REVIEW 381: THE JUNGLE BOOK

Release date:	April 8, 2015
Director:	Jon Favreau
Cast: Language:	Neel Sethi, Voices: Bill Murray, Ben Kingsley, Idris Elba, Scarlett Johansson, Lupita Nyong’o, Giancarlo Esposito English

In a sense, Gulzar and Vishal Bhardwaj have spoilt The Jungle Book for me. It is impossible for at least some of us Indians to watch any screen visitation of Rudyard Kipling’s 19^th century literary classics of that name without being filled with nostalgia for the old Japanese animated TV serial that has been dubbed in multiple Indian languages. The Hindi version telecast on Doordarshan in the early 1990s featured that song as its title track.

Remember Jungle jungle baat chali hai with original music by Vishal – back when the nation barely knew his name – and lyrics by Gulzarsaab?

This is a Catch-22 situation for any non-Indian viewer because you cannot possibly appreciate  the rambunctiousness of the number without understanding the un-understandable: lyrics that say  nothing more than, “It has become known across all jungles that a flower has blossomed wearing underwear… A little bird is embarrassed, because it is naked. It was better off inside the egg and so it’s wondering why it bothered to emerge… A flower has blossomed wearing underwear.” (For complete Hindi lyrics, see footnote.)  

It is with such formidable competition etched in our collective memories that this new Disney live-action-plus-CGI film comes to India. Jon Favreau’s retelling of the story of a human child brought up by wolves in an Indian forest is grimmer, less frothy and more adult than the aforementioned, much-loved TV series and Disney’s own animated 1967 version. Still, this Jungle Book has its own allure.

Mowgli (played here by Indian American debutant Neel Sethi) was found in the jungle as a baby by the kind panther Bagheera (voiced by Ben Kingsley). He has been raised by the loving wolf Raksha (Lupita Nyong’o) in a pack headed by the wise Akela (Giancarlo Esposito). Mowgli’s nemesis in the jungle is the human-eating tiger Shere Khan (Idris Elba) who hates him for reasons yet unknown until the second half of the film.

An unexpected turn of events takes Mowgli to another part of the forest where he meets the giant python Kaa (Scarlett Johansson), befriends the lazy sloth bear Baloo (Bill Murray) and clashes with the devious, power-hungry, orangutan-like Gigantopithecus, King Louie (Christopher Walken).

Like the original story, this film too is choc-a-bloc with lessons about life, the law of the jungle, peaceful co-existence with nature, mutual respect, teamwork, the inventiveness born of human imagination and basic decency. It is not overtly didactic though, and allows viewers to swim along with the narrative, gathering whatever messages we may choose to pick by the way without having any of them stuffed down our throats. Such as the oft-repeated mantra, “…The strength of the pack is the wolf and the strength of the wolf is the pack,” and so much else.

The plot has been pared down considerably from the 1967 version, with a very – interestingly – different ending.

The primary selling point of The Jungle Book is its dazzling CGI, which is used to lend amazing depth and detailing to the depiction of the jungle and the beasts. The elephants are a majestic presence, completely justifying Bagheera’s awe-inspired reverence towards them. Bagheera himself is suitably intimidating while Baloo is absolutely loveable. Shere Khan and Kaa are terrifying, and Louie is a nightmare-inducing yet not repulsive fellow.

Parents please be warned: This is a sombre film and some of the fight scenes could be genuinely frightening for under-10s, which should explain the much-criticised UA rating awarded to it by India’s Central Board of Film Certification. (For my column on the subject on Firstpost, click here.)

Another note of caution: While the 3D is worth every paisa paid for your ticket, much of the action takes place in the night, which puts a bit of a strain on the eyes since most Indian screens seem dim and dark, in any case, in 3D. That being said, the film’s impeccably timed, edge-of-the-seat action makes it as much a nail-biting, chilling thriller as it is a fantasy adventure.

All the special effects would have come to nought though if it weren’t for the voice cast who are brilliant while delivering their dialogues. Lupita Nyong’o brings great emotional depth to the role of a surrogate mother torn between wanting her child by her side and wanting what is best for him. As for Christopher Walken as Louie, he is pure genius here. The voice cast’s speaking portions are so well done, that they can almost be forgiven for some of their indifferent singing.

Almost.

The film not just falters in the music department, it trips, falls and is badly bruised. While Bare necessities – resurrected from the 1967 film – is used very effectively here in the background score, its tepid rendition by Neel Sethi and Bill Murray made me weep in remembrance of the up-tempo, full-bodied singing from that earlier film. 

Ditto Louie’s I wanna be like you: dull here, so lively and memorable back then.

Scarlett Johansson saves the day with her jazzy, sensuous, ruminative take on Trust in me – don’t walk out when the credits start rolling, or you will miss it. It is one of the nicest parts of the film.

Twelve-year-old Neel bears the burden of being the only live human actor on screen in this film. He is a mixed bag: a competent actor, sweet, likeable, yet not take-your-breath-away charming. He lacks clarity in speech as a result of which I found myself struggling to figure out his words, especially the proper nouns, in the film’s initial 15minutes.

It is hard to write about a child actor, because you worry as a critic that the kid might be reading you. Hopefully, his parents have been sensible enough to keep him away from reviews.

One question: why are Indian characters in Hollywood films still saying Indian names with a colonial-era pronunciation? Hollywood has evolved beyond the stage when white actors used to play Indians because producers could not be bothered to cast Indian actors in those roles (sample: Peter Sellers as Dr Kabir in the 1960 film The Millionairess). In a more enlightened world, the most widely viewed film industry on the globe is making a concerted effort towards better representation, #OscarsSoWhite was a widely discussed campaign and actors of different races are being sought out to play characters of those races (such as our very own Priyanka Chopra and Irrfan).

In this scenario, it is hard to understand why actors could not have made the effort to say Sheir Khan (rather than Share Caan), Akeyla (not Akeela) and Baaloo/Bhaaloo (not Berloo). What next? A contemporary British film in which characters say Cashmere instead of Kashmir, Mirat for Meerut and Cawnpore for Kanpur? C’mon Disney, it’s 2016! You should do better than that.

This is possibly more troubling because writer Justin Marks and director Jon Favreau’s take on The Jungle Book is pointedly about inclusiveness and acceptance, especially with its choice of ending. It also emphasises the need for all creatures to be non-judgemental towards other species. Note, for instance, the wolves’ finely nuanced condemnation of Sher Khan – not for eating flesh, but specifically for killing as mere sport.

Such subtlety, among other reasons, is what makes this an appealing film.

The Jungle Book is too flawed to be among Disney’s best works of animation or live action set in the animal kingdom. That crown, when sparingly given out by this blog, must go to The Lion King (1994). Still, this film is thoughtful, thought-provoking, visually spectacular and features some A-grade voice work. It is also a significant part of Disney’s journey if you consider the lightness of the 1967 film and how much heavier this one is. The two interpretations are as different as night and day. That does not make this a lesser film. Just different in an interesting way.

Rating (out of five): ***

Related column on Firstpost by Anna MM Vetticad: “It’s tempting to mock Pahlaj Nihalani over The Jungle Book, but let’s mock the film censorship system instead” 

http://www.firstpost.com/bollywood/its-tempting-to-mock-pahlaj-nihalani-over-the-jungle-book-but-lets-mock-the-film-censorship-system-instead-2720998.html

FOOTNOTE:

Here are the complete lyrics of Jungle jungle baat chali hai by Vishal and Gulzar:

Jungle jungle baat chali hai

Pata chala hai

Jungle jungle baat chali hai

Pata chala hai

Arrey chaddi pehen ke phool khila hai, phool khila hai.

Arrey chaddi pehen ke phool khila hai, phool khila hai.

Jungle jungle pata chala hai

Chaddi pehen ke phool khila hai.

Jungle jungle pata chala hai

Chaddi pehen ke phool khila hai.

Ek parinda ho sharminda

Thha who nanga.

Bhai isse toh ande ke andar

Thha who changa.

Soch raha hai bahar aakhir kyun nikla hai.

Arrey chaddi pehen ke phool khila hai, phool khila hai.

Jungle jungle pata chala hai

Chaddi pehen ke phool khila hai.

Jungle jungle pata chala hai

Chaddi pehen ke phool khila hai.

For a further wave of nostalgia, listen to the original song here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9RVgTX55vo

And this is a redone 2016 version of the song for the Hindi trailer of Disney’s The Jungle Book: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnO1usyMyEo Not quite as nice as the original but, well, in addition to the child singers, this new video also features Vishal and Gulzar. Oh my poor heart, it just skipped a beat!

CBFC Rating (India):	U/A
Running time: MPAA Rating (US):	106 minutes PG (Rated PG for some sequences of scary action and peril)
Release date in US:	April 8, 2016

Photograph courtesy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jungle_Book_(2016_film)

Hindi trailer courtesy: Disney India

REVIEW 380: KI AND KA

Release date:	April 1, 2016
Director:	R. Balki
Cast: Language:	Kareena Kapoor Khan, Arjun Kapoor, Swaroop Sampat, Rajit Kapur, Cameos: Amitabh & Jaya Bachchan Hindi

What would happen if a couple reversed socially accepted roles within their marriage? Would their relationship survive societal opprobrium, ridicule and personal insecurities if he were to be a stay-at-home spouse and she the breadwinner?

These questions that form the starting point of Ki & Ka are no doubt intriguing. They are ever relevant too, in a world that upholds stereotypical gender roles within households, with horribly regressive expressions such as “she wears the pants”. India has its own backward vocabulary, like that pejorative term for a man who has the courage to cock a snook at convention and live in his in-laws’ home: ghar jamai.  

The latter phrase comes up in Ki & Ka starring Kareena Kapoor Khan as Kia, an ambitious and successful young marketing pro who feels marriage is designed to destroy women’s careers by placing the onus of household management on the wife. When she meets Kabir (Arjun Kapoor), whose sole goal in life is to run a house (or be the “artist” his mother was, as he puts it), it is a perfect fit.

They fall in love. They marry. He cooks, cleans and supports her from home. She becomes a VP in her company and supports him financially. Cracks appear. Tensions arise. They fight. They make up. They move on.

The plot is not unconvincing. After all, unspoken power equations in most homes are governed by who earns money and who does not. Many of the individual episodes in the film are independently believable in the way they deal with the rarely explored, tricky territory Kia and Kabir are treading.

It is imaginable, for instance, that Kia would initially be embarrassed to tell her colleagues that Kabir is a househusband. Many modern-day stay-at-home wives struggle with the perennial question, “What do you do?” Similarly, it might indeed be awkward to handle “what does your husband do?” when he does not do what is socially expected of him.

There is plenty of humour too in the film, especially in the first half.

Where Ki & Ka suffers is in the narrative’s failure to weave each of these passages smoothly together. The result is a patchy, episodic feel.

Something like this. (Spoiler alert!) Episode 1: boy explains notion of their proposed relationship to girl (ergo, to audience) and establishes his liberalism. Episode 2: boy and girl meet each others’ parent/s. Episode 3: boy establishes his prowess in running house. Episode 4: boy is seen in scenarios usually populated by women in films and real life, such as kitty parties and afternoon shopping sprees. Episode 5: financial scare. Episode 6: pregnancy scare. Episode 7: fissures. And so on.

The film is so taken in by its concept that it rarely rises above it to become a fully fleshed out story about fully fleshed out people. This is in keeping with adman-turned-writer-director R. Balki’s body of work so far. He is a concepts man.

After the success of his first film Cheeni Kum, a smartly done older-man-younger-woman romance, Balki has been favouring concepts and gimmicks over stories and soul. His second film originated when he was struck by the thought of casting Amitabh Bachchan as the screen son of a character played by his real-life son. The outcome was an awkwardly executed Paa in which Bachchan Senior was a child with progeria, a rare genetic condition with symptoms resembling aspects of ageing, while Abhishek Bachchan played his Dad. Shamitabh followed, in which the Big B starred as a down-and-out actor lending his voice – yes, that famous baritone – to a mute acting aspirant (Dhanush). It was a tiresome testament to Balki’s Bachchan fanhood which, by the way, he has brought to this film too. The latest concept he has latched on to is gender role reversals.

It is unfortunate that a film taking a progressive position on man-woman relations should resort to clichés to elicit laughs, possibly to soften the blow to members of the audience who might be uncomfortable at the sight of a mainstream male star playing a stay-at-home husband. There can be no other explanation for visual imagery like Kabir wearing a mangalsutra on his wrist or Kabir in red high-heeled shoes in the closing song, High heels te nachche. What is that if not another version of the “she wears the pants” triteness?

Besides, to emphasise a point, Ki & Ka also sporadically gets characters to do and say things that are completely out of character. For instance, Kabir’s father’s aggressive, unkind reaction to their announcement of marriage is credibly handled, but Kia’s mother’s initial comments seem contrived. She asks him if he is a freeloader, a query that seems solely planted in the script to give Kabir an opportunity to ask her if she would have asked the same question to a prospective bride of a hypothetical son if the girl had expressed a desire to be a stay-at-home wife. I’m not saying a potential mother-in-law would not behave in this fashion. Point is, this conversation is inconsistent with this particular potential mother-in-law’s characterisation since she later turns out to be a genuine, out-and-out liberal, possibly more so than Kia.

Also, who are these Indian parents who seem to appear only in Hindi films to ask their daughters and future sons-in-law to their faces whether they have had sex because it’s “important before commitment”? It is as if the filmmaker is screaming into our faces: Look, look, see how cool I’ve made this Mommy! But wait, she’s a social worker. Phir toh that explains everything, no?

In its denouement, Ki & Ka draws some rather simplistic conclusions about gender oppression. Still, it would be unwise to brush this film aside, since a lot of its messaging is positive and radical, not just by Bollywood standards but by Indian social norms at large. Whatever be Ki & Ka’s follies, it is still interesting that a mainstream filmmaker thought it fit to make a film with commercially successful stars about a man who wants to be a stay-at-home husband and his careerist wife.

Kareena is the pick of the cast. She is particularly good in her emotionally over-wrought scenes. It is such a joy to see her playing a substantial role after a string of marginal parts in male-centric films. It is also nice to see her deservedly getting top billing in the credits, which is uncommon for women in Bollywood even today, except for the female leads of heroine-centric films.

Ki & Ka’s camera team and lighting technicians though have done the actress a great injustice. So many clear views of her bleached facial hair? We are not supposed to notice that, people! A word about Kia’s wardrobe. After 2014’s Bewakoofiyaan starring Sonam Kapoor and PK with Anushka Sharma, here’s another film that hits the nail on the head with its styling of a female professional.

Arjun’s brooding intensity is always attractive, but he has delivered better performances in the past. Hats off to this youngster though for his experimental chromosome, which has led to the wide variety of characters he has notched up in his filmography in just a four-year-long career.

Swaroop Sampat, who plays Kia’s mother in Ki & Ka, is cute and likeable but she just cannot act. It does not matter, because her presence in the film brings up a wave of nostalgia for a childhood spent viewing Yeh jo hai zindagi on TV with the family every Friday.

The production design too is noteworthy. If you are a train buff, you might want to watch this film simply for the manner in which Kabir redecorates his house.

Increasing numbers of Indian women are refusing to throttle their professional ambitions in favour of managing a home, while a minuscule number of Indian men are opting to take on roles traditionally deemed to be a feminine preserve. In this scenario, a romcom on a stay-at-home husband is very pertinent. Large swathes of Ki & Ka are fun, considerable sections of it are unexpectedly broad-minded, path-breaking for Bollywood and insightful. The problem is that we can section it off in this fashion. Ultimately, what fails the film is its mixed messaging and choppy texture.

Rating (out of five): **1/2

CBFC Rating (India):	UA
Running time:	126 minutes

This review has also been published on Firstpost:

http://www.firstpost.com/bollywood/ki-and-ka-review-arjun-kareena-power-through-but-the-film-tries-too-hard-to-be-cool-2706762.html

Photographs & video courtesy: Raindrop Media

Song video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_KpjLhJa1k