The Jungle Book

The new live action version of Disney’s The Jungle Book reminds me of a lot of things. First of all, it reminds me of live action Cinderella and live action Sleeping Beauty (also known as Malefecent) and the other stories Disney is using from its own history and mythology like Saving Mr. Banks and Tomorrowland. Disney is now in a phase where it is trying to bring a hipper, faster, 21^st century edge to stories that have been around for over half a century. 

 

Certain sequences of The Jungle Book also remind me of other films. The director Jon Favreau isn’t afraid to wink at the audience and recreate shots and sequences from other movies. There are moments from the King Louie sequence that reference Marlon Brando’s performance in Apocalypse Now as well as Luke Skywalker hiding from Darth Vader in Return of the Jedi. They’re brief references but obvious just the same.

The film as a whole reminds me of work done by a pre-Schindler’s List Steven Spielberg. Before he turned to more serious and “important” work, Spielberg was the master of the big budget adventure blockbuster. He was known for his exciting action set pieces, stories about parentless or lost children, and his mastery over the very latest special effects. Following Schindler’s List and Saving Private Ryan, Spielberg lost much of his light and playfulness even in his more commercial work. But apparently Jon Favreau wants to step up and take his place. His version of The Jungle Book features exhilarating chase and fight sequences, the story of a fatherless boy raised by an adoptive family of wolves and his quest for a home and belonging, as well as a menagerie of utterly realistic CGI animals.

 What the film does not remind me of, however, is the original 1967 animated movie on which it is based. Of course, it shares most of the same major characters, setting, and plot, but the resemblances are superficial at best. This is a problem.

The live action version is darker and more frightening than the cartoon. For example, Shere Khan, the villainous, man-eating tiger is so realistic and intimidating, younger audience members are likely to be too scared at times to keep enjoying the movie. Instead of being a raucous, fun centerpiece of the movie, King Louie and the temple of monkeys becomes sinister and threatening. It would seem that Favreau was aiming for older audiences with this new version, but at the same time, he keeps a few of the more iconic musical numbers from the cartoon which seem silly and out of place considering the rest of the movie. So one problem is tone and audience – the film wants to have it both ways – silly and serious, 20^th and 21^st century – but doesn’t effectively pull off either. 

 The other problem is just one of charm. The live action version is a sleek Hollywood machine with A-list talent, but it’s a revved up engine that leads to nowhere. The film is much more about the technical accomplishments of the computer generated imagery and the stunt voice casting. Scarlett Johansen as Kaa the boa constrictor? Why not? Bill Murray as Baloo the bear? Ironic teens will line up for that. It all seems very calculated and engineered, and therefore, lacks the charm, fun, and looseness of the original.

If your remake doesn’t add anything new of value to the original, why remake it? If you’re going to make something that is less fun, less joyful, and less accessible, why do it? I hope as Disney soldiers on with remaking its animated classics that filmmakers remember than a movie needs to be more than pretty to be worth our time – it needs to be good.