The Legend of Tarzan
If you're thinking of going to see the new Tarzan movie then I do recommend it. Don't go into it however thinking its will be some crazy mind-blowing experience and the majority of it is a realistic, post modern re-telling of the man raised by gorillas. It's not that kind of film.
The film is by no means without its flaws and you may argue that Tarzan himself is a controversial character, no more so than as per usual, however the film really explores his personality and heavily visualises his interaction with the animals of the Congo. The gorillas particularly made for the majority of this animal interaction, as expected, but delivers a CGI driven hypothesis of the more darker likelihood of how Tarzan might have lived had he survived infancy. Gorillas are territorial and strong, and if threatened they are known to be very aggressive, their ability to kill humans rather violently is so commonplace now that we assume that this will be the case before it even is (as seen recently in the unfortunate case of Harambe...don't even get me started on that one but suffice it to say I strongly disagree with the zoo's actions...). It is undeniable however that there would not have been a harmonious upbringing for Tarzan amongst the gorillas suggested by the Disney 1997 adaptation of the legend, and although at times rather visually disturbing I liked this darker view. Tarzan is bullied, threatened and beaten to within an inch of his life more than once by displays of dominance from his bipedal peers. In a wild jungle situation in which the gorillas are territorial and aggressive when threatened, why would they just accept Tarzan no questions asked? Whilst as far as I am aware the situation has never been tested (see: ethics), I would argue that studies of gorilla behaviour have since come far enough to give a good representation of what is possible. The film industry will of course always embellish a scene to fit the imagery, themes and story better so I do think that the overall violence of Tarzan's interaction is a tad extreme given that gorillas can also be very peaceful when comfortable and happy, but then I'm not a primatologist. A great way to garner a little more insight into their behaviour and I do recommend the read as it's valid here in relation to cognitive behavioural theories, as well as also being set in the Congo like Tarzan, is the aptly named Congo by Michael Critchon (author of Jurassic Park). This was however published about 20 or more years ago so take his research with a grain of salt as always given that science and study has progressed in that time.
What is perhaps the most oddly fitting part of the film that fits both the film's setting context and real time context is the address of the race and slavery issue. Race is something that crops up everywhere and anywhere these days. In fact Race is usually one of the things that we always try to keep so PC - it's a egg shell sort of subject on occasion and representing a particularly atrocious event such as Belgiums treatment of the Congolese people it's not possible to separate our modern view of race with our 19th century counterparts. But Tarzan almost doesn't really need to try; Samuel L Jackson, who is for once the comic relief sidekick rather than the action hero, plays a Civil War veteran who in anger towards the treatment of the African American people was led to shame by similar events amongst the Anerican Indians and the Mexican people. He joins Tarzan on the quest to the Congo as he believes that King Leopold II of Belgium is committing crime against humanity but enslaving the Congolese people to work and make him reach, including mining the legendary diamonds of Opar. And Ivory - ever been keen to see a train export of Ivory ? Me either - especially knowing that every two tusks represent one elephant which are now severely endangered. Thanks Belgium. Jackson's character is a catalyst, break in moments of uncomfortable tension and adds a big touch of realism to the story. The Tarzan legend whilst not impossible takes on from its predessor in the Jungle Book but adding a twist of fantasy to a bad situation, the fantasy by which overrides what actually happened in that period. The fantasy of Tarzan in a film reads like the Disney version - it's there, it happened, you felt kind of fuzzy because everyone lived happily ever after. The original Tarzan books are not like this and by adding Jackson's character to the film it becomes far deeper than just a story about a jungle man and rather something much more substantial without going overboard. Tarzan actually becomes a hero, a flawed one, who not only saves Jane from the bad guys but also puts a serious wrench into the hugely nefarious plan the bad guys have. He's the romantic hero - robust, sexy, loyal and strong - but also altruistic of his people (and animals). Think Robin Hood - will move heaven and earth to save Maid Marion, but a vigilante and protector of the people. Jackson's humanitarian crisis adds that extra layer to both the character and the film by focusing on an area of history that I think is mostly swept under the rug outside of Tarzan and Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness. I left the film thinking 'how the hell did I not know about this?' I'm sure Belgian Congo is in the dictionary right next to Bad Ideas. The only person toasting Leopold II on a job well done is probably Hitler.
Back on the subject of Samuel L Jackson's character, in the way that he watched Tarzan, observes the world around him, and reacts to different situations he is effectively us, the audience. He is the one with the greatest intentions from the beginning, he takes a shot at just about everything that Tarzan does and is the only other character beside Jane that really grasps the full extent to which Tarzan is barely 'civilised'. He polarises our hero is so many different ways and takes a really good shot at displaying a very different type of character to his usual. He's generally pretty brilliant.
Jane, in just about every adaptation, is the embodiment of this idea. She is always a supporting character that neither contains not condemns Tarzan's wildness, yet brings to him a semblance of civilisation that he never had before. Let's be frank, firstly, and ask what would a jungle man who had never seen a human woman before Jane think? How would they react? The truth is debatable but almost certainly it would be anything but what 19th century social conduct were to consider acceptable. In that frame of thinking Jane, as an adventurer, would have been enticed and attracted by this - most of us, even modern women, would as well today. And Jane really is a modern woman, even if often seen as the Damsel in Distress like Maid Marion would you really consider her to be a weak-willed woman? I don't think so. Margot Robbie plays this fabulously -you don't even have to question the nature of her feminism because she just is a strong character. Just like Tarzan embodies the classic Man vs Beast mentality, Jane also portrays the classic Woman vs Lady topic (I'm sure the actual name for this idea is something far more sophisticated but I don't know it). Jane is soft, caring, nurturing and respectable, but also fiery, passionate, daring and courageous. She reminds us subtly and simply that you don't have to be one or the other, which in the context of Victorian Society where this is actually set makes Jane stick out like a sore thumb. Without it being a big deal Jane is the modern woman.
That being said even though she kicks some ass, almost pulls of a great escape, and probably could amp it up to a higher level she doesn't. She mostly remains calm and let's Tarzan do his thing before he saves her. That's the key thing - Jane doesn't need to be saved, but she lets herself be. Which when you think about it could say something pretty deep about masculinity, too.
Whilst there are a lot of elements that are highly researched and borderline realistic (such as the Gorilla defensive behaviour), the movie in its majority plays like an old school imperial jungle adventure. There was an old school villain out for money and power with no shame, there was a damsel in distress, the comic sidekick, and a very handsome hero to save the day. The nostalgia and simplicity of these themes are kind of what I loved about it, and I would argue that the very Victorian struggle of man vs beast (or inner beast) as seen in other famous stories from the period such as The Curious Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde and Frankenstein. Is perhaps one of the greatest themes here. There is something kind of refreshing about a film that doesn't feel the need to subvert social commentary or insert post-modern context heavily into its subject matter. Political correctness is becoming exhausting and exasperating theses days and I will be the first to say that this action packed Victorian novel film adaptation felt like a breath of fresh air. Simpler.
The film is by no means without its flaws and you may argue that Tarzan himself is a controversial character, no more so than as per usual, however the film really explores his personality and heavily visualises his interaction with the animals of the Congo. The gorillas particularly made for the majority of this animal interaction, as expected, but delivers a CGI driven hypothesis of the more darker likelihood of how Tarzan might have lived had he survived infancy. Gorillas are territorial and strong, and if threatened they are known to be very aggressive, their ability to kill humans rather violently is so commonplace now that we assume that this will be the case before it even is (as seen recently in the unfortunate case of Harambe...don't even get me started on that one but suffice it to say I strongly disagree with the zoo's actions...). It is undeniable however that there would not have been a harmonious upbringing for Tarzan amongst the gorillas suggested by the Disney 1997 adaptation of the legend, and although at times rather visually disturbing I liked this darker view. Tarzan is bullied, threatened and beaten to within an inch of his life more than once by displays of dominance from his bipedal peers. In a wild jungle situation in which the gorillas are territorial and aggressive when threatened, why would they just accept Tarzan no questions asked? Whilst as far as I am aware the situation has never been tested (see: ethics), I would argue that studies of gorilla behaviour have since come far enough to give a good representation of what is possible. The film industry will of course always embellish a scene to fit the imagery, themes and story better so I do think that the overall violence of Tarzan's interaction is a tad extreme given that gorillas can also be very peaceful when comfortable and happy, but then I'm not a primatologist. A great way to garner a little more insight into their behaviour and I do recommend the read as it's valid here in relation to cognitive behavioural theories, as well as also being set in the Congo like Tarzan, is the aptly named Congo by Michael Critchon (author of Jurassic Park). This was however published about 20 or more years ago so take his research with a grain of salt as always given that science and study has progressed in that time. What is perhaps the most oddly fitting part of the film that fits both the film's setting context and real time context is the address of the race and slavery issue. Race is something that crops up everywhere and anywhere these days. In fact Race is usually one of the things that we always try to keep so PC - it's a egg shell sort of subject on occasion and representing a particularly atrocious event such as Belgiums treatment of the Congolese people it's not possible to separate our modern view of race with our 19th century counterparts. But Tarzan almost doesn't really need to try; Samuel L Jackson, who is for once the comic relief sidekick rather than the action hero, plays a Civil War veteran who in anger towards the treatment of the African American people was led to shame by similar events amongst the Anerican Indians and the Mexican people. He joins Tarzan on the quest to the Congo as he believes that King Leopold II of Belgium is committing crime against humanity but enslaving the Congolese people to work and make him reach, including mining the legendary diamonds of Opar. And Ivory - ever been keen to see a train export of Ivory ? Me either - especially knowing that every two tusks represent one elephant which are now severely endangered. Thanks Belgium. Jackson's character is a catalyst, break in moments of uncomfortable tension and adds a big touch of realism to the story. The Tarzan legend whilst not impossible takes on from its predessor in the Jungle Book but adding a twist of fantasy to a bad situation, the fantasy by which overrides what actually happened in that period. The fantasy of Tarzan in a film reads like the Disney version - it's there, it happened, you felt kind of fuzzy because everyone lived happily ever after. The original Tarzan books are not like this and by adding Jackson's character to the film it becomes far deeper than just a story about a jungle man and rather something much more substantial without going overboard. Tarzan actually becomes a hero, a flawed one, who not only saves Jane from the bad guys but also puts a serious wrench into the hugely nefarious plan the bad guys have. He's the romantic hero - robust, sexy, loyal and strong - but also altruistic of his people (and animals). Think Robin Hood - will move heaven and earth to save Maid Marion, but a vigilante and protector of the people. Jackson's humanitarian crisis adds that extra layer to both the character and the film by focusing on an area of history that I think is mostly swept under the rug outside of Tarzan and Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness. I left the film thinking 'how the hell did I not know about this?' I'm sure Belgian Congo is in the dictionary right next to Bad Ideas. The only person toasting Leopold II on a job well done is probably Hitler.
Back on the subject of Samuel L Jackson's character, in the way that he watched Tarzan, observes the world around him, and reacts to different situations he is effectively us, the audience. He is the one with the greatest intentions from the beginning, he takes a shot at just about everything that Tarzan does and is the only other character beside Jane that really grasps the full extent to which Tarzan is barely 'civilised'. He polarises our hero is so many different ways and takes a really good shot at displaying a very different type of character to his usual. He's generally pretty brilliant.
Alexander Skarsgard, on the other hand, is just about a fantasy come true. Gentleman by day, wild man by night? Biological imperative, my friends. Man vs Beast. Women love good men, contrary to popular belief, but it's part of our biological makeup in reproduction and mating that we want someone strong with throw down, that can provide for us. That's not anti-feminist to say, or unbelievable, it's just female human nature. But don't worry if you're not following - I intend to extrapolate on what I mean in my next post (Nice Guys vs Bad Boys).
Jane, in just about every adaptation, is the embodiment of this idea. She is always a supporting character that neither contains not condemns Tarzan's wildness, yet brings to him a semblance of civilisation that he never had before. Let's be frank, firstly, and ask what would a jungle man who had never seen a human woman before Jane think? How would they react? The truth is debatable but almost certainly it would be anything but what 19th century social conduct were to consider acceptable. In that frame of thinking Jane, as an adventurer, would have been enticed and attracted by this - most of us, even modern women, would as well today. And Jane really is a modern woman, even if often seen as the Damsel in Distress like Maid Marion would you really consider her to be a weak-willed woman? I don't think so. Margot Robbie plays this fabulously -you don't even have to question the nature of her feminism because she just is a strong character. Just like Tarzan embodies the classic Man vs Beast mentality, Jane also portrays the classic Woman vs Lady topic (I'm sure the actual name for this idea is something far more sophisticated but I don't know it). Jane is soft, caring, nurturing and respectable, but also fiery, passionate, daring and courageous. She reminds us subtly and simply that you don't have to be one or the other, which in the context of Victorian Society where this is actually set makes Jane stick out like a sore thumb. Without it being a big deal Jane is the modern woman. 
That being said even though she kicks some ass, almost pulls of a great escape, and probably could amp it up to a higher level she doesn't. She mostly remains calm and let's Tarzan do his thing before he saves her. That's the key thing - Jane doesn't need to be saved, but she lets herself be. Which when you think about it could say something pretty deep about masculinity, too.
At the end of the day I don't think The Legend of Tarzan is going to be an Oscar winner or make any strong comment on society today more than what we pretty much already know. It's a very idyllic Imperialist story from a time in our Victorian history that we toyed with what it means to be human, our interactions with each other, men and women, different skin colours (let's not say race here), our struggle with self and what it meant, and what was considered to be acceptable among humanity. We were deep in the exploration for what made us human and where we came from, what separated us between us and our animal brethren. Tarzan is an old story from this time that just is what is is - and this adaptation really portrayed that for me. Like I said before it is a nostalgic piece from a time gone by that doesn't big itself done heavily by the worries of 2016.
If you're keen for that, or just for a bit of on screen action, or even just some shirtless Alexander Skarsgard action, then I do recommend giving it a go. At the end of the day it's one of those movies that are really just for fun.
Sam xox
Comments
Post a Comment