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
Post a Comment