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

No matter how innocent you are, or how hard you try, they’ll find you guilty.

The Wrong Man (1956) (SPOILERS) I hate to say it, but old Truffaut called it right on this one. More often than not showing obeisance to the might of Hitchcock during his career-spanning interview, the French critic turned director was surprisingly blunt when it came to The Wrong Man . He told Hitch “ your style, which has found its perfection in the fiction area, happens to be in total conflict with the aesthetics of the documentary and that contradiction is apparent throughout the picture ”. There’s also another, connected issue with this, one Hitch acknowledged: too much fidelity to the true story upon which the film is based.

How would Horatio Alger have handled this situation?

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) (SPOILERS) Gilliam’s last great movie – The Zero Theorem (2013) is definitely underrated, but I don’t think it’s that underrated – Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas could easily have been too much. At times it is, but in such instances, intentionally so. The combination of a visual stylist and Hunter S Thompson’s embellished, propulsive turn of phrase turns out, for the most part, to be a cosmically aligned affair, embracing the anarchic abandon of Raoul Duke and Doctor Gonzo’s Las Vegas debauch while contriving to pull back at crucial junctures in order to engender a perspective on all this hedonism. Would Alex Cox, who exited stage left, making way for the Python, have produced something interesting? I suspect, ironically, he would have diluted Thompson in favour of whatever commentary preoccupied him at the time (indeed, Johnny Depp said as much: “ Cox had this great material to work with and he took it and he added his own stuff to it ”). Plus

He’s so persistent! He always gets his man.

Speed (1994) (SPOILERS) It must have been a couple of decades since I last viewed Speed all the way through, so it’s pleasing to confirm that it holds up. Sure, Jan de Bont’s debut as a director can’t compete with the work of John McTiernan, for whom he acted as cinematographer and who recommended de Bont when he passed on the picture, but he nevertheless does a more than competent work. Which makes his later turkeys all the more tragic. And Keanu and Sandra Bullock display the kind of effortless chemistry you can’t put a price tag on. And then there’s Dennis Hopper, having a great old sober-but-still-looning time.

He is a brigand and a lout. Pay him no serious mention.

The Wind and the Lion (1975) (SPOILERS) John Milius called his second feature a boy’s-own adventure, on the basis of the not-so-terrified responses of one of those kidnapped by Sean Connery’s Arab Raisuli. Really, he could have been referring to himself, in all his cigar-chomping, gun-toting reactionary glory, dreaming of the days of real heroes. The Wind and the Lion rather had its thunder stolen by Jaws on release, and it’s easy to see why. As polished as the picture is, and simultaneously broad-stroke and self-aware in its politics, it’s very definitely a throwback to the pictures of yesteryear. Only without the finger-on-the-pulse contemporaneity of execution that would make Spielberg and Lucas’ genre dives so memorable in a few short years’ time.

But everything is wonderful. We are in Paris.

Cold War (2018) (SPOILERS) Pawel Pawlikowski’s elliptical tale – you can’t discuss Cold War without saying “elliptical” at least once – of frustrated love charts a course that almost seems to be a caricature of a certain brand of self-congratulatorily tragic European cinema. It was, it seems “ loosely inspired ” by his parents (I suspect I see where the looseness comes in), but there’s a sense of calculation to the progression of this love story against an inescapable political backdrop that rather diminishes it.

Another case of the screaming oopizootics.

Doctor Who Season 14 – Worst to Best The best Doctor Who season? In terms of general recognition and unadulterated celebration, there’s certainly a strong case to be made for Fourteen. The zenith of Robert Holmes and Philip Hinchcliffe’s plans for the series finds it relinquishing the cosy rapport of the Doctor and Sarah in favour of the less-trodden terrain of a solo adventure and underlying conflict with new companion Leela. More especially, it finds the production team finally stretching themselves conceptually after thoroughly exploring their “gothic horror” template over the course of the previous two seasons (well, mostly the previous one).

The game is rigged, and it does not reward people who play by the rules.

Hustlers (2019) (SPOILERS) Sold as a female Goodfellas – to the extent that the producers had Scorsese in mind – this strippers-and-crime tale is actually a big, glossy puff piece, closer to Todd Phillips as fashioned by Lorene Scarfia. There are some attractive performances in Hustlers, notably from Constance Wu, but for all its “progressive” women work male objectification to their advantage posturing, it’s incredibly traditional and conservative deep down.

What do they do, sing madrigals?

The Singing Detective (2003) Icon’s remake of the 1986 BBC serial, from a screenplay by Dennis Potter himself. The Singing Detective fares less well than Icon’s later adaptation of Edge of Darkness , even though it’s probably more faithful to Potter’s original. Perhaps the fault lies in the compression of six episodes into a feature running a quarter of that time, but the noir fantasy and childhood flashbacks fail to engage, and if the hospital reality scans better, it too suffers eventually.

That’s what people call necromancer’s weather.

The Changes (1975) This adaptation of Peter Dickinson’s novel trilogy carries a degree of cult nostalgia cachet due to it being one of those more “adult” 1970s children’s serials (see also The Children of the Stones , The Owl Service ). I was too young to see it on its initial screening – or at any rate, too young to remember it – but it’s easy to see why it lingered in the minds of those who did. Well, the first episode, anyway. Not for nothing is The Changes seen as a precursor to The Survivors in the rural apocalypse sub-genre – see also the decidedly nastier No Blade of Grass – as following a fairly gripping opener, it drifts off into the realm of plodding travelogue.

One final thing I have to do, and then I’ll be free of the past.

Vertigo (1958) (SPOILERS) I’ll readily admit my Hitchcock tastes broadly tend to reflect the “consensus”, but Vertigo is one where I break ranks. To a degree. Not that I think it’s in any way a bad film, but I respect it rather than truly rate it. Certainly, I can’t get on board with Sight & Sound enthroning it as the best film ever made (in its 2012’s critics poll). That said, from a technical point of view, it is probably Hitch’s peak moment. And in that regard, certainly counts as one of his few colour pictures that can be placed alongside his black and white ones. It’s also clearly a personal undertaking, a medley of his voyeuristic obsessions (based on D’entre les morts by Pierre Boileau and Thomas Narcejac).