Happy Monday! I am counting down the days until my break from college, and I can't wait to rewatch some of my favorite Disney movies (there's a lot). I have always been a fan of the Disney animated classics, but I also find it fascinating how Disney utilizes live-action remakes to adapt movies based on a changing society.
Now make no mistake about it: live-action movies are, first and foremost, an economic investment. While opportunities for change in plot or character may be considered, the blockbuster success of live-action movies (without having to create a completely original concept) is profitable for Disney. Even if a live-action movie is substantially different from the original, like 2015's Cinderella or 2020's Mulan, Disney can rely on a pre-established audience based on the animated movies. While several people have complained about Disney (and Hollywood in general) doing remakes instead of creating original content, profiting off of past movie successes isn't actually a new concept for Disney. For example, there have been live-action remakes in the past, like the 1996 live-action remake of 101 Dalmatians.
Before the age of streaming services and DVDs, Disney made a lot of money by re-releasing classics in movie theaters. Once VHS and DVDs came into play, they extended the practice by re-releasing movies and then waiting a few years to release them again on either VHS or DVD. While this practice has declined (even before Disney+), special edition re-releases with bonus content, BluRay, or anniversary editions use the same mindset. Similarly, merchandise for any form of entertainment is just a way to profit off of the original story. And, what is a sequel but a way to further the story (and money) of the original?
So live-action movies, while a new trend, are playing into the same story that has been told in Disney and Hollywood for decades. However, live-action movies have become more popular for Disney in the past decade, and while money is at the forefront of this popularity, there are opportunities for growth once a live-action movie is in play. I've noticed three main benefits of live-action movies: demonstrating social progress, addressing original plot holes, and adding creativity. That being said, just as many live-action movies have come under fire for not properly addressing problematic elements.
Photo Retreived from RiEAL Films.
Social Progress
When Disney creates a 21st-century live-action remake of a movie originally created in the 1900s, there are going to be societal changes. Just live how Disney movies, especially the princess movies, have been becoming more inclusive, feminist, and socially-aware, so have live-action remakes. For animated movies that included problematic elements, live-action remakes are a strategy to acknowledge and correct those mistakes.
Disney movies are increasing with diversity and representation, and while past movies may have included different cultures and races, they weren't truly represented. Aladdin's characters are all Middle-Eastern, but the actors playing the main characters are white. Moreover, the animated version has been criticized for cultural stereotypes, like the controversy over the original "Arabian Nights" and the problematic scene where a street vendor threatens to cut off Jasmine's hand for stealing. In the 2019 live-action film, the writers changed the lyrics in "Arabian Nights" and did not include the threat to cut off Jasmine's hand. When it came to casting, the producers of Aladdin made it a goal to include a cast that accurately-represented the characters (however, it should be noted that there was still some controversy over the decision to cast Naomi Scott, who s biracial and of mixed British and Gujarati Indian descent, as Jasmine and claims that background characters were played by white actors who were "browned up").
While the live-action's cast is more diverse, there were still criticisms regarding the light skin of many of the leads.
Photo Retrieved from Den of Geek
Additionally, the 1998 animated Mulan includes a cast of both white actors (who also happen to do most of the singing) and Asian actors, though most of the Asian actors are not Chinese. In contrast, the 2020 film includes an all-Asian or Asian-American cast. Beyond casting, the live-action film feels like a different movie than the animated classic, with the 2020 film being rated PG-13. It's more serious, more action-packed, and more mature than the original, and one reason why the adaptation veers away from colorful imagery and musical montages is because of the script's shift to more accurately represent East-Asian culture. Director Niki Caro wanted a more realistic depiction of the Mulan legend, which doesn't include characters breaking into song before going off to war or a humorous dragon. It is important to note, though, that after filming, the actress who plays Mulan, Liu Yifei, said on social media that she supported the Hong Kong police, leading to several people to call for a boycott of the film.
Live-action films also follow the trend of modern Disney movies by becoming more feminist. Beauty and the Beast makes strides to fix the feminist critiques of the original while still maintaining the overarching plot. In the 2017 adaptation, Belle figures out early on in the movie that the castle, including the Beast, are under an enchantment, and she openly talks about it with the other characters without knowing the explicit terms. This is in contrast to the original in which Belle briefly mentions being in an enchanted castle. While it is never explicitly stated that Belle knows the Beast is human, I will forever argue that she has some idea of it because of this scene:
At around the 1:00 minute mark, Belle sees the portrait of Beast, specifically noticing his eyes. If you remember from the original, the eyes are the only thing that stay the same for the Beast/the prince, and it's how Belle recognizes him after his transformation at the end. In all fairness, this is a big stretch and not something kids would probably pick up.
Belle's knowing about the enchantment lessens some of the creepy factors of the film; moreover, she is more well-rounded, being an inventor in addition to a reader. Toward the end of the film, the movie directly addresses Belle's lack of freedom when she tells the Beast someone can't truly be happy if they aren't free. While these are small steps and the story probably won't ever be rid of the feminist critiques, it's a definite improvement from the original.
Aladdin, on the other hand, makes prominent differences in regards to feminism. We get another named female character (yes, in the animated version, Jasmine is the only named female character). While Jasmine and Dalia's characters are still connected to romance, they also have personalities outside their romantic interests. We learn more about Jasmine's mother, a topic previously unaddressed in the original.
Most importantly, however, is the reoccurring theme of Jasmine feeling silenced because she is a woman, culminating in the stunning "Speechless" and ending with Jasmine becoming sultan instead of Aladdin. Superfans of the original movie (aka me) may have noticed that "Speechless" is a play on one of Jafar's more disturbing lines in the original: "You're speechless, I see. A fine quality in a wife."
Other live-action films, like Cinderella and Maleficent, undergo dramatic re-imaginings of the original to address feminist concerns. Cinderella almost feels like a new movie with Cinderella having more agency, personality, and character. Maleficent is less a live-action remake and more an adaptation, combining the popularity of villain retellings and live-action movies. Of course, all the live-action remakes still have plenty and valid critiques when it comes to social progress, but it can't be denied that strides were taken. Moreover, live-action films in development are continuing to take strides in progress, such as The Little Mermaid, which features Halle Bailey, a Black actress, as Ariel and Awkwafina playing a gender-swapped Scuttle; there is also rumor that Javier Barden and Daveed Diggs are in discussion to be in the film.
Plot Holes
Another interesting development of live-action remakes is that they attempt to address plot holes in the original films, though it can be argued that not all of these plot holes needed to be addressed. Yes, everyone is always going to make comments about the confusing details regarding the Beast's enchantment or how no one seemed to realize Aladdin was lying. However, it is important to remember that the animated classics are, first and foremost, aimed toward children—meaning we don't need the intricately tied plots that adults want. Also, because animation doesn't look real like live movies do, we are naturally more likely to forgive minor plot holes or confusions. It's why we don't mind that animated shows have characters almost always wearing the same outfit or why we don't care that plenty of injuries go away quickly. In live-action remakes, though, we don't hold that same forgiveness. Combine that with the already-bubbling questions we have about original movies, and live-action adaptations present an opportunity to try to "correct" these mistakes.
In Beauty and the Beast, we learn more about Belle and her mother, addressing the question we had about the original; however, the scene where Belle travels to the place her mother died presents more confusion than clarity. The film does better with other plot holes. We learn that in the curse, the village's memory of the castle was erased, addressing a major question adults had about the original. Mrs. Potts in her human form is much younger than she is in the animated, and it is revealed that Mr. Potts was living in the village (memory erased). Smaller plot holes, like Belle being able to lift the Beast after he is injured or Gaston's popularity, are also addressed.
In Aladdin, we learn more about Jasmine's and Aladdin's dead mothers (without the weird bonus scene that Beauty and the Beast gives us). There's a lot more magic used to "create" the existence of the fictional Ababwa that Aladdin is the prince of; in the original, Jafar is the only person to be suspicious of Aladdin and his random kingdom. When it comes to Aladdin's wish to be a prince, Genie tells Aladdin that when people look at him, they will see someone else until they figure out the ruse, addressing how no one seemed to recognize Aladdin as Ali (expect Jasmine, of course).
In the live-action film, when Aladdin is disguised as a prince, he is made to look unrecognizable. Genie shows Aladdin how other people see him.
Photo Retrieved from Diply.
Are these plot-hole fixes necessary, though? Other than the lack of forgiveness given in live-action movies, these fixes are made only to address people who like to poke fun at the missteps of past movies. Some people like how the plot holes are addressed; others find them boring and unnecessary details. I don't care for how live-action movies try to fix plot holes. After all, part of the magic of animated children's movies is that they don't have to follow the rules of the adult world, which means little plot holes can be forgiven as long as they don't affect the overall story. Live-action movies bending backward and forward to address every little mistake in story bogs the movie down, in my opinion; however, it is a trend—and thus an opportunity—that live-action movies have. I wouldn't be surprised if the live-action The Little Mermaid finds a way to address why Ariel never wrote a letter to Eric.
Creativity
Of course, one of the more fun opportunities of live-action movies is creativity. Live-action movies often add music or make changes to original scores. Beauty and the Beast adds "Days in the Sun" and "Evermore," the latter of which was definitely a hit. It also made changes to "Gaston" by including some lyrics that were cut from the original, my favorite being:
"When I hunt, I sneak up with my quiver
And beasts of the field say a prayer
First I carefully aimed for the liver
And I shot from behind
Is that fair?
I don't care."
Likewise, Aladdin adds the iconic "Speechless," which serves dual purposes in creativity and feminism, and The Lion King adds Beyoncés "Spirit."
More prominently, live-action movies add tons of talent in terms of costume, makeup, setting, and special effects. Perhaps the best adaptation in Beauty and the Beast is the stunning visuals. From costumes and makeup to props and scenery, Beauty and the Beast pulls all the stops, earning it two Oscar nominations for costume and production designs. Aladdin and Cinderella fare similarly, with the rich scenery and costumes in Aladdin and the absolutely breath-taking blue dress in Cinderella, and the latter film also snagged an Oscar nomination for costume design.
From lighting and scenery to rich costumes, the visual design of Beauty and the Beast is stunning.
Photo Retrieved from Architectural Digest.
Of course, there is more room for creativity with script changes, special effects, and more, but the visual effects of live-action movies have the biggest room for opportunity.
Are there any movies you would like to see be adapted into a live-action? Or do you prefer to leave movies to their original forms? Are you excited for upcoming live-action movies like The Little Mermaid or Cruella? Drop a comment or send me a message, and check out @genielampofstories on Instagram for more content!
Until later, have courage and be kind.
Kommentare