Tarzan and Jane: A Tragedy

     Disney sequels. Sigh... That's the post, that's it.

   Alright, obviously that was a joke that failed miserably, but let's start this over once more from the inception. It's a common stigma that sequels are generally a lesser product than the original which they are stemming from. Those Land Before Time sequels, the constant Transformers installments, all of these different examples have exhibited why the stereotype of bad sequels has been so generally accepted among not just cinema fans, but the common consensus as a whole. The insipid "next installments" in franchises often do nothing to expand on the original, but far too often retread familiar ground, or demonstrate inferior craft and care in the production of such sequels. Nothing exemplifies the notion of bad film sequels than the infamous Disney direct-to-DVD sequels.

       For a bit of history surrounding the necessity of these sequels, their existences are not even faintly justified. The first sequel, Aladdin and the Return of Jafar, arrived to home video in 1994, at the peak of what was known as the Disney Renaissance. For the uninformed, the Disney Renaissance were a series of 10 or so films that were considered critical and (mostly) commercial successes, especially in the first half of the Renaissance (1989-1994), and propelled the Walt Disney Animation Studio out of a dark and rather unhappy string of luck. To capitalize off of some of their most prominent films, Disney adapted their films into television series that supposedly picked off where the films ended, or explored another corner of their universe. Return of Jafar was a backdoor pilot for the forthcoming Aladdin television show, and while the film itself was nothing spectacular (or so I've heard), it was a smash-hit with the kids and families, becoming one of the best selling videos on home media. Disney would soon branch these direct-to-video animations into their own prolific studio, DisneyToon Studios, which produced solely direct-to-video Disney sequels or spinoffs. After the Renaissance ended, Disney hit another slump in their animated films, entering a 2nd dark age, and forcibly causing them to retreat more and more into their Disney DVD sequels, which were the only major profits Disney was making.

     Now, as a child, I never even glanced at these Disney sequels. I don't recall their existence, and I remember only finding out about them through the various YouTube videos obliterating them. Disney films were some of the few films  that, as a child, I felt did not warrant sequels. The Circle of Life is complete, no need to replicate it. As a child, I was exposed to different sequels, such as Empire Strikes Back, the Back to the Future sequels, and the Toy Story trilogy, all of which had expanded on the universe of the original, and provided further character insights that contextualized the films in a better manner. For the longest time, I was under the impression that the Disney sequels could be worthwhile, that they could provide something of substance that helps deepen my appreciation for their respective properties.After viewing Tarzan and Jane, I will certainly be far more apprehensive to take the leap of faith into further Disney sequels. 

     A question that you as a reader may inquire is "Why Tarzan and Jane?" Well, to answer that, I would need to dedicate an entire section to its predecessor, Tarzan. Luckily, we're in quarantine, so I have a plethora of hours to do anything I want, so to explain Tarzan won't hurt. Initially, I was planning to write a post on each of the Disney Renaissance films, but after The Little Mermaid, I realized I didn't have much to say about the rest. However, there was one film I truly wished to speak on, and that film was Tarzan.

   Now, Tarzan is not a nostalgic property to me, as I don't recall putting it on when it played on television, or renting it from the library. There was a VHS of Tarzan in my garage, and the imagery and iconography was a quality I was able to recall from the film far more than other renaissance films. Returning to it after nearly a decade and a half somehow felt nostalgic, even though I never recalled viewing the film (I probably did in my infancy). The reason I wanted to cover Tarzan so definitively was that it is actually my favorite of the Renaissance classics. This is quite a strange remark, as Tarzan would rank quite low on other lists due to its departure from the Disney musical formula, and  the agreeably horrific comedic relief, which was quite misplaced compared to other films. I will always come to Tarzan's defense in spite of these complaints. You'll Be in my Heart is a song that I listened to on repeat thoroughly in 10th grade, as a separate entity from Tarzan, and listening to it again through the lens of the film is emotionally impactful in context, and evocative of fond memories in Chemistry and English class out of context. Tarzan is a multifaceted and intricate character, holding a similar burning curiousity to other Disney heroes, but like Quasimodo of Notre Dame, propels himself further by demonstrating an inner conflict between his "Two Worlds," a sort of identity crisis that creates an easy-to-empathize-with character. Jane is a good character, and I will hear no other say on the matter. Clayton is a bit bland, but he certainly wears his villain status on his sleeve. Overall, the reason I truly enjoyed the film so much was the drama and the romance of it all. It's kind of hard to eloquently phrase that, but no matter. The soundtrack and Phil Collin's songs are at the heart of the film, driving the narrative as an expression of Tarzan's heart, and the songs bop harder than they deserve to. Something that I also noticed as an older audience is how well-directed the film is in comparison to the other films. While other films have great moments, those are mostly driven by the charm of the film, and the narrative beats. The director here was Kevin Lima, and while I didn't particularly enjoy his work on A Goofy Movie, that can be chalked up to the narrative choices, not the direction. Chris Buck was also a director on Tarzan, but props to both of them, because they managed to streamline this film very effectively. There are so many mind-boggling shots, mostly chalked up to deep canvas, that impress me, and watching the teaser trailer caused me to realize how well shot the entire darn film is.In particular, there was this one shot inside a tree trunk, where Tarzan and Jane are sliding through to escape Baboons. It's just their character models, and some white light seeping in from the outside, but it's quite frankly one of the most jawdropping scenes I've seen in an animated film. This is by far the most "cinematic" Disney has ever felt (Excluding Fantasia and Fantasia 2000). It is almost stunning in its beauty. It's extremely hard to put down why I will fondly remember this Renaissance outing more so than other Renaissance films, but the film itself will certainly be in my heart for years to come. There's no personally connection. I just really love the film, and consider it one of Disney's best. I truly wished to write about it, but what else could I say beside "The film is pretty, Jane is best Disney princess, don't @ me"?

    Coming off the masterpiece that was Tarzan, I wasn't expecting to watch Tarzan and Jane. I had seen a few YouTube videos floating around that decimated the film, as well as Tarzan II (Which I have not seen). However, my mind kept floating back to the story of Tarzan and his family of apes, so what do I do? Of course I boot up Disney + and start watching Tarzan and Jane. After three separate watch sessions, I finally finished the 76 minute film. Before this, my opinion on sequels was relatively positive, but this film was not in any way competent. The film itself was a backdoor pilot for the Tarzan television series that aired on Disney Channel, explaining the quite horrendous animation quality, a stark contrast to the original 1999 film. Before you start yelling at me, "Matthew, stop comparing it to the original, and treat it as its own film", as a film, it blows. Hard.

     The film is comprised of three separate vignettes, describing times in which Tarzan clashed with the societal standards of Victorian-Era England. On paper, that may sound like an interesting concept, but it is executed with sloppy and childish writing. There is nothing here. It doesn't remotely even feel like the original film. The characters don't learn much. Jane's friends are bigoted and stagnant. Those diamond miners were one-sided and stagnant. Robert Conler was stagnant. Nothing changes in this story. No one learns anything. There is no value to be learned, and it feels like we as an audience go nowhere, and aren't rewarded for sticking along for the runtime. No character development is not inherently a flaw. Marty doesn't learn anything in the original Back to the Future film, but it still is my 2nd favorite film of all time. Why is that? Because the story itself is interesting. There are narrative stakes for all of these characters, and a solid beating heart behind it. Tarzan and Jane feels hollow, corporate, and lazy. The film's scenarios are not pleasant viewing, especially because of the animation, and there is no fulfillment to be gained, or challenge to the audience. The film reuses Two Worlds, which is insulting, as the original film used it to establish the conflict and resolution of Tarzan's character arc. This direct-to-video film uses it almost like an intro to a television series, which it would eventually become. Something I can note of positivity is that the film attempted to have themes, such as the conflict between civilization and Tarzan. I would give it more points, but then again, we are retreading familiar grounds. This was done in Tarzan (1999) and resolved, so why do we feel the need to revisit this? For the sake of story scenarios? And why does Tarzan need to have an anniversary with Jane? The notion is sweet, but they live in a jungle, find other ways to celebrate besides throwing an English party. The voice actors from the film don't return, and while that's a relief for Terk, I genuinely disliked how deep Tarzan's voice was compared to Tony Goldwyn, while also missing some of Goldwyn's feral qualities in his voice. However, the most egregious sin was replacing Minnie Driver with some other voice actress. Driver has this quality to her voice that I just find absolutely lovely, and the new voice actress, no matter how hard she tried, could not replicate this. I know this is nitpicky, but I'm kind of at a loss for words. I was so aggravated by the film, and I think the following moment exemplified this. At the end of the film, Tarzan gives Jane a ring for the anniversary , and this leitmotif from Mark Mancina's score (Watch Sideway's deconstruction of Tarzan, it's fantastic) played. I felt genuinely insulted by this, because the film was so horrible, that to use Mancina's magnificent score felt like a crime to me. Essentially, I was saying to myself, "You don't deserve to use that theme."

     I was appalled by Tarzan and Jane. When I looked up the credits for the film, I saw Victor Cook as one of the directors, and was shocked. He directed the Spectacular Spider-Man television series, which was fantastic and stylish. Here, there's no style. Or substance. I was genuinely heartbroken by this film, because it represented soullessness at its peak. There is no effort being put here, and it doesn't even remotely feel like the Tarzan I love. I had a more critical opinion of Mulan than most, but my friend told me that, in the end, it was a kids movie, and we should enjoy it for what it is. I disagree with that. One of Walt Disney's standards was to make entertainment not just for the kids to enjoy, but also the entire family. There should be no compromise in quality due to age demographics. If you have a good story to tell, you should tell it. We also shouldn't have to hold these direct-to-video films to a different standard just because they are cheaper and less well-made. If the film is bad, we should say its bad. Walt Disney himself was a man of quality. He supervised a majority of the Disney productions in his time, and when one department slipped, he would focus his attention on it (i.e. Sword and the Stone flopped, so Walt paid close attention to Jungle Book more so than any animated film from a decade or two before). He wanted to make sure that children were not simply enchanted, but adults and teens as well. He wanted to make sure Disney was a symbol of quality. With these direct-to-DVD sequels, it is quite clear that this principle was not upheld in the slightest, and that money was on the company's mind more so than perfection. I defend Disney quite a bit, but this is an area where I simply can not. If Walt was alive today, I think he'd be saddened at the sight of these sequels. I know I was.