For a story that is all about interconnectivity and respecting the natural order, this is a dangerously nihilistic, ignorant notion, especially for the next generation of youngsters. That there is no food chain, no ecosystem. This version posits the idea that life isn’t a circle but a straight line on which everyone lives and dies meaninglessly.Jon Favreau wanted this film to be photorealistic? Well, all his male lions are photorealistically missing their testicles.This Lion King is a grave miscalculation. I heard their voices, but no one was home. Throughout the movie, I felt like I was staring at empty faces, into empty eyes. We get nothing of the sort in this new version, because this Simba can’t emote, at least not in the way we need him to. At once, the animation makes his fear and embarrassment clear. In the original, Simba’s face weakens, his ears collapse and he sinks miserably into the tall grass. Simply consider the moment after Mufasa rescues Simba and Nala from the hyenas, and Mufasa bellows to Zazu, “I’ve got to teach my son a lesson!”. Their thorough lack of expression cripples the movie beyond repair. Speaking of which, I come back to the animals’ faces. My attention kept straying to fond thoughts of the original how much I preferred Nathan Lane’s Timon, the exuberant rendition of “I Just Can’t Wait to Be King”, the pure evil smeared across Scar’s face. Apart from the cunning appearance of a song borrowed from another Disney classic, which genuinely made me laugh, there is nothing Jon Favreau’s remake improves upon. Though at 88, his Mufasa sounds awfully frail. Meanwhile, James Earl Jones probably sets a record for most Nostalgic Voiceover Paycheques. And we get Billy Eichner and Seth Rogen as the hipster outcasts Timon and Pumbaa, who naturally trigger the most laughs. Beyoncé, as adult Nala, does all her own singing. Donald Glover voices adult Simba and almost passes by unnoticed. His voice doesn’t register like Jeremy Irons’ from the original, but he finds a cool menace that works for his blank-faced villain. Ejiofor is deep and growling and really quite frightening. The two best vocal performances come from John Oliver as the hornbill Zazu, and Chiwetel Ejiofor as Scar. So what’s left to talk about? The cast is okay, I suppose. Like Gus Van Sant’s ill-advised Psycho remake, it’s a brilliant facsimile of a great movie, and irrefutable proof that facsimiles of great movies, no matter how brilliant, are pointless. The truth is none of it matters, because this Lion King follows the original step by step, down to certain lines of dialogue and shot choices. The story, the characters, the songs have all been etched into our pop culture memory banks. Anyone wishing to see it would’ve seen the original, or maybe the hugely successful Broadway musical that followed, or read Shakespeare’s “Hamlet”. But what good is new technology if it services ill-conceived ideas?Īnyway, I’m sure I don’t need to go over The Lion King’s plot. I learn the crew filmed with the help of virtual reality, so clearly we’re entering an era of new filmmaking possibilities. To be sure, the CGI employed here is absolutely stunning. This “live-action” Lion King is the poorest remake of them all, because since it basically trades one form of animation for another, it’s neither live-action nor a remake. Now it seems more like a time machine stuck on repeat, hurtling us into the past with remake upon sequel upon remake. Its movies used to uplift both child and adult and have the power to transport us to faraway places. The company has always been about profit and corporate monopoly, but it used to believe in dreams and imagination. I think Disney has entered a dangerous phase. It’s like a nature documentary with the animals possessed by highly paid actors. This new “live-action” Lion King, for all its visual splendour, is strange and a bit unsettling, because even though the story pulls its characters through a range of emotions, they’re plastered with the same expression from start to finish. It’s why when a movie like The Lion King is made, it should only exist as a form without realistic limitations, like animation. The reason is simple: animals don’t express emotion the way humans do. There is a reason animals shouldn’t speak in the movies, and the ones that do always seem a little odd, as if their mouths move independently from the rest of their faces.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |