The Lion King
This film has been called many things. It has been called a modern masterpiece, an instant animated classic, worthy to be placed among the likes of Sleeping Beauty or Beauty and the Beast. It has also been called unoriginal and uninspired, a ripoff of anything from William Shakespeare to a Japanese anime called 'Kimba the White Lion'(seriously, Google it. The similarities are rather surprising). My opinion is that it is all of these things.
Certainly, The Lion King has a few flaws. It's story is derivative of Shakespeare's Hamlet in that it is the story of a young prince whose father is killed by his usurping uncle and is later told my his father's 'ghost' to reclaim the throne. I don't think this makes it unoriginal, however. The similarities really end there and the archetype, if you will, of 'hero reclaiming the throne' has been used many times in popular culture. It does, however,m make it unidentifiable for children, I think.
Simba is a difficult character for viewers to identify with. Few children can relate to the dilemma of watching their father killed and then having to decide whether or not to take his place as king. Although I suppose the choice of turning away from vs. accepting ones responsibilities is a universal theme. Still, I don't think that makes Simba any more relatable to children, especially when he's an adult. The strength of the movie is in how it tells Simba's story. The story itself stands pretty well on its own, although I think it has more appeal for adults than children.
The casting, however, is flawless, from the leonine rumbling voice of James Earl Jones as Simba's regal father, Mufasa, to the sneering Jeremy Irons as the despicable villain Scar. Even the musical score, by Hans Zimmer, stands out. As a production, the film's only real weakness are some of its songs, some of which come across as rather silly when compared to others (take 'Hakuna Matata' and pair it with 'The Circle of Life' and see if you can tell that they were even written by the same person. They were, by the way, by Elton John, of all people). Yet, even so, the songs serve the story rather than distract from it.
The animation is perfect too. From the sweeping vistas of the African savannah to the fluid movements of its feline heroes, The Lion King looks fantastic to this day. Worthy of mention is the spectacularly riveting stampede scene, which combined computer generated images and traditional animation to create lifelike movements for the hundreds of rampaging wildebeests.
This scene is a perfect example of music, animation, storytelling and character development coming together to create an emotionally complex sequence of events. You see the self-sacrificial actions of Mufasa, the murderous villainy of Scar who betrays his own family - twice, and the responses of young Simba to all of these events, which would affect his understanding of himself and his actions for the rest of the film, all in one scene. Simba's, and thus the audiences, reaction to the death of his father is made all the more heartbreaking because we've come to know these characters, far more than we had known Bambi or his mother, and we can also see the long-term effects of this event on the main characters more so than we did in Bambi.
If a scene like this can provoke the same emotional responses today that it did 20 years ago, then I would say that the filmmakers have done something right. So, The Lion King holds up well and is a testament to the kind of great storytelling that Disney is capable of, even though the company may not always rise to the occasion.
Favorite quote: Wise words from the mystical baboon Rafiki - "Oh yes, the past can hurt. But the from way I see it, you can either run from it, or... learn from it."
Pocahontas
Remember how I said that Disney is capable of great storytelling, but doesn't always rise to the occasion? This film is a perfect example of that. Pocahontas is an example of Disney trying to create something that feels as epic as The Lion King as well as something politically and culturally important and failing miserably on all levels.
First of all, before I get into this disaster of a movie, I want to discuss briefly a theme which became prevalent in the rest of Disney's 90s features. That is the theme of 'why can't we all just get along?' or 'you're different in some way and I'm different in other ways, but my different is more different than your different, so you should just learn to accept it'. The archetype of this theme is the outcast, the outsider, the misunderstood hero. Eventually, the rest of the cast accepts him/her as there own, not necessarily because the main character does anything to win them over, but because they see the error of their ways and embrace him/her unconditionally. There are, of course, exceptions to this storyline and variations on that theme, but it remains mostly intact through 90's Disney.
Now, in the case of Pocahontas, this theme has some historical basis in the treatment of the Native Americans by the European settlers, but Disney tries way to hard to turn the whole thing into a big deal, relying not on the strength of the story to convey its message, but on the heavy-handedness of the message itself. To be fair, Disney does do a reasonably good job of showing both sides to have stubborn issues (see the song 'Savages', in which both sides call each other the same thing...but for different reasons), although the Europeans come across as far more downright villainous.
Now, I don't see anything wrong with Disney tackling these issues, but please, do so with some respect for history. For instance, the villain of the film, Ratcliffe, was not in fact greedy for gold, but historically, as the president of the Jamestown colony, seeked to trade peacefully with the Indians. In fact, it was the Powhatan Indians who ambushed and killed him, not him on the attack after them. Again, there's nothing wrong with having a villain, but don't villainize a historical figure who wasn't a bad guy. Similarly, don't glorify a people who were far from perfect themselves. Admittedly, the film does try to balance this out with the character of Powhatan himself, although he comes across more as a rigid authoritarian father-figure archetype than as a leader acting in the interests of protecting his people. He is certainly more sympathetic on some levels than Ratcliffe, who is definitely a stereotypical villain through and through.
Don't misunderstand me. I know there were deeply rooted issues between these two parties, in a big way, that went far deeper than just the Powhatan Indians and the Jamestown settlers. But Disney tries to bring them to light and then resolve them far too easily. Again, there is nothing bad about bringing the issues of the time to the big screen, even a children's film, but you can't bring history in and treat it as you would any other Disney, black-and-white, no shades of grey, cliche, and then tie it all up with a bow at the end, with everyone living happily ever after. History just didn't work that way. Fairy tales, yes. Fictional stories, maybe. History, no.
In the middle of all this is Pocahontas herself. Now, historically, Pocahontas did indeed befriend the settlers, and John Smith in particular and may have even saved his life from her father (that is debatable by historians), but it was more of a friendship than anything else. You see, the historical Pocahontas was only 10-11 years old at the time. She was certainly not the Barbie-esque heroine of Disney's film. Here she stands somewhere on both sides, too independent and free-spirited to be accepted by her stern father, but neither is she openly accepted by the settlers. She doesn't fit in anywhere and thus, both sides must accept her. Disney tries so hard to make her into a symbol of integration of the two cultures they they forgot to make her into an actual character. I appreciate them attempting to create a strong female protagonist (really their first), but she is so thinly developed, that she comes across instead as boring and contrived.
I could go on and on about the historical inaccuracies of this movie, from geographical errors to clothing issues, but this already long review would become unbearably long. "But," some might say, "Hollywood is known for historical inaccuracy. See Braveheart, critically acclaimed and yet mind-blowingly inaccurate. Should we expect any different?" Yes, yes we should! Braveheart may have played with history all over the place, but it still told a good story and told it well. Pocahontas doesn't even do that. Also, little is known about the historical William Wallace, so much of what his story is has become tall tale, if you will. A lot is known, though, about Jamestown, the Powhatan Indians, even about Pocahontas. There is a story to be told, but Disney chose tell their own story with their own spin and message attached. It just doesn't work. This marks the first and only time Disney would make a film based on a historical figure and for good reason. The only thing I think about Pocahontas as good is the song "Colors of the Wind" and even that is inescapably preachy.
As you can see, I have strong feelings about this movie and am only going to keep this part to 2 films, since it is already long enough (I told you, this was going to be a long decade).
No comments:
Post a Comment