In 1967, Disney released a dumbed-down animated adaptation of Rudyard Kipling‘s Mowgli books: The Jungle Book. It’s not widely regarded as one of their greatest animated features and, indeed, by today’s standards it looks like the period piece that it is. But it was one of my favourite films as a child and I now realize that it was seminal to my interest in vintage cinema.
Some have suggested that the only reason for its enduring popularity lies in its being Walt Disney’s swansong (he died during post-production). I disagree. While it undoubtedly benefited from Disney’s personal input, having that intangible charm their subsequent animations lack, for me it was the musical score by the Sherman brothers (who also did Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, The Aristocats and other classics) that made the film outstanding. Even today, most kids in the western world can at least hum the tune of The Bare Necessities and I Wanna Be Like You. I rest my case.
This is the tale of orphaned Indian boy Mowgli, a feral child raised by a pack of wolves. The tiger Shere Khan sniffs out the “man cub” and vows to kill him. The pack decide that the child will have to return to the “man village” both for their safety and his own.
It’s a story that, in one sense, needed dumbing-down. The imagery and underlying message of Kipling’s original books looks imperialistic, if not downright racist, in today’s world. But in deodorizing the politics, Disney threw out some of the darker aspects of the tale: the struggle in the pecking order of the animals and that between the beasts and mankind. He even turned the vultures, terrifying creatures in the Mowgli books, into a caricature of The Beatles. While, obviously, I still love the merry romp that resulted, I was hoping for more from this year’s lavish re-make.
In many ways it delivers. The CGI is amazing with animation so convincing that one really does suspend disbelief and find oneself in a jungle full of talking animals. The production uses this to great effect. It is at times beautifully cute, at others truly scary – perhaps too much so for smaller children.
I should add that, being virtually blind in one eye, I can’t comment on the 3D effect. I can only relay the feedback I overheard from some of the younger members of the audience, and that was mixed – ranging from “F’ing awesome” to “Pretty lame.” I still believe that 3D cinema is an ephemeral gimmick, but then I live in a world of two dimensions.
The voicing and characterization are excellent too. But it was Neel Sethi as Mowgli, the only live-action character in the film, who stood out for me. This must have been a singularly difficult role to play, even for an experienced adult actor, but young Neel handles it so persuasively that you forget that the whole thing is an illusion. He was perfectly cast here, but I get the impression that his talent is far broader. He looks like a star in the making.
I don’t know how well this film will transfer to the TV screen. I recommend catching it at the theater while you have the chance.
Yet, for all its brilliance, this production lacks a certain soul for me. I found the nostalgic references to the songs from the original rather wistful (and not a patch on the 1967 versions). And, stunning though it is, it felt at times like the visual equivalent of Canderel – convincingly sweet, but overly so; artificially so.
I grew up with early CGI pieces like Toy Story and Babe. State-of-the-art then, they look pretty primitive now, but I miss their simplicity. I left the cinema yearning for the technical innocence of yesteryear. I longed for some back-to-basics hand-drawn animation.
On my return home I put on the original 1967 version. I found myself enjoying it even more.
The Newcomers is an American family drama telling the story of a 12-year-old boy named Sam Docherty (played by Christopher McCoy) whose family moves from Boston to Vermont in search of a calmer, more wholesome life. Victimized by bullies in Boston, Sam discovers that the small town boys in his new hometown don’t like newcomers, and he has to struggle to win their acceptance and friendship.
I found the ending amateurish, featuring wipe and dissolve transactions so obvious it’s as if a kid had edited the film using Windows Movie Maker.
A co-production of Germany and Czechoslovakia, Did Michael Knight End The Cold War? is an intriguing student’s short film telling the story of Jachym, a young boy obsessed with the hero of the TV series Knight Rider.
After a casual, fumbling encounter with classmate Leanne, 14 year-old Robbie becomes a father. But only in the biological sense: she doesn’t want to know him or him to know the child.
This is a film I’ve seen numerous times, as I use it in social and health education classes with young people around Robbie’s age. I never tire of it, and teenagers love it. Although it has appeal to all ages, the story is pitched at older children – despite the ridiculous 15 classification. (Yes, it contains strong language, but nothing you wouldn’t hear in a typical playground.)
Inventively mixing elements of childhood fantasy and real life, Kyle McCauley‘s short film James offers a unique insight into the mind of a young boy dealing with bullies and family issues. The movie impressed with its approach, including commentary on social reality through the use of indirections (metaphors and allegories), and through the usage of well-crafted visual and sound effects.
If the CFF was to survive, then they had to up their game. In a series of 80s made-for-television films they did just that and, of the ones I’ve seen, Out of the Darkness is by far the best.
That’s what makes this film so darn frustrating. It could have been so good. But instead, cue the stinger: there’s an entrance fee for the cup competition and none of the kids has any money. So Georgie (bless his little cotton socks) snatches a rich-looking old guy’s wallet. The old guy just happens to be Sir Matt Busby, who sets off in hot pursuit.
Written and directed by Harry Hook, Kitchen Toto is a 1987 drama which focuses on particularly turbulent times during the British colonial rule of Kenya and the Kikuyu tribe uprising that sparked the aspirations of independence for the African nation. The film’s covert art and promotional materials are likely to convince potential viewers that the film would feature strong Coming-of-Age motifs. But, alas, even if such intentions were suggested, they were never fully realized.
A part of the Rank Organisation, the CFF gained a cult following among many parents as well as the kids who flocked to see the often pretty dire productions at Saturday cinema matinées in the UK. During their heyday in the 60s and 70s, it was common for A-List actors to make cameo appearances in these films (for which they were paid standard Equity rates) just for the fun of it.
Notably, it moved out of the CFF’s southern home-counties comfort zone to be filmed on location in Manchester and Salford. This step made the London drama-school accents of many of the principal kids almost forgivable. Memorably sassy performances from young Susan George, Olivia Hussey and Amanda Humby were woven in to appeal to the girls in the audience and the finished product still makes great family entertainment.
With a script influenced (and co-written) by German-American poet and novelist Charles Bukowski, in Crazy Love one would expect a distinctive and peculiar cinematic experience.
The film’s cinematography impresses with its attention to detail and skillful use of tracking shots and light, used for emphasizing a setting or an emotion. The mood differs in the three acts of the narrative – and the photography morphs to follow. The music accompaniment, both diegetic and non-diegetic, features live performances that not only sound great, but also reflect on and enhance the events on screen.