The element that interested me most when comparing Cocteau's film and Madame de Beaumont's version of Beauty and the Beast is how the castle is portrayed. Beaumont's description of the castle, although sparse, seems like a precursor to the Disney version of the castle. When Beauty's father arrives the first time, there is no one to be seen, but the castle seems very inviting, with a "warm fire and a table laden with food, with just a single place setting." I almost expected to read about enchanted teapot servants next. In contrast, when the father arrives at the castle in the film, the castle seems to have been inspired by a horror film. Creepy floating arms hold candelabras that magically light. There is a hand in the middle of the table that scares dinner guests before pouring drinks. The statues in the wall are obviously alive. Terrifying. Very different images from the ones Beaumont presents.
This creepy/beautiful theme also carries over to when Beauty sees the castle for the first time. In Beaumont's version, "She could not help but admire the castle's beauty, and...was dazzled by the radiant beauty of that (her) room. She was especially impressed by a huge bookcase, a harpsichord, and various music books." The castle is beautiful and entertaining to Beauty. Cocteau again portrays a castle with body parts sticking out of the walls holding candles. The changes to Beauty's room are also substantial. In the film, there are vines growing everywhere, which to me adds to the "wild v. civilized" influences in the film. There is also a lack of the bookshelf and musical instruments, removing the air of culture from both Beauty and Beast.
Cocteau obviously had to pay much more attention to the setting of the castle because he was making a film, something incredibly visual. However, I am boggled as to why he decided to portray a castle that is beautiful in the story as something so much more sinister.
Song of the Blog: "Cemeteries of London" by Coldplay
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I don't know if I found the castle all that sinister actually. Yes, it is a bit more creepy than jolly Lumiere and Mrs. Potts in Disney's version but I found it more magical and intriguing than creepy. It didn't seem as if it were supposed to be scary as the father and Beauty don't appear extremely alarmed by all the enchanted hands and statues. I found all Cocteau's touches to the film creative and in a sense artistically beautiful.
ReplyDeleteI agree that Cocteau's interpretation is creepy and sinister-esque. Why would one want to stay in that castle (ie: Belle's father) with all it's oddities? The lure is simply not there.
ReplyDelete