Beauty and the Beast is a classic tale of the power of love, at least according to the animated fan-favorite film of 1991 produced by Disney. Once the company offered audiences worldwide the pleasure to enjoy a live-action adaptation of Alice in Wonderland, it became evident the largest global animation enterprise would not stop at that. As of 2021, there have been countless live-action remakes of iconic Disney films, including Mulan, Lion King, Aladdin, and so on. The following paper focuses on one of the key pictures of the Disney Renaissance Beauty and the Beast (1991) and its live-action adaption of the same title released in 2021. It is apparent that filmmakers and studios often have to make changes to the original story and its visualization in order to offer viewers a fresh perspective on a dearly beloved classic. The case of Beauty and the Beast (2017) is no exception. The purpose of this essay is to examine and investigate the differences between Beauty and the Beast (1991) and its 2017 version. After all, the audience has changed rather drastically over almost three decades, which explains some of the alterations.
The first main difference between the two films is the fact that Belle becomes an inventor. In the original 1991 title, Belle’s father is an inventor, yet the 2017 remake makes Belle herself into one. Producers have most likely decided to give Belle an actual occupation to make her more relatable to modern audiences. Nowadays, the majority of the world is involved in debates around feminism. Thus, for Belle to be a true role model for young girls, she would have to be a strong and independent character with interests of her own, besides reading, and preferably even a job. Furthermore, the fact that Belle is an inventor is arguably an attempt to shatter some of the prevailing stereotypes surrounding women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM).
Another major difference between two films is that Belle actively tries to escape the castle. Beauty and the Beast (1991) makes it seem as though Belle belongs to a mental facility, accepting her fate as being the prince’s captive and then falling in love with him. The remake rejects the Stockholm Syndrome narrative and ensures that Emma Watson’s character is a lot more feisty and determined to flee the castle (Gajanan, 2017). Although this might appear as a slight change, it has the potential to demonstrate children and adults that they do not have to accept abuse and toxicity, especially in relationships.
Although both movies are written under the central idea that love is the strongest power, the ways they approach the subject are rather distinctive. Belle and the Beast falling in love in the 2017 live-action version seems to be more realistic since the characters have something in common: shared love for books (Gajanan, 2017). Both Belle and the prince are bookworms, which makes their interactions all the more heart-warming since they are clearly very similar in a variety of aspects.
All in all, it is evident that, despite criticism from the fans of the original, the 2017 live-action remake of Beauty and the Beast is better. It ensures that Belle is a strong female character who follows her passions and shatters gender stereotypes. In addition, in Beauty and the Beast (2017), it is undeniable that Belle does not accept her fate and tries hard to rise above her circumstances, which is extremely inspirational for young girls and boys. Furthermore, the live-action version provides a more realistic portrayal of the romantic relationship between two of the main characters.
Works Cited
Gajanan, Mahita. “12 Ways the New Beauty and the Beast Is Different from the Original.” Time, 2017, Web.