La Belle et la Bête

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.

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.

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.

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 *****

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.