Skip to main content

The Barest of Necessities


          Any classic Disney fan would be a little apprehensive about this year’s live-action version of The Jungle Book. None of the other Disney remakes have been good and these properties were very important parts of our childhood. But Rudyard Kipling’s book has so much to it that’s never been seen on film before, so there’s ample opportunity to make a great movie out of it -oh right, they’re just doing the Disney movie again.
          The story is about a boy or “man-cub” called Mowgli who is raised by wolves in the Indian Jungle. When the man-hating tiger Shere Khan shows up, it’s decided Mowgli must be returned to the humans by his guardian Bagheera the panther. But along the way he encounters many other jungle creatures intent on keeping him there for their own gain, with the exception of a laid-back sloth bear called Baloo who teaches him the bare necessities of living in the jungle.
          The biggest problem with this movie is that it takes itself very seriously. Which would be fine considering how serious and dark the original novel is, but this is trying to be a remake of the Disney movie. And that Disney movie didn’t take itself seriously being largely a comedy, which didn’t make it much of a good adaptation, but did make it unique. This version tries to keep a darker tone with some grim and tense moments, but they’re hard to take seriously when the film still keeps aspects like Baloo’s goofiness and the songs. Also like Cinderella, some of the additions feel like they’re trying to update the source material and make it more mature, but aren’t necessary. While I don’t mind giving Mowgli a character arc, Shere Khan’s given a back-story that’s pretty clichéd. And then there are additions that again are trying to cement a grittier tone, but make no sense. For example at one point the wolf pack just lets Shere Khan take over, despite it going against the very nature of a wolf pack. These attempts at a serious more dramatic tone for its own sake don’t coalesce naturally with the source of the original Disney movie. If they wanted to tell the Jungle Book story seriously they should have stuck to the book. But sadly, the book’s not as marketable.
          It’s a shame too because director Jon Favreau assembled a very exemplary cast. Bill Murray seems ideal for Baloo and he gives it his best, but he’s just trying to be Phil Harris. Harris’ ad-libbing and attitude created a pretty unique character in 1967, so entertaining that Disney just replicated him with the same actor for their next two films, The Aristocats and Robin Hood. And that’s sort of what Murray’s doing, just playing an established character rather than put any new spin on him. Shere Khan appears a lot more in this film but I appreciated the mystique more his mere reputation had in the earlier version. Idris Elba is pretty good as the voice, but has nowhere near the gravitas of George Sanders. Luckily the gravitas is fulfilled by Ben Kingsley as Bagheera who is perfect both as a vocal match for Sebastian Cabot and for just fitting into the world of The Jungle Book. Scarlett Johnasson, Lupita Nyong’o, and Giancarlo Esposito are fine but their parts could have been anyone. Even Christopher Walken’s a little underwhelming as King Louis, again the film’s serious tone not letting him be as absurd with the role as he could have been. The kid playing Mowgli is pretty good. He gets the physicality down but his dialogue is at times awkward.
          The visuals though are very good. I wish they’d have actually shot in the jungle but the CG cinematography and even many of the animals look great (though both Louis and Kaa are unnecessarily enormous). And the variations on the classic music works well too. Those who have nostalgia for The Jungle Book will be sucked in by the opening score. “The Bare Necessities” though contrary to the tone, is nice to hear; and perhaps the best part of the movie is Walken’s rendition of “I Wan’na Be Like You” which is just as hilarious as you’d imagine. Some changes I do like, like how Baloo and Mowgli’s relationship is made a little more believable, and the climax though dull is different and far less of a cop out than the original movie. And it’s nice if you’re paying attention, to hear the late Garry Shandling in a cameo appearance. But overall this Jungle Book is trapped as a Disney remake and in using that as its source, loses most of the spirit of Kipling’s book and feels in no way as unique as the earlier film.
          Though despite everything, I’d be totally up for a spin-off remake of TaleSpin.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Disney's Mulan, Cultural Appropriation, and Exploitation

I’m late on this one I know. I wasn’t willing to spend thirty bucks back in September for a movie experience I knew was going to be far poorer than if I had paid half that at a theatre. So I waited for it to hit streaming for free to give it a shot. In the meantime I heard that it wasn’t very good, but I remained determined not to skip it entirely, partly out of sympathy for director Niki Caro and partly out of morbid curiosity. Disney’s live-action Mulan  I was actually mildly looking forward to early in the year in spite of my well-documented distaste for this series of creative dead zones by the most powerful media conglomerate on earth. Mulan  was never one of Disney’s classics, a movie extremely of its time in its “girl power” gender politics and with a decidedly American take on ancient Chinese mythology. It got by on a couple good songs and a strong lead, but it was a movie that could be improved upon, and this new version looked like it had the potential to do that, emphasizing
Post a Comment
Read more

The Hays Code was Bad, Sex in Movies is Good

Don't Look Now (1973) Will Hays, Who Knows About Sex In 1930, former Republican politician and chair of the Motion Picture Association of America Will Hayes introduced a series of self-censorship guidelines for the movie industry in response to a mixture of celebrity scandals and lobbying from the Catholic Church against various ‘immoralities’ creating a perception of Hollywood as corrupt and indecent. The Hays Code, or the Motion Picture Production Code, was formally adopted in 1930, though not stringently enforced until 1934 under the auspices of Joseph Breen. It laid out a careful list of what was and wasn’t acceptable for a film expecting major distribution. It stipulated rules against profanity, the depiction of miscegenation, and offensive portrayals of the clergy, but a lot of it was based around sexual content: “sexual perversion” of any kind was disallowed, as were any opaquely textual or visual allusions to reproduction, and right near the top “No licentious or suggestiv
Post a Comment
Read more

Pixar Sundays: The Incredibles (2004)

          Brad Bird was already a master by the time he came to Pixar. Not only did he hone his craft as an early director on The Simpsons , but he directed a little animated film for Warner Bros. in 1999, that though not a box office success was loved by critics and quickly grew a cult following. The Iron Giant is now among many people’s favourite animated movies. Likewise, Bird’s feature debut at Pixar, The Incredibles , his own variation of a superhero movie, is often considered one of the studio’s best. And for very good reason, as the most talented director at Pixar shows.            Superheroes were once the world’s greatest crime-fighting force until several lawsuits for collateral damage (and in the case of Mr. Incredible, a hilarious suicide prevention), outlawed their vigilantism. Fifteen years later Mr. Incredible, now living as Bob Parr, has a family with his wife Helen, the former Elastigirl. But Bob, in a combination of mid-life crisis and nostalgia for the old day
1 comment
Read more