TARZAN
I have a complicated relationship with Disney movies. In 1988, when Who Framed Roger Rabbit came out and revived the American animation industry from a creative and financial coma, I was about to enter high school. I had recently become obsessed with Popeye and Rocky and Bullwinkle, and the Richard Williams directed, Tex Avery inspired animated antics of the Toontown characters were enough to push me over the edge into a permament fascination with animation. And unless you're a white male in his 20's (which I am) who thinks that animation is only sophisticated if it has big breasted women being raped by demons and/or taking showers with giant robots (which I am not), being an animation buff means watching every new Disney feature hoping that it will be one of the good ones. And I have done that, enjoying all of the modern Disney features on some level, including the unpopular ones. The widely criticized Pocahontas is one of my favorites, combining more complex emotional situations than most Disney features with some of Glen Keane's best animation acting - I like to cite the silent first meeting between Pocohontas and John Smith as some of the greatest character animation ever created. My absolute favorite of the modern Disney movies is The Rescuers Down Under, which seems to be mostly ignored for the most inane possible reason: disappointing box office returns. But to me it is a great piece of entertainment. It inventively elaborates on the miniature mouse society from the first Rescuers film, stands out from other Disney films by being a full fledged action adventure, and contains awe inspiring animation of a giant eagle (again, the work of Glen Keane) which is still impressive after ten years of innovations in animation technique. In a way it, not The Little Mermaid, should stand as the marker between old and new Disney, since it was the first to use the CAPS system for computerized coloring. I do recognize the limitations of the Disney formula and am frustrated by the company's tendency to be conservative. Therefore, I find that Disney movies are best appreciated taking into account the constraints of the Disney formula, and in comparison to other Disney movies. When compared to, say, The Nightmare Before Christmas or The Thief and the Cobbler, Disney's version of Hercules wouldn't be particularly striking in the design department. But compared to other Disney features it seems shockingly adventurous, a near revolutionary departure from the house style. And I admire the boundaries Disney pushes in tiny steps, because I'm anxiously waiting for them to push hard enough that the whole formula breaks and they aren't able to put it back together for a while. I also have somewhat of a bias against musicals. Some of my best friends are musicals, such as The Nightmare Before Christmas and Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory. But I have a definite preference for the Nightmare style of musical, where the songs are impossible to separate from the story. They push the plot along - most of the time, they *are* the plot - and they illustrate the characters' emotions with a vividness that just could not be accomplished with dialogue. What frustrates me is the Lion King style of musical, where the songs seem to be there just because someone higher up wanted to have songs in the movie. A lot of them really don't seem to have a strong enough story or character purpose, and I'm reminded of the way Beavis and Butthead's storyline is constantly interrupted by irrelevant music video breaks. The Lion King is often held up as the pinnacle of Disney achievement, but to me it's the nadir. Scenes like the death of Mufasa and the adult Simba's meeting with Rafiki are dramatic and powerful, but I have a hard time appreciating them because I am so distracted by the movie's tendency to spin off on tangents like the very popular song about the farting warthog.
All this is to establish why, without bursting out of the Disney formula, Tarzan is the kind of Disney movie I have been waiting for. There's enough tradition in there to satisfy the mothers and fathers who want to know what to expect from a Disney movie before they buy their kids the video. But it emphasizes the aspects of Disney movies that I like (emotional drama, tremendous and at times subtle character animation) while playing down the ones that I don't (unfunny comic relief, musical numbers). It's my kind of Disney movie. For starters, Tarzan is not a musical. I didn't think Disney would ever try this again after the financial failure of Rescuers Down Under (which also wasn't a musical) but perhaps the success of Toy Story taught them that it's possible make piles of money and even sell soundtracks without having sing along songs. The catch is, the non-musical Disney formula requires the presence of songs by cheeseball white rockers (in this case, Phil Collins, whose songs are far less tolerable than Randy Newman's). It's a sacrifice I'm willing to make, though, because without farting warthog tangents the story and characters feel far more developed. Even the montages seem designed to tell the story without the song lyrics, rather than just being there to illustrated the lyrics with wacky antics. Before the release of Tarzan, there were rumors circulating that the more serious tone of the film would be damaged by a musical number performed by a scatting Rosie O'Donnell character named Terk. These reports were greatly exaggerated. Tarzan purists looking for a serious, dramatic translation of the story have every right to be disappointed. But when looked at as a Disney movie, in relation to the studio's body of work, the song doesn't prevent the film from being surprisingly serious. The scene, in which animals innocently destroy a human camp, is more of a musical sound effect collage than an actual musical number. It's playful and entertaining and organic to the story. I would, however, like it better if Terk were breaking plates in awe like the others, rather than dancing around conducting the whole primate orchestra. Other than that there's not much emphasis on Rosie O'Donnell, and she doesn't come across as embarrassingly unfunny as previous Disney comic relief characters like Timon and Pumbaa and the Wisecracking Gargoyles. She doesn't even fit the formula of the pasted on comic relief character, because she's central to the story, having grown up with Tarzan and being bitter to see him taking on relationships with humans. Terk's elephant buddy Tantor is a little harder to swallow, because his design is more cartoony than the other animals, and it's not clear whether he wanders away from his elephant troop to hang with the gorillas, or whether he actually lives with them. There's also an unfortunate incident of Tantor using his trunk as a periscope, which seems more out of place than it would in other Disney movies since the movie for the most part avoids that type of joke.
The main advantage of an animated Tarzan, of course, is the way Tarzan moves. It's Glen Keane to the rescue again, and it's hard to imagine another animator pulling it off so well. Tarzan is a nearly naked mass of muscles, and he swings deftly from vine to vine, barefoot surfs across trees and walks on his knuckles like a gorilla. He even uses his toes as fingers, something I have a hard time imagining in live action. He's an animal inside a human body, and he does his best to mold his body into the proper animal shape. It's hard to imagine that this portrayal of Tarzan will ever be topped, at least physically. My favorite character is an actual gorilla, though - Kurchak, the patriarch of the gorilla family. His design is more realistic than most Disney animals, but his arms are practically the size of an entire human. Voiced grimly by good ol' Lance Henriksen, his menace and his relationship with Tarzan are the emotional center of the film. All of the gorillas are afraid of Kurchak, but Tarzan has particular reason to fear him, because he has never been accepted as a real gorilla. When Tarzan discovers that there are other "creatures who look like me," he threatens to endanger the gorilla family by leading humans to them. Kurchak intimidates Tarzan, fiercely telling him to stay away from humans. It's sad for many reasons, not the least of which is Tarzan and the audience's knowledge that Kurchak is probably right. From childhood on, Tarzan is always trying to prove himself to Kurchak, but of course it's not easy. When a vicious leopard attacks Kurchak and injures him, Tarzan saves the day for the first time in an intense fight sequence which culminates in Tarzan raising the droopy corpse of his opponent in the air and making his trademark primal yell. The conflict is all in the facial expressions as Tarzan tries to address Kurchak, not certain whether he's made him proud or only humiliated him. Both in dramatic sophistication and in raw brutality, sequences like this contradict Disney's reputation as a studio interested only in kiddie fluff. Kurchak's final scene with Tarzan is even more powerful, and the animation of the gorilla's facial expressions is incredible. Jane is also a strong character, far more memorable than most Disney heroines due to a humorous vocal performance by Minnie Driver. Jane isn't the usual blandly positive role model for young girls. She's humorously high strung, and a little self-deprecating. Her first scene with Tarzan is a classic scene, far more spot-on than Disney usually is when it comes to being funny.
Tarzan is also more action packed than most Disney films. A new computer technique called Deep Canvas allows Tarzan and Jane to swing and swoop and slide in every direction through complex, three-dimensional jungle backgrounds. There are a few vine-swinging chase scenes that look and feel like rollercoaster rides - a nice, unexpected touch. But what makes Tarzan more memorable for me are the quiet, subtle moments. I like the way they approach the language barrier between animals and humans. Tarzan has a talent for mimicking sounds, and uses it to learn a few phrases from Jane. When he teaches Jane how to speak to gorillas, he teaches her to say "Jane stays with Tarzan," and giggles like a little boy as he does it. There are many scenes where the animals only speak in animal noises. The whole scene where Kala discovers baby Tarzan and decides to keep him is sad and scary and entirely without words. Even when the characters do talk, it's the physical gestures that end up saying the most - like the way Kala backs away in fear when Tarzan brings humans to see her, or the way her eyes tear up when she sees Tarzan wearing human clothes.
The only major weakness in the film is in its villain, Clayton, a member of Jane's party who secretly (but obviously) wants to poach the gorillas. His design is inelegant, his voice is typical of Disney villains and his character has far less dimension than the others in the film. He does, however, have an emotional final showdown with Tarzan and Gets His a little more brutally than other Disney villains. Ouch. I'm also not a fan of Jane's father, Porter, who looks suspiciously similar to Belle's father in Beauty and the Beast. However, the only time he really interferes with the story is in the finale, when he rather awkwardly invites himself to move in with his daughter and her new boyfriend. But these aren't the things you come away from Tarzan thinking of. You remember Kurchak's eyes as he dies, and young Tarzan noticing that his fingers are different from his mother's, and Tarzan looking unnatural whenever he tries to move like a human. With some Disney movies, I always remember the unfortunate parts I didn't like. When I think of Hunchback of Notre Dame, I think of those ridiculous comic relief gargoyles inappropriately joining in the climactic battle before I think of the movie's attempt to deal with more serious, adult themes like the lust of priests. But Tarzan strikes a better balance, so when I think of it I think of nothing but classic scenes. I don't think Tarzan is as perfect an animated drama as, say, Kiki's Delivery Service. But I do think it's one of Disney's best.
--Bryan Frankenseuss Theiss
"I write rhymes so fresh I try to bite my own verses." --Tash
The review above was posted to the
rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup (de.rec.film.kritiken for German reviews).
The Internet Movie Database accepts no responsibility for the contents of the
review and has no editorial control. Unless stated otherwise, the copyright
belongs to the author.
Please direct comments/criticisms of the review to relevant newsgroups.
Broken URLs inthe reviews are the responsibility of the author.
The formatting of the review is likely to differ from the original due
to ASCII to HTML conversion.
Related links: index of all rec.arts.movies.reviews reviews