There's Always Magic in the Gazebo

It's a tale as old as time, or at least that's the saying. Certainly there have been plenty of adaptations of the story of Beauty and the Beast. Hailing from the 1740 French fairy tale "La Belle et la Bete", the story has seen more adaptations and versions than we could possible hope to cover. There is, however, one very relevant version of the story that's worth discussing (and no, not the Disney one from 1991, although that is the most famous). No, for this we're going back to 1946 for a French adaptation written and directed by Jean Cocteau.

I expect most reading this site haven't seen the 1946 version, although it was worthy of a Criterion Collection release just a few years back. Considering how the Disney version has sucked all the air out of the room when it comes to this story, it would be expected that when people think Beauty and the Beast they think of the one from the House of Mouse. And yet the 1946 version is lovely, with a haunting quality to the cinematography and set design that makes it feel more like a Universal MonstersThis franchise, started off with Dracula and Frankenstein in 1931, was a powerhouse of horror cinema for close to two decades, with many of the creatures continuing on in one-off movies years later. release than a tale of magic and romance. It's something to behold.

Belle (Josette Day) is the eldest of three daughters, and the sweetest of the three. Her two sisters, Felicie (Mila Parely) and Adelaide (Nane Germon), are spoiled brats who love to spend their father's money. Her brother, Ludovic (Michel Auclair), is a scoundrel and a lout. Belle waits on them all, hand and foot, all to keep their house running while her father (played by Marcel Andre), frets about all the money he lost when his trading ships sank out at sea. However, when news arrives that one of his ships came into port, her father heads to the coast for what good news he can get. Sadly, all of the spoils from the ship had already been taken by the creditors, leaving him with nothing. He then gets lost in the woods on the way home and ends up at a mysterious castle. Seeing no sense in freezing outside, he goes in.

The castle is spooky and strange. Disembodies arms hang from the walls, holding candelabras. People stand as statues, watching his ever move. A table is set with food but there's no one to eat it. As the mysteries build, Belle's father flees, heading into the garden. There he spies a rose, which he plucks, but that was one mistake too many. The master of the house, the Beast (Jean Marais), declares the man a thief and condemns him to death. However, he has one chance to save his life, if he can convince one of his daughters to stay at the Beast's castle in his stead. And, as we well know, Bell will readily accept that deal to save her father...

Credit where it's due, this is a handsome film. And not just for the time period it was made but, really, for any era of film. There's a lushness to the sets, from the stark and strange castle to the lived in farm that Belle calls home. There aren't many locations in the film (basically two, plus a quick town scene) so the film invests its money wisely and making its couple of major sets quick lovely. There's artistry here, in every frame.

Casting the denizens of the castle as disembodied arms and strange statues is an interesting touch as well. The original fairy tale had animals serve Belle at the castle, but these creepy and strange creations from the castle's magic are far more interesting. Haunting is the best word to describe it, almost like the castle is a living creature guarding its Beast. That's different from the Disney version, where the denizens were turned into living objects within the castle, and then turn back after. And yet, you can see how Disney was able to take inspiration from this version for their ideas to come.

We must also point out that the prosthetics used in the film are quite good for the time. They hold up well in comparison to Universal and their Wild Man films. The key difference is that the Beast is more cat like here than a wolf, and his fur is far more velvety. It does look fake, but in a way that works for the era. And I'll take a actor in prosthetic fur over a CGI abomination (like we'd get now, and did in the Disney remake) any day of the week.

If there's a downside to the film its that the film feels like it rushes its plot points between Belle and Beast. She starts off hating him for trapping her at the castle, like you'd expect, but within a day she's playing nice, and within just a few days she's already grown fond of him. She rejects his advances and calls him "just a friend" and yet, when she sees him next she's already in love with him. The film invests wholly in its setting but fails to take the same care with the love between the leads.

The ending is rushed as well, in a sense. The sisters, who are cruel towards Belle and jealous of the wealth she lives in at the castle scheme and plot against her but see no real comeuppance (outside a tossed off line at the end). The father, who is penniless for most of the film, similarly doesn't get more than a single comment from the Beast as well. Her brother is ignored completely by the ending. The film rushes a lot, with the now human Prince saying, "oh, don't worry, all of this is fine now. Here, let me explain." It tells instead of shows, which is cost effective but not great from a storytelling perspective.

Despite this, though, the film is striking. It's hard to argue with a movie that has such a sense of art and style. This movie really knows how to bring the magic, the ethereal qualities you'd expect from a magical castle roamed by a beast. It might not nail all the story moments, but it does move along at a fast clip as it keeps your eyes engaged with the wonder on its sets. Magic and wonder are what you need in a fairy tale above all else, and the 1946 Beauty and the Beast delivers in spades.