“I’m gonna be the main event / Like no king was before / I’m brushing up on looking down / I’m working on my roar”
“Thus far, a rather uninspiring thing”
Introduction:
Around two or three years ago, the world collectively exploded when a live-action re-rendering of The Lion King was announced.
Now, this was always gonna be a tall order for any studio, not in the least because The Lion King is a towering animation masterpiece and has been considered a prestige property for a while now. It’s the most acclaimed of the Disney Renaissance films and has spawned multiple tie-in movies, TV shows and a Broadway musical. I mean, even just the nature of the plot itself, of an overthrown ruler’s son coming back to take his rightful place on the throne, it’s just such a staple of Shakespearean plays and Joseph Campbell’s personal diaries that when you do this kind of thing well, there’s already a certain kind of gravitas and epic grandeur that attaches itself to your film the way it did Star Wars. Plus, it’s the first Disney Renaissance movie that is actually its own original story and not an adaptation (and no don’t @ me about fucking Kimba The White Lion, the two stories are very different aside from a few visuals and coincidental similarities).
But it seemed like Disney was stepping up to the plate to deliver us a Lion King reborn, one that could potentially live up to the massive expectations surrounding it. The internet collectively exploded again when the casting was released, and at the time, it did seem to promise a lot—they had big, big names like Donald Glover, Beyoncé, John Oliver, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Alfre Woodard, Florence Kasumba—under normal circumstances, you rattle off any more of those names to any pop culture nerd and you’d literally see their eyes pop out of their head.
But then the problems started showing. First, the endless glug of Disney remakes began to really oversaturate the market until each day we were all just a little bit more cynical about the whole enterprise, and the fact that most of them came out really mediocre didn’t help. Each day you’d see these hot takes decrying our tendency to downplay animation as a medium unconsciously by trying to make everything live-action, or complaining about Disney’s shamelessly transparent monopolization of the film industry and what not. But it really got bad when clips of the actual movie were released, and… *hoo boy*.
Yeah, this clip may have poisoned the entire project from the get-go, because holy damn, what is this I’m looking at? It’s not as uncanny valley-ish as Detective Pikachu was, but somehow that makes it even worse, because at least Detective Pikachu’s creepiness added some flavor to the movie. This, though, I mean… look at it; it looks like a stolen clip from an Animal Planet documentary. They picked the worst possible portion of “Hakuna Matata”, too; listen to Donald Glover’s awkward attempts to riff and do those big Broadway runs at the end. And just look at Simba’s face. Just look at it; I didn’t even know lions could look constipated.
Having now seen the film, though, the infamous clip isn’t quite as representative of the film’s problems as I initially expected. That’s not to say that the film is perfect, though. Let’s be clear, whatever is good about this remake is bogged down by the fact that it’s in the service of such a bad idea—making an animation masterpiece live action.
Synopsis:
Let’s talk about the original Lion King for a sec.
Disney stunned the world in 1994 with this movie; it was a box office hit and, shockingly, an unexpected success. Yeah, turns out an epic hero’s journey musical starring talking animals wasn’t as surefire a box office draw for Disney as, say, Pocahontas was in Jeffrey Katzenberg’s mind. But it raked in the numbers, the rave reviews and awards, and it did so because it was just plain stunning, in multiple aspects that all complemented each other. The story was epic and awe-inspiring, which was punctuated by utterly compelling visuals which highlighted the sweeping grandeur of the film’s universe, and the stirring, majestic score and soundtrack that lifts it over the top.
All three elements work in concert to make the movie truly memorable. Because by itself, the movie’s plot isn’t, well… very original or unique? Again, I don’t mean in the “ripping off Kimba” way, but more in the sense that this “Chosen One” narrative is so insanely common in fiction that you’re really gonna go out of your way to pull it off, especially in this day and age.
The remake changes almost nothing from the original Lion King in terms of story and character. But for the benefit of those who’ve never seen the movie, it’s about a young lion cub named Simba (Donald Glover), a proud and headstrong young boy whose life is ripped apart when his traitorous uncle Scar (Chiwetel Ejiofor) murders his father, King Mufasa (James Earl Jones) and usurps his throne. Simba’s banished and in the midst of his despair, he’s welcomed by the two oddball outcasts Timon (Billy Eichner) and Pumbaa (Seth Rogen), who encourage him to live a hedonistic, self-involved and carefree lifestyle. Many years later, Simba reunites with his childhood friend Nala (Beyoncé), who begs him to fight Scar, who in the meantime, has ruled the kingdom with an iron fist. Simba has to choose between living his convenient life forever or claiming his destiny.
Narrative:
Like I said, the movie doesn’t change much from the original, and I think it might have been to its detriment.
I’m gonna preface this portion by stating now, and for the record, that I am just so sick and tired of this ongoing Hollywood trend of converting every beloved animated property into a live-action gritfest. I thought this attitude died after the ridiculousness of the Maleficent remake in the early 2010s, but apparently it is alive and well, although repackaged more insidiously. Because unlike the Tim Burtonization that largely infected the early 2010s, this recent crop of remakes has tended to be more faithful to the originals. But that honestly might be worse, because there’s a reason these animated properties were animated in the first place. Every film student knows that tone is important, and yes, the medium does affect the tone of the story.
The Lion King worked as an animated movie because it’s a movie about goddamn talking animals. The fact that it’s animated didn’t take away from the seriousness or gravitas of the story at all; if anything, that’s what gave it its appeal. It could be enjoyed by both children and adults. Making it live-action serves no real purpose; in fact, it even detracts from the overall experience because the aesthetic it creates clash with the tone of the movie. When they break out in colorful, dramatic song, it’s not reflected by the stiff, joyless visuals that come as a result of trying to be “realistic”. The characters’ notorious inability to emote is there because animals realistically can’t emote, so having them project human emotions and gravitas just looks goddamn ridiculous. The visuals don’t match the dialogue and music at all, creating a serious disconnect between what you see and what you hear. It feels like they pasted on some recorded audio onto a random National Geographic documentary.
And honestly, it should be clear that there was a reason the original film was animated. If you’re gonna change the medium of the film, you can’t just cut-and-paste it unedited, you have to work with the new medium so that you can bring out the best in the story. The remake does not do that, and it comes out worse for wear. The switch to live-action removes all the color, life and character that made the original such a visual delight. Just look at the scene where Simba is finally crowned—it’s shot in grays and it’s raining. An animated film could’ve delivered more compelling visuals while still retaining the energy the scene was intended to convey.
To be fair, though, the movie does change some things, most of it attempts to correct the original’s more problematic elements. They don’t quite land all the way, but points for trying I guess. The most notable change is turning the hyenas from a neglected underclass into a rival nation to Pride Rock. It’s a good attempt but it ends up converting the racist and classist implications of the original hyenas into xenophobic implications. So… good job, I guess.
And there are some indications that this movie could’ve worked well in live-action if they’d just changed enough things. The way they portrayed the ghost of Mufasa was a clever use of the medium, one that works with the aesthetic in an economic way. It could’ve worked, but even if the movie had been good, I still would’ve had my reservations about it because I don’t like what this and all of Disney’s other live-action remakes represent.
One of the longest-running issues in both TV and film is the tendency to dismiss animation as a medium for children, and by implication see live-action media as more serious and respectable. It’s not even in the sense of being “adult” compared to cartoons; even adult animation is forced to be ridiculously profane to escape the dreaded “for kids” tag. And that’s just unfair, because animation as a medium has the potential to be truly groundbreaking in a way that you just can’t have with live-action, if only it were allowed to be a medium for “serious”, considered and thought-provoking work. Hell, Game of Thrones would’ve probably been more satisfying had it been animated. This subtle bias against the medium has done serious damage to the entertainment industry; hell, Into the Spider-Verse, one of the greatest movies of the decade, can’t get the respect it deserves because it’s animated. That’s just plain wrong.
Disney’s recent turn towards live-action remakes of their animated properties furthers this unconscious bias, and The Lion King (2019) makes it clear how pointless it all is. And to be clear, I’m using “live action” as a shorthand; the remake is not technically live-action. More accurately, it’s photorealistic CGI, but the intent is to make it look real, so no matter how Disney tries to handwave it, it’s still essentially a live-action remake. But why even do this? There was nothing wrong with the original. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
Casting, Performance and Characterization
The original Lion King featured a towering cast full of veteran actors of film and theatre both. This is very clearly what influenced the remake’s casting choices, by hiring acclaimed public figures and veterans. I mean, you don’t hire Donald Glover and Beyoncé in 2018, when they were both at the top of their game, unless you’re going for that glitz factor. And honestly, after having watched the movie, it feels like the glitz factor was really the only deciding factor, and not their actual talent, because… these people are not right for their respective roles.
Look, first off, Donald Glover as Simba just does not work. Glover is a talented actor, of course, but this role doesn’t highlight his strengths. He does try his best, God bless him, and there were moments when I felt compelled by his performance, but the fundamental problem lies in the gulf of difference between character and actor. Glover plays Simba in his usual brooding, self-consciously critical way, which doesn’t work when you’ve already established Simba as a headstrong and willful lion. He doesn’t come on strong to you like Matthew Broderick’s Simba did. Glover’s Simba is a non-entity especially compared to the child Simba expertly played by JD McCrary, to the point that they feel like completely different characters. Hell, he barely had any lines as an adult, which means Glover never has time to really make an impression.
As for Beyoncé taking on Nala (originally played by Moira Kelly)… well… okay, I’m just gonna say it; I’ve never found Beyoncé particularly talented or compelling as an actress. She’s not exactly bad, but she just can’t get out of Beyoncé Mode; no matter what she does, she just can’t play anyone other than herself, and it’s not helped by the fact that she doesn’t exactly have a lot of range, either. Her Nala is flat as hell; she brings no life or passion to the role, and she delivers her lines in the most cliched way possible. When she says “Lions, attack!” it feels more like a choreographed bit from her concerts; I almost thought she was about to introduce “Run The World (Girls)” or “Formation”.
And most importantly, she sounds way too mature to be paired alongside the geeky, awkward insecurity projected by Donald “the only white kid allowed to say the N-Word” Glover. The mismatch is just too vast.
And honestly, that’s what makes me so suspicious of these casting choices, because there is no shortage of talented young black actresses who could’ve taken the role. All things considered, though, I guess the rest of the casting choices are okay; Billy Eicher and Seth Rogen’s Timon and Pumbaa are still pretty good, and I thoroughly enjoyed Florence Kasumba’s far more sophisticated and menacing take on Shenzi. Chiwetel Ejiofor’s Scar, I didn’t feel as much; I don’t know, it felt like he was trying to go for Jeremy Irons’ level of intensity while trying desperately not to be Jeremy Irons. One of the biggest wastes was probably John Oliver as Zazu; you’d think it would be a good idea, but it doesn’t quite work, for reasons I’ll illustrate below.
Music:
The music this time around is almost identical to the original. They don’t really change much, except for a new song towards the end as Simba and Nala run off to Pride Rock to fight Scar. The only visible change I noticed was that the songs were more African-sounding, but other than that, they’re basically carbon copies.
No, the real problem is that, again, the visuals don’t work with the audio. The original songs were bolstered by the colorful, vibrant and wacky animation, which the live-action just cannot pull off no matter how hard it tries. The medium itself clashes with the vibe, and that already kills it. The remake’s version of “I Just Can’t Wait To Be King”, for example, loses all the fun and spirit of the original because the live-action rendering just looks way too gritty and lifeless. It’s the damn African savannah, it wasn’t gonna look like anything else.
And the problem is only compounded by the casting mistakes. The first red flag was on “I Just Can’t Wait To Be King”, the song where Zazu chastises Simba and Nala for their irresponsible ways. The problem is that Oliver doesn’t play Zazu the same snobbish and sophisticated way Rowan Atkinson did in the original, yet Atkinson’s Zazu is baked into the song. So Oliver’s more hapless, neurotic portrayal clashes with the lyrics. The problem recurs in “Hakuna Matata”, where the buildup of the song is ultimately deflated because the rambunctious child Simba has way more energy and life than Donald Glover’s soft spoken adult Simba and he can’t carry the rest of the song.
But the biggest offender of all would have to be “Can You Feel The Love Tonight?”. What was easily the most stirring musical number of the original is utterly ruined because, not only does it commit the cardinal sin of playing during the daytime, but because of how little chemistry Donald Glover and Beyoncé have. You can practically hear the vast age difference between the two, and their voices just don’t complement each other well. Glover doesn’t get a chance to shine because he has to sing in his lower register, limiting what he can do and allowing him to be overpowered by Beyoncé’s towering vocals. Beyoncé just doesn’t play this kind of role well. She can’t sell “what will Simba do?” because she’s goddamn Beyoncé; you know damn well she’d take matters into her own hands instead of waiting around for some scrub to do it because that’s the vibe she gives off.
And you know what really illustrates the mismatch? They don’t actually have a vast age difference. Donald Glover is 35 and Beyoncé is 37. But if you didn’t bother to research that, you wouldn’t have realized, because persona-wise, Beyoncé is a modern goddess worshipped by millions while Glover is a scrawny, emotionally stunted man-child. They just don’t play off each other well.
In The Loop 