Just a Few Thoughts on Disney's Adaptation of "The Lion King"

 
   I thought about posting a quick little blurb about my experience watching the new Disney remake of The Lion King (2019) on Facebook or Instagram, but decided to write it all out here. It's been a while since I posted a review from this blog, and ultimately I figured that I had enough to say in order to warrant a post. This won't necessarily be a full on review of the film like many of my other reviews, but more of a discussion about my thoughts and feeling of both watching it and acknowledging its existence, so bear with me. Disney has fully embraced their campaign to remake all of their classics, a venture I personally think is unnecessary, but I'm no stingy stick-in-the-mud; art should never be censored, and I'm going to go see them regardless. So, maybe I'll just start with my perspective on this venture and then move into my thoughts on The Lion King (2019).

     Storytelling is a cyclical art form. I don't know who it was that originally said it, but many academics have agreed that there are only seven basic plot structures in all of storytelling – frameworks that are recycled again and again in fiction but populated by different settings, characters, and conflicts. Joseph Campbell explicated The Hero's Journey better than anyone else, and that narrative structure is seen in more iterations of storytelling than any other. The practice of adaptation is another narrative structure, one that we as a viewing audience have become intimately familiar with. One could argue that the story of The Lion King falls into the camp of adaptation, for it shares striking similarities with an extremely older story: Shakespeare's Hamlet. Both stories feature princes with shady uncles who have some connection to the deaths of the kings; both stories have love interests that helps drive the central characters' choices, both feature the princes being exiled, interacting with the ghosts of their fathers, struggling internally with their life choices and situations, and both return to battle their uncles for revenge. However, The Lion King brings something new and different to the Hamlet story: it's animated, features the animal kingdom, and has choreographed musical numbers. The Lion King is in every way a fresh retelling of Shakespeare's Hamlet and that's great. Adaptations work best when they bring something new or different to the table, be it narrative changes or a difference in delivery. More important than just aesthetic changes, the true test of an adaptation's worth is in its ability to push the original narrative further, to make it distinct from the original.

     2016's The Jungle Book is probably Disney's best adaptation to date for this reason. The original animated feature was just over an hour, and had very little by way of plot. I loved that movie as a child, and to this day it's the reason I hate eating bananas (Sidebar: I used to watch The Jungle Book all the time as a kid, and every time King Louie would shove bananas in Mowgli's mouth, I would do the same...until one day I made myself sick and threw up! To this day I hate the taste and smell of bananas, true story). Jon Favreau's adaptation was great because it not only changed the delivery (from animation to live-action/CGI), but it added new things to the narrative to further the story in a new and fresh way. The more recent Tim Burton adaptation of Dumbo did the same, although personally I didn't really care much for that adaptation. That's not to say I don't appreciate it, because I do. Dumbo attempted to bring something new to the table, to drive the story we all know into a fresh direction. Whether it succeeded or not is completely subjective (which I suppose is the point of this whole endeavor of mine here, but stay with me). For this humble movie-lover, Dumbo didn't work, for many reasons (which you can read about here in greater detail, if you want). But I applaud its attempt. This new version of The Lion King boasts for being a whole half hour longer than the original, the photo-realistic delivery is certainly worth noting, and the star-studded cast is nothing to shake at. But did it work as a worthwhile adaptation? In my book...no.

     I was nine when the original came out, and I remember my aunt taking my sister and I to see it. I distinctly remember my mother asking my aunt if it wasn't too much for us, emotionally, (I think she had heard of the intensity behind a certain character's death and worried that the movie itself would be too much to handle). To this day I still remember my aunt's answer: "They've seen Indiana Jones. They can handle this." Whether that was a ringing endorsement or not, I don't know, but it's ingrained to the memory of that experience. Well, excited and ready to be entertained, we ventured to the theater, and I have to say, my aunt was wrong. Mufasa's death wrecked me as a kid, and it changed how I viewed animated films from then on. They soon became more than just fun, bright adventures. The Lion King was the earliest animated movie I can remember where I really, truly engaged with the narrative of the film outside the scope of its cartoonish delivery, while also building an emotional connection with characters and story that has never left me. That nostalgia has since played a huge part in how I view these new films, and I'm well aware of that. To say I didn't go into this new version of The Lion King with any sort of bias would be an outright lie.

 
  Okay, let me just say what's awesome about this new film. The cast is great. For what they had to do, they did a great job. Plus, having actors that can sing really helps elevate a film that's inherently a musical. The music is another aspect that I really appreciated. All the songs are reprised, as well as a new one, and the performances were great. The standouts for me, and I think for a lot of people, were Timon and Pumba by and large. Billy Eichner and Seth Rogen are the epitome of perfect casting, and I absolutely loved every minute they were on screen. All that being said, the best thing--and ironically the worst thing--about this movie is the photo-realistic computer animation. Don't get me wrong, this movie is absolutely gorgeous. It's literally like watching a nature documentary but with talking animals. There were moments where I genuinely forgot that what I was watching was created in a computer and not captured out in the wild. To the animators and everyone else working on this film, I tip my hat to you and your achievements in furthering this technology.

     Now, that all being said, the portrayals of the characters fell a little flat for me, and I think it's because of the realistic nature of the animation. In The Jungle Book (2016), the CGI characters were realistic, but they also were far more animated in their emotional expressions than their real counterparts. Here in The Lion King (2019), the emotion behind the voice acting felt a bit stale only because the animals themselves couldn't emote. I know that this may sound like a nitpick, and I totally get that mentality, but I have to be honest. Watching The Lion King (2019) at times felt like watching another favorite film of mine as a kid, a Disney live-action animal flick called Homeward Bound: The Incredible Journey. In that live-action film, two (real) dogs and a (real) cat get lost in the woods and have to find their way back home. These animals were characters, and each one was "voiced" by an actor. They never opened their mouths to speak. The movie is essentially footage of animals doing things with a narrative track. The animated version of The Lion King had the freedom to let the characters express emotion because it was created in a world that allowed that freedom. You could turn the sound off and would still be able to tell what the characters were feeling. This wasn't the goal of this new one and I'm okay with that. The realistic, nature-documentary feel was the goal, and it definitely works as an experience. But it didn't push this movie over the edge for me, and I found the entire film to be just okay; a shinier, more visually-stunning photocopy.

     Nostalgia is a wicked, yet wonderful beast. It is a warm blanket, and a hardened set of foggy blinders. I am familiar with its comforting powers as well as its limiting perspective. I try really hard to look at each film I see with fresh eyes, and yet at times I fall, weakened at the knees by nostalgia's unforgiving grip. In many ways, the vicious, loving beast that is nostalgia ran rampant on my experience with this film, and yet as hard as I try to view this experience without it, I still can't change how I feel. That being said, I think it's valid to note that I am fully aware that this movie's targeted demographic isn't really me, and that's absolutely fine. That never deters my desire or acceptance of a film. As objectively as I can be, Jon Favreau's The Lion King (2019) is an extremely faithful adaptation (beat for beat) of an epically emotional story, with a voice cast that delivers great performances, while also being a visual experience that is truly meant for the big screen. Kids will love this movie, and when all is said and done, that's the main take-away. Storytelling is generational, cyclical, and forever evolving. I will always love the original version of The Lion King more than this one because I had such a visceral, emotional connection to it. I'm sure that somewhere out there, another nine year old will venture to the theater with his aunt or whoever takes him, having never seen a version of The Lion King, and he will be blown away by the experience of this story, its realistic visuals, and the wonderful music that has connected with so many over the last few decades...and THAT'S what I love most about the film. I envy that boy; to be able to experience that again would be awesome. Whether or not I think its necessary for these adaptations to exist is completely independent from your experience in watching them. I've liked most of them, and many will like this one. Go see this movie. It's worth it, in some way or another.