the released guinea pigs have been reasonably great. So this is where the final questioning emerges: must we pass unnoticed Disney's money desires if and only if it remains to offer audiovisual productions entirely well made, even if they continue to nurture the plague producing creative shortcomings nowadays? Judge for yourselves.
Imaginative impasse's last prey is "Beauty and the Beast", Disney's first movie in being nominated in six different categories at the Academy Awards, of which won two awards with reference to its unforgettable OST.The reinterpretation of the story of a prince transfigured int beast because of his arrogant conceit and his corresponding love affair with a villager who arrives his castle to rescue her father, examining enormous expectation set up months ago, is a modern contraption artistically uneven, it fulfills the objective of evoking the amazing inspiration source, at the same time develops more complex stories and plausible motivations, but using an almost integral copy. Although there's a patent female empowerment message, an unjustified noise for the first homosexual character of the company and places as meticulous as magnificent, it looks as if narrative were in unripe, and I don't mean the tale itself, since we already know it fully, I say this for autonomy lack with the basic story.
William "Bill" Condon ("Dreamgirls" & "Mr. Holmes") does what he can with the tools on his property. We've had the pleasure of knowing Mr. Condon's aptitudes in sharply human films, the filmmaker exhibited his sensitive eye to portray fables with a dramatic base in these ones. The director will make to resurface briefly the charm of years ago with almost emulated camera shots, only altered by indescribable technological advances, however, the real magic keeps in the adorable animation from the 90s. The dance scene, 'Be Our Guest' musical number and the terminal moment will stimulate the awakening of memories supported by no ideal love and inner beauty, besides the rewarding minor variations to the soundtrack. Such immoderate fidelity allows it to touch both glory and failure at the same time. A recreation with less interest in the most circumstances, perhaps, it would have been better to get away from the original material a little more, just as Christophe Gans' dismal adaptation.
In respect of visual part, they had a laborious and delicate job, erect rightly Villeneuve, beast's gloomy palace or the tavern where LeFoe adulates Gaston with a song or make with extreme delicacy characters attire weren't easy. The filmmaking is objectively its specialty, keeping in mind narrative standards raised previously. Although Rococo style, CGI animations and clothing and make-up are fetching, that too dark effect prevailing in the third act is neither pleasant nor required. Fortunately, such chromatic attenuation doesn't discredit Belle's stunning yellow dress, the design of the sets and its animated characters or Emma Watson paying homage to "Mary Poppins" with her musical scene. Beautiful pictures.
If it had optimal challenges graphically, musically was impossible to get even an infinitesimal improvement, and effectively, impossible is impossible. Despite original composer (Alan Menken) returned to provide his services, none of his new scores are entirely predominant, however, the interpretation of the music classic in the voices of Ariana Grande and John Legend recalls melodic beauty from the original song.
The classic movie will remain a classic, but what would be a true modern classic falls short in charm. Exhausting run-time, Watson's overvaluation, the CGI technique in the face of the Beast of doubtful credibility, exaggerated darkness in the third act, and a few new forgettable songs complicate the goals of Disney about its winning streak. I've rated the film with reference to the original movie, since although they didn't want to alter or pass inspiration source, their attempt stays in a lax reinterpretation, as if Condon and his team wanted to draw frame by frame with beautiful elements which don't find who make them shine, and although in matter of adaptations, respectful similarity is what must prevail, it lacks magic. "Beauty and the Beast" (2017) is far from being a bad movie, nevertheless, they knew what and who they faced, and evidently failed to convince so big beasts.