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.

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

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.

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.

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.

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013) (SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight ; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.