The Lion King Review
by Mark R. Leeper (leeper AT mtgzfs3 DOT att DOT com)June 27th, 1994
THE LION KING
A film review by Mark R. Leeper
Copyright 1994 Mark R. Leeper
Capsule review: With the exception of BEAUTY AND
THE BEAST this may be the best Disney animated feature
since FANTASIA. Rather than distorting an existing
story, the filmmakers have created a myth brand new, but
with elements going back to Jason and Pelias or Hamlet
and Claudius. Some of the artwork is spectacular.
Rating: low +2 (-4 to +4)
With the success of THE LITTLE MERMAID Walt Disney Studios returned in a big way to making animated feature films. It looks like it was a good decision, since some of the best animated feature films they or anyone have ever made were made by Disney in this period. The formula has always been to take a well-known fairy tale or children's classic and retell it, usually distorting it nearly out of recognition. I have often wondered why they don't just write their own stories like they do for Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck. They have finally chosen to do a film that is their own story entirely--well mostly. Actually rather than taking a fairy tale and very freely adapting it they have chosen to retell an archetypical myth and move it to an African setting. The story is basically "The Return of the True King." Simba is really Jason or Arjuna or Hamlet or Aslan returning to defeat the usurper on his throne. It was a good idea for a film and it is told with a good deal of style.
The story begins with a prologue of all the animals in a kingdom coming to see their new-born prince, the young Simba. It is a powerful scene beautifully rendered with impressive art and music. The latteris rendered by Hans Zimmer's beautiful interpretations of African folk music, much like his work on THE POWER OF ONE. Young Simba (voiced by Jonathan Taylor Thomas) is the son of the great and powerful Mufasa, the reigning Lion King (James Earl Jones). One wonders how much a wildebeest an antelope really loves this reigning family, given that he might well become the family's next meal.
As a cub Simba is fascinated by everything in the world including his brooding uncle Scar (Jeremy Irons). Scar has been waiting for the day Mufasa would die and Scar would succeed him. With the birth of Simba that hope has been snatched away ... unless perchance something nasty should befall both Mufasa and Simba. Perhaps with an alliance with the smirking hyenas--currently exiled to the dark regions of the kingdom--something nasty can be arranged to happen.
In the classic Disney films like SLEEPING BEAUTY and SNOW WHITE AND THE SEVEN DWARFS the villains are usually far more interesting than the heroes. The margin is still there, but is starting to narrow a little. Belle in BEAUTY AND THE BEAST was every bit as interesting as the villain Gaston. This time around Mufasa and Simba are still just a bit handsome and empty. So it is hardly surprising that Scar is the most watchable character in the film. The smirking hyenas, however, hold their own for audience attention. Their clowning around making fun of Mufasa really is a lot of fun, villains or not. A carefree meerkat and warthog who figure into the later portions of the film make far more interesting sidekicks with far more personality than Disney himself would have created. Note how much more engaging they are than the mice in CINDERELLA, for example.
For no apparent good reason, name actors are chosen to voice many of the character. Matthew Broderick is the young adult Simba, but does not seem to need to do a whole lot anyone else his age could have done. Jeremy Irons does give some real personality to Scar, though after hearing him attempt to sing on of the film's songs, my suggestion is that he should hold on to his day job. James Earl Jones does Mufasa and surprisingly we interpret his deep voice as noble, even after hearingit so often as the less-than-noble Darth Vader. But again only Irons seems to give his character much that any moderate actor could not give him.
Some of the artwork with majestic African scenery is the best that has appeared in a Disney film. Disney, of course, always had great animation, but often his artwork often left something to be desired.It might be cute, but was rarely impressive. Here the art and animation work beautifully together. An early scene of birds flying over a waterfall brought gasps from adults in the audience. There are more nice experimental touches in the visuals, playing with focus or having characters appear out of dust. This is a film in which the visual interest goes well beyond the animation.
Moments of direction are also very good. After the prologue the screen goes silent for the title of the film to appear and it is far more dramatic than any chord that could have been played. This also has one of the better scripts of Disney animated features. I think that The producers realize that much of the audience is parents bringing children, and there are many creative allusions and puns in the script that children will miss but adults will appreciate. There is even a liberal dash of Swahili, and those who can recognize it can appreciate that. And for the kids who like that sort of thing, there are moments of grossness. And there were children in the audience who seemed to liked being pleasantly grossed out by realistic details like animals eating insects and grubs.
One problem with the story is the whole theme of the hyenas. They are almost too likable for the film's own good. Certainly they are cynical, but considering their exile they have a right to be. Their motivation is that by any means necessary that they not go hungry. Somehow that does not sound like so villainous a motivation. The lions who have exiled them are certainly not missing any meals. On the face of it such a Grand Order, a circle of life that exiles one of its species, deserves to be toppled. Why are hyenas chosen as the villains? Probably because we find them unpleasing in appearance. In any case the film seems to take the (racist?) point of view that the hyenas are intrinsically evil and in a well-run world should be banished. When the hyenas are given freedom the land withers, though just why is never really explained. The film seems to have a subtext of all the pretty animals do cooperate and get along under a benevolent dictatorship except for the ones who are born into an ugly and evil species. These uglies get thrown out of the society because if they got enough to eat it would spoil everything. The grand order of things assumes that hyenas should stay confined to their ghetto, outside "the circle of life" and the natural order of things is destroyed by letting them into the circle. One can question the message children will get from this. Outwardly the film has a love of African rhythms and language and yearns for a united world--everyone but hyenas united. But the core is justa bit ugly and scary.
With that one objection, and clearly this film is not unique in that regard, I would say that this is a rewarding film for both children and adults. Walt might have found reason to object to parts of it, but he never made a better animated feature. I rate it a low +2 on the -4 to +4 scale.
Mark R. Leeper
[email protected]
Originally posted in the rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup. Copyright belongs to original author unless otherwise stated. We take no responsibilities nor do we endorse the contents of this review.
