3.5 visually-stunning-but-narratively-lacking-spectacles out of 4
I enjoyed The Jungle Book, but it should go without saying that a 21-year-old university graduate is in no way the explicitly intended audience for Jon Favreau’s live-action remake of Disney’s animated classic. Indeed, the very fact that I so enjoyed the original 1967 film is, in many ways, a hindrance that prevents me from truly encapsulating why this film is so enjoyable.
Make no mistake, this is an enjoyable film; as far as narrative structure goes, however, it’s a tale as old as time.
Favreau’s film is not a masterclass piece of literature. The director does little to shift the narrative scope from the original 1967 Disney classic; other than removing all but two musical numbers—and revising the film’s ending—Favreau’s The Jungle Book follows the same narratological beats as the original film. Its plot, its acting, and its voice acting do nothing to “change the game,” as it were.
[pullquote align=”left” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””]The game, however, has very much changed.[/pullquote]The game, however, has very much changed.
What Favreau and the teams at Disney, Fairview, Moving Picture Company, and Weta Digital have done is create a visually stunning film whose effects speak to the possibilities found within the current generation’s effects capabilities. To put it simply, the animals in this film—until the precise moment that they speak and perform in manners that are unbecoming of their individual species—are realistic in a mind-boggling capacity. Furthermore, the film’s jungle setting—which one must assume is largely computer-generated—never once appears to be anything more than true reality.
It should come as no surprise that modern special effects work is capable of creating incredibly realistic visual models—after all, James Cameron proved that it was possible to build an entirely new universe through visual effects in 2009. However, Favreau’s film is actively convincing. That it is difficult to discern between Neel Sethi—the young actor who stars as Mowgli—and the presumably animated Bagheera and Baloo is indicative of the level of quality conveyed by this film.
Suffice it to say, children’s films have no right to look so good—or sound that good, for that matter. Music by John Debney fills the film’s every pore. Debney truly succeeds by combining leitmotifs from select compositions from the original 1967 film in a contemporary way that not only mimics, but transcends. Tracks from 1967, like “The Bare Necessities,” are remixed and revitalized in a soft and subtle manner within this film’s score, allowing Favreau’s film to feel at once modern and nostalgic. Debney’s score works because Favreau’s vision of The Jungle Book is one that points towards the original film without excessively appealing to nostalgia.
There is something to be said about the film’s handling of the complex themes of environmental destruction and the interactions between humans and their non-human animal counterparts. Mowgli, of course, lives alongside the animals of the jungle, and his true home is with none other than a pack of wolves. Furthermore, unlike the novels upon which both the 2016 and 1967 films are based, Favreau chooses to revise the story’s ending.
[pullquote align=”left” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””]…children’s films have no right to look so good…[/pullquote]However, there is minimal time spent on the balance between man and nature—the film simply suggests that those willing to play with fire must allow themselves a moment to reflect on the possibility of getting burned. If anything, The Jungle Book is more a lesson on fire safety than on the need for humans and nature to co-exist.
Once again, Favreau’s film is not a treatise on the fine line between man’s place within nature. While Disney films have always worked towards achieving a balance between meaningful moral message and sensational spectacle, The Jungle Book is often not such a film. Instead, it is an unadulterated concoction that serves as an example of the power contained within modern special effects.
I’ve yet to fully discern why Disney is so insistent on remaking their animated features in live-action—something tells me it has to do with property rights. However, if the company insists on pumping out live-action remakes of their animated classics, then they would not be wrong in allowing subsequent production teams to emulate Favreau’s aesthetic.
Praise to Disney for finding a way to make effects-driven films emotionally affecting. Give the reins to a director who knows what they’re doing, give them a team with a proven record of success, and allow them to prove that computer-generated images can be just as captivating—if not more convincing—than traditional stage effects.