mary_j_59: (mug)
[personal profile] mary_j_59

(Mowgli faces Shere Khan in the new movie)

That was going to be “It’s the writing, stupid!” Not that any of us is stupid! But, when we see a film, how much thought do we give to the writers? I finally want to rave quietly about the recent Jungle Book. There was so much about that film that was excellent! Many people have pointed out many of these things: the excellent animation, the child’s performance (which, okay, had its rough spots, but which was generally completely natural and believable), the voice cast, the music, the pacing, and so on. Only a few people that I know of mentioned the writing. And it is the script all these other things depend on. You could have fine actors, excellent animators, good musicians, excellent sets and camera work and so on. Yet, without a solid story, you could still have a bad movie.

Now, I’m of the generation that remembers the “original” animated Jungle Book. And I’ll tell you something. When I saw it as a small girl, I liked it. I even liked it a lot. I didn’t love it, and that’s because I knew and loved the book. The cartoon simply wasn’t anything like the book. The new movie does justice to the book, as well as the cartoon.

For the new movie has three sources. They are (1) the Disney cartoon. I don’t honestly remember it well enough to say how good an adaptation of the cartoon this new movie is, but others, who remember it better, proclaim this adaptation is very good and faithful. (2) the stories Kipling wrote. I loved how Kipling’s actual text was used in the film – more on that below. (3) Finally, there is real science; the actual natural history of Asia.

The filmmakers, including the writer, succeed in melding these three things into a classic coming-of-age tale. Mowgli, as played by Neel Sethi, is a more likeable child than the original Mowgli. Outspoken, observant, and determined, he also has a kind heart and an instinct for generosity. During the course of the film, he causes harm—quite grievous harm in one case—but also strives to help and heal. I loved this. I also loved the way the film extrapolates from a couple of Kipling’s sentences. Kipling remarks that the jungle feared Mowgli for his cleverness, and also that, as a woodcutter’s child, he had an instinct to build and used to make little shelters and the like. The film lets us see him doing this. It also shows the little boy thinking through problems and creating tools—ropes, hand axes, and the like--that allow him to achieve his goals. The wolves don’t approve of these tricks, and order him not to use them, but Mowgli can’t help himself. He is creative at the core of his being.

But, if humans are creative, they are also destructive. The symbol for the destructive nature of humanity, in both book and film, is fire—the red flower. In both book and film, Mowgli goes to the man village to get some and use it as a weapon against the tiger, Shere Khan. The scenes that include fire—both animated and live-action—are beautiful and emotionally resonant.

Some of the language of the film is beautiful and resonant, too. We get to hear the first part of the poem, “The Law of the Jungle”. When I was watching, I thought how wonderful it would be for children in the audience to hear those words for the first time. Also Raksha, the mother wolf’s, “The cub is mine, mine to me!” These things, of course, come straight from the stories by Kipling. Here are some other thoughtful and deliberate tributes to the book.

1.     The buffalo stampede, and Mowgli’s riding of a buffalo. In the book, of course, this is how the boy kills the tiger. There are echoes of Indian myth in this, but I actually preferred the way the boy used his human skills in the final movie battle. His escape with the help of the buffalo was thrilling, visually stunning and a worthy tribute to Kipling’s text.
2.     Shere Khan’s suborning of the young wolves. Again, in this new movie, we actually get to see and hear this. We see Rashka’s fear and worry when the tiger corrals her cubs and tries to turn them against their foster brother. And we hear the silky-voice tiger tell the story of the cuckoo, and how it destroys its foster mother’s young. This is so very well written! It’s a wonderful extension of Kipling.
3.     Chil the kite! My sister was delighted to see him carry Mowgli’s warning, just as he does in the book.
4.     The Bandar-log. Though this scene owes more to the earlier cartoon than to the book, it is as scary as it ought to be. (the story this episode adapts, "Kaa's Hunting", is flat-out terrifying.) There are also echoes of later Jungle Book stories, such as “the King’s Ankus”, in the shots of the ruined temple and the statues of men doing violence to men. Here it is the visuals, as much as the  words, that refer back to the original text.
5.     The peace rock. I did not imagine the rock looking this way, but the drought, and the peace rock itself, are straight out of Kipling’s tales.
6.     The elephants. Stephen Greydanus has written about what they signify in Indian myth, in Kipling, and in the new movie. I agree; it’s wonderful to see spirituality, pagan or otherwise, addressed with subtlety and grace in a children’s film. And it’s wonderful to see the elephants treated with the dignity they deserve, and which they have in the original stories.

But it isn’t just the fictional stories the movie pays tribute to. Whatever you think of the new King Louie, the filmmakers went to the trouble of making him a species that had once existed in Asia. He’s probably (thankfully!) the last of his kind.  Also:

Almost all of the species shown in the film really do live in or around Pench national park, in the Sioni hills in India.

Based on what we now know of wolf biology, it makes great sense that Raksha is the alpha female. Normally, it’s only the alpha male and female in a wolf pack that have cubs. So it also makes great sense that Akela and father wolf are one and the same. They weren’t in Kipling’s stories. I appreciated the correct biology in the movie! It also makes for a  stronger conflict when Akela’s life is threatened. This happens in the book, too, but in the movie, Akela isn’t only Mowgli’s protector and guide; he’s his foster father.

And a final point on the biology. I remember reading an article in the National Geographic called “The Honey Hunters of Nepal”. These people got honey from bees nests in cliffs using methods like those Mowgli devises in the movie.
So this is a film with a great cast, wonderful visuals, good research, respect for its sources – and, above all, in putting all these things into an emotional and well-paced story, excellent writing. Anyone who has ever loved either the old Disney cartoon or Kipling’s book should see it.

Date: 2016-07-31 07:08 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
I loved this film - like you, I thought that Neel Sethi's acting was outstanding, and I also appreciated the greater range of animals and the greater visibility of the wolves. And I thought that it caught the ambivalence of humanity (something that comes out in the original stories) very well - creative and clever, but destructive also.

The thing I did not like was the Gigantopithecus king ape. I do appreciate that orang utans do not live in India, so the King Louie I loved in the original cartoon is a non-starter - but to imagine a solitary example of an extinct species still surviving just felt wrong. And when he started chasing Mowgli round the temple it all got a bit too King Kong! Why not make the bandar log the leaderless rabble they are in the original stories, where they contrast with the ordered, community-oriented wolf pack? And it was interesting also that Kaa was the hypnotic villain(ess) of the cartoon also, rather than the more ambivalent ally of the stories. I would love to have seen a positive portrayal of a snake!

But that aside, yes, a great film.
Edited Date: 2016-07-31 07:09 pm (UTC)

Date: 2016-08-06 03:33 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
Well, Kaa was actually pretty scary in the original, wasn't he? I rather liked the way Kaa was done-- and also that she was a female. As to King Louie, no, he was not my favorite part of the movie. I agree that this was perhaps the weakest part of the movie, and that the chase went on too long. But his desire to be like a human by wielding fire was, I thought, good foreshadowing. And I've got to say that even this scene never bored me, not even the third time through.

As to making the Bandar-log leaderless rabble, that was a bit the direction things went in at the beginning, when the primates stole the figs from Mowgli. You're given the impression that they would have been a rabble but for King Louie. And that raises some interesting questions about power and authority.

I do wonder what they're going to do with the sequel. I did think this was a fine movie, and will be hard to top, or even equal.

Thanks for your comment!


mary_j_59: (Default)

July 2017

1617 18192021 22
232425262728 29

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 26th, 2017 08:04 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios