Tarzan (6/10)
This is the 1999 Disney film, retroactively seen as the end of its Renaissance era. On that specific note, I'd say either the Renaissance Era has to extend to Emperor's New Groove, or it has to end early, because this film isn't exactly stellar. That's not to say it's bad either, but this film's got issues. First among which is that this film feels like two different films sandwiched together. The first, taking up the first third, extends from the start, to the point of Sabor's death, and the arrival of Jane and co. The second is everything after that point. Neither part feels all that congruent with the other, in that events in the first part don't have much bearing on the second.
So, anyway, you know the story - Tarzan's parents crash land off the coast of Africa (not sure where, or which coast, but meh), and they're killed by a leopard, which has killed an ape child, so Tarzan's taken in by the apes, yadda yadda yadda. Tarzan's ape dad dislikes him, and his ape friend (Turk) is, unlike Turk from Scrubs, mostly waddling the line between endearing and annoying, and not always staying on the former side. Tarzan's most pressing issue at this point is getting the approval of the fellow apes, most importantly, ape dad. Cue song sequence "Son of Man" that's the only song in this film that's remotely memorable. I've seen criticisms of this film that all the lyrics are sung by voiceover rather than the characters themselves. I think that might have something to do with it, but whatever the case, Son of Man is the only one that sticks out.
What also sticks out is that it's over this sequence that Tarzan is shown to be able to craft spears. I actually found myself reminded of The Jungle Book at this point - both stories have a young boy in India/Africa taken in by apes/wolves, who can't fit in, and displays ingenuity that the creatures can't match, while being outmatched physically. One of my favourite lines in Disney's live-action Jungle Book for instance was when Bagheera tells Mowgli "you're a man. Fight him [Shere Khan] like a man." By extension, you could draw comparisons between Sabor and Shere Khan, but Sabor is much, MUCH weaker as a character. And similarly, while we do see Tarzan using a spear, little attention is drawn to it. The way frames are shot, I think the writers (or at least the animators) were aware of this crucial difference between humans and other simians, that it's our brains that have allowed us to survive more than anything, but if so, the film never explores it. Tarzan is shown using other ingenuity to help the apes, but again, it's not a major plot point.
Also, going back a bit, one of the best points in the movie is where Kala comforts Tarzan, where she tells him (paraphrased) "what do I see? Two eyes, like mine. A nose, like mine." I can't remember the exact words, but this is one of the best moments in the movie. I doubt it was the writers' intention, but in addition to being a mother-son bonding moment, I like how it reinforces the similarities between humans and apes. We're still all part of the simian family and whatnot, so this shared moment of humanity is very effective.
Anyway, Tarzan becomes an adult, by which point an elephant character has joined the group. Sounded like a girl as a kid, sounds male now, he's with the ape family because...reasons? Fine, whatever. Regardless, Sabor ends up attacking the apes, and Tarzan beats the kitty in mortal kombat, and performs a fatality (there's actually a fair bit of death in this film, even if none of it is graphic). I'm mixed here. On one hand, the fight sequence is fairly well done, and I love how Tarzan presents Sabor's body to ape dad. It's good visual storytelling. On the other hand, Sabor isn't really a character. He has no dialogue, and despite killing Tarzan's parents and Kala's son, this connection is never brought up in any form across the movie. We, the audience, know that Tarzan has avenged his parents, but none of the characters do. So a lot of potential emotional payoff is squandered. Compare that to other felines doing battle, such as Scar and Simba, or Mowgli vs. Khan. Even if the original Disney film never specified that Khan killed Mowgli's parents, Khan at least engaged Mowgil with dialogue and had a personality. Sabor, on the other hand, is just some predator. And don't tell me that speaking would be unrealistic, all the non-carnivorous animals can talk.
Still, up to this point, things have been decent overall. A 7/10. Regardless, ape dad is "meh" about the whole dead kitty thing, and then the most dangerous species of all arrives. MAN!
It's not all bad. I'll deal with Clayton as a character later, but Jane, despite being in the prime position for a damsel in distress, is actually a pretty good character. Smart, but not invincible. Freaked out by the "wild man" she's encountered, but not terrified. Compassionate, but rational. It's certainly nice, with her showing Tarzan the slides, and slowly warming up to him. What isn't as nice however, is when the gorillas stumble upon the camp, and a musical number starts where they use everything from scientific equipment to cutlery to make music. The movie just...stops, for this, and it commits the cardinal sin of a musical, where the musical number isn't used to develop plot and/or character.
Speaking of plot development, things are still a bit iffy here. For starters, Tarzan learns English fairly quickly, but his fluency seems to go back and forth as the plot demands. There's no "colours of the wind" equivalent, but while we get a brief motange of him learning English from children's books, it doesn't feel as fleshed out as it could have been. The weird thing is, everything from the arrival of the Porters and Clayton takes up the second and third parts of the movie, yet feel rushed, whereas everything before that...not as much. Regardless, Tarzan has to go back and forth between the apes and the humans, despite Kochek warning him to stay away.
So, anyway, Clayton tricks Tarzan into leading him to the gorillas. Tarzan and the Porters are imprisoned on the ship, along with the crew, as Clayton's thugs arrive to capture gorillas to sell them. I may as well address Clayton as an antagonist here - he's not bad, per se, but he's basic. He's a simple character with simple motivations, and there's little buildup to his final confrontation. I'd say that a problem with the film is that it's sharing the spotlight between two primary antagonists (Sabor and Clayton), but I'm not sure if that's the problem per se. Rather, it's that Sabor is a non-character, and Clayton's such a bare bones villain, that payoff from both of their deaths is comparatively limited, compared to, say...I dunno, Jaffar, or even Gaston.
So, Clayton dies (rather horribly - like I said, there's a lot of death in this movie), and ape dad dies as well. Weirdly enough, he's dead because Tarzan disobeyed his orders to stay away from the humans, wereas with Sabor, he was fully in the right, but ape dad appoints Tarzan his successor and holds no grudge. Um...did we get the motivations reversed, or something? Because this is the one point where Kochek is in the right. If Tarzan didn't disobey him, he'd still be alive.
So, anyway, Jane and her dad decide to stay in a hostile jungle environment filled with everything from crocodiles, to malaria, to a hundred other things that can kill them. Ah, true love...I give them two weeks. I mentioned before I liked Jane as a character, but while this decision isn't entirely out of left-field, it does feel like it's at least stepping foot in that field, so to speak.
So, that's Tarzan. I mentioned before that I gave this a 7/10, and for most of the film, it hovered there. However, reaching the end, I realized that I had to give it a 6/10 - the upper side of "okay," rather than the lower side of "good." There's a lot of good individual elements, but as I said, the film feels like two different movies smashed together, where despite the second plotline being longer, doesn't feel as fleshed out as it could have been. It's simply decent, when all the elements are there for something much better.
Is this a weird opinion? I'd argue no. I say "Aladdin," "Little Mermaid," or "Beauty and the Beast," and for better or worse, there's a strong chance you'd think of the Disney versions. I say "Tarzan?" I'd wager that there's no guarantee you'd think of this one. It might be that Tarzan is arguably an anachronism, and certainly the Disney version is free of a lot of problematic elements, but as a film in of itself? Could have been good, but ends up just okay.
Shame.
