Skip to main content

When was it we came to adopt man into the jungle?

The Jungle Book
(2016)

(SPOILERS) It might seem like I went into The Jungle Book with my mind made up, since I had my doubts in advance, and as it turns out, I didn’t love it. It comes armed with a number of very evident virtues, not least quite incredible, top-to-bottom (well, aside from Neel Sethi) photoreal CGI that pulls off the estimable feat of being anthropomorphic without ever entering the realm of uncanny valley. In addition, this is a much more successful take on Disney animated classics than last year’s Cinderella retread. And yet, it still has its cap firmly in hand to its 1967 predecessor. Where Jon Favreau’s film succeeds is invariably where it has the mind to break free from those shackles, which unfortunately it isn’t often enough.


Disney chairman Alan Horn talked up the picture prior to release as one he envisaged taking a more realistic (darker, more muscular) approach than Wolfgang Reitherman’s original. As such, he held his hands up that any failure could be pinned on him. Luckily, he hasn’t come away with egg on his face, but as I see it he could have and should have pushed further. The best elements of The Jungle Book (in particular the terrific first half hour) are dramatic ones, but whenever it takes its peddle off the metal and rehearses Mowgli’s interactions from the earlier film, it’s caught performing an inferior riff on superior material (right down to the songs, which while not as ill-fitting or intrusive as some reports suggest, are simply unnecessary).


I doubt its deficiencies will matter to most, though, as this remake’s trump card is constantly on display, in every inch of every scene. There’s never a moment you’d believe this was filmed on a soundstage, so detailed and persuasive is every pixel. If Baloo is a fairly generic rendition of a bear (you can see CGI bears during any given ad break, riding the tube), more so as he is voiced by Bill Murray doing a never-more-generic rendition of Bill Murray (which means he can’t fail to make you laugh occasionally – Baloo’s ruse concerning hibernation is very funny, his response(s) to being overrun with apes likewise – but he’s running on fumes), Bagheera is quite stunning, and Ben Kingsley, probably more similar to the original’s (Sebastian Cabot) character than anyone else in the cast, is a masterfully reassuring vocal presence: warm, responsible, compassionate.


Idris Elba is the surprise, as I didn’t think he stood a chance making Shere Khan distinctive (I mean relative to George Sanders; who could top George Sanders? It’s quite impossible). He scores by being distinctly different. To borrow from Anthony Horowitz’s controversial comments on the actor as a potential James Bond, he makes Shere Khan the very opposite of suave (although I’d hesitate to call him “street”). This incarnation is as rough, tough, cruel and cunning as they come, scarred by a close encounter with man’s red flower and thus given strong motivation in his hatred for Mowgli.


This is the argument for a new reading of Kipling at its most persuasive. Where Sanders is a very menacing hoot, Elba is relentless and terrifying. After their failure to deliver the man cub to him, Shere Khan arrives casually and confidently at the wolf den, where he assumes Akela’s (Giancarlo Esposito) top spot before killing him. Later he plays with the young cubs in the most unnerving manner, as Raksha (Lupita Nyong’o) looks on in dread of what he may administer next. Arriving after Elba’s very funny performance in Zootropolis/ Zootopia/
Zoomania, he may have finally found his Hollywood niche, just unexpectedly invisibly.


If this is the kind of approach we might expect from the now-not-at-all-imminent Andy Serkis’ Jungle Book: Origins, rumoured to be (even) darker in tone, I’m much more interested in it than the already announced The Jungle Book 2. As much as some of the changes here work (offing Akela), others have mixed results. Having Mowgli’s father killed by Shere Khan is classically lazy Hollywood shorthand motivation; it’s all-too-familiar, turning the picture into a faintly bland revenge tale and requiring young Sethi to emote a little more than is in his wheelhouse (Favreau generally knows best how to shoot around his limitations as a performer, bringing out his naturalness, but there’s no mistaking him for a prodigy, particularly when required, near enough, to exclaim “Get the hell out of my jungle!”)


It’s also, in part, quite a strange sequence with which to end the picture; Mowgli burns down half the jungle in order to get even with one tiger (that only wants to kill man anyway, and generally observes the rules of its habitat). Favreau and screenwriter Justin Marks appear to be commenting on the inherent capacity of man to wreak havoc and destruction no matter what his better intentions may be, so should Mowgli’s reward for indulging such selfish, baser instincts really be a hero’s welcome, and acceptance and celebration as never before?


It reminded me of the much derided climax to Man of Steel, in which Superman topples Zod but at the expense of many Metropolitans, only with animals suffering instead. Perhaps Mowgli will meet his own Batman in the sequel, and be asked to recompense for all those unfortunate creatures he inadvertently burned to death? With this, and elephants building dams and diverting rivers – traditionally the kind of activity that puts paid to natural environments – it felt like the picture was sending out some muddled messages (the elephants also seem remarkably capable, except when it requires a human to save a babe of theirs from a pit).


As much of a problem is that Mowgli remaining in the jungle for a cash-grab sequel removes the more impactful rites of passage element, and bittersweet ending, of the animated version (although, to be fair, Kipling has his cake and eats it, with Mowgli journeying back and forth between worlds). There isn’t really any price to be paid for anything here, and no lesson to be learned. The standing in solidarity against Shere Khan might have been a stronger trope if Mowgli had been less instrumental in his defeat. Instead, and throughout, he displays a rather wearisome flair for MacGyver-esque inventiveness and gadgetry.


Other sequences are fine but lack sufficient individuality to stand out. Generally, the 3D is immersive, in that it creates a whole world but you’re aren’t constantly conscious of the effect it is having. A sequence such as Kaa the snake (Scarlett Johansson) hypnotising Mowgli is more obviously pulling out the stops, but as with the darker tone, it could have gone further. As such, it either suggests the limits of Favreau’s visual imagination or uneasiness over really going for broke.


By the time we reach King Louie (Christopher Walken) and his temple ruins, I was feeling the fatigue of a picture straightjacketed into hitting the marks of the original when it should have been encouraged to breathe more, and become sufficiently its own thing. Walken’s idiosyncratic delivery, particularly when presented in a manner nodding to Colonel Kurtz, is arresting (and he squeezes Gigantopithecus into a lyrical, which takes some doing), but the sequence is generally by-numbers, replacing Reitherman’s delightfully witty choreography with laboured, effects-heavy mass-destruction.


So The Jungle Book is proving a massive hit. It reached the top, it didn’t stop, but that’s not what’s bothering me. Favreau and his artists have undoubtedly rendered a triumphant visual feast, but it isn’t enough to overwhelm memories of the original, comparison with which is unavoidable due to sticking resolutely to the same plotline, and sporadically also forcing in its tunes. None of the live action Disneys so far have sufficiently embraced the chance to do something fresh. The Jungle Book has the makings of such a sensibility, but ultimately lacks the courage of its convictions.  I’d like to think the sequel might be more forceful, since it will no longer have the animation to source (although you can bet we’ll get “untapped material”, thus the elephants and vultures will talk next time), but Favreau’s track record on follow-ups doesn’t exactly inspire confidence.


Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

I am so sick of Scotland!

Outlaw/King (2018)
(SPOILERS) Proof that it isn't enough just to want to make a historical epic, you have to have some level of vision for it as well. Say what you like about Mel's Braveheart – and it isn't a very good film – it's got sensibility in spades. He knew what he was setting out to achieve, and the audience duly responded. What does David Mackenzie want from Outlaw/King (it's shown with a forward slash on the titles, so I'm going with it)? Ostensibly, and unsurprisingly, to restore the stature of Robert the Bruce after it was rather tarnished by Braveheart, but he has singularly failed to do so. More than that, it isn’t an "idea", something you can recognise or get behind even if you don’t care about the guy. You’ll never forget Mel's Wallace, for better or worse, but the most singular aspect of Chris Pine's Bruce hasn’t been his rousing speeches or heroic valour. No, it's been his kingly winky.

If this is not a place for a priest, Miles, then this is exactly where the Lord wants me.

Bad Times at the El Royale (2018)
(SPOILERS) Sometimes a movie comes along where you instantly know you’re safe in the hands of a master of the craft, someone who knows exactly the story they want to tell and precisely how to achieve it. All you have to do is sit back and exult in the joyful dexterity on display. Bad Times at the El Royale is such a movie, and Drew Goddard has outdone himself. From the first scene, set ten years prior to the main action, he has constructed a dizzyingly deft piece of work, stuffed with indelible characters portrayed by perfectly chosen performers, delirious twists and game-changing flashbacks, the package sealed by an accompanying frequently diegetic soundtrack, playing in as it does to the essential plot beats of the whole. If there's a better movie this year, it will be a pretty damn good one.

There's something wrong with the sky.

Hold the Dark (2018)
(SPOILERS) Hold the Dark, an adaptation of William Giraldi's 2014 novel, is big on atmosphere, as you'd expect from director Jeremy Saulnier (Blue Ruin, Green Room) and actor-now-director (I Don’t Want to Live in This World Anymore) pal Macon Blair (furnishing the screenplay and appearing in one scene), but contrastingly low on satisfying resolutions. Being wilfully oblique can be a winner if you’re entirely sure what you're trying to achieve, but the effect here is rather that it’s "for the sake of it" than purposeful.

It was one of the most desolate looking places in the world.

They Shall Not Grow Old (2018)
Peter Jackson's They Shall Not Grow Old, broadcast by the BBC on the centenary of Armistice Day, is "sold" on the attraction and curiosity value of restored, colourised and frame rate-enhanced footage. On that level, this World War I documentary, utilising a misquote from Laurence Binyon's poem for its title, is frequently an eye-opener, transforming the stuttering, blurry visuals that have hitherto informed subsequent generations' relationship with the War. However, that's only half the story; the other is the use of archive interviews with veterans to provide a narrative, exerting an effect often more impacting for what isn't said than for what is.

You kind of look like a slutty Ebola virus.

Crazy Rich Asians (2018)
(SPOILERS) The phenomenal success of Crazy Rich Asians – in the US at any rate, thus far – might lead one to think it's some kind of startling original, but the truth is, whatever its core demographic appeal, this adaptation of Kevin Kwan's novel taps into universally accepted romantic comedy DNA and readily recognisable tropes of family and class, regardless of cultural background. It emerges a smoothly professional product, ticking the expected boxes in those areas – the heroine's highs, lows, rejections, proposals, accompanied by whacky scene-stealing best friend – even if the writing is sometimes a little on the clunky side.

He mobilised the English language and sent it into battle.

Darkest Hour (2017)
(SPOILERS) Watching Joe Wright’s return to the rarefied plane of prestige – and heritage to boot – filmmaking following the execrable folly of the panned Pan, I was struck by the difference an engaged director, one who cares about his characters, makes to material. Only last week, Ridley Scott’s serviceable All the Money in the World made for a pointed illustration of strong material in the hands of someone with no such investment, unless they’re androids. Wright’s dedication to a relatable Winston Churchill ensures that, for the first hour-plus, Darkest Hour is a first-rate affair, a piece of myth-making that barely puts a foot wrong. It has that much in common with Wright’s earlier Word War II tale, Atonement. But then, like Atonement, it comes unstuck.

Prepare the Heathen’s Stand! By order of purification!

Apostle (2018)
(SPOILERS) Another week, another undercooked Netflix flick from an undeniably talented director. What’s up with their quality control? Do they have any? Are they so set on attracting an embarrassment of creatives, they give them carte blanche, to hell with whether the results are any good or not? Apostle's an ungainly folk-horror mashup of The Wicker Man (most obviously, but without the remotest trace of that screenplay's finesse) and any cult-centric Brit horror movie you’d care to think of (including Ben Wheatley's, himself an exponent of similar influences-on-sleeve filmmaking with Kill List), taking in tropes from Hammer, torture porn, and pagan lore but revealing nothing much that's different or original beyond them.

It seemed as if I had missed something.

Room 237 (2012)
Stanley Kubrick’s meticulous, obsessive approach towards filmmaking was renowned, so perhaps it should be no surprise to find comparable traits reflected in a section of his worshippers. Legends about the director have taken root (some of them with a factual basis, others bunkum), while the air of secrecy that enshrouded his life and work has duly fostered a range of conspiracy theories. A few of these are aired in Rodney Ascher’s documentary, which indulges five variably coherent advocates of five variably tenuous theories relating to just what The Shining is really all about. Beyond Jack Nicholson turning the crazy up to 11, that is. Ascher has hit on a fascinating subject, one that exposes our capacity to interpret any given information wildly differently according to our disposition. But his execution, which both underlines and undermines the theses of these devotees, leaves something to be desired.

Part of the problem is simply one of production values. The audio tra…