Anyhow, we watched it together as a family the night we bought it, and I didn't realize how much I'd forgotten about the story. (Kate was also blown away when I reminded her that the original came out in 1991--it's 20 years old!) The Lion King might be the most successful animated film in history, and though I don't know any numbers on it, probably ranks as Disney's single greatest film, even including the earlier ones which helped make the brand, like Snow White and Cinderella. (Though quietly becoming a fan of ABC's "Once Upon a Time" now has me newly fond of Snow White.)
Viewing the entire Lion King once, and segments since then as Eva re-watches it almost daily (she goes for repetition--and there's no better way to learn something)--my appreciation for the film has only grown. So in this post I'm not going to attempt any comprehensive review, because there have been thousands, but I'm just going to type out some thoughts related to the film.
A general comment on the music. I sing, but I'm not a reader of music, and though I can define an octave, a third, and a fifth, and I know a few other musical vocabulary terms, I'm no musician. So my comments on the music would amount simply to "It's awesome!" Which it is. The playful melody and stretched notes of Simba's "I Just Can't Wait to be King" have a way of staying in my mind. I'm not sure if holding and bending notes up like he does in singing the "just" and "wait" in "I just can't wait..." is a strong feature of African or black American music, but it feels like that. (The bass at which begins the theme to "Fat Albert and the Cosby Kids", my favorite cartoon as I grew up, does the same bend-and-hold-the-note.) "I Can't Wait" dances with so light a heart that small ethnic flourishes like a held, bent note would trick it out perfectly. And that kind of detail would be in perfect keeping with the rest of the film.
The animation is stupendous, and one aspect in particular suggests itself to me (aside from the general richness of color and detail in drawing). That would be the faithfulness to biological detail. Now, this is the cartoon world we're talking about, so some obvious departures from reality are needed: namely, that different species associate with on another; and that they all speak a common language; and in the case of this film in particular, that there is an actual government in place, over all the species. But that government is more a function of mythology, which I'll mention later.
Putting aside the obvious suspensions-of-disbelief--for every story requires them in some form--the animals, for being given human qualities, are drawn in very real fashion. Not always: during song and dance sequences (like "Just Can't Wait"), the animals do things they simply couldn't physically. And for comic effect, like getting squeezed, squashed or being in some state of alarm, individuals' (the the bird Zazu's) heads and eyes might swell far beyond their normal size. But these fantastic elements are common to cartoons, and they're balanced by excruciating attention to detail in other things. This balance produces an intelligible caricature of nature, where some parts seem very genuine, as we would observe with our own eyes, and other parts swollen to comic (or horrifying, like the hyenas' eyes and grins) dimension.
As an aside, this kind of counterpoint exists in printed comics too. Pick up any old Calvin & Hobbes and you'll see drawings where the stripes on Hobbes' body and Calvin's shirt don't all stay inside the lines, and they have only four fingers on each hand. But the scenery can be as good as a painting, and the expressions on the faces are eloquent and sometimes very detailed. This balance between realistic and not realistic is basic to animation.
(NOTE: Look carefully at the stripes on Hobbes' arms and flanks. Sloppy sloppy sloppy! And only four fingers. Then dwell on the grass, the water, the log, and their smiles.)
In the Lion King, this detail manifests especially in the movements of the lions. The cubs pad awkwardly around with oversized paws, much like kittens. But it's plain that the artists studied real adult lions closely. When the adult lions walk, especially the males Simba and Mufasa, their heads bob with every step. You wouldn't see the motion any more rhymically in a nature film, or at the zoo, or probably in the savanna either. Second is when the lions are slowing down after running. Being quadrupeds like horses, they have similar rhythms in their strides. As Simba runs across the desert to challenge Scar, we're treated to a long slow-motion close-up of his legs, as the fore paws pass behind the hind paws, all in the air. That's a gallop. And after slowing from a full run, but before walking slowly, the lions trot for a few steps. Invariably, if you see a lion slow down from running to walking or sitting, you'll see those five or six trotting steps as he or she changes to a slower walking rhythm. Biologically accurate elements like those help keep the story so vivid.
And it's touches like those which convince me--not being a biologist,and not really wanting to research it--that even the bugs, grubs and leaves drawn throughout the film are accurate representations of actual African species. Like how in "Finding Nemo", all of the species depicted are known species, including plants and algae. And even the sandy bedforms on the seafloor are accurate for their location in the ocean. I think these animators--especially in recent decades--take their roles as educators and accurate (within the bounds of the story) depictors of nature very, very seriously. I have little doubt that research would identify every insect and grub which squirms beneath or comes crawling out of the log which Timon raids for food (even the little "cream-filled kind").
Enough on the animation. Now I'll turn my attention to the story. Mythically there aren't many characters more powerful than the father who requires atonement. Guilt, doubt and fear are basic to our psychology, and so is the need for release from them. A benevolent, knowing, and powerful parent (whether father or mother) is an excellent vehicle for this. History being what it is, in our society that character is typically male. Suns, lions, kings and fathers have a long symbolic history together. This film taps that symbolism deeply.
The story is Shakespearean in magnitude. Setting aside Shakespeare's magical use of words, Scar is as foul,
devious and personally cowardly a villain as you'll find in any of his plays. And
by executing his brother, and honestly believing he'd also executed the son, he follows as bloody a path to the throne as any including Macbeth. Simba's repressed guilt and hatred of himself, beneath the (actual Swahili! Kate looked it up) mantra of "hakuna matata" is worthy of any drama. (Hamlet's mental trauma was worse but his mother was one of the traitors.) Simba's psychological damage becomes apparent to Nala when she presses him to return. Her confusion at Simba's refusal and excuses are the mirror for the audience
to see the ugliness in his mind. It's up to the mystic Rafiki (admirably voiced by Robert Guillaume, who--along with Ernie Sabella as Pumbaa, and of course James! Earl! Jones!--is my favorite voice in the film) to show Simba that the events of the past are still psychologically present, and with every passing moment, Simba either flees or engages them.
No comments:
Post a Comment