(Photo courtesy of imdb.com)
The live action remake of Disney’s original 1994 animated
feature, The Lion King, is an
inferior product. This is the case with most of Disney’s live remakes so far.
They, mostly, lack the energy and intensity of the original animated versions.
There is only a mild burst of energy in this live action remake of The Lion King as it simply tries to
retread past glory. The voice acting is a crucial factor here and it is clearly
inferior to the original. The attempt to add depth and range to the original is
mild and only a few areas are really fleshed out. The majesty is lost in this
retread which cannot be salvaged by Beyonce’s hollow, booming vocals. This is
yet another corporate slog to milk an established brand; and what a brand it is
as the opening box office numbers suggest.
The minor achievement of this film is that it is an update for the
current generation. It is also testament to the enduring quality of one of the
great animated films.
The main plot of the film is the same as the original. A
young Simba must grapple with the burdens of his legacy inherited from his great
father Mufasa to refashion himself as a King of the pride lands. He is met with
great opposition by his uncle Scar and his pack of Hyenas while being allied
with romantic interest Nala and his friends, Timon and Pumba.
Positives
The primary positive is the update for the current
generation of young movie goers who never experienced the thrills of the
original 1994 release. It is clear by the reaction of the young members of the
audience that the elements that made the Lion King appealing back then still has
the power to entertain a digital crazed generation-which piles on the superficiality
in droves and creates a vast pile of obsolescence or obsolete material in its
wake. Once in a while this generation of digital performers is reminded that
there are some things that do last or endure and have great historical value
where you can cash in.
The live action remake is made with a certain hyper realism
which appeals to this generation which sees the original animated releases as
outdated or crude. This allows the film to present the material in a visually
appealing way which will hold the attention of some, even those who watched it
before. With this live remake one can get a sense of the Western conception of
mystical Africa from the Serengeti, Mt. Kilimanjaro, the Sahara desert and the
old fashioned jungle paradise (Hakuna Matata). It is obviously a false
representation and it is something I already complained about in regard to the
original. The live action visuals do give a better idea of how the world of The Lion King is to be understood. A
biased Western fantasy where animals reign supreme and man still lives in
caves. The mystic and wise baboon is a fitting stereotype of man at one with
nature. The appeal of Africa for many white westerners comes through the Discovery
Channel and the National Geographic. It is
the continent where such a variety of species come together in the circle of
life, particularly some of the great mammals of the Earth.
There are some elements of this new realism that I did
appreciate such as the idea of Scar’s original
challenge to Mufasa and his rule as King which explained why the pride lands
were desolate; the clear hierarchy of the Hyena clan led by the female (which
is very realistic); Nala’s escape from the pride under Scar’s rule and a
variety of species in the jungle paradise inhabited by Timon and Pumba. There
were many elements not effectively delineated however and suggests weak direction.
Why would prey such as the African Buffalo (in the real world they hate lions
and won’t hesitate to kill them), Zebra, etc celebrate the birth of yet another meat eating
lion? The herbivore perspective was not effectively highlighted and the contradictions
were exposed when the space inhabited by Timon and Pumba which included other
animals but was not addressed.
Standout voice acting performances were Chiwetel Ejiofor as
Scar, John Oliver as Zazu, Billy Eichner as Timon and Seth Rogan as Pumba. These
actors did make a good attempt to bring back the energy of the original
characters. One could make the argument that the lack of energy on the part of
some characters is more realistic and the less excitable parts will appeal to a
wider range of audiences and not just children. That doesn’t change the
disappointment I felt while watching Rafiki voiced by John Kani.
Negatives
The energy and intensity of the original was clearly
lacking. The live remake is actually an inferior product dramatically. In their
attempt to exhaust the material it became hollow and then derivative when they
went back on course. There could have been attempts at more fresh dialogue and
maybe some more exposition in certain areas. Imitation is the best form of
flattery they say but not the best form of entertainment. As a retread I could
only see this as a corporate slog to cash in and I was drained in the wrong way.
More could have been done to expand the world of the Lion King and not simply
to do a mere retread. As a mere retread the songs do not have the same vibrancy
and the attempt to fill in gaps with new songs rings hollow. Hearing Beyonce
sing about Spirit as Simba returns to the pride lands was an embarrassment. Never
was a song as less fitting for a movie scene as that. The elements that made
the original unique are diluted in the name of update only but not integrity. This
film highlights the burden of history as succeeding generations refuse to live
up to the standards of the past. At each step I cringed as the voice acting
never measured up and they tried to imitate, imitate, imitate.
The major elements that contributed to the energy and
intensity of the original was the voice acting. This is lacking in the live
action remake. In an embarrassing fashion they brought back a much older James
Earl Jones to voice Mufasa. Although he voiced Mufasa in the original this time
around he was unable to match the majesty and power he conveyed in the 1994
version. He is not intended to voice an old Mufasa but a Mufasa at the peak of
his powers. Rafiki was another disappointment with no vibrancy as one of major
original African voiced characters. Most
of the other new actors were trying to imitate instead of act. Scar was one of the
few who seemed refashioned to a certain extent.
The lack of daring was astounding and only a few actors were
able to offer some fresh interpretation to their characters. The rest came
across as ineffectively developed as a result. This required more energy from
the creative team and there was clearly not much vision regarding the interpretation
of the original. They did not necessarily have to create something new but to
innovate to a point where this would be The
Lion King for a new generation and not just a nostalgic retread. This
required fresh dialogue, even in cherished scenes, in order to give the
characters more range and purpose in their actions. Although some say it’s not good to mess with a
good thing, you can because there is
always room for improvement. Always unless it is maxed out! That room for
improvement is where you innovate and there were so many areas that could have
been effectively developed or refashioned. The original already reached a
certain peak that would not be matched emotionally just by retreading familiar
territory in the same way. They attempted to innovate in areas which were not
necessary, such as the soundtrack. When the original was created there was a
concerted effort to make the major soundtrack songs hits that would linger in
the memory and fit the feel and context of film. I don’t see ‘Spirit’ making
any impact on this generation. In one sense they tried to manufacture something
that would seem fresh but instead it came across as hollow, purposeless and
forgettable because it was unable to convey emotion effectively. The dramatic
impetus of the original has been smothered under the corporate drive, poor
imitation and a lower standard of filmmaking.
The film will not astound but it will make money because it
is an established property.
No comments:
Post a Comment