Skip to main content

One day you will speak and the jungle will listen.

Mowgli: Legend of the Jungle
(2018)

(SPOILERS) The unloved and neglected Jungle Book movie that wasn't Disney’s, Jungle Book: Origins was originally pegged for a 2016 release, before being pushed to last year, then this, and then offloaded by Warner Bros onto Netflix. During which time the title changed to Mowgli: Tales from the Jungle Book, then Mowgli, and finally Mowgli: Legend of the Jungle. The assumption is usually that the loser out of vying projects – and going from competing with a near $1bn grossing box office titan to effectively straight-to-video is the definition of a loser – is by its nature inferior, but Andy Serkis' movie is a much more interesting, nuanced affair than the Disney flick, which tried to serve too many masters and floundered with a finale that saw Mowgli celebrated for scorching the jungle. And yes, it’s darker too. But not grimdarker.


Much of the conversation, when it hasn't related to the various release delays, or the reshoots (much of the ending was redone, and there was speculation as to whether Alfonso Cuaron's involvement was really a salvage operation on the scale of Tony Gilroy's for Rogue One), has focussed on the design aesthetic for the creatures. True, it's far from the photorealist naturalism of the Jon Favreau movie, the jungle inhabitants wearing clear traces of the performers playing/voicing them. However, while this was distracting in trailer form, where that's all you're able to take away, the choice quickly assimilates with the broader style in context. As a consequence, it's unfair to simply dismiss the results as cruder (although admittedly, some designs, such as Kaa, aren't as effectively realised as others).


More importantly, in terms of winning over the audience, almost all the characterisations and performances are more compelling than the Disney version (which isn't to say the rendering won't still be a deciding factor; the all-star cast doesn’t stand a hope of saving the abysmal visuals for the new BBC Watership Down). Rohan Chand is far and away the better Mowgli to Neel Sethi. You could tell Favreau was shooting around Sethi's limitations at times, but Chand delivers a full-blooded lead of dependable emotional range. 


Christian Bale's Bagheera – I'd like to hear how Bale's method approach went for this one – and particularly Benedict Cumberbatch's Shere Khan (who may be the king of the jungle, but he's a convincingly lame, battle damaged one) entirely won me over, the latter formidable in relaying the tiger's fearsomeness. I wasn't as persuaded by Serkis as Baloo (apparently, he took on the role after being unable to find the right actor), but the conflict between bear and panther over the latter ensuring Mowgli loses his bid to become a member of the wolf pack and thus keeps his promise to return to the man village is suitably rancorous. 


While Callie Kloves (her first screenplay credit) was free to ignore the 1967 Jungle Book template that at times negatively impinged on the Favreau film, she only goes so far in remaining faithful to the Rudyard Kipling stories. Perhaps the most notable area in which she remains true to Kipling, and thus breaks with what has now become "lore", is having Kaa as a benevolent character, here voiced by Cate Blanchett and seen as, effectively, the voice of wisdom in the jungle, foreseeing that Mowgli is needed for the realm it will become ("One day you will speak and the jungle will listen"). 


Indeed, some of the implicit messages here might be seen as on the suspect side – the subtitle is Legend of the Jungle, as if Mowgli is a Tarzan surrogate – since it concerns a human rising to – effectively – govern the animals, rather than co-exist among them, so importing the classic Hollywood device of destiny fulfilled. The threat of man, as exemplified by fire and the strict no-no of killing their cows, is emphasised throughout, but then sacrificed for something more dutiful and regimented, as Mowgli rides out of shot astride an elephant accompanied by Kaa's voiceover confirming his credentials ("Mowgli, man and wolf, both and neither, had given the jungle a voice and for as long as he stood watch over it, it would speak a lasting peace"). The text is such that Mowgli, with a foot between both worlds, is ideally placed to guide the lesser beasts through the (eco) challenges ahead (although, one might suggest Bagheera, with his history of captivity, has a similar pedigree); in the stories, the character yo-yos between village and jungle life, but he seems fairly rooted to the latter come the credits here.


It's in keeping that Mowgli's rise to "rule" is hard won; Serkis ensures that even where Mowgli is welcomed, the environment isn't simply a cosy one. His fellow wolf cubs call him a freak, and don't want him around. When he is first returned to his fellow humans, he is placed in a cage. While Freida Pinto's Messua is very nice to him, hunter John Lockwood (Matthew Rhys), who takes on something of the mentor role of Bagheera, is marked out as untrustworthy when it is revealed he killed Mowgli's albino cub friend and fellow freak Bhoot (Louis Ashbourne Serkis). Indeed, there's something despairingly reminiscent of The Plague Dogs about Bhoot’s life and unhappy fate, definitely a movie you should be think twice about trying to replicate tonally.


Other points of difference to the Disney telling include a more fleeting role for the monkeys and a much more significant one for the wolf pack. And, as noted above, there's the way Mowgli lives in the man village for a while before returning to the jungle to sort out Shere Khan. Structurally, this can't help but create issues the more streamlined Disney narratives avoided. It isn't so much that Mowgli feels episodic – that's in the nature of the original stories – but that it's more wayward than it probably should be, the sense of impending threat broken by the spell in the village. On the other hand, at least they actually went there; in the live action Disney version, the closest he gets is to steal a torch of man's red flower. 


I wasn’t really clear why the bull elephant would be persuaded to help Mowgli in return for his tusk, unless he has a bucket of superglue handy, but the climax is a suitably dramatic affair – I liked Mowgli's magnanimous "Sleep now, Shere Khan. Be angry no more" after knifing him – and in the passing of wolf pack leader Akela (Peter Mullan) quite moving. Indeed, of all the characters here, I found Akela the most affecting, going from staunch defender to banishing Mowgli for breaking the jungle code when he uses fire to save him (at least he didn't burn the entire place down) to final reconciliation ("It is your time now. Forgive me for doubting you, Mowgli"). Most of that can be put down to Mullan.


If Mowgli: Legend of the Jungle sounds like a grim-faced affair, it is rather, and that might be seen as its main flaw, particularly for material traditionally embraced as family friendly. Even Tom Hollander's more humorously toned hyena Tabaqui is a twisted, unpleasant creation, although he gets some of the best lines, ranging from the positively poetic (discussing fire, he notes "It's hotter than the sun, and it’s quicker than the panther") to the existentially defeatist ("Sometimes, I dream I'm a tiger. But I always wake up a hyena"). However, I'd argue there’s room for this gnarly iteration, and that it offers rewards the playing-it-safe Favreau picture simply lacks. 


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

Popular posts from this blog

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the

I’m just the balloon man.

Copshop (2021) (SPOILERS) A consistent problem with Joe Carnahan’s oeuvre is that, no matter how confidently his movies begin, or how strong his premise, or how adept his direction or compelling the performances he extracts, he ends up blowing it. He blows it with Copshop , a ’70s-inspired variant on Assault on Precinct 13 that is pretty damn good during the first hour, before devolving into his standard mode of sado-nihilistic mayhem.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

When we have been subtle, then can I kill him?

The Avengers 6.16. Legacy of Death There’s scarcely any crediting the Terry Nation of Noon-Doomsday as the same Terry Nation that wrote this, let alone the Terry Nation churning out a no-frills Dalek story a season for the latter stages of the Jon Pertwee era. Of course, Nation had started out as a comedy writer (for Hancock), and it may be that the kick Brian Clemens gave him up the pants in reaction to the quality of Noon-Doomsday loosened a whole load of gags. Admittedly, a lot of them are well worn, but they come so thick and fast in Legacy of Death , accompanied by an assuredly giddy pace from director Don Chaffey (of Ray Harryhausen’s Jason and the Argonauts ) and a fine ensemble of supporting players, that it would be churlish to complain.

Tippy-toe! Tippy-toe!

Seinfeld 2.7: The Phone Message The Premise George and Jerry both have dates on the same night. Neither goes quite as planned, and in George’s case it results in him leaving an abusive message on his girlfriend’s answerphone. The only solution is to steal the tape before she plays it. Observational Further evidence of the gaping chasm between George and Jerry’s approaches to the world. George neurotically attacks his problems and makes them worse, while Jerry shrugs and lets them go. It’s nice to see the latter’s anal qualities announcing themselves, however; he’s so bothered that his girlfriend likes a terrible TV advert that he’s mostly relieved when she breaks things off (“ To me the dialogue rings true ”). Neither Gretchen German (as Donna, Jerry’s date) nor Tory Polone (as Carol, George’s) make a huge impression, but German has more screen time and better dialogue. The main attraction is Jerry’s reactions, which include trying to impress her with hi