I truly enjoyed "Belle et la bete" and believe it to be one of the most beautiful films that I've ever seen. However, I was disappointed to see Belle choose the "handsome prince". I understand that the original story chose this ending and that subsequent versions have followed suit, but I was incredibly disappointed. Did anyone else feel this way too?
shareA little. I always thought that the end of the fairy tale, the Beast turning into a handsome man, went against the message of the story: love what is within, not what is without. It sends a message to little girls: a man will change if you love him, he will go from being a monster to being a prince. This seems especially troublesome to me in the Disney version of the story.
But in Cocteau's version, I think you are *supposed* to be disappointed. It's sort of depressing to think that, after all that, Belle still takes the shallow road. Also, Marais's prince is not as charming as his Beast. He says "I was the Beast," not "I am the Beast," or "We are the same." They could almost be different people. And we know that Avenant has become the Beast in the prince's place. True, Avenant has been acting the jerk up until then, but I'm not sure if he has this coming. Then Belle claims that she did indeed love Avenant, though I can't fathom why. His differences from the Beast are what makes the Beast seem so good, but in the end they are so close to the same that they prove to be interchangeable. You can read this as a critique of my above point: Belle doesn't get the man she fell in love with.
I could also cynically claim that Cocteau is making a point to the effect that "all men are the same." I've made similar claims about women, especially after watching Vertigo.
Of course, the prince says: "Love can make an ugly man beautiful" and "Love can turn a man into a beast," and he is literally correct at the end. Maybe it's best not to read too far into this version of the message.
"We must not remind them that giants walk the earth."
One note about the Disney version.
Even though I've loved the Disney version since I was 3-4 years old, I must admit that it does seem to push the message that a woman's love can soften a man's heart and make him "good". This has obvious negative consequences (eg: a woman staying with a man even when he abuses her or even their children). But it can have positive consequences as well (eg: being kind to and patient with a troubled person can help them deal with their issues). As a kid, I took it to mean the latter. And since most (at least, I hope most) kids aren't in the former situation, I think they also see it this way. It's only as adults that we re-evaluate the meaning and try to think of it in terms of sexual relationships, which I doubt the Disney movie was considering.
Anyway, back to this version, which I saw in French class last year and with which I immediately fell in love. :-)
I understand why people see the ending as paradoxical, for which reasons salieril25 and sir73069-1 have explained. However, I try to view the ending with more of an emphasis on psychology. Though Belle knows Avenant has a bad heart, she is attracted to him because of his beauty. And though she soon realizes the Beast has a good heart, she is repelled by him because of his ugliness. However, when Belle truly sees past the Beast's ugliness—sees only the good in him for the first time, without any judgement on his appearance—the Beast becomes beautiful in her mind, because that is his true form. Avenant becomes the Beast because that is HIS true nature, and Belle can ignore his looks and see into his heart without distraction. In this context, it's more that Belle changed than that the Beast or Avenant actually changed. I think we (myself included) don't like the Prince as much because we have, (just like Belle) become attached to the Beast's appearance. Hopefully, like her, we can learn to love the heart within no matter how the person looks on the outside.
Someone told me that Greta Garbo, after she saw Cocteau's film, turned around and remarked to those with her, in her famous accent, "I vant my byooteeful beast back again!"
So I guess she was disappointed, too.
oh Brother! I can't believe people actually find anything redeemable in this movie. This is a bad bad movie... Showgirls bad. Can't you guys notice the frivolity of the story and the sloppy filmmaking? the over the top dialogue? the shabby stage? The fact that Belle is not pretty at all(miscasting) and the prince is FAR FAR from handsome? So anticlimatic and rushed. And the end with them flying towards who knows where? and that silly glove...What else am I forgetting? oh yeah! what about the beggining with the slate and the credits with the hand writing on the chalkboard that did not make any sense whatsoever. Bleh Bleh! Talk about disspaointing. The reason of whay I saw this movie is because somebody said that Marie Antoinette (a truly poetic movie) was trivial and she said that Beauty and the Beast was so great. horrible.
shareWait, what? Belle is not pretty at all? I'd hate to see your notion of attractive, because I thought Josette Day was absolutely gorgeous.
The handwriting on the chalkboard was just Cocteau being Cocteau. He tends to draw or write credits by hand. There's nothing "about the story" by doing that, however, it's more interesting than listing off all the actors' names on one title card, as many films of the day had done.
The glove thing made no sense to me, either, though I know Cocteau has used the glove to transport people to other places in other movies of his (Orphee, for example.)
I shouldn't trust your judgement. You thought a trendy piece of film where rich people just complained about being rich was great and Belle et la Bete was boring? While it has its moments, I think Belle et la Bete is waaaay better than Marie Antoinette.
I sincerely can't believe you are serious in this post. Showgirls bad? Are you crazy???
La Belle et la Bete is one of the most beautiful films ever made. Marie Antoinette can't hold a candle to this film!
And how can you say that Josette Day is miscast??? True, she is older than "Belle" is normally cast on film, but she is GORGEOUS!!! Those beautiful eyes....how can you say she is wrong for the role.
Also, you really need to take into consideration the time when the film was made. France was recovering from WW2 and the money for American style fantasy films just wasn't there...especially for what would have been considered a children's movie. You should read "Beauty and the Beast" Diary of a Film" and you'd understand the pain and trial it took to make this film.
Honestly, I really think you should reconsider your post.
You're, what, twelve?
Are you trolling? Being ironic? Sorry, but you point here is lost in a patently ridiculous faux review.
I just watched this and was also a little disappointed. But I guess I can live with it. I was definitely expecting a different kind of film, due to the things I had heard about the it. I anticipated a more thoughtful and less lofty experience...but it is a fairy-tale of sorts...
The cinematography is a delight and the whole castle setting is nice, but I couldn't help but feel that most of the characters were unpleasant (this may have been just me and the mood I was in at the time). I disliked them all except the father.
Overall it was enjoyeable, but I can't rave about it I'm afraid.
http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=35080015
You sound like a 15yr old kid who thinks he knows everything. Perhaps you are one. To criticize this for frivolity then invoke Marie Antoinette... I enjoy that film very much btw, but perhaps a little perspective is required - la belle was made relatively cheaply in 1940s whereas Sophia Coppola had money thrown at her & latest technology, lenses etc, as well as Versailles itself, to make MA, perhaps that goes some way to explaining the sloppiness & shabiness you speak of.
As for attractiveness of lead characters? That's subjective isn't it? And doesn't that very idea have more than a little to do with the theme of the film?
Yep, the viewer was supposed to be disappointed. Here's what Cocteau himself had to say about it:-
http://www.criterion.com/asp/release.asp?id=6&eid=271§ion=essay
I'll quote an excerpt here:-
"My aim would be to make the Beast so human, so sympathetic, so superior to men, that his transformation into Prince Charming would come as a terrible blow to Beauty, condemning her to a humdrum marriage and a future that I summed up in that last sentence of all fairy tales: “And they had many children.”"
She's not dissapointed (After all beauty is ugly herself), they rise to Heaven together.
sharecranbalanfan, I definitely think you should see about having those cataracts removed. If you didn't like the movie, that's one thing, but to call Josette Day and Jean Marais both ugly, you definitely should not be allowed behind the wheel of a car.
share[deleted]
My view is Josette Day as Belle was quite lovely ,charming and stunning. I loved her especially when she return to the castle and call " My Beast" (in Frence) the scene she given the water in hand to the beast and the beast drink the water from her hand, the scene that she cried and found her tear was drop the pearl. etc.
Jean Marais, I loved him as the beast but not in the handsome version.&_&
Seriously, all Belle did throughout this film was complain and insult Beast and the transition to liking him didn't really fit well with the film and in the end when she decided she loved him after he turned handsome, I felt she was being superficial@
shareHe became beautiful because of her "loving look", not vice versa. Look again at their conversation at that point, and you will see that that is the case. Of course, whether it was a good thing or not that he became beautiful is a whole other debate.
shareYou've got it backwards. It was her love of him despite his appearance that broke the evil magical spell and allowed him to revert to his original self: a handsome prince. And there's nothing superficial about her continuing to love him after the spell is broken.
It is better to be kind than to be clever or good looking. -- Derek
He actually does not revert to his original self though as in the novel, rather he turns into the image of the now deceased Avenant (who is not in the original novel) because Belle loved him , which makes the ending really creepy when you think about it. See my Avenant thread for more specifics about this. I love the film, love Cocteau's work as a filmmaker but I think the decision to add the Avenant character and tweak the ending (undoubtably to make Marais' appearance as Avenant a red herring) was a bad one.
shareI can see some few people who have expressed in this topic their disappointment about this movie. Well, to each his own.
I've enjoyed it immensly. It's one of the best movie adaptations of any "fairy tale" that I've ever seen.
I am not going to compare this version with Disney's one, since they are both extremely different. However Cocteau's version is my fav by a long shot!
Ok, just stop. Your comments are childish and unfounded.
shareI loved this film. Yeah, the ending did surprise and confuse me a little - but now that I think about it, and after reading this thread, thank you very much, it seems right. Beautiful film. And yes - to the guy who thinks the leading lady is ugly - omfg - see an optometrist ASAP, hahaha.....
I really loved the accompanying documentary on the Criterion release. The trip down memory lane / comparisons of then and now and all....wonderful stuff.
Darren Skuja
I finally saw this movie last night, thanks to Ovation TV (Love that channel!) The ending followed my memory (pre-Disney) of the original fairy tale, so I was not disappointed. My interpretation of both the fairy tale and this movie was that Belle fell in love with the inner man, despite his "beastly" appearance, and would have remained with him even if he had not transformed. Frankly, I did not find the prince particularly handsome, but that's just my taste in men, I suppose.
shareOf course Shrek turned the ending of Beauty and the Best on its head. (As did Bagpuss with their take on The Frog Prince.)
shareWait a minute...
I don't get this thread....
Belle had not SAY in that fact that Beast changed into his human form. It's not like she left Beast for another handsome man. The handsome man IS Beast. They are one in the same!
Am I missing something here???
www.simplydustinhoffman.com
-#1 site for Dustin Hoffman fans-
The only thing I was really disappointing about was that I felt the ending could have been flushed out a bit more. It doesn't really say what happens to either Belle's sisters or brother.
shareDoesn't Cocteau asks us to suspend our belief and reignite our childlike simplicity at the very start of the film?
shareNo, I wasn't disappointed. The film is lovely and enchanting (are I also think Josette Day is stunning.) Quite simply, the message of the fairy tale and the film is that a person's character is what matters. Someone kind and thoughtful(like the beast) is a better choice for a mate than someone arrogant and thoughtless (like Avenant). Once you learn to appreciate this and can fall in love, disregarding their outward appearance, they will turn into a prince!
For a further discussion on this check out the supplements on the Criterion version. Also the book "The uses of enchantment" by Bruno Bettelheim is an excellent source on the underlying meaning of fairy tales. An interesting read.
There is a reference near the end that says Belle's sisters will join them but serve her like they made her serve them.
share[deleted]
I know I was dissapointed. I understand why this version has 8.0. It was made in an amazing way and it was portrayed very well. But still it wasn't my cup of tea.
There's only one version of the story of the Beauty and the Beast where I was really happy and satisfied at the end but you can't know this version because it's from my country - from the Czech republic. - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Z3gtjPxYPA&list=UUtR81KkwV7WOZoGU VP4EN-w / https://www.youtube.com/user/21Byblos21/videos?shelf_id=4&view=0&a mp;sort=dd - our version of this fairytale with english subtitles if you would like to see it. The Beast is not a lion or a cat in our version. He's a bird.
imdb website: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078054/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1
And why I was satisfied? Maybe because the end seemed like a dream and maybe it was because it had pretty fast end.
I have no words...so just enjoy over 2000 videos http://www.youtube.com/user/yinloveyang
I was glad to see your post because it is so recent, otherwise I might not have bothered to bump a very old thread. I just saw this for the first time last night (4/26/2014) on TCM where Robert Osborne and/or Drew Barrymore have this as one of "The Essentials".
In any event, I liked much about this movie (and all of which become better when taking into account it was made in war-torn, cash-poor France in 1946)--the cinematography, the snarky humor, the settings and backgrounds, and especially the dreamlike way in which all of the Belle/Beast interactions occurred--except for these two issues: (i) the beast was not beastly enough. He did not have the physicality or mastery to put people in fear or awe, and so he was really just an ugly, forgettable man; and (ii) while we can disagree whether the lead actress was attractive, she was definitely not a good actor. Oh, and the ending was little hokey, but it looked neat.
I would give this a 7.1, but I would not put it on a list called "The Essentials".
Can somebody explain this thread a bit clearer?
The version I just watched was obviously stunning - but the subtitles were very iffy. They seemed to not have been translated straight to English - So some dialogue was out of time and was kind of lost in translation.
I didn't get the sense that Belle was actively choosing for Beast to change into a man. Was that the original intention of the film?