Skip to main content

What about the meaningless line of indifference?

The Lion King
(2019)

(SPOILERS) And so the Disney “live-action” remake train thunders on regardless (I wonder how long the live-action claim would last if there was a slim hope of a Best Animated Feature Oscar nod?) I know I keep repeating myself, but the early ‘90s Disney animation renaissance didn’t mean very much to me; I found their pictures during that period fine, but none of them blew me away as they did critics and audiences generally. As such, I have scant nostalgia to bring to bear on the prospect of a remake, which I’m sure can work both ways. Aladdin proved to be a lot of fun. Beauty and the Beast entirely tepid. The Lion King, well, it isn’t a badfilm, but it’s wearying its slavish respectfulness towards the original and so diligent in doing it justice, you’d think it was some kind of religious artefact. As a result, it is, ironically, for the most part, dramatically dead in the water.

I’m hazarding you know the premise and subsequent plot, so I’m not going to labour it (not that I tend to go in for recaps generally). I could only recall the bare outline (and a smattering of songs), so the changes didn’t really matter very much to me – aside from being fairly certain the original picture didn’t run two hours, and that it didn’t feel like it was taking a half hour more than that to finish its business – as opposed to those who’ve seen it tens of times. I was more curious regarding the areas director Jon Favreau and screenwriter Jeff Nathanson elected not to change, given the manner in which Aladdin successful seized the opportunity.

It’s particularly notable that, while prides are matriarchal, Disney didn’t have the gumption to turn this into The Lion Queen (too much of a balance to redress); they’re quite willing to show their “wokeness” in glib broad strokes, identifying Nala as a superior fighter to Simba – because that kind of comic book/action movie rationale more often than not amounts to gender progressiveness in cinema – and have the courage to seek help for her oppressed pride… But when she reunites with Simba, her entire argument is that he needs to come back to lead them (the oppressed female lions). Which makes for a picture good and faithful to the title, and Nala a good and faithful future wife who knows her place (Entertainment Weekly, in thrall to Disney’s empty appropriation of progressiveness exclaimed “The female lions are more proactive this time around!” Yeah, within strict limits that reinforce patriarchal definitions, but hey knock yourselves out).

So too, while the original’s mandrill has long been cited for indulging the Magical Negro trope, Favreau’s remake carries that over intact with John Kani voicing Rafiki, the only expressly African sounding character, cloaked in tribal ritual, who also just happens to be the only monkey in the cast. One assumes Disney and Favreau thought they were dutifully addressing imbalances in the original sufficiently through their advocating black representation in the cast, but they’ve still otherwise assembled a group of British or American performers who sound precisely that.

On a thematic level, I was also slightly at odds with the suggestion by the animal enclave Simba joins that all life is sacredly anthropomorphic… except for grubs and bugs which can be devoured with impunity (“Slimy yet satisfying”). Sister animation house Pixar might have a thing or two to say about that. Or even just the dragonfly in The Rescuers.

As lacklustre as Nathanson’s attempts to bring the material up to date are, his characterisation of the protagonists is equally sloppy. Not that the performances of either the younger (JD McCrary, Shahadi Wright Joseph) or older (Donald Glover – especially anodyne and disappointing – and Beyoncé) Simba and Nala do anything to ameliorate this. Seriously, the Lion King in waiting’s progress to claiming his destiny is a complete snooze, and his vocalisation, from typically wholesome Disney cartoon pup to bland adult is entirely uninvolving.

The casting choices are a mixed bag generally. Returning James Earl Jones’ regal tones as Mufasa suit the photorealist imagery and Chiwetel Ejiofor’s less extravagant reinterpretation of Scar is also a winner (it likely helped that he had a visual guide with actual definition, Scar being the only lion with discernible individuality or character). I’m not remotely a fan of John Oliver, so “adapting” his grating Last Week Tonight monotone, as a replacement for Rowan Atkinson’s distinctive sarcasm, is a complete bust.

Then there’s Seth Rogen and Billy Eichner as Pumbaa and Timon, the former perfectly cast as a farting warthog; if he’d wooed Charlize Theron in this guise in Long Shot, audiences might actually have gone with the outrageously fantastical conceit of it all. Much as I don’t tend to rate Rogen’s particular brand of endearingly stoned slobbishness, he and Eichner are good value. And when they’re allowed to riff, the movie actually manifests some energy and verve (in particular, after rattling through Hakuna Matata, by which point Simba has transformed into an adult, Timon notes how he has “grown 400 pounds since we started”).

As to the much-discussed uncanny leonine valley of Favreau’s nature doc animal renditions… Well, it made a certain amount of sense in The Jungle Book, where they interacted with an actual live-action character. Here, we just keep coming back to the question, but to what end? Aside from an easy billion in box office takings, obviously.

In truth, I had very little problem with the incongruity of these realistic birds and beasts talking, and some of them – aforementioned Scar, Pumbaa and the sinister hyenas – even work rather well. Notably, however, it’s no coincidence that they’re are all allowed more quirkiness, edge or flair, within strict boundaries. One also got the impression, as with the trailers, that Favreau was averse to spending too long on the animals (mostly lions) speaking without cutting away, suggesting a lack of confidence (or editing room second guessing once responses to the trailers came in).

Favreau’s work here is as utterly efficient and journeyman as it gets, standing him in good stead with the Mouse House for the foreseeable. Me, I much prefer his onscreen personality to his behind the camera lack thereof. There are areas here where he entirely drops the ball – casting Oliver, the terrible, cheesy slow-motion death of Mufasa and corresponding zoom out from little Simba’s reaction (so bad, it’s repeated during the climax, just to rub it in), shot for shot sourced from the original where it worksby virtue of the animated form. Others where, allowed to have a bit of fun, such as with The Lion Sleeps Tonight, you get a glimpse of a less artlessly well-oiled production.

Again then, The Lion King isn’t bad, but it is redundantly bland, and had me shifting restlessly in my seat for much of the last half; the last time that happened was Godzilla: King of Monsters (which is bad). However, it doesn’t look as if its mediocrity is going to adversely impact its box office, any more than a similarly spineless makeover did for Beauty and the Beast. Nostalgia can overcome a multitude of insincerities.



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

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

I never strangled a chicken in my life!

Rope (1948) (SPOILERS) Rope doesn’t initially appear to have been one of the most venerated of Hitchcocks, but it has gone through something of a rehabilitation over the years, certainly since it came back into circulation during the 80s. I’ve always rated it highly; yes, the seams of it being, essentially, a formal experiment on the director’s part, are evident, but it’s also an expert piece of writing that uses our immediate knowledge of the crime to create tension throughout; what we/the killers know is juxtaposed with the polite dinner party they’ve thrown in order to wallow in their superiority.

They'll think I've lost control again and put it all down to evolution.

Time Bandits (1981) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam had co-directed previously, and his solo debut had visual flourish on its side, but it was with Time Bandits that Gilliam the auteur was born. The first part of his Trilogy of Imagination, it remains a dazzling work – as well as being one of his most successful – rich in theme and overflowing with ideas while resolutely aimed at a wide (family, if you like) audience. Indeed, most impressive about Time Bandits is that there’s no evidence of self-censoring here, of attempting to make it fit a certain formula, format or palatable template.

You must have hopes, wishes, dreams.

Brazil (1985) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam didn’t consider Brazil the embodiment of a totalitarian nightmare it is often labelled as. His 1984½ (one of the film’s Fellini-riffing working titles) was “ the Nineteen Eighty-Four for 1984 ”, in contrast to Michael Anderson’s Nineteen Eighty-Four from 1948. This despite Gilliam famously boasting never to have read the Orwell’s novel: “ The thing that intrigues me about certain books is that you know them even though you’ve never read them. I guess the images are archetypal ”. Or as Pauline Kael observed, Brazil is to Nineteen Eighty-Four as “ if you’d just heard about it over the years and it had seeped into your visual imagination ”. Gilliam’s suffocating system isn’t unflinchingly cruel and malevolently intolerant of individuality; it is, in his vision of a nightmare “future”, one of evils spawned by the mechanisms of an out-of-control behemoth: a self-perpetuating bureaucracy. And yet, that is not really, despite how indulgently and glee

Oh, you got me right in the pantaloons, partner.

The Party (1968) (SPOILERS) Blake Edwards’ semi-improvisational reunion with Peter Sellers is now probably best known for – I was going to use an elephant-in-the-room gag, but at least one person already went there – Sellers’ “brown face”. And it isn’t a decision one can really defend, even by citing The Party ’s influence on Bollywood. Satyajit Ray had also reportedly been considering working with Sellers… and then he saw the film. One can only assume he’d missed similar performances in The Millionairess and The Road to Hong Kong ; in the latter case, entirely understandable, if not advisable. Nevertheless, for all the flagrant stereotyping, Sellers’ bungling Hrundi V Bakshi is a very likeable character, and indeed, it’s the piece’s good-natured, soft centre – his fledgling romance with Claudine Longet’s Michele – that sees The Party through in spite of its patchy, hit-and-miss quality.

I'm an old ruin, but she certainly brings my pulse up a beat or two.

The Paradine Case (1947) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock wasn’t very positive about The Paradine Case , his second collaboration with Gregory Peck, but I think he’s a little harsh on a picture that, if it doesn’t quite come together dramatically, nevertheless maintains interest on the basis of its skewed take on the courtroom drama. Peck’s defence counsel falls for his client, Alida Valli’s accused (of murder), while wife Ann Todd wilts dependably and masochistically on the side-lines.

A herbal enema should fix you up.

Never Say Never Again (1983) (SPOILERS) There are plenty of sub-par Bond s in the official (Eon) franchise, several of them even weaker than this opportunistic remake of Thunderball , but they do still feel like Bond movies. Never Say Never Again , despite – or possibly because he’s part of it – featuring the much-vaunted, title-referencing return of the Sean Connery to the lead role, only ever feels like a cheap imitation. And yet, reputedly, it cost more than the same year’s Rog outing Octopussy .

Miss Livingstone, I presume.

Stage Fright (1950) (SPOILERS) This one has traditionally taken a bit of a bruising, for committing a cardinal crime – lying to the audience. More specifically, lying via a flashback, through which it is implicitly assumed the truth is always relayed. As Richard Schickel commented, though, the egregiousness of the action depends largely on whether you see it as a flaw or a brilliant act of daring: an innovation. I don’t think it’s quite that – not in Stage Fright ’s case anyway; the plot is too ordinary – but I do think it’s a picture that rewards revisiting knowing the twist, since there’s much else to enjoy it for besides.

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.

Do you know the world is a foul sty? Do you know, if you ripped the fronts off houses, you'd find swine? The world's a hell. What does it matter what happens in it?

Shadow of a Doubt (1943) (SPOILERS) I’m not sure you could really classify Shadow of a Doubt as underrated, as some have. Not when it’s widely reported as Hitchcock’s favourite of his films. Underseen might be a more apt sobriquet, since it rarely trips off the lips in the manner of his best-known pictures. Regardless of the best way to categorise it, it’s very easy to see why the director should have been so quick to recognise Shadow of a Doubt 's qualities, even if some of those qualities are somewhat atypical.

Sir, I’m the Leonardo of Montana.

The Young and Prodigious T.S. Spivet (2013) (SPOILERS) The title of Jean-Pierre Jeunet’s second English language film and second adaptation announces a fundamentally quirky beast. It is, therefore, right up its director’s oeuvre. His films – even Alien Resurrection , though not so much A Very Long Engagement – are infused with quirk. He has a style and sensibility that is either far too much – all tics and affectations and asides – or delightfully offbeat and distinctive, depending on one’s inclinations. I tend to the latter, but I wasn’t entirely convinced by the trailers for The Young and Prodigious T.S. Spivet ; if there’s one thing I would bank on bringing out the worst in Jeunet, it’s a story focussing on an ultra-precocious child. Yet for the most part the film won me over. Spivet is definitely a minor distraction, but one that marries an eccentric bearing with a sense of heart that veers to the affecting rather than the chokingly sentimental. Appreciation for