163 reviews
I first saw this when about 10 years old, it made little impression on me then, probably because I couldn't hope to appreciate it or understand it all when so young. Next time I was 25 and was bowled over by its imagery, and as I've got older come to appreciate it more and more.
So much for watching it through a child's eyes and accepting the fantasy at face value! At the beginning Cocteau states "Once upon a time...", but really for discerning adult cineastes (and/or poets) to drop their guards and enjoy it for what it was - a magical filmic fantasy. It's uniformly marvellous in all departments, direction, photography, acting, music, design, and Cocteau trotted out all his favourite cinematic tricks - just part of the sequence between Blood of a Poet in '30 and Testament of Orphee in '61. The script was suitably steeped in non sequiteurs and puzzles to add to the heaviness of it all. Er, not that it matters but what happened to Ludovic?
The wonderful dark brooding smoky atmosphere is the most important aspect though - there are few films I've seen with such a powerful cinematic atmosphere, Reinhardt's Midsummer Night's Dream is one and Dead of Night another etc. But the romantic melancholic atmosphere here was something ... incredible. It was only possible with black and white nitrate film stock to capture such gleaming, glistening and time- and place-evoking moving images - it hasn't been quite the same since 1950 with safety film in use.
If you're an adult about to give it your first (let yourself) go, I envy thee! All in all a lovely inconsequential fantasy, make what erudite and informative allegorical allusions you will.
So much for watching it through a child's eyes and accepting the fantasy at face value! At the beginning Cocteau states "Once upon a time...", but really for discerning adult cineastes (and/or poets) to drop their guards and enjoy it for what it was - a magical filmic fantasy. It's uniformly marvellous in all departments, direction, photography, acting, music, design, and Cocteau trotted out all his favourite cinematic tricks - just part of the sequence between Blood of a Poet in '30 and Testament of Orphee in '61. The script was suitably steeped in non sequiteurs and puzzles to add to the heaviness of it all. Er, not that it matters but what happened to Ludovic?
The wonderful dark brooding smoky atmosphere is the most important aspect though - there are few films I've seen with such a powerful cinematic atmosphere, Reinhardt's Midsummer Night's Dream is one and Dead of Night another etc. But the romantic melancholic atmosphere here was something ... incredible. It was only possible with black and white nitrate film stock to capture such gleaming, glistening and time- and place-evoking moving images - it hasn't been quite the same since 1950 with safety film in use.
If you're an adult about to give it your first (let yourself) go, I envy thee! All in all a lovely inconsequential fantasy, make what erudite and informative allegorical allusions you will.
- Spondonman
- Dec 24, 2004
- Permalink
This film immediately captured my attention with the written comments at the beginning of the film. Director Jean Cocteau begins this story by explaining why he wanted to make this film. He talks about the passion behind the picture and all the social unrest at the time. He ends this written dialogue with a comment that will forever remain in my mind. He says, "...and now, we begin our story with a phrase that is like a time machine for children: Once Upon a Time..." This just sent chills down my spine. Why? Because, although he is addressing children, I feel that it is really a phrase meant for all of us. It is used to bring the child out in all of us, to show us that we do not need to be 4 or 5 to fully understand the themes of this film ... we are meant to just sit back and let the film take us to another mythological time.
The amazing set design also impressed me about this film. Again, without the modern conveniences of today's cinema, Cocteau had to improvise. This was hard for him to do. Not only were there huge budgetary issues (since it was the end of WWII and France was about to be demolished), but also he was racing against an impending war. Fear was deep in the hearts of the French after WWII, and what a better way to rally your people then with a story about love found in the darkest of places.
This film also made me very sad. I am sometimes disgusted with the way that Disney ... for lack of a better word ... Disney-fies their fairy tales. I think after watching this masterpiece I will have trouble ever being able to go back to the computer generated "Song as Old as Time" version that Disney plastered their trademark to. Never have I been so impressed with black and white cinematography as I have been with this film. The actress that plays Belle, Josette Day, steals the camera every time it is on her. She looks so radiant with the black and white that to see a colorized version of this film would completely do it injustice. The power and emotion that comes between Belle and the Beast feels so true. Cocteau has somehow grabbed the true feeling of two people that are complete opposites that seem to find true love in the coldest of places. I would be one of those reviewers that believes that if this film were released today, it would still pull the audiences in as it did the first time. Only proving that it was made well before it's time, it shows so many of the characteristics of the modern day movie. Even the special effects seem perfect for this film. Even with budget being sub-par, we are able to get a true feeling that this Beast is one of the magical kind.
Oh, this film was superb. I would have to say that it is the best adaptation of a fairy tale that I have seen today. Definitely my best 40s film (made in 1946), and possibly the best telling of Beauty and the Beast EVER!!
Grade: ***** out of *****
The amazing set design also impressed me about this film. Again, without the modern conveniences of today's cinema, Cocteau had to improvise. This was hard for him to do. Not only were there huge budgetary issues (since it was the end of WWII and France was about to be demolished), but also he was racing against an impending war. Fear was deep in the hearts of the French after WWII, and what a better way to rally your people then with a story about love found in the darkest of places.
This film also made me very sad. I am sometimes disgusted with the way that Disney ... for lack of a better word ... Disney-fies their fairy tales. I think after watching this masterpiece I will have trouble ever being able to go back to the computer generated "Song as Old as Time" version that Disney plastered their trademark to. Never have I been so impressed with black and white cinematography as I have been with this film. The actress that plays Belle, Josette Day, steals the camera every time it is on her. She looks so radiant with the black and white that to see a colorized version of this film would completely do it injustice. The power and emotion that comes between Belle and the Beast feels so true. Cocteau has somehow grabbed the true feeling of two people that are complete opposites that seem to find true love in the coldest of places. I would be one of those reviewers that believes that if this film were released today, it would still pull the audiences in as it did the first time. Only proving that it was made well before it's time, it shows so many of the characteristics of the modern day movie. Even the special effects seem perfect for this film. Even with budget being sub-par, we are able to get a true feeling that this Beast is one of the magical kind.
Oh, this film was superb. I would have to say that it is the best adaptation of a fairy tale that I have seen today. Definitely my best 40s film (made in 1946), and possibly the best telling of Beauty and the Beast EVER!!
Grade: ***** out of *****
- film-critic
- Sep 22, 2004
- Permalink
You can venture into this hypnotic domain and dive as deeply into its myriad of meaning and interpretation as you care - whether in the deeps or the shallows or somewhere in between, you'll find a mesmerising presentation of true originality from a legendary pioneer. The scenery, the costumes, the performances, the imagination and the innovation are all supremely wound around a tale few would not have encountered before, albeit through the animation of a slightly differing yarn. If that is what brought you here I hope you have not been disappointed, that it unlocks a door to so many treasures of cinema past, to diverse worlds and continents and by legends occasionally mightier than those found here.
- EThompsonUMD
- Mar 11, 2008
- Permalink
When special effects anthologies are shown "Metropolis" is called the grandfather of film FX, "2001" is the son and "Star Wars" is the grandson. Invariably the French are forgotten. This is shameful, since the French were truly the masters of FX or "trick" shots. Following my analogy, Cocteau was the heir apparent of Melies.
"Beauty and the Beast" not only beautifully re-tells a beautiful story, but powerfully displays the Beast's magic. Cocteau's genius is that he makes simple editing techniques look like art and in this movie like the combination of art and magic. Watch what happens when Beauty gives one of her sisters a present from the Beast's castle which the Beast meant only for Beauty.
The version I saw was in French with English subtitles, but the visuals, in glorious black and white, are so stunning, you could almost cover up the subtitles and still understand what's going on.
I can't recommend this movie enough! It is #1 on my foreign film list.
"Beauty and the Beast" not only beautifully re-tells a beautiful story, but powerfully displays the Beast's magic. Cocteau's genius is that he makes simple editing techniques look like art and in this movie like the combination of art and magic. Watch what happens when Beauty gives one of her sisters a present from the Beast's castle which the Beast meant only for Beauty.
The version I saw was in French with English subtitles, but the visuals, in glorious black and white, are so stunning, you could almost cover up the subtitles and still understand what's going on.
I can't recommend this movie enough! It is #1 on my foreign film list.
- dbdumonteil
- Nov 23, 2002
- Permalink
This might be my nominee for the most beautiful film ever made. It ranks as one of my absolute favorites.
So many images stick in your head afterwards: the billowing draperies; the beast's flashing eyes when he first appears; the way his ears prick up when a deer moves through the woods-- he's trying to talk to Belle but can't help but be distracted-- one of those perfect moments; the way his hands smoke from the fresh blood when he's returned from the hunt; the living eyes in the carved stone; the hall full of arm/candelabras, turning as Belle passes by; Josette Day (quite an image all by herself); the moment that I can't even describe when she sort of folds into the sheets and vanishes-- so on, so on.
This is, in short, what film can do, when it tries. This was made long before computer graphics and the accompanying revolution in special effects, but if any of our modern directors deployed their resources as imaginatively, or as sensitively, as Cocteau did in the 40s, film today might be worth the paper it's printed on. But they don't and it isn't. Ah well. Get this and watch it; all due praise to Disney, but this is the fairy tale to see.
So many images stick in your head afterwards: the billowing draperies; the beast's flashing eyes when he first appears; the way his ears prick up when a deer moves through the woods-- he's trying to talk to Belle but can't help but be distracted-- one of those perfect moments; the way his hands smoke from the fresh blood when he's returned from the hunt; the living eyes in the carved stone; the hall full of arm/candelabras, turning as Belle passes by; Josette Day (quite an image all by herself); the moment that I can't even describe when she sort of folds into the sheets and vanishes-- so on, so on.
This is, in short, what film can do, when it tries. This was made long before computer graphics and the accompanying revolution in special effects, but if any of our modern directors deployed their resources as imaginatively, or as sensitively, as Cocteau did in the 40s, film today might be worth the paper it's printed on. But they don't and it isn't. Ah well. Get this and watch it; all due praise to Disney, but this is the fairy tale to see.
This is what true movie-making is about. There is no CGI, no pop culture jokes, no stupid sex scenes. This IS what love stories are made of.
The classic fairy tale is given remarkable treatment by Jean Cocteau as he tells the tale of a beautiful girl who falls in the love with a tortured but charming Beast (played by Jean Maris in a stunning performance). This movie just seems to have it all: it's visuals are very impressive, the romance is very charming and not at all phoned in, the story is engaging and surprisingly tense, and the acting is just superb. Although there are no big movie names, you won't care for a second as this talented group will win you completely over.
Not only is this fantasy at it's very best, it often comes off more as a poem rather than a movie but you won't care. It's one of the most visually dazzling poems ever put on film.
The classic fairy tale is given remarkable treatment by Jean Cocteau as he tells the tale of a beautiful girl who falls in the love with a tortured but charming Beast (played by Jean Maris in a stunning performance). This movie just seems to have it all: it's visuals are very impressive, the romance is very charming and not at all phoned in, the story is engaging and surprisingly tense, and the acting is just superb. Although there are no big movie names, you won't care for a second as this talented group will win you completely over.
Not only is this fantasy at it's very best, it often comes off more as a poem rather than a movie but you won't care. It's one of the most visually dazzling poems ever put on film.
This is a very difficult film for a grown-up to enjoy. But right off the bat, Cocteau pleads with us to do our best. If, like he asks in the prologue, you are able to watch the film through the eyes of a child--in particular, not questioning everything, not seeking to understand everything, and not expecting "reality"--then this will be a marvellous journey for you.
I admit (hardened cynic that I am), it was a struggle for me. The temptation is to keep asking "why did that happen? how did that happen? what does it mean?" This, folks, is a one-way ticket to an unenjoyable time. If you read the IMDb "hated it" reviews, you'll see that it's the single complaint of everyone that things just didn't make logical sense, or things were left unanswered. But Cocteau says right in the beginning, "The child accepts everything we tell him, without question." These are not just idle words.
Remember that when you start thinking the dialogue is too simple... or when you think the actors are being too melodramatic... or when the plot doesn't make logical sense. All these things will happen. But if you're able to watch through the eyes of a child, it only adds to the magic and charm of this unique picture.
I'm rating this a 7/10 which is very high on my scale. The reason why it doesn't score higher is because I can't help comparing it to Cocteau's later film ORPHEE. Two completely different films--both fantasies about love & damnation, but one is for the child in us, and the other is for the adult. Watch this one first, and then if you like it check out ORPHEE.
I admit (hardened cynic that I am), it was a struggle for me. The temptation is to keep asking "why did that happen? how did that happen? what does it mean?" This, folks, is a one-way ticket to an unenjoyable time. If you read the IMDb "hated it" reviews, you'll see that it's the single complaint of everyone that things just didn't make logical sense, or things were left unanswered. But Cocteau says right in the beginning, "The child accepts everything we tell him, without question." These are not just idle words.
Remember that when you start thinking the dialogue is too simple... or when you think the actors are being too melodramatic... or when the plot doesn't make logical sense. All these things will happen. But if you're able to watch through the eyes of a child, it only adds to the magic and charm of this unique picture.
I'm rating this a 7/10 which is very high on my scale. The reason why it doesn't score higher is because I can't help comparing it to Cocteau's later film ORPHEE. Two completely different films--both fantasies about love & damnation, but one is for the child in us, and the other is for the adult. Watch this one first, and then if you like it check out ORPHEE.
I first saw this film, believe it or not, as a young boy of about four or five. The year was about 1952 or 1953, and I watched it on a typical TV set for those days - a very small screen with a very grainy picture. I remember being mesmerized by the film, particularly the ending. I must have asked my mother the name of it, for I never forgot it. I'm sure I didn't understand it much, it was just that I was swept away by the artfulness and magic of it. Its memory remained in my consciousness for about forty years, during which time I never once saw the film or even heard about it. Then I happened to run across it in a catalog. I just had to have it and ordered it immediately. It was an incredible experience to see this film again after so many decades, and to connect again with my child-self. I could see why the movie had made such an impression on me and haunted me all these years. As it turned out, the film had even more meaning for me as an adult, since the main theme had a special, personal relevance for me. Amazingly, I had also developed an obsession with roses, and tended to a garden of hundreds of rose bushes. All in all, a very beautiful film and a simple yet magical tale.
Odd, surreal, inventive, funny, maddening, romantic and silly...BEAUTY AND THE BEAST is a viewing experience like no other. It's also difficult to describe and I imagine each person seeing it will have different strong reactions to it. But it SHOULD be seen by anyone with a love of film and of art.
It tells the basically familiar story of BEAUTY AND THE BEAST (if you're a fan of the Disney movie, you can get a lot of amusement just looking for moments in this film that clearly inspired the animated version), but the whole approach is skewed and almost cartoonish. It's as though the film is made with children in mind, yet as it goes along, it becomes more and more adult. The lovely Belle in this telling is almost like Cinderella. She cooks and cleans while her two sisters preen and order her about and are basically the step-sisters from CINDERELLA. She also has a brother who is just a step above the village idiot, and there is his best friend, who has a pretty serious crush on Belle. And then there is Belle's beloved father...he's in the import/export business, and his business is in ruins because all his ships have disappeared. Frankly, Belle's father doesn't have many redeeming qualities, and it's hard to understand Belle's unthinking, unwavering devotion to him. I know, I know...he's her father. But she acts as though he is a saint. He heads out on a business trip and on his return, stumbles across a mysterious estate in the middle of the forest. And he basically breaks in, helps himself to food and pokes around the place like he owns it. (Here is one of many examples where people in this film don't behave in believable ways. Such is often the case in fairy tales when you think about them, but in a film, it just comes across as rude, if not criminal. When dad takes a rose from a tree for his daughter...the Beast is so outraged, he makes an appearance. He loves his roses above all else, and while he was seemingly content to see dad ransack his place, stealing a rose was an intolerable insult.
Dad only saves his own hide by promising to send his beloved daughter Belle to the Beast's estate in exchange. Again, dad doesn't seem too honorable. So Belle goes to live with the Beast, and the two slowly grow closer and closer, although Belle is still tormented by her longing to see her father, who has fallen ill. The conversations between the two title characters are often odd. Beast is clearly tormented, both by personal demons, but also be loneliness, which Belle has finally relieved somewhat. Does he love her, or does he love the relief she brings? She seems drawn to him too, yet often, she just wanders around the estate, looking frankly dazed and confused. It's a difficult relationship to make sense of. In fact, the motivations of most of the characters in the film are murky.
And yet, it all comes together in a dreamlike way. The surface silliness and cartoonish behaviors somehow still gel into a compelling exploration of obsession and the way love can tear one between the urge to be selfish and the inspiration to be generous with the object of desire. Beast wants Belle all for himself, yet he wants her to be happy, which means letting her return to her father. Belle is torn between the lure of home, and her generosity of spirit when she sees how deeply Beast needs her.
All of this can be seen as romantic and lovely...the manifestations of deep love. Yet there is a pretty deep sexual undercurrent that comes closer and closer to the surface as the film progresses. What started out as a clownish story turns into barely restrained passions. When Beast is clearly enthralled by Belle, he literally begins to smoke and he screams at her to close her bedroom door. The implication is that he is moments away from loosing control of himself and attacking her. A child watching this might think that she's in danger of being literally attached and eaten. An adult viewer knows that's not exactly what we're talking about here. And the looks Belle gives to the Beast show that she is more than passingly intrigued by the idea of being ravished. Their relationship is "wrong" (in a conventional sense) and yet they have a burning desire (literally, in the Beast's case).
Also worth the price of admission is the spectacular estate of the Beast. While there are few special effects as we would think of them, the film is full of magic. Candlesticks are held literally by human hands. Statues are alive. The whole set is full of surprises, and the net effect is truly one of having created another world in the midst of our more conventional one. Really cool stuff!
The ending of the film contains a remarkable, amusing twist and was just the final odd touch in an odd and strangely effective movie. BEAUTY AND THE BEAST is rightfully a classic, and a very singular piece of cinema.
Criterion's blu-ray is full of interesting extras. And if you like Philip Glass, you can listen to his score for the film instead of the original. I tried it for awhile and found it too distracting, but others will certainly relish it.
It tells the basically familiar story of BEAUTY AND THE BEAST (if you're a fan of the Disney movie, you can get a lot of amusement just looking for moments in this film that clearly inspired the animated version), but the whole approach is skewed and almost cartoonish. It's as though the film is made with children in mind, yet as it goes along, it becomes more and more adult. The lovely Belle in this telling is almost like Cinderella. She cooks and cleans while her two sisters preen and order her about and are basically the step-sisters from CINDERELLA. She also has a brother who is just a step above the village idiot, and there is his best friend, who has a pretty serious crush on Belle. And then there is Belle's beloved father...he's in the import/export business, and his business is in ruins because all his ships have disappeared. Frankly, Belle's father doesn't have many redeeming qualities, and it's hard to understand Belle's unthinking, unwavering devotion to him. I know, I know...he's her father. But she acts as though he is a saint. He heads out on a business trip and on his return, stumbles across a mysterious estate in the middle of the forest. And he basically breaks in, helps himself to food and pokes around the place like he owns it. (Here is one of many examples where people in this film don't behave in believable ways. Such is often the case in fairy tales when you think about them, but in a film, it just comes across as rude, if not criminal. When dad takes a rose from a tree for his daughter...the Beast is so outraged, he makes an appearance. He loves his roses above all else, and while he was seemingly content to see dad ransack his place, stealing a rose was an intolerable insult.
Dad only saves his own hide by promising to send his beloved daughter Belle to the Beast's estate in exchange. Again, dad doesn't seem too honorable. So Belle goes to live with the Beast, and the two slowly grow closer and closer, although Belle is still tormented by her longing to see her father, who has fallen ill. The conversations between the two title characters are often odd. Beast is clearly tormented, both by personal demons, but also be loneliness, which Belle has finally relieved somewhat. Does he love her, or does he love the relief she brings? She seems drawn to him too, yet often, she just wanders around the estate, looking frankly dazed and confused. It's a difficult relationship to make sense of. In fact, the motivations of most of the characters in the film are murky.
And yet, it all comes together in a dreamlike way. The surface silliness and cartoonish behaviors somehow still gel into a compelling exploration of obsession and the way love can tear one between the urge to be selfish and the inspiration to be generous with the object of desire. Beast wants Belle all for himself, yet he wants her to be happy, which means letting her return to her father. Belle is torn between the lure of home, and her generosity of spirit when she sees how deeply Beast needs her.
All of this can be seen as romantic and lovely...the manifestations of deep love. Yet there is a pretty deep sexual undercurrent that comes closer and closer to the surface as the film progresses. What started out as a clownish story turns into barely restrained passions. When Beast is clearly enthralled by Belle, he literally begins to smoke and he screams at her to close her bedroom door. The implication is that he is moments away from loosing control of himself and attacking her. A child watching this might think that she's in danger of being literally attached and eaten. An adult viewer knows that's not exactly what we're talking about here. And the looks Belle gives to the Beast show that she is more than passingly intrigued by the idea of being ravished. Their relationship is "wrong" (in a conventional sense) and yet they have a burning desire (literally, in the Beast's case).
Also worth the price of admission is the spectacular estate of the Beast. While there are few special effects as we would think of them, the film is full of magic. Candlesticks are held literally by human hands. Statues are alive. The whole set is full of surprises, and the net effect is truly one of having created another world in the midst of our more conventional one. Really cool stuff!
The ending of the film contains a remarkable, amusing twist and was just the final odd touch in an odd and strangely effective movie. BEAUTY AND THE BEAST is rightfully a classic, and a very singular piece of cinema.
Criterion's blu-ray is full of interesting extras. And if you like Philip Glass, you can listen to his score for the film instead of the original. I tried it for awhile and found it too distracting, but others will certainly relish it.
- RMurray847
- Jan 10, 2021
- Permalink
Cocteau was a poet. Make no mistake. First and foremost. Not only in history's mind, but in his own as well. We are truly blessed that he was a filmmaker as well, and a brilliant one at that, marvelously weaving together a tapestry that mystically incorporated both words and sounds with the beautiful visions that lay captured in his mind.
Cocteau's vision of "Beauty and the Beast" is a visual marvel. To explain these marvels for you would be to ruin the experience. And it is an experience. But it is one of the poet: borne of symbolism and mythology. This is a fairy tale that a child could appreciate for its romance and beauty, and a parent for its intelligence and use of symbolism and metaphor. I recommend this film unreservedly. If you like classics and consider yourself a serious filmgoer, Cocteau's film is essential to your education.
Cocteau's vision of "Beauty and the Beast" is a visual marvel. To explain these marvels for you would be to ruin the experience. And it is an experience. But it is one of the poet: borne of symbolism and mythology. This is a fairy tale that a child could appreciate for its romance and beauty, and a parent for its intelligence and use of symbolism and metaphor. I recommend this film unreservedly. If you like classics and consider yourself a serious filmgoer, Cocteau's film is essential to your education.
- evanston_dad
- Apr 28, 2005
- Permalink
I'm going to have to agree with the minority here who were underwhelmed by this version of Beauty & The Beast. It seems overrated to me. I found the Disney version far more magical and emotionally engaging. Best I can say about this one is...there were some cool visuals. But that's not enough for me.
Technical achievements can only elicit a detached sort of admiration. The story must have heart, and the execution must be so skillful that (at first) you don't even notice the techniques used to make you believe in the fairytale. I didn't believe in "La Belle et La Bête" or get swept away.
The acting was a little too exaggerated for my liking. The dialogue was awfully clunky. For instance, I'd really rather not hear The Beast come right out and tell Beauty, "I'm good on the inside". Y'know, SHOW, don't tell! Beauty then proceeds to tell him he has courage, but, once again, I'd rather *see* evidence of this. What did The Beast do to give her this opinion of him?
Main problem is the characters lack depth, and the developing relationship between Beauty & The Beast seems really forced. Not once did I believe they were falling in love - perhaps because they never really converse and get to know each other! In the Disney version you can clearly see why Belle's feelings for The Beast change...as his behaviour changes. Whereas the Beast in this film comes across as a sleazy seducer handing Beauty a line!
The transformation scene at the end is abrupt and laughable. Again I must compare it unfavourably to Disney's truly moving, tear-inducing finale. And I'm sorry to say that the actor (playing a dual role) does little to distinguish his mannerisms as the Prince Formerly Known As The Beast, from that of Beauty's other suitor, Avenant. Beauty's reaction at the end seems far too flippant and superficially flirtatious - I saw no depth of feeling on her part.
It's pretty sad when cartoon characters are more expressive and more convincing than real live actors, eh? Actually, what's sad is that animated movies still don't get much respect, while foreign films with fancy pedigrees get an automatic stamp of Critically Acclaimed Masterpiece! - whether they honestly deserve it or not.
Technical achievements can only elicit a detached sort of admiration. The story must have heart, and the execution must be so skillful that (at first) you don't even notice the techniques used to make you believe in the fairytale. I didn't believe in "La Belle et La Bête" or get swept away.
The acting was a little too exaggerated for my liking. The dialogue was awfully clunky. For instance, I'd really rather not hear The Beast come right out and tell Beauty, "I'm good on the inside". Y'know, SHOW, don't tell! Beauty then proceeds to tell him he has courage, but, once again, I'd rather *see* evidence of this. What did The Beast do to give her this opinion of him?
Main problem is the characters lack depth, and the developing relationship between Beauty & The Beast seems really forced. Not once did I believe they were falling in love - perhaps because they never really converse and get to know each other! In the Disney version you can clearly see why Belle's feelings for The Beast change...as his behaviour changes. Whereas the Beast in this film comes across as a sleazy seducer handing Beauty a line!
The transformation scene at the end is abrupt and laughable. Again I must compare it unfavourably to Disney's truly moving, tear-inducing finale. And I'm sorry to say that the actor (playing a dual role) does little to distinguish his mannerisms as the Prince Formerly Known As The Beast, from that of Beauty's other suitor, Avenant. Beauty's reaction at the end seems far too flippant and superficially flirtatious - I saw no depth of feeling on her part.
It's pretty sad when cartoon characters are more expressive and more convincing than real live actors, eh? Actually, what's sad is that animated movies still don't get much respect, while foreign films with fancy pedigrees get an automatic stamp of Critically Acclaimed Masterpiece! - whether they honestly deserve it or not.
- crispy_comments
- Sep 25, 2006
- Permalink
Jean Cocteau, famous for this work and for his "Orpheus" trilogy (which includes his breakthrough Blood of a Poet), takes the viewer on a journey that he requests at the start to be thought of as a pure fantasy- Once Upon a Time- and, thus, the viewer can expect anything from the inventive, abstract auteur. There is plenty that Cocteau uses from Jeanne-Marie Leprince de Beaumont's original story, and makes entirely his own with his brand of enlightening the visual medium- surrealism in a subtler fashion than in his debut.
Most people know the story of Beauty and the Beast, even if one hasn't seen the flashy, fully romanticized Disney flick: an old man, in danger of losing most of his earnings, goes off one night in the darkness and fog to return home. He's detoured onto the property of the Beast (Jean Marais, truly with the skills of a stage actor), a creature who's been in a world of loneliness and conflict with his primal instincts and his human heart. He lets the old man go, as long as he can bring one of his daughters over to take his place.
His family includes three daughters, two of which are spoiled and another, Bela (Josette Day), who is like the servant of the house to them. Bela agrees, and when she arrives at the castle, she finds that it's like nothing she's ever seen before: arms holding candles, statues with eyes, and a mirror that can give the Beast sight of Bela when he wants to. The story unfolds, as some of us can guess, and when Bela returns home to visit her ailing father, her descriptions of the Beast as brutish yet cordial and sad, infuriates Ludivoic (Michael Auclair) who's been pining for Bela's hand in marriage. This leads up to an ending we can assume from the start, and it may be varied on the viewer whether or not it seems rushed or leaving a loophole or other.
Cocteau tells the story, with the obvious psychological comparisons between humans and the Beast(s) in us all, and he does so gracefully, however he has his collaborators in tuning the right mood- Christian Berard, Lucien Carre, and Rene Moulart combine to create some of the most dankly elegant sets/design to any film of its time, mostly in the rooms of the castle, and also in the minor touches of the forests. Their backdrop gives Henri Alekan the motives to add cinematography of a truly evocative timing and grace. He doesn't add or take away shadows in certain scenes to make it more beautiful, he adds them so he can apply the right light to the scene, and the results only make it all the more-so worthwhile.
There was something in me that thought, while viewing Beauty and the Beast, that this version could be suitable for (intelligent) children. Now, writing this commentary, I'm not so sure- for American audiences it is a change of pace from filmmakers using he standard visual effects and computer enhancements, and I've always been of the opinion that kids need a peek at a few dark movies during their adolescence to prepare them for what's coming up. But, it is from a different time, has subtitles, and the actors sometime seem to inhabit the landscape and involvement of an opera over that of a movie. I can definitely pin-point this work, to rap this up, as a highlighted mark in the history of (French) film, with an artist who can take his ideas and transfer them to a past work and make them as palatable, and at the least fascinating to the common film-fan, as possible for the period it was made.
Most people know the story of Beauty and the Beast, even if one hasn't seen the flashy, fully romanticized Disney flick: an old man, in danger of losing most of his earnings, goes off one night in the darkness and fog to return home. He's detoured onto the property of the Beast (Jean Marais, truly with the skills of a stage actor), a creature who's been in a world of loneliness and conflict with his primal instincts and his human heart. He lets the old man go, as long as he can bring one of his daughters over to take his place.
His family includes three daughters, two of which are spoiled and another, Bela (Josette Day), who is like the servant of the house to them. Bela agrees, and when she arrives at the castle, she finds that it's like nothing she's ever seen before: arms holding candles, statues with eyes, and a mirror that can give the Beast sight of Bela when he wants to. The story unfolds, as some of us can guess, and when Bela returns home to visit her ailing father, her descriptions of the Beast as brutish yet cordial and sad, infuriates Ludivoic (Michael Auclair) who's been pining for Bela's hand in marriage. This leads up to an ending we can assume from the start, and it may be varied on the viewer whether or not it seems rushed or leaving a loophole or other.
Cocteau tells the story, with the obvious psychological comparisons between humans and the Beast(s) in us all, and he does so gracefully, however he has his collaborators in tuning the right mood- Christian Berard, Lucien Carre, and Rene Moulart combine to create some of the most dankly elegant sets/design to any film of its time, mostly in the rooms of the castle, and also in the minor touches of the forests. Their backdrop gives Henri Alekan the motives to add cinematography of a truly evocative timing and grace. He doesn't add or take away shadows in certain scenes to make it more beautiful, he adds them so he can apply the right light to the scene, and the results only make it all the more-so worthwhile.
There was something in me that thought, while viewing Beauty and the Beast, that this version could be suitable for (intelligent) children. Now, writing this commentary, I'm not so sure- for American audiences it is a change of pace from filmmakers using he standard visual effects and computer enhancements, and I've always been of the opinion that kids need a peek at a few dark movies during their adolescence to prepare them for what's coming up. But, it is from a different time, has subtitles, and the actors sometime seem to inhabit the landscape and involvement of an opera over that of a movie. I can definitely pin-point this work, to rap this up, as a highlighted mark in the history of (French) film, with an artist who can take his ideas and transfer them to a past work and make them as palatable, and at the least fascinating to the common film-fan, as possible for the period it was made.
- Quinoa1984
- Aug 31, 2003
- Permalink
This famed Jean Cocteau film of the 1940s plays like a poem, moving across the screen. In a triple role (Avenant, a friend of Beauty's brother; The Beast; and the Prince) Jean Marais is curiously flat as a human it is as the sensual, passionate, sensitive, and complex Beast that he really shines. Josette Day is little more than adequate as Beauty, but good enough for the role that has been written for her.
The tale is one of awakening, of desires, and of strange surroundings. Living statues and disembodied arms holding candles aloft populate the twilight world of the Beast's castle, where the fate of a young girl turns on the plucking of a rose. Ghostly voices, choral and otherwise, shadows and softness accompany Beauty as she walks into the kingdom which first repels and then entrances her.
I have to agree with the view that the great Greta Garbo took of this movie, though: give me back my Beast'. The transformation from powerful feline seducer to run-of-the-mill Prince is a disappointment. It is during the scenes where Beauty and the Beast play out their fantasy that this film has its most potency.
The tale is one of awakening, of desires, and of strange surroundings. Living statues and disembodied arms holding candles aloft populate the twilight world of the Beast's castle, where the fate of a young girl turns on the plucking of a rose. Ghostly voices, choral and otherwise, shadows and softness accompany Beauty as she walks into the kingdom which first repels and then entrances her.
I have to agree with the view that the great Greta Garbo took of this movie, though: give me back my Beast'. The transformation from powerful feline seducer to run-of-the-mill Prince is a disappointment. It is during the scenes where Beauty and the Beast play out their fantasy that this film has its most potency.
Based on the classic French fairy tale of the same name, Jean Cocteau's fantastical fantasy masterpiece is as grand and lavish as it is thought provoking and beautiful. Through a haunting and mystical atmosphere, French director Jean Cocteau creates a fairy tale world that completely lives and breathes on it's own. This world is complimented by an assortment of characters that all have their own unique charm, along with serving relevance to the poetic tale itself. The story follows a man that gets lost in the woods and happens upon an enchanted castle. While there, he takes a rose on the request of his youngest daughter, Belle. However, the castle is owned by a half man, half beast that likes to be called, simply, 'The Beast'. The Beast tells the man that the penalty for taking his beloved roses is death, but offers him a chance to get out of it, in exchange for one of his daughters...an offer which Belle accepts.
Most people will know this classic story as the Disney animated film from the early 1990's. That one wasn't bad for Disney, but I think most will agree that this largely ignored version is a far superior telling of the tale. The Beauty and the Beast works because underneath it's fairytale setting; it's a tender love story. It's a story of how love can transcend superficial boundaries. The Beast is, obviously an ugly character on the outside, albeit one with a heart of gold on the inside, thus allowing Belle to fall in love with him and the audience to feel for the character in spite of his physical affliction. This story has become legend, in both cinema and literature and several stories have taken influence from it since - from soft-core bestiality porn flick, 'The Beast', to the classic 'King Kong'; The Beauty and the Beast is one of the most important stories ever written, and Jean Cocteau has more than done it justice with this film.
This is my first taste of Jean Cocteau. I've heard many a good thing about the man (including that he inspired the majestic 'Eyes Without a Face'), and judging by this film alone; they would appear to be true. The way that Cocteau creates the atmosphere in the movie is superb, and also very subtle. There's no real macabre imagery on display, and Cocteau relies on smoke and the lavish Gothic settings to do it for him. It's true that the beast itself looks a little rubbish; but it still looks a damn sight better than a lot of the CGI incarnations that we see all too much of today. If what I've heard is right; Cocteau is responsible for much of what cinema has come to rely on, but even if it isn't true; this film is a must see.
Most people will know this classic story as the Disney animated film from the early 1990's. That one wasn't bad for Disney, but I think most will agree that this largely ignored version is a far superior telling of the tale. The Beauty and the Beast works because underneath it's fairytale setting; it's a tender love story. It's a story of how love can transcend superficial boundaries. The Beast is, obviously an ugly character on the outside, albeit one with a heart of gold on the inside, thus allowing Belle to fall in love with him and the audience to feel for the character in spite of his physical affliction. This story has become legend, in both cinema and literature and several stories have taken influence from it since - from soft-core bestiality porn flick, 'The Beast', to the classic 'King Kong'; The Beauty and the Beast is one of the most important stories ever written, and Jean Cocteau has more than done it justice with this film.
This is my first taste of Jean Cocteau. I've heard many a good thing about the man (including that he inspired the majestic 'Eyes Without a Face'), and judging by this film alone; they would appear to be true. The way that Cocteau creates the atmosphere in the movie is superb, and also very subtle. There's no real macabre imagery on display, and Cocteau relies on smoke and the lavish Gothic settings to do it for him. It's true that the beast itself looks a little rubbish; but it still looks a damn sight better than a lot of the CGI incarnations that we see all too much of today. If what I've heard is right; Cocteau is responsible for much of what cinema has come to rely on, but even if it isn't true; this film is a must see.
So many amazing things here.
The story is iconic and archetypal. Not merely "a" love story but arguably "the" love story from which all other love stories have evolved. If you are writing your doctorate on Men & Women, you could do worse than use this story as the basis for your thesis.
The fact that it was made at all -- most the filming took place in France at the end of the occupation.
The genius of Cocteau, who gets so much more from camera angles and good actors than any modern anime.
The special effects are astonishing considering, in theory, they did not even exist. At times, the character, Beast, seems to be smoking as if he is on fire. Seriously.
So it is in French. The dialogue is so simple to follow you could actually learn French by the time it is over.
Brilliant and unequalled. Could be seen again and again.
The story is iconic and archetypal. Not merely "a" love story but arguably "the" love story from which all other love stories have evolved. If you are writing your doctorate on Men & Women, you could do worse than use this story as the basis for your thesis.
The fact that it was made at all -- most the filming took place in France at the end of the occupation.
The genius of Cocteau, who gets so much more from camera angles and good actors than any modern anime.
The special effects are astonishing considering, in theory, they did not even exist. At times, the character, Beast, seems to be smoking as if he is on fire. Seriously.
So it is in French. The dialogue is so simple to follow you could actually learn French by the time it is over.
Brilliant and unequalled. Could be seen again and again.
- A_Different_Drummer
- Dec 16, 2014
- Permalink
- marissas75
- Feb 24, 2006
- Permalink
The verbal prologue bugged me. It says, in effect: children listen to fairytales and believe all sorts of fantastic things, about magic and flying carpets and the like; please be a child again for the next little while. (To highlight the this-is-for-children aspect, I suppose, the opening credits are written out by hand on a blackboard while we watch.) The film really cheats here, no question about it. The right to have the audience "believe" (so to speak) in fantastic events, or realistic events, has to be earned. Cocteau can't just command it. It's as if he's saying, "I admit my film won't really grip you as it stands, so pretend you're about eight years old, and see if that works."
I suppose it's already clear that it didn't have the intended effect on me. In my defence I plead that the whole film was half-baked. (I don't speak French. Maybe a lot was lost when the dialogue was poorly translated into subtitles. Personally I doubt it.) Neither the beauty nor the beast was a discernible character. Cocteau doesn't appear to have a very clear idea of what his story is about, and directs as if he expected his prologue ("Be enchanted, I tell you!") to do all the work. The final scene is at once abrupt and pointlessly bizarre. Some of the visual effects were nice enough, but they smell too strongly of artifice. When characters stepped out of doors I half expected to see the outside of a French film studio. There is, however, a rather pleasing score by George Auric.
Had this been made in Hollywood by no-one in particular it would be forgotten by now.
I suppose it's already clear that it didn't have the intended effect on me. In my defence I plead that the whole film was half-baked. (I don't speak French. Maybe a lot was lost when the dialogue was poorly translated into subtitles. Personally I doubt it.) Neither the beauty nor the beast was a discernible character. Cocteau doesn't appear to have a very clear idea of what his story is about, and directs as if he expected his prologue ("Be enchanted, I tell you!") to do all the work. The final scene is at once abrupt and pointlessly bizarre. Some of the visual effects were nice enough, but they smell too strongly of artifice. When characters stepped out of doors I half expected to see the outside of a French film studio. There is, however, a rather pleasing score by George Auric.
Had this been made in Hollywood by no-one in particular it would be forgotten by now.
Jean Cocteau's French-filmed version of the oft-told tale, his first full-length feature as both writer and director. This is a gorgeously-designed, blissed-out fantasy, terribly romantic and designed with staggering imagination. Josette Day is striking as slighted young woman who saves her father from the clutches of a village beast, initially sacrificing her life until she finds herself charmed by the cursed monster--and he to her. Faithfulness to the original story leaves the ending feeling a little staid, but why complain when the film is this mesmerizing and beautiful? Cocteau's on-set diary was later published as "Beauty and the Beast: Diary of a Film", and makes an ideal companion piece to the movie. ***1/2 from ****
- moonspinner55
- Jul 3, 2001
- Permalink
Belle is a dutiful young daughter. Her father was a wealthy merchant who lost it all. His other daughters Adélaïde and Félicie waste away what's left. The father goes away to recover part of their missing fortune. While Adélaïde and Félicie want rich gifts, Belle only wants a single rose. On the journey, the father takes shelter in a grand castle. On the way out, he picks a rose for Belle, and that's when the Beast reveals himself. The Beast was going to allow him to leave until he picked his prized possession. He sentences him to die, but he's willing to allow the daughter to take his place. The father goes home unwilling to allow Belle go, but she sneaks away in the middle of the night to fulfill the punishment.
This is a much-loved French classic film. Personally, I just can't get over the overly broad acting. I like the art directions and the Beast's castle. The Beast looks like a lion. Is that the inspiration to Disney's Beast? But the acting is so distracting and old fashion.
This is a much-loved French classic film. Personally, I just can't get over the overly broad acting. I like the art directions and the Beast's castle. The Beast looks like a lion. Is that the inspiration to Disney's Beast? But the acting is so distracting and old fashion.
- SnoopyStyle
- Mar 14, 2014
- Permalink
La Belle et la bete is far the best adaptation to the screen. The dialogues, the screenplay, the set decoration, incredible. The story is known but the ending is awesome. It is worth seeing it. Jean Marais plays the 3 most important characters: the bete, avenant and the prince. What about the special and visual effects? Come on, now is 2002 but this movie is from 1946. Supreme. Visual, dialogues, performances, all. One of the best movies of all time. Look, I am not trying to convince anybody. Simply the best.
Even if i perfered animated version i still liked this version very much,the thing that left biggest wow factor to me was still gorgeous make up effects that still hold up today in a brilliant way,there are also staff that are little specific for that times and if you are nitpicking you can find a lot of small mistakes or just tiny parts that arent so visually impressive but i didnt minded it to much,cause lets face if it could look better they would probably improve it,beauty and the beast at least this version is a very good watch with impressive designs and plot that is similiar and predictable if you saw other versions but i would say that 1946 version is one of best one
- marmar-69780
- Feb 26, 2020
- Permalink
After watching this in my college French class, I have mixed feelings. Part of me wants to love it, because of the trippy, fantastical visuals, the fabulous costumes, and the surreal music. The other part of me rebels against the blatant over-acting, the cringe-worthy dialog, and the ridiculously cheesy and unbelievable ending...
To be fair to Cocteau, it's a beautiful film. The visuals and music are far ahead of their time. I'd never seen anything like the scene where la Belle runs through the castle in slow-mo, with the magic arms holding the candelabras guiding her way, and then seemingly floats down the hallway with the curtains billowing to some of the most other-worldly music I've ever heard in a movie score.
The special effects are not horrible for a film of its time. I love the sets, especially the house of la Belle and her family. And the costumes! I thought they were absolutely splendid, and very period-accurate (assuming it was supposed to be set in the 17th century)
Now for the bad... I really don't think a film being old and foreign is any excuse for clunky dialog. It's even worse if you understand French, because the English-speaking viewer might assume that the dialog seems odd thanks to bad translation in the subtitles. But the French dialog is just plain bad. Plus, the acting drives me absolutely crazy. I hate la Bête's voice. Every time he calls her "la Belle", I want to scream. The guy who plays the no-good brother was mildly amusing, and her b*itchy sisters were interesting. I almost wished the film had focused more on them than on the utterly dull Belle et Bête.
Besides all this, the ending was so ridiculous! I read somewhere that Cocteau did this purposely, so that the viewer would be left with a bad taste in their mouth and question the validity of so-called "happily-ever-after" endings. If this was his indeed his intent, he succeeded.
Overall, I think this is a question of style vs. substance. I felt the same way about Sofia Coppolla's Marie Antoinette--which had amazing costumes, music, cinematography and sets, but left me feeling empty and dissatisfied.
However, at least that film isn't called a classic. I understand all the reasons that this film gets recognized, as it is groundbreaking in many ways, but I don't think it deserves to be called a masterpiece.
To be fair to Cocteau, it's a beautiful film. The visuals and music are far ahead of their time. I'd never seen anything like the scene where la Belle runs through the castle in slow-mo, with the magic arms holding the candelabras guiding her way, and then seemingly floats down the hallway with the curtains billowing to some of the most other-worldly music I've ever heard in a movie score.
The special effects are not horrible for a film of its time. I love the sets, especially the house of la Belle and her family. And the costumes! I thought they were absolutely splendid, and very period-accurate (assuming it was supposed to be set in the 17th century)
Now for the bad... I really don't think a film being old and foreign is any excuse for clunky dialog. It's even worse if you understand French, because the English-speaking viewer might assume that the dialog seems odd thanks to bad translation in the subtitles. But the French dialog is just plain bad. Plus, the acting drives me absolutely crazy. I hate la Bête's voice. Every time he calls her "la Belle", I want to scream. The guy who plays the no-good brother was mildly amusing, and her b*itchy sisters were interesting. I almost wished the film had focused more on them than on the utterly dull Belle et Bête.
Besides all this, the ending was so ridiculous! I read somewhere that Cocteau did this purposely, so that the viewer would be left with a bad taste in their mouth and question the validity of so-called "happily-ever-after" endings. If this was his indeed his intent, he succeeded.
Overall, I think this is a question of style vs. substance. I felt the same way about Sofia Coppolla's Marie Antoinette--which had amazing costumes, music, cinematography and sets, but left me feeling empty and dissatisfied.
However, at least that film isn't called a classic. I understand all the reasons that this film gets recognized, as it is groundbreaking in many ways, but I don't think it deserves to be called a masterpiece.