I haven’t done a Bag of Tricks write-up in a long time. I recall having lots of plans for the sort of topics I could use it for after doing my first one for Buster Keaton (literal years ago,) but they just kind of never materialized. But seeing—and loving!—the new Little Mermaid made me think again about Disney’s live-action remakes as a whole. What commonalities unite them, what often works, what tends not to, and what can go either way. Quick caveat: I haven’t seen all the remakes to date, and for the sake of this post, I’m not including villain-centric reimaginings like Maleficent. So here, I’ll mainly be drawing from The Jungle Book, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, The Lion King, and The Little Mermaid. (Let’s be honest, it’s mostly gonna be Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, and The Little Mermaid—I know who I am.)
CGI-apalooza
For movies that bill themselves as live-action, many of these movies extensively—or even entirely—rely on CGI. The hook here, though, is “photorealism.” The talking animals in these movies, along with the talking clocks and teapots, look like actual animals, clocks, and teapots. In some cases, that’s come across as a bit nightmarish. Prior to The Little Mermaid’s release, the reaction to the first images of Sebastian were not good. In others, the CGI works against with the story, with the photorealistic animals being unable to emote like their 2D animated predecessors did. The Lion King was especially hampered by this.
Nostalgia Bait
Okay, we all know that this is the real reason all of these movies exist. We don’t need any of them, but Disney knows it can rake in cash based on Gen Xers and millennials looking back fondly on our childhoods and the soundtracks we listened to a zillion times. That can be a double-edged sword, because how tricky is it to measure up to a beloved childhood classic? But at the same time, we keep buying the tickets. I know these movies are baiting cash grabs, but I still got chills the first time I watched the Beauty and the Beast trailer and heard those opening notes.
Revisions and “Updates”
Each remake has, in different ways, sought to clarify or correct aspects of the original. When done well, this can add beautifully to the film. I’m on record as loving the themes that The Jungle Book brings to the story as it examines the conflict of whether or not Mowgli “belongs” in the jungle, and The Little Mermaid did a bang-up job giving Eric a more clearly defined character. Other times, these changes bring a “we know better” vibe of “fixing” what wasn’t necessarily broken to begin with. Like, I didn’t need “what happened to Belle’s mother” to be a subplot in Beauty and the Beast (she’s a Disney protagonist, obviously she has a dead parent!), and the change to Aladdin tricking the Genie to get them out of the Cave of Wonders, little though it was, bugged me. For what?
Girlbossing!
The remakes have been cognizant in how they portray their princesses, which, don’t get me wrong, is a good thing. I didn’t need to see Jafar perving over Jasmine, so I’m glad we didn’t. It’s neat that Belle is an inventor and that Jasmine wants to be a sultana. I really like that Ariel gets a bit more agency during her voiceless scenes. But at the same time, the remakes can be so intent on delivering “Disney Princess, now with added feminism!” that they can lose sight of the fact that the princesses were already pretty darn great in their original incarnations. Jasmine is the hardest hit here—I mean, yeah, she sings a song about how she won’t be silent, and that’s cool, but she doesn’t even say, “I am not a prize to be won”???
More Romance
Again, the originals already had some sweet romances, but this is one area where I think the remakes have consistently succeeded in enhancing the good stuff that was already there. Part of this has been giving more perspective to the second leads—namely the Beast, Jasmine, and Eric—making them more like co-leads. But more than anything, we just spend more time with these pairs as they get to know each other and fall in love. I’m 100% here for Belle teasing the Beast over reading King Arthur, Aladdin trying to sneak into the palace to visit Jasmine when he still thinks she’s just a handmaiden, and Ariel and Eric bonding over the collection he’s cultivated during his travels. This, more than anything I think, is the best reason for the remakes’ existence.
Original Songs
The Jungle Book only had a couple of the classic songs in it, and while The Lion King had a couple new songs, they weren’t really sung by characters in the context of the movie. But Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, and The Little Mermaid all feature at least one brand-new song in addition to the old favorites. In particular, each gives a solo to the second lead, who previously didn’t have one. “Evermore” is gorgeous and angsty and I love it, and as I’ve been listening to the new Little Mermaid soundtrack lately, I’ve found I often have to play “Wild Uncharted Waters” at least twice before I can move onto the next song. What can I say, Alan Menken’s still got it, baby! I also appreciate a few new reprises that put a new spin on the original songs. For Aladdin, it’s a second reprise of “One Jump Ahead,” where we now get, “Riff raff, street rat. / Would they think that / If they look much closer?” And The Little Mermaid gives us a devastating second reprise of “Part of that World,” where the voiceless Ariel sings in inner monologue, “What did I give to live where you are?” Chef’s kiss!
Looking at this list, there’s more in the “meh” to “dubious” range than “good” to “amazing.” And yet, somehow, I keep watching these movies and I keep liking them, especially my beloved Core Three. And yeah, some of it is nostalgia, but I could also just rewatch the originals for the umpteenth time, and instead I’ve given some of my love to these new versions. I guess, for me, that means they’re worthwhile. Whether it’s for the sheer drama of Dan Stevens wistfully singing “Evermore,” the charming chemistry between Mena Massoud and Naomi Scott, or the actual siren beauty of Halle Bailey’s voice, these movies have a place, and I’m glad we have them.
No comments:
Post a Comment