Genre:
Animation, Adventure, Drama
Produced by:
Jon Favreau, Jeffrey Silver, Karen Gilchrist
Directed by:
Jon Favreau
Written by:
Jeff
Nathanson
Production Company: Walt Disney Pictures
Starring: Donald
Glover, Seth Rogen, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Billy Eichner, John Oliver, Beyonce
Knowles-Carter, James Earl Jones
Runtime: 118 minutes
SYNOPSIS:
A young cub Simba (JD McCrary), the only son of King Mufasa (James Earl Jones) and Queen Sarabi (Alfre Woodard), was the rightful heir to the throne. That all changed when a tragedy occurred,
forcing his uncle Scar (Chiwetel Ejiofor)
to banish him from Pride Land. As the years have passed, the adult lion (Donald Glover) has learned to bury his
past and embrace his newfound life as an exile, making new friends along the
way. Soon, turmoil ensues back home, and he has no choice but to fulfill his
true destiny.
REVIEW:
Often cited as the peak of the Disney
Renaissance-era, very few of the studio’s animated classics have had the Lion King’s (1994) lasting influence.
On the one hand, its presentation adheres closely to the Disney formula:
state-of-the-art animation, catchy songs and memorable characters brought to
life by equally memorable vocal performances. On the other, the narrative
choice sets the Lion King apart from
the rest.
Known primarily for adapting other
people’s stories, the Lion King was
the studio’s first attempt at an original story. On paper, it was Hamlet reenacted by African lions, yet
the characters didn’t come from any pre-existing intellectual property. As it
turned out, the Lion King proved to
be the studio’s most profitable offering, grossing over $ 422 million at the
domestic box office. Add to the positive critical reception and award wins, critics
and Disney Renaissance fans alike seemed to appreciate its originality.
Like other Disney Renaissance titles, the Lion King has inspired not only a
handful of direct-to-DVD sequels, but also a Broadway musical. Since Disney has recently revived its
Renaissance brand through live-action remakes, their new library would not be
complete without a Lion King remake.
In charge of the 2019’s the Lion King is none other than Jon Favreau, a man who oversaw the
success of another Disney live-action remake the Jungle Book (2016). This one, however, is unlike the others.
With hardly any human characters on sight, its legitimacy as a live-action
remake is in question. Is it a live-action or an animated remake with a
different form of animation? But perhaps the most important question: what is
the point of remaking the Lion King? A
shot-for-shot trailer suggests nothing more than a “cash grab”. It will sure
make a lot of money, but whether it’s a necessary remake on a creative end,
that’s something else.
As far as storytelling goes, Jon Favreau’s the Lion King fails to justify its existence beyond monetary
reasons. Misguidedly inspired by Gus Van
Sant’s 1998 attempt at remaking Alfred
Hitchcock’s Psycho (1960),
Disney’s latest remake is a creatively-deprived update that is less of an update,
and more of a shot-for-shot remake. It’s the 1994’s the Lion King, only with a new, 2019-style coat of paint.
Jeff
Nathanson
pens 2019’s the Lion King and his
contribution should not go unnoticed. At the same time, it is also hard to
distinguish this script from the one made by the trio of Irene Mecchi, Jonathan
Roberts and Linda Woolverton twenty
five years ago, since it uses the same dialogue and action as its cartoon
counterpart.
Lacking any fresh voice, 2019’s the Lion King becomes predictable at
every turn. Its pre-title sequence sets the tone for what’s to come.
Just like the 1994 original, the remake begins
with the sun rising over the African savannah and the legendary Zulu-language
opening verse of Elton John’s
“Circle of Life” playing in the background. Just like the original, all the
animals flock to Pride Rock to witness King Mufasa’s newborn Simba. And again,
just like the original, the land’s eccentric, yet wise baboon shaman Rafiki (John Kani) proceeds to crack open an
egg, dips his finger into the liquid, and then dabs it onto Simba’s forehead.
Before the title card pops up, the sequence ends with Rafiki lifting Simba as
the song reaches its stunning climax. And guess what? It’s just like the
original.
Make no mistake, the Pride Rock scene is
one of the most iconic moments in cinema’s history, so much so that it would be
a travesty to omit or alter the scene in any shape or form. But the fact that
the rest of the movie relies so heavily on recreating rather than creating is
proof of lazy filmmaking. That underlines this remake’s biggest problem (and
even to a certain extent, past Disney live-action remakes). Far too often, this Lion King sacrifices originality in
favor of a by-the-numbers adaptation. As a result, the idea of reintroducing the Lion King for the newer generation
being a special occasion just becomes less special.
Even when 2019’s the Lion King finally stumbles across some new ideas, they don’t
really add much to the overall narrative. The remake clocks in at about two
hours long, half an hour longer than the original. And that thirty minute-worth
material is dedicated to adding only one never-before-seen sequence and
stretching a previously-seen sequence to its limits.
The aforementioned never-before-seen sequence
sees Nala (Beyonce Knowles-Carter)
take center stage. At this point in the movie, Scar has taken over Pride Land.
He has assigned the vicious hyenas to guard the perimeter and basically stop
any lions who are trying to get away or defy him. But that should not
discourage the plucky Nala.
Thus begins a gripping nighttime cat and
mouse game between Nala, Scar and the hyenas as the lioness tries to sneak out
of the heavily-guarded Pride Land without getting caught. Will she make it or
not? If this sequence had come from an original feature, the mystery would make
for some gripping thrills. In a remake, it becomes less gripping since the
audience (at least, the original’s fans) have already known what happens next. Sorry
for the spoilers, but Nala’s escape will eventually lead her towards reuniting
with her old pal Simba.
Here, the filmmakers mistake desperation
for innovation. They are much more concerned in making the Lion King a summer movie blockbuster, but they never stop to
think for a second whether the new ideas would fit into the bigger picture.
Nala might have a longer screen time here than in the original, but there’s
nothing in her modern-day characterization that screams a well-defined
character.
A previously-seen sequence in the
cartoon is the journey of Simba’s fur back to Pride Land. A crisp and
to-the-point version in the original gets an elongated makeover in the remake. Subjecting
itself to a series of insanely elaborate Rube Goldberg contraptions that’s
filled with flatulent jokes and a false sense of childlike wonder, the fur takes
forever to get to its destination. At one point, it travels into a giraffe’s
mouth. In the next scene, a beetle (easily the most interesting character in
the entire movie) is seen pushing a ball of dirt, suggesting that the fur has
travelled out of the giraffe. Later, the fur escapes from the dirt, jigging its
way alongside other wind-blown furs to Pride Land, until Rafiki (at long last!)
picks it up. Supposedly breezy and entertaining, much of the second act instead
drags and bores because of unnecessary new idea such as this sequence. It’s
like watching money burn on the screen for the sake of a pointless eye candy.
For a filmmaker who is no stranger to
big-budget productions, Jon Favreau seems
overwhelmed by the enormity of the task. The
Lion King makes good use of Favreau’s
crowd-pleasing sensibilities, but leaves his knack for improvisation in the
cold with the script’s slavish adherence to formula.
At the same time, without any disrespect
to the animated the Jungle Book
(1967), the Lion King is a different kind
of beast. The Jungle Book, the
lesser-known Disney cartoon of the two, was such a slight tale that it left the
door open for reinterpretation. The Lion King, the more well-known of the
two, was so complex that it’s almost adaptation-proof. What his predecessors Roger Allers and Rob Minkoff had achieved with the visuals are also too precious to
end up on the cutting room floor. Yet, here lies the central conundrum. Change even
a single, most inconspicuous note, and people will go, “that’s not the Lion King!” Not bother changing a
thing, and it will be labeled a shamelessly pandering cash grab.
Favreau
tries
to have things both ways, only to achieve neither. Lacking the subversive voice
of Favreau’s other big-budget
productions and the verve of the 1994 original, 2019’s The Lion King seems to have very little problem in replicating the dialogue
word-for-word and looks scene-for-scene, but struggle in replicating the heart
and soul that made the animated movie so beloved in the first place.
What 2019’s the Lion King lacks in story, it nearly makes up in its groundbreaking
technical achievement.
Favreau takes full
advantage of the talented technicians at his disposal, namely the visual effect
studio Moving Pictures Company. Moving Pictures Company’s approach to the
remake is reminiscent to their past collaboration with Favreau in the Jungle Book, which
embraces a more immersive photorealistic style to 3-D computer animation. And by far, it might be the best that this new form of animation has ever been. Every scene is beautifully-rendered
with the highest attention to detail that’s crystal-clear from the wildlife
animals’ fur, the trees, the blade of
grass down to the rocks, continuously blurring the line between what is real
and what is CGI.
Imagine if a National Geographic
documentary has a narrative, and the result would be 2019’s the Lion King. Favreau barely shot any scene in a live-action environment, but the
seamlessly-done CGI manages to maintain the illusion that they were actually filming
real-life lions in a real African savannah. If there is something that makes
sitting through the same old story feel worthwhile, it’s certainly the craft on
display.
However, the Lion King’s photorealistic animation technique is not without its
own limitations. Favreau’s
insistence on realism detracts from the story’s emotional impact. It doesn’t
help that the characters have little to no facial expression, regardless of the
situation. In fact, anytime these digitally-created animals talk, it is creepy.
Any semblance of emotion is restricted to animals moving their mouths. And most
of the time the mouth movement and facial expression looks so out-of-sync,
creating a glaringly fake emotion. The lack of emotion makes it harder to care
about what’s happening onscreen.
A tragedy occurs at one point in the movie
which adversely impacts Simba and it feels nowhere close to tragic because
Simba’s face fails to reflect the said-emotion. If Simba hadn’t said out loud
what he feels, no one would have known. A sad Simba equates to a happy Simba
and vice versa. And the characters’ dead eyes, which are just as emotionless, fail
to turn the proceedings around.
The animation style also sucks the joy
out of the original’s most iconic musical number. Look no further than this
remake’s reinterpretation of “I Just Can’t Wait to be King”. Favreau’s photorealistic attempts at recapturing
the original’s lively, theatrical visuals are downplayed by, yet again, the
characters’ paucity of any lively, theatrical movements. Replacing the original’s
Broadway musical-esque aesthetics of the dancing wildlife animals towering up
on each other and the giraffes making hearts is a dull, uninspiring sequence of
Simba and his friends just walking around the savannah. Brief flashes of the animals’
quirks aren’t highlighted long enough to make a lasting impression. Caleb Deschanel as the cinematographer can only do as much with very
little. A lack of onscreen theatricality is accurately reflected with a lack of
any dynamic camera movement besides it following the animals around wherever
they go.
As far as characterization goes, the
lions are by far its most thinly-developed characters, especially Simba. Far
from being a well-defined character in the original, yet Nathanson makes little to no attempt at instilling Simba with any
sort of depth and dimension. Though there’s potential for pathos in the
character’s survivor’s guilt and loss of innocence in the aftermath of tragedy,
his emotional arc gets glossed over by the musical numbers and overabundance of
characters. It doesn’t help that Pride Land’s rightful heir to the throne is a
flip-floppy character who relies on others to make the decision for him. It
doesn’t help that the scatterbrained script doesn’t give the main character’s
journey towards fulfilling his “Lion King” prophecy any room to breathe. In
fact, Simba is often reduced to playing second fiddle to his childhood crush
Nala.
And by the time the movie reaches the “Can’t
You Feel the Love Tonight” musical number, 2019’s the Lion King suddenly transforms into a Beyonce star vehicle. Written and composed specifically as a mix of
ensemble and duet song by Tim Rice
and Elton John, the movie could not
have picked anyone better to reprise such a smash hit than Donald Glover, Seth Rogen,
Billy Eichner and last but not
least, Ms. Beyonce herself.
Make no mistake, it’s a well-sung reinterpretation,
but the overall composition resembles more of a solo act with a few background
vocals from others here and there than it is as an ensemble/duet song. Eichner and Rogen, as Timon and Pumbaa respectively, are the lucky parties who get
the opportunity to belt out a few solid parts. Donald Glover, however, barely gets any singing part. He either
sings the song alongside Beyonce (more
often than not her voice overpowers Glover’s
to the point that his voice is nowhere to be heard) or he just doesn’t sing at
all, inadvertently creating the misguided impression that Glover/Childish Gambino, one of the gifted voices in modern-day
music, doesn’t have the chops to match Beyonce
vocal-to-vocal.
As a result, the meaning of the song gets
lost in this remake’s translation. It’s supposed to the Eureka moment where two
love-drunk couple who cannot hide their feelings anymore, but the emotion just
isn’t there because one person gets to say far too many words than the other. On
a visual standpoint, the credibility of the song also gets lost due to the
daylight backdrop. Shouldn’t it be like “Can’t You Feel the Love in the
Morning, in the Afternoon, or Basically Anything but Tonight?”
But perhaps 2019’s the Lion King’s biggest sin is turning Disney’s most iconic villain
Scar into a boring character. Nathanson’s
attempt at recreating the villainous Scar of the cartoon is by disposing of the
intriguing personality and wry sense of humor that made him so compelling and turn
him into a depressingly grumpy, humorless evil uncle. He mistakes making Scar a
terrifying presence to making him not fun to watch. Scar’s evil guy monologue
feels like a slog and the convoluted back story provides no real emotional
layer. His encounter with Simba is devoid of the heft and tension that Simba’s
inconsequential encounter with the hyenas had. At least, with very little
screen time, the hyenas’ fuzzy designs and intoxicating wheezing give some semblance
of chills and excitement. Having the encounter set in daylight instead of night
like in the original does the terrifying hyenas a disservice.
Filled with an all-star cast, the voice
acting in 2019’s the Lion King is a
hit-and-miss.
Keegan
Michael-Key
and Eric Andre make every second
count in small roles as two members of the hyena clans Kamari and Azizi
respectively, and their sleazy banter provide some of the more effective humor
on the villains’ end. Equally underused, Florence
Kasumba brings a venomous and menacing energy to the role of hyena clan’s
leader Shenzi in ways that Whoopi
Goldberg couldn’t in the same role twenty five years ago.
Billy
Eichner
and Seth Rogen dramatically liven up
the proceedings towards its second act with their mix of cheerful and juvenile
humor as Timon and Pumbaa respectively. Thanks to their improvisational talents,
the comic duo manages to offer a fresh take on their characters, punctuated
with the movie’s more tolerable flatulent joke.
Other than the secondary villain and
comic relief characters, the rest of the performances are rather disappointing. Donald Glover delivers a fine, dispirited
performance of Simba where he is basically reading a line, not selling it. Beyonce’s distinctive voice proves too
distracting to play the down-to-earth Nala. So often, emotional moments turn
into unintentional comedy because what’s onscreen resembles Beyonce as a lion than Nala. Chiwetel Ejiofor’s angry and impulsive rendition
of Scar lacks the magnetism and intrigue Jeremy
Irons brought to the table. Even James
Earl Jones, the godliest voice in the business, seems bored in being forced
to read the same lines all over again from years ago as King Mufasa.
CONCLUSION:
The
Lion King is
a stunning exercise in its groundbreaking photorealistic animation style, but
that’s not good enough to compensate for a slavishly faithful, yet lifeless
shot-for-shot remake that lacks the heart and soul that made the 1994 original
so special.
No comments:
Post a Comment