Between 1980 and 2016 only four women-centric movies topped the U.S. domestic box office: 1997 with “Titanic”; 2013 with “The Hunger Games: Catching Fire”; 2015 with “Star Wars: The Force Awakens”; and 2016 with “Rogue One.” In fact, the top two films of 2016 had female protagonists, although the second, “Finding Dory,” centered on an animated fish.
The characters of most all these women-centric films have something in common — they are feminists. Katniss Everdeen set the stage in 2013 and she barely missed retaining the top spot at the box office the following year: “The Hunger Games: Mockingjay — Part 1” came in at number two in 2014.
It’s not too long ago that the folks at Lucas Films and Disney failed to reveal in advance that Rey was the lead of “The Force Awakens,” and not only were people pissed, the companies missed out on huge marketing opportunities by leaving Rey out of the initial run of action figures. But they learned from their mistake, and we all knew that the lead of “Rogue One” was a woman far in advance.
And now another film opens today, “Beauty and the Beast,” where the feminism is not only inferred, it is clearly stated. Emma Watson, the star of the film, has been very open and clear about her feminism, going as far as seeking Gloria Steinem’s seal of approval when the film was finished. Even in the animated version from 1991, writer Linda Woolverton and lyricist Howard Ashman pushed hard against the Disney heroine stereotype by giving Belle a love for books — and no interest in a man saving her. (Let’s remember the underlying story of a man (or beast) keeping a woman prisoner not the most progressive storyline and triggers lots of survivors.)
“Beauty and the Beast” is going to be a box office monster. It’s opening on over 4,000 screens in the U.S. and rolls out in a significant number of foreign countries. It has already broken Fandango’s pre-sales opening record for a family film, and its pre-sales are ahead of all those for “Finding Dory,” which was the second highest grossing film at the U.S. box office in 2016. Box office tracking has it at over $100 million, though it it could very well exceed $150 million.
Its success is a part of a long trend. As Paul Degarabedian, the Senior Analyst at comScore told us, “Beauty and the Beast” is the latest in a pretty long line. “I’m hoping through the course of time and having so many movies do well with strong female lead characters that it no longer has to be a distinction that we have to point out,” he said. “In other words, it should just be a part of the vernacular, part of our normal movie-going existence.”
Watson, who we all know as Hermione Granger from the “Harry Potter” films, takes on another beloved character and infuses her with spunk and independence — she just owns the screen. She comes into her own in this film and it is worth noting that while she has been in very large movies previously, this is the first where she is the star and the box office draw. The budget for the film, including production and marketing, is $300 million. That’s a lot of pressure, but she and the rest of the stellar cast who spend most of the film as non-human characters pull it off quite well. Belle is an inventor, and as is the case in the animated version of the story, she loves books. She wants to escape her provincial town, and has no desire to marry Gaston, the buffoon who sets his sights on her. A moment when she runs up a very large mountain reminded me of one of my favorite characters of all time, Maria von Trapp in “The Sound of Music.”
The impending success of “Beauty and the Beast” is just another reminder that films with women leads — and with women leads who are feminists — make money, and lots of it. This movie is for boys and girls and men and women. It’s for everyone. That’s the power of women’s stories. They are universal and relatable. Just consider the amazing and unexpected success of “Hidden Figures,” which surpassed the grosses of the latest “Star Trek,” “Bourne,” and “X-Men” films this week.
