What you gain in an extra, faked dimension you lose in lively, genuine beauty.
A scene from Walt Disney Studios 1991animated film "Beauty and the Beast."“Beauty and the Beast 3-D” THREE STARS
Rated: G
Running time: 84 minutes
How do you get people to pay a second time for a product they’ve already bought once? And to pay even more?
It’s a marketing challenge, all right – but one that Hollywood is happy to tackle this year, as films from “Star Wars: Episode 1 – The Phantom Menace” to “Titanic” are being re-released with an extra dimension and an additional charge.
But are the films any better?
We have the year ahead of us to gauge that, although I suspect James Cameron will make sure that “Titanic” looks even more spectacular – and that having Jar Jar’s dreadlocks in your face is going to make “The Phantom Menace” even more insufferable.
On the first film out of the box, though – Disney’s 1991 hit cartoon “Beauty and the Beast” – the results are mixed.
The illusion of depth does add more life to the enchanted housewares – particularly the “Be Our Guest” number, with its Busby Berkeley geometrics. And it gives extra charm to the quietest effects – snowflakes, dust motes, the sparkle of sunlight behind stained glass.
But even under optimal, studio-screening conditions, the 3D glasses cut the light and muddy the original colors. The crimson clothes of the egotistical Gaston are now merely a dull red; fireplaces that once blazed with molten gold now flicker in ordinary yellow.
What you gain in an extra, faked dimension you lose in lively, genuine beauty.
As for the story – well, its strengths and flaws remain the same. “Beauty and the Beast” was a crucial tipping point for Disney, as the studio moved away from the purely kids-stuff material of the ‘80s into more sophisticated ‘90s projects like “Aladdin” and “The Lion King.”This film was the fulcrum, though, so there’s still plenty of both approaches, on either side.
So on one hand, you have the fine Menken and Ashman songs, which lean toward Broadway ballads and novelty numbers (with old pros like Jerry Orbach and Angela Lansbury to sing them) and the script’s small but significant move toward strong heroines.
On the other? Well, you have too-pretty leads voiced by second-tier celebrities like Robby Benson (whose Beast still looks no worse than a shaggy dog), and ugly supporting characters whose depiction never rises above crude caricature.
Cut out the score and Belle’s vaguely feminist spunk and you could be watching any of the forgettable Disney cartoons that clogged theaters in the ‘70s and ‘80s (until this movie slowly began the rescue).
The film still delivers well enough, on a small-fry level; there’s a pretty scary wolf attack, and a rousing scene when the housewares fight off some angry villagers. Paige O’Hara gives the heroine a pretty soprano and the songs are lovely.
But seen today, “Beauty and the Beast” is mostly proof of how much the Disney cartoons have changed over the years – particularly paired here with a new six-minute short spun off from “Tangled.” The brief toon isn’t much, but it’s a reminder of how good that 2010 movie was – and where the breakthroughs of “Beauty” eventually led.