TARZAN (1999)

 

PHENOMENALITY: *marvelous*
MYTHICITY: *fair*
FRYEAN MYTHOS: *adventure*
CAMPBELLIAN FUNCTION: *sociological*

I don't know why I was in any way surprised, back in 1999, at the near-total liberties Disney Studios took with both the Edgar Rice Burroughs origin-tale of Tarzan and the character's cinematic heritage. Some alterations of traditional stories by Disney had taken on their own classic status-- after all, did any American viewers really pine to see "Snow White" adapted from the Grimms?-- but I'd seen the silly-ass distortion of Lewis Carroll in the 1951 ALICE IN WONDERLAND. 

Still, given that the previous HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME didn't entirely skirt the content of Victor Hugo's novel, it was a little daunting to see so many changes. No mutiny on the ship that strands little Lord Greystoke's parents in Africa; just a fire at sea, wherein the parents and their already-born infant escape (with no mention of what happened to the ship's crew). The parents perish conveniently off camera, without any involvement by the African ape-tribes. The bereft female ape Kala still adopts the human infant, but her mate Kerchak isn't a rage-filled brute bent on destroying Tarzan, but a sulky "heavy father" who thinks the human child's weakness endangers his tribe. The apes (specified to be gorillas here) are a fun bunch of goofballs, like a nicer version of the capricious monkey of Disney's JUNGLE BOOK, and Tarzan's best ape-bud is-- horrors!-- a GIRL-ape, one Terk, voiced by Rosie O'Donnell. The ape-boy's other best friend is a juvenile version of Tantor the Elephant.

Aside from the disapproving gaze of Kerchak, and the occasional leopard attack, Tarzan's life in the jungle is pretty good in Disney's carnivalesque jungle (no Black natives in sight, and somehow Tarzan can surf atop tree-branches without picking up a single splinter). But along come a trio of explorers looking for gorillas, and these are the first time Tarzan meets his own kind. 

All three support-characters are loosely derived from Burroughs' parallel characters. Archimedes Porter, the father of Jane, is most like the book-character, because in both media he's a silly-ass, absent-minded professor type. Jane in the book is just a level-headed young woman who becomes the object of Tarzan's ardor. But Disney, concerned with stoking the joke-machine at every opportunity, makes their Jane almost as daffy as her old man. Finally, in the novel Clayton is Tarzan's cousin and competition both for both the title of Lord Greystoke and for Jane's hand in marriage. Here Clayton is just a routine "bad white hunter," who guides the two academically-minded Brits to the gorilla-grounds but plans to betray them and capture all the apes for zoo-sales.

The constant barrage of slapstick jokes, even in the midst of danger, ensures that the romance of Tarzan and Jane lacks even the mild eros of classic Disney-flicks like SLEEPING BEAUTY and the aforementioned SNOW WHITE. This Tarzan is never capable of anything like passion, and neither is Jane. Their unison is never as important as Tarzan's main conflict, that of having to choose between his ape-family and the world of humanity. (I don't think Original Tarzan's aristocratic heritage is even raised.) This trope is given enough emotional resonance that I can rate the movie's mythicity as "fair," even though the script nullifies every other aspect of the Tarzan myth.

Credit where due, TARZAN's fantasy-jungle looks great, much better than the landscapes of LION KING. There aren't a lot of "beast-slayings" in the film's ninety minutes, but when creatures like leopards or baboons attack, they do so with uncompromising speed and ferocity. The jokes are repetitive, but some of them land reasonably well. I'm mildly surprised that any of the music won an Academy Award, because I found all of it mediocre.

Though most of the phenomena depicted are uncanny, like Tarzan's slow accretion of his godlike strength and skill, the animals are marvelous in nature, given that they display human intelligence even though they don't walk on two legs. The film was popular enough to spawn too DTV sequels and a TV show, but I imagine these don't even have the limited appeal of seeing how much the Disney brand distorted the myth of the immortal ape-man.