Well… yes, there is another Beauty and the Beast film that was not produced by Disney: La Belle et la Bête (2014), starring Léa Seydoux and Vincent Cassel. No talking clocks or teacups there, but we get little puppies with eyes like those Ty stuffed animals’.
While both films are entertaining, they greatly differ in style; and each focuses on different aspects of the story. The most obvious difference between them is the fact that Disney’s Beauty and the Beast can be enjoyed by both children and adults, while this 2014 adaptation of La Belle et la Bête is more aimed towards teens and above.
Having seen both, I believe each has strengths and weaknesses and deserve equal attention. So here we are: a brief comparison.
And the best place to start is Beauty and the Beast‘s central character: the rose-loving, kind and too-curious-to-take-danger-seriously girl we all love…
BELLE
Emma Watson’s Belle — seen from a child’s perspective (because after all, children are the target audience here) — has very little fault.
She’s bookish, inspirational, and so feminist that she defies the fashion of her time and wears a big, fluffy dress without the essential support of a corset. Luckily, Emma Watson looks great in anything so I guess the dress is no problem.
Léa Seydoux’ Belle, on the other hand, stays more closely to the source material and her characterization focuses on only the qualities that matter to the story: her simplicity and her way of seeing beauty where others cannot.
Not sure what she sees when the Beast nearly causes her to drown in a frozen lake, though. But that’s another story.
In terms of acting, Emma Watson certainly delivers what is expected of her character… in a way. Because after all, this Belle has been altered to be another Hermione, so why shouldn’t Watson shine with the role again?
However, Léa Seydoux is evidently a more established actress.
It’s the instances where something other than a practical bookwork is required that Watson’s limitations show. An example of the large gap between their acting ability is when Belle meets the beast for the first time.
While Watson responds to the Beast’s supposedly terrifying appearance with a simple little gasp…
Seydoux gives us a full reaction of someone who is scared out of her wits and has no idea how much longer she gets to live.
(The important part is towards the end.)
As a matter of fact, all of Watson’s reactions to the ENCHANTED castle and its inhabitants give off the vibe that this place is not so interesting or intimidating at all.
Watson has proudly explained in plenty of interviews that this “new and improved” personality of Belle is to solidify her strength. She is not in the least scared of the Beast. He shouts, she shouts back.
But because of these alterations, it is difficult to be impressed because we cannot really tell whether we are watching Hermione telling off Ron, Pauline Fossil (Ballet Shoes) being stubborn about her career, or just Emma Watson giving a speech about women’s right at a UN conference.
You cannot go wrong with Emma Watson’s Belle, who follows Disney’s modern formula of being a strong, fearless role model. But for a Belle who is capable of making us care about what she does and pulling us into her exploration of this fairy-tale world, I would go with Léa Seydoux’ interpretation.
BEAST
Well, no matter how suspenseful the background music is every time he appears or how sharp his fangs are, Disney’s Beast is still a friendly and huggable teddy bear with occasional endearing childish moments. 
Vincent Cassel’s Beast is definitely darker, not easily charmed, and… just more of a jerk in general.
Going into a little more detail: both Beasts are rich spoiled brats.
Disney’s Beast is a creature who used to know kindness but lost it along the way; with the curse, he is doomed to be lonely but his educated mind remains the same, evident in his disdain towards theft and his respect for literature. Cassel’s Beast made a terrible mistake during his prince-time and the curse causes him to gradually lose his humanly qualities and succumb to his savage side (dude’s outfits are still cool, though).
Their outlooks reflect exactly what they are meant to convey.
There is no fault in either actor’s performance and both Beasts seem to have established backgrounds as to why they have such personalities.
THE ROMANCE
Or I should say “relationship”. The core of this story is not romantic love. It is about friendship, kindness, and forgiveness. Belle needs to look past the Beast’s appearance and see the real him after he himself has learned to put his own need aside for others for the curse to be lifted.
For chemistry between Belle and Beast, I would have to go with Léa Seydoux and Vincent Cassel. Again, good acting combined with minimal CGI boost up believability.
However, despite this advantage, what deters their relationship from shining is the lack of development. In the end, it is unclear why Belle returns to the Beast at all while he has been a controlling, quick-tempered monster who scares her for fun and doesn’t even try to communicate with her, and she herself openly defies him until he finally lets her go home. This kind gesture from the Beast seems out of nowhere and it’s completely within expectation for Belle to not return to him at all at this point.
And this is where the Disney version does better — it allows Belle and Beast the proper time and for their friendship to progress.
Library, all that Shakespeare flirting, similar backgrounds — even if the interactions between Emma Watson and Dan Stevens in a suit seem forced, you can see why Belle and Beast want to spend MORE time with each other.
So, on one hand, you have explosive chemistry but little development. On the other, you have awkwardness, some unsuccessful jokes, but proper character evolvement.
It’s a tie.
PLOT
While the Disney version has a tight plot and delivers exactly what Beauty and the Beast is in its two-hour frame, The French version suffers from a draggy subplot about Belle’s gambling brother, who does… something that makes something bad happen which doesn’t really matter in the end.
That is not to say that the Disney film doesn’t have fillers. For instance, Belle’s backstory with her mother could be omitted and the story would stay the same. Also, do we really need Belle to be an inventor while that too does nothing for the story in the end?
But again, more or less trifles. These additions are unnecessary but they do not alter the charm of the film as a whole.
Bottom line: Disney’s Beauty and the Beast could be watched again with no forwarding (except maybe the Be My Guest scene, I don’t need to be reminded of how bored Belle is with the flying and singing kitchenware, once was enough), but some skipping would be required with La Belle et la Bête.
THE VILLAINS
I’ll cut it to the chase: Gaston is awesome, and I don’t really remember any guy in the evil gang from La Belle et la Bête. The generous amount of screen time those guys were given could have been devoted to Belle and Beast instead.
VISUALS
Beauty and the Beast: magical and… safe, I guess?
La Belle et la Bête: dark, daring, and all the same entrancing.
What do you think of the theory that this story was created to convince girls into arranged marriages?
Well, it’s a little far-fetched IMO.
Whether they wanted to or not, women were stuck with arranged marriages in the 18th century. The original version of this story rather aims to teach girls to embrace their feminine qualities, optimism, and that they have value beyond being a wife even if they can’t escape an unwanted marriage. Madame Leprince de Beaumont’s version is meant for an even younger audience and the moral here is more simplified, down to the familiar “beauty is within” theme.
Personally, I believe it’s contemporary romance books that use this story as a justification for arranged marriages and questionable behaviours from their male characters 😀
Omg that’s so true! The beauty and the beast is a theme now , except instead of the beast there’s a hot guy. And the theme of “Kindness” gets lost, because only “ strong female leads” are in trend now , so if they are kind and optimistic, they get called “weak”. So we get a guy that acts like a jerk and a girl that is “not like other girls” and they both go on to have a incompatible relationship where they usually disagree. In most cases , the supposedly strong defiant character turns a bit docile because she has to sacrifice for the relationship. But you get the guy and a wedding so who cares what her personality is going through?
Exactly! These girls are strong until they meet these “jerks” guys, and the guy would always be described as hot and secretly gallant despite the narrative’s insistence that he’s a jerk😅