Film Review || The Jungle Book (2016)

fig 1.

Adaptations have been a core to cinema for a long time. Essential modernisation to outdated film is a good reason for it all as well, since audience is always shifting and changing. The Jungle Book (1897) was originally a collection of short stories by Rudyard Kipling that included the story of rikki-tikki-tavi, a mongoose that protects an Indian family, and Toomai of the Elephants, that were also adapted into their own books. Most subsequent adaptations of The Jungle Book focus on the story of Mowgli however, a young boy raised by wolves in the jungle, who befriends other animals to fight an evil tiger called Shere Khan. The Jungle Book (2016) is a live action remake of the original The Jungle Book (1967) published by Disney, and is preceded by The Jungle Book (1994) that used trained animals over CGI.

fig 2.

In particular, production design revolves around the idea of live action film making, recognising the need for realism in terms of interaction between human and animal. This means the animals would also need a human like quality to them in order to portray readable emotions; a lot of this is contained within the eyebrows, as it is in real life. Sometimes the eyes themselves need to be more human as to be more direct with the protagonist. This echos the Disney animation in the 1967 adaptation, where features of animals are adjusted to contain readability.

fig 3.

It remains faithful to the Disney original story, but spins a darker tone, and it is more obviously set in India to cater to the realism required. Interesting King Louie is replaced by a 'Gigantopithecus Blacki', an extinct form of great ape that stood close to 10 foot tall, the biggest ape of all time, the main reason being because orangutans don't exist in India. CGI replaces much effort required in directing actual animals around as they did in previous films. Throughout the film, it helps the audience feel more absorbed in the character rather than the sometimes uncanny or strange behaviour less advanced techniques may bear to the screen.

However, the similarity to the first book by Rudyard Kipling is questionable as it replaces core elements. Many critics claim that a title like The Jungle Book confuses viewers into thinking that the story would bear closer resemblance to the events of the book. Discreation is necessary when it comes to remakes especially when considering the core audiences that may be interested.

fig 4.

To adapt something, there must be a need from the times. It could be for young children, but through successful adaptation it can be made for older audiences, but if the title is the same it could be problematic. Editing subject matter could also be necessary to modernise a story. But most importantly, despite its realistic approach, this particular movie represents the dreamlike foundation of the jungle book, how humans and animals can talk on a level basis is mere fantasy amongst the mainstream.


Bibliography
fig 1. Favreau, J. (2016). The Jungle Book. [poster]
fig 2. Reitherman, W. (1967). The Jungle Book. [film still]
fig 3. Favreau, J. (2016). The Jungle Book. [film still]
fig 4. Sommers, S. (1994). The Jungle Book. [film still]