Post by Brad Nelson on Jun 24, 2020 7:59:11 GMT -8
My Sabu-thon continues with 1942’s The Jungle Book. From a filming standpoint, this is one of those old Technicolor movies that is a bit overdone. I love the scenes were they are walking through the “jungle” made up of bamboo that has been obviously painted a bright kelly green. But getting solid splashing of over-saturated color on the screen was the thing.
I think the movie works well for its time. There was no way to animate animals as with modern techniques. What you get instead are a lot of shots of animals worked into the storyline and it mostly works from a quaint point-of-view. It’s charming in its own way. Modern audiences would have no time for a rubber python, but I just thought it was cool.
This is one book which probably should be read and not filmed. You can animate the animals, but then that just ends up looking cartoonish and silly. In Kipling’s book, they weren’t silly unless he wanted them to appear so. Otherwise these animals had distinct personalties and fulfilled a real fantastic vision of the jungle from the animals’ point of view. Kipling did this wonderfully in the book and a movie is inherently going to be a completely different thing.
Even so, the rather crude way this animal point-of-view is presented in this 1942 adaptation sort of works. The only real problem thematically is with Shere Khan, the tiger who is the mortal enemy of Mowgli. He has insufficient back-story to make him the bad guy. He’s considered bad but the other animals good, and with very little reason for this to be. They all (or most) have teeth and growl. So when Mowgli kills Shere Khan, it’s Mowgli who ends up looking like a bit of a shmuck. He’s all “one with the animals,” but just with some of the animals apparently. That’s how it comes across.
Still, at the end of the day, this movie is just good old-fashioned fun. It shouldn’t be over-thought.
I think the movie works well for its time. There was no way to animate animals as with modern techniques. What you get instead are a lot of shots of animals worked into the storyline and it mostly works from a quaint point-of-view. It’s charming in its own way. Modern audiences would have no time for a rubber python, but I just thought it was cool.
This is one book which probably should be read and not filmed. You can animate the animals, but then that just ends up looking cartoonish and silly. In Kipling’s book, they weren’t silly unless he wanted them to appear so. Otherwise these animals had distinct personalties and fulfilled a real fantastic vision of the jungle from the animals’ point of view. Kipling did this wonderfully in the book and a movie is inherently going to be a completely different thing.
Even so, the rather crude way this animal point-of-view is presented in this 1942 adaptation sort of works. The only real problem thematically is with Shere Khan, the tiger who is the mortal enemy of Mowgli. He has insufficient back-story to make him the bad guy. He’s considered bad but the other animals good, and with very little reason for this to be. They all (or most) have teeth and growl. So when Mowgli kills Shere Khan, it’s Mowgli who ends up looking like a bit of a shmuck. He’s all “one with the animals,” but just with some of the animals apparently. That’s how it comes across.
Still, at the end of the day, this movie is just good old-fashioned fun. It shouldn’t be over-thought.
