The Jungle Book (2016)--Kipling's Timeless Story Given New Life in Disney's Latest Live Acti

From the moment I saw the first trailers for Disney’s live action Jungle Book, I was excited. I grew up on not only the original 1967 Disney film, but also the 1942 film featuring Sabu, (albeit a film which focused much of its time on Mowgli’s adult life as opposed to his childhood.) However, whilst anticipating the film’s release, it occurred to me that it might be interesting to finally read the novels that the movie is based on, and to find out just how many elements from the book are actually present within this newest adaptation.

First off, it became apparent pretty early on in the trailers that the basic framework of the film was to be very similar to the 1967 version; Mowgli, the “Man-cub” is discovered as an infant alone in the Jungle by Bagheera, and his upbringing is turned over to the Wolf Pack. Eventually, however, his existence is discovered by Shere Khan the tiger, and Mowgli is told by Bagheera that the only way for him to be safe from the bloodthirsty creature is to return to the Man-Village where he originally came from.

While the general plot is very similar to the original Disney movie, there are many significant changes that make this film stand apart from its counterpart. One major example are the references to Jungle Law, which are a key point of the novels, for the Law of the Jungle governs the lives of the Jungle animals. It dictates the rules of how and where they hunt, which in the books is a huge cornerstone of Jungle life, (to the extent that Good Hunting! is a common greeting amongst the Jungle creatures.) Another key example is the “Water Truce” scene, where all the animals, predator and prey alike, come to the river in a time of drought to drink, and they are not allowed to hunt one another, because thirst is far more important than hunger, and therefore the animals have the right to be safe from one another when water is scarce. I really liked this scene as the Water Truce is a fairly major part of Kipling’s lore, and it shows that the makers of the film are aware of the source material, as I have never seen this part of the book before shown on film.

However, despite the references present in the film, this movie is still by no means a direct scene-for-scene adaptation of the books. The Water Truce scene is also where Shere Khan confronts the wolves about Mowgli’s presence in the Jungle, and it is a very effective, dramatic scene. However, in the novel, Shere Khan confronts the wolves for the first time shortly after Mowgli is discovered, and in a much more personal one-on-one confrontation with Mowgli’s wolf parents, demands that the man-cub be turned over to him. Also, the film slightly distorts Kipling’s Jungle law by having Shere Khan say that Man is forbidden in the Jungle, which is not a Law that was present in the original stories. Despite the changes though, these examples demonstrate the balance the movie maintains between being its own story, with its own stylistic variations, and taking more inspiration from the original books than its predecessor. I can see why they would make this change in the Water Truce scene, as it establishes Mowgli’s plight in the presence of Bagheera and all the other animals, thus making for a scene with more tension than it would have had otherwise. Also, it is the scene which of course prompts Bagheera to bring Mowgli back to the Man-Village, which makes it plot-relevant as a catalyst for this part of the film.

This movie is interesting in the sense as it seems half made in homage to a beloved classic, while also trying to be a movie which seeks to have its own unique look and feel. I think one of the best examples of this would be the scene with Kaa. On one hand, Kaa the Python is now female (and voiced by Scarlett Johanson,) but in terms of her character she is still quite similar to the 1967 Kaa. She is by no means a companion and teacher to Mowgli, as Kaa was in the novel, but still a minor antagonist who attempts to devour Mowgli, after treating him to a psychedelic flashback where we see how he was abandoned and discovered by Bagheera. This leads into the scene where Baloo rescues him from the snake and he wakes up in the Bear’s cave. Fans of the book may be slightly disappointed that Kaa still is a bad guy…or in this case, girl, but despite myself hoping Kaa would be played a little differently in this version, I still enjoyed the scene. I recognize that although this movie draws more influence from the novel than the previous movie, it is also drawing influence, to the point of sometimes recreating entire sequences, from the original Disney flick, and it isn’t something I want to count against this movie, as there are so many enjoyable moments in the film.

For the record, I absolutely adore Baloo in this version. They chose a great voice actor (Bill Murray) for his part, and he has a number of really funny lines in this movie. There was also a note to his character here that I liked that resonated with the Baloo of the novels. In the books, Baloo is not only a friend to Mowgli, but a teacher that instructs him in the ways of the Jungle. In this movie, most of the animals discourage Mowgli from using tools and “tricks” that are not the ways of the Wolf Pack, but Baloo tells Mowgli that it is alright for him to use his own tactics to make his way in the Jungle; that he doesn’t always need to always do as the wolves do, for he is a man. A big theme of the novel itself is that Mowgli is neither fully wolf, nor fully man, but he becomes something altogether unique by being of both worlds. I felt this aspect of the movie was at least partially inspired by that duality of Mowgli’s persona in the novels.

There are a few moments that I will say are a bit strange because of the tone of the scene not necessarily meshing with what’s happening in the scene. The one part that did feel a little off to me was the scene where Mowgli meets King Louie, and although he is built up as this menacing figure, he suddenly starts to sing part of the song from the original Disney film, “I Wanna Be Like You” and I’m not going to lie…it did come off as pretty awkward; one of the few times in the movie where I felt like their attempts to pay homage to the original clashed with their attempts to portray something unique, and that occasional misfire does happen, but it isn’t that often and for the most part the rest of the film holds up pretty well.

Overall, I really enjoyed this film. It is definitely apparent from the film’s marketing, and the make of the film itself, that it is a marriage of both the book and the 1967 Disney film, and thus not the atypical book to film adaptation. It’s also apparent that the filmmakers are probably banking that most audiences have seen the original, and whether or not that’s the best frame of mind to make a movie in is a conversation for another day. However, in the case of this movie, I found it to be a great homage to both works, and spiritually much more true to the books than the previous film, but it also retains that lovable Disney charm with its characters that gives it a lightheartedness that really sets it apart from other live action adaptations.