Panna a netvor

I saw this film many years ago at Filmex in Los Angeles, and it left a strong impression. It is a truly beautiful version of the fairy tale Beauty and the Beast. It is a real shame that Herz's films are not available today, at least to US cinephiles.

I remember this film as having been done in a very naturalistic way, with (I think) no optical effects at all. The costumes were wonderful, as was the music and the acting. It seems to me there was a situation in which a woman's dress turned to mud (in a simple jump cut). The "Beast" is especially striking, with his bird-like plumage.

Anyone at Facets want to take this one on?

SBS-TV used to screen this film on an annual basis, but it has been missing in action for some years, which is cause for regret. The title may seem obscure, but a look at the alternative English translations ("Maiden and the Beast" and "Virgin and the Monster") should make this clearer. This is quite simply a wonderful interpretation of the classic fairy tale of Beauty and the Beast, produced and filmed in the then Czechoslovakia. Cinematic gems can be found in what may be thought to be unlikely places, and this film is an example.

Students of cinema may be aware that Cocteau did a version of this story in B&W, and there is of course the more recent and rather tame Disney version. This film is a very different proposition. For a start, it is unsuitable for young children because of some fairly graphic violence, including scenes of animal cruelty. The film-makers seem to strive for realism, particularly the scenes in the village where Beauty (here called Julie) lives, all mud and images of earthy rural life before the Industrial Revolution. But even the magical bits are portrayed realistically. The Beast's castle is maintained by an array of goblin-like servants, who skulk in the shadows of the fireplaces and chandeliers. If I have one complaint about this film, it is that the scenes are sometimes so dark that it is difficult to see what's happening. This does heighten tension, but it can be overdone.

The actors are great, especially the two charismatic leads. The Beast (Vlastimil Harapes) is fashioned more as a great bird of prey than Cocteau's leonine creation, and there is great suspense as he struggles with his inner violent nature (a sinister whispering voice) that is urging him to remain in his beastly form and kill the innocent Julie. Julie (Zdena Studenková) in turn is wonderfully portrayed. We can see why she is so obviously her father's favourite.

Fairy tales are expositions of the human condition, and the Beauty and the Beast story is no different. "Every woman has the power the make the one she loves beautiful". It's a simple theme, but this film explores it beautifully. See it if you can.

So, "Panna a Netvor"--"Beauty and the Beast" for English-speakers, though a more accurate translation is "The Maiden and the Monster." It's a more horror-tinged version of the tale, and is really not for little kids.

Fairy tales seem to specialize in magical transformations: beasts into humans , paupers into princes and princesses, etc. But look again and you'll see that the transformations aren't really transformations--Cinderella, for example, was always a princess on the inside; she just had to be recognized as one. So what many fairy tales do is show things as they really are--or, at least, as they should be. This version of "Beauty and the Beast" shows things as they are *and* how they should be, and works toward bridging the gap, making it more modern than your average fairy tale.

When the story starts, things as they are are pretty horrifying: our "Beast" (Netvor) is not a prince--he is never called one, he lives in a mansion and not a castle, and though he has servants they are monsters similar to himself. He is partially a bird and partially a beast (which is represented by both his body and a sinister voice that tells him to kill things, including our "Beauty," Julie). His little voice tells us that he's been fully transmogrified for at least twenty years.

It's usually pretty hard to make any "Beauty" interesting, since she merely exists to be lovely and good so that the "Beast" figure can be saved, but this movie gives it a go. As in the original fairy tale, she is the daughter of a merchant, not an inventor (as in the Disney version); her two selfish, money-obsessed sisters are slated to be married to other merchants, and their father has sunk everything into buying things for their respective weddings. Unfortunately, the goods need to travel through the Black Forest, and the people driving the carts stumble across one of the Beast's trip wires. So all the merchant's property is destroyed, and he and his three daughters are destitute. The merchant goes off with their mother's portrait to sell. The two selfish daughters want gold and gems, but Julie will accept a wild rose (his suggestion, not hers). He *also* needs to go through the Black Forest (WHY? WHY?!), but our Beast has gotten his fill of violence from the destruction of the merchant's goods, so his human side is slightly dominant over his beast one. When the merchant stumbles into the house, the Beast has his servants feed him and give him wine, and he even lays out jewels on the table for the merchant to take in exchange for the portrait. (These gems are not at all valuable to the Beast--magic works according to strange rules in this movie.) Then the merchant takes one of the Beast's roses, and you *know* what happens then. :) When he returns with shiny things, the two older sisters are thrilled, even after the merchant tells them he needs to die because he took a rose for Julie. Unless, of course, one of the three daughters will go back to the Beast in his place (that's always part of the deal)...and there's Julie, riding off into the forest. Notice, though, that the merchant said nothing about a beast.

Anyway, Julie shows up at the manor, drinks some suspicious-looking wine (poured by the gremlin who lives in the chandelier) and passes out. She then has a dream of being shut up in a coffin (alive) and rescued by (we presume) the Beast in human form. While she sleeps, the Beast stands over her and struggles with the little voice that wants him to kill her and drink her blood. Finally, he runs off into the woods and kills a deer.

When Julie wakes up, she's alone. While she's sitting in front of the fire, the Beast shows up behind her, ordering her not to turn around, and he interrogates her. She tells him why she's there. He asks if he can visit her the next night, and the cat-and-mouse chase begins. Believe it or not, the little voice is still pretty adamant about killing her. So her days go on--every morning and evening, the table seems to set itself, and she has pretty jewels and dresses to wear, and life is good. The Beast visits her at night, but only briefly.

Now I need to back up a bit. Magic, in this movie, is dependent on two things: the worth of the object to be transformed and how much the magic-maker/receiver deserves that object. The Beast's gremlins serve him less because he deserves it and more because his force compels it, but it's the same general principle. The gems that the Beast gave Julie's father were created only because he gave up the portrait of his wife--the sentimental value transformed everyday, broken-down objects into precious gemstones, because the merchant deserved them for his sacrifice. Julie's things are beautiful because she deserves them. When she goes home, her sisters insist on "borrowing" (read: stealing) her things, but as soon as the one sister tries on her dress, it turns to rags, and as soon as the other sister tries on her necklace, it turns to mud. Why? Because they don't deserve them. There is a strong element of justice in a lot of fairy-tales, but the theme does not usually play out quite so strongly in "Beauty in the Beast" (which is usually skewed toward *not* judging, based on appearances or anything else).

The Beast is made human due to the same general principles of this magic. He works toward deserving happiness. Julie is an active agent, but he is (as Michelangelo said) the marble and the sculptor--the substance, and the worker of that substance.

The end is a reprise of Julie's earlier dream, and is very '70's and a little tacky. Ah well.

This is probably my favorite version of the fairy tale. Recommended.

The honest merchant Otec (Václav Voska) goes bankrupt when he loses the cargo of dowry for the wedding of his ambitious and envious older daughters Málinka (Zuzana Kocúriková) and Gábinka (Jana Brejchová) with decadent earls. His only chance to raise money is selling the painting of his former wife and mother of the sweet and pure youngest daughter Julie (Zdena Studenková). He travels through the Haunted Wood during the night, but his horse dies and he seeks shelter in the derelict castle of the Beast (Vlastimil Harapes). He is well received by his host that buys his painting by a fair price. When he is leaving the castle, he takes a rose for Julie from the Beast's rosebush and his host tells that he must pay with his life for the theft of the rose. He asks for permission to return home to give the jewels for his daughters, but he would return to the castle since he is a man of honor. The Beast accepts and tells that his life would be spared whether one of his daughters agrees to come to the castle. When Julie learns the proposal, she travels to the castle to save the life of her father. She is forbidden by the Beast to look at him, but along the lonely days, she falls in love with his voice and kindness.

"Panna a netvor" (1978), a.k.a. "Beauty and the Beast", is a dark version from Czechoslovakia of the classic fairy tale. The plot is flawed, since the curse and the magic of the beast are not explained, and ambiguous, since the conclusion is not sure that is the reality or the beautiful view of the ugliness of Julie. The performances, lighting and shadows are magnificent. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "A Bela e a Fera" ("The Beauty and the Beast")

It's difficult to get past the opening scenes of close-ups of animal abuse, but at least that sets the tone for this very dark and murky adaption of the famous story. They say the acting life can be very glamorous - it certainly isn't the case here. No CGI safety-net, the performers attached to this story certainly seem to suffer for their art in a variety of uncomfortably cold situations.

It's good when horror films bring some new locations into their stories, but equally, it's always worth it to revisit the vast crumbling lairs of traditional settings, and that is done really effectively here; the story is given the most impressive horror treatment. Creatures hide in shadow - you only know they're there when you see a rolled eyeball or a moving, inhuman talon. There is enough of a fairytale quality to this to appeal to the inner child, and there are moments when the eyes will moisten! It's all accompanied by wonderful, sepulchral music, and directed like a hugely gothic TV film. My score is 8 out of 10.