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.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

We live in a twilight world.

Tenet (2020)
(SPOILERS) I’ve endured a fair few confusingly-executed action sequences in movies – more than enough, actually – but I don’t think I’ve previously had the odd experience of being on the edge of my seat during one while simultaneously failing to understand its objectives and how those objectives are being attempted. Which happened a few times during Tenet. If I stroll over to the Wiki page and read the plot synopsis, it is fairly explicable (fairly) but as a first dive into this Christopher Nolan film, I frequently found it, if not impenetrable, then most definitely opaque.

She was addicted to Tums for a while.

Marriage Story (2019)
(SPOILERS) I don’t tend to fall heavily for Noah Baumbach fare. He’s undoubtedly a distinctive voice – even if his collaborations with Wes Anderson are the least of that director’s efforts – but his devotion to an exclusive, rarefied New York bubble becomes ever more off-putting with each new project. And ever more identifiable as being a lesser chronicler of the city’s privileged quirks than his now disinherited forbear Woody Allen, who at his peak mastered a balancing act between the insightful, hilarious and self-effacing. Marriage Story finds Baumbach going yet again where Woody went before, this time brushing up against the director’s Ingmar Bergman fixation.

You can’t climb a ladder, no. But you can skip like a goat into a bar.

Juno and the Paycock (1930)
(SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s second sound feature. Such was the lustre of this technological advance that a wordy play was picked. By Sean O’Casey, upon whom Hitchcock based the prophet of doom at the end of The Birds. Juno and the Paycock, set in 1922 during the Irish Civil War, begins as a broad comedy of domestic manners, but by the end has descended into full-blown Greek (or Catholic) tragedy. As such, it’s an uneven but still watchable affair, even if Hitch does nothing to disguise its stage origins.

Anything can happen in Little Storping. Anything at all.

The Avengers 2.22: Murdersville
Brian Clemens' witty take on village life gone bad is one of the highlights of the fifth season. Inspired by Bad Day at Black Rock, one wonders how much Murdersville's premise of unsettling impulses lurking beneath an idyllic surface were set to influence both Straw Dogs and The Wicker Mana few years later (one could also suggest it premeditates the brand of backwoods horrors soon to be found in American cinema from the likes of Wes Craven and Tobe Hooper).

The protocol actually says that most Tersies will say this has to be a dream.

Jupiter Ascending (2015)
(SPOILERS) The Wachowski siblings’ wildly patchy career continues apace. They bespoiled a great thing with The Matrix sequels (I liked the first, not the second), misfired with Speed Racer (bubble-gum visuals aside, hijinks and comedy ain’t their forte) and recently delivered the Marmite Sense8 for Netflix (I was somewhere in between on it). Their only slam-dunk since The Matrix put them on the movie map is Cloud Atlas, and even that’s a case of rising above its limitations (mostly prosthetic-based). Jupiter Ascending, their latest cinema outing and first stab at space opera, elevates their lesser works by default, however. It manages to be tone deaf in all the areas that count, and sadly fetches up at the bottom of their filmography pile.

This is a case where the roundly damning verdicts have sadly been largely on the ball. What’s most baffling about the picture is that, after a reasonably engaging set-up, it determinedly bores the pants off you. I haven’t enco…

Seems silly, doesn't it? A wedding. Given everything that's going on.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part I (2010)
(SPOILERS) What’s good in the first part of the dubiously split (of course it was done for the art) final instalment in the Harry Potter saga is very good, let down somewhat by decisions to include material that would otherwise have been rightly excised and the sometimes-meandering travelogue. Even there, aspects of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part I can be quite rewarding, taking on the tone of an apocalyptic ‘70s aftermath movie or episode of Survivors (the original version), as our teenage heroes (some now twentysomethings) sleep rough, squabble, and try to salvage a plan. The main problem is that the frequently strong material requires a robust structure to get the best from it.

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…

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
(1982)
(SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek, but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.

When I barked, I was enormous.

Dean Spanley (2008)
(SPOILERS) There is such a profusion of average, respectable – but immaculately made – British period drama held up for instant adulation, it’s hardly surprising that, when something truly worthy of acclaim comes along, it should be singularly ignored. To be fair, Dean Spanleywas well liked by critics upon its release, but its subsequent impact has proved disappointingly slight. Based on Lord Dunsany’s 1939 novella, My Talks with Dean Spanley, our narrator relates how the titular Dean’s imbibification of a moderate quantity of Imperial Tokay (“too syrupy”, is the conclusion reached by both members of the Fisk family regarding this Hungarian wine) precludes his recollection of a past life as a dog. 

Inevitably, reviews pounced on the chance to reference Dean Spanley as a literal shaggy dog story, so I shall get that out of the way now. While the phrase is more than fitting, it serves to underrepresent how affecting the picture is when it has cause to be, as does any re…

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 system when Burton did it (even…