The Lion King Is the Latest Disney Remake That Can’t Grasp “Hakuna Matata”
A film is made. It’s a hit. The hit film spawns sequels. The sequels, which are poor to middling, are seen widely but not beloved like the original. With age, the original film becomes a classic. Finally, in 25 years’ time, the original film is remade. It’s the new circle of life, and it’s come to rule Hollywood.
The latest film to take this journey is, of course, The Lion King, the star-studded remake of Disney’s 1994 masterpiece of the same title—though remake isn’t quite the right word. The new Lion King is more of a restoration. Directed by Jon Favreau, this update scarcely changes a word or a set piece from the original. What it does change is a blade of grass—a bunch of them. It brings the original’s cartoon graphics into the future with “live-action filmmaking techniques, virtual reality tools, and photoreal computer-generated imagery” (snazzy PR speak, which translates to: The new Pumbaa is gray and his skin is dry!). And it likewise brings the animal kingdom into the future with new voices, like Seth Rogen’s (as that aforementioned warthog), Donald Glover’s (as Simba), Billy Eichner’s (as Timon), and John Oliver’s (as Zazu). Am I forgetting someone? … Oh right, Eric Andre voices a hyena!
I kid, so hold the stampede. Beyoncé is here, Beyoncé is here. Yes, the queen of culture herself. Nants ingonyama bagithi baba / Sithi uhm ingonyama! And though the film underutilizes her highness—for the most part, as grown-up Nala, she’s [gasp] just another voice—Queen Bey is one of this Lion King’s best justifications: Is there a movie that’s not worth remaking to include Beyoncé?
Otherwise, as to why this and why now, you’re left with 4K TVs (money), giving parents the opportunity to experience The Lion King with their children in a theater (money), and making Chance the Rapper’s dreams come true (money).
Did I mention that 2017’s live-action Beauty and the Beast remake grossed $500 million? That 2016’s live-action Jungle Book remake (also directed by Favreau) grossed over $350 million? That 2015’s live-action Cinderella remake grossed $200 million? Or that 2014’s live-action Sleeping Beauty reimagining—Maleficent—grossed $240 million?
Live-action remakes of Disney classics aren’t a brand new development—who could forget Robin Williams in 1991’s Hook or Glenn Close in 1996’s 101 Dalmatians?—but they’ve reached a tipping point. Just as the wild success of Sam Raimi’s 2002 Spider-Man and Christopher Nolan’s 2005 Batman Begins ushered in an era of perpetual superhero (the only thing, it turns out, no superhero could save us from), the success of these Disney remakes seems to be ushering in an era of perpetual fairytale. Live-action remakes of Aladdin, Dumbo, and Winnie the Pooh (this one titled Christopher Robin) are in the books. New takes on The Little Mermaid, Mulan, 101 Dalmatians (Cruella), The Hunchback of Notre Dame, Pinocchio, and Lady and the Tramp are coming soon.
These remakes have gone in several different directions—mildly auteurist (Tim Burton’s Dumbo, the Alex Ross Perry-penned Christopher Robin), mildly woke (Aladdin, Beauty and the Beast), and plain mild (The Lion King, Jungle Book, Cinderella). And they’ve done so to varying levels of success, both artistically and financially. Personally, I’m partial to Christopher Robin, with its dark, dreamy aesthetic and viscerally forlorn and ragged stuffed animals (I’ve heard it referred to as “the perfect cuddle movie”). Of course, banking just short of $100 million, that relatively ambitious take on Winnie the Pooh was a comparative dud.
The reality is that these remakes have yet to yield anything approaching a classic. The Emma Watson-led Beauty and the Beast is far and away the biggest hit of the bunch, but fans’ and critics’ tastes have yet to converge around one of these films for a phenomenon approaching Black Panther, The Dark Knight, or, frankly, any of Disney’s animated originals. With each of these remakes, there’s something conspicuously lacking.
What that something is, exactly, is hard to put your finger on. At this point, I’m not terribly nostalgic for the original Disney films (if I was, I probably would’ve actually enjoyed the faithful new The Lion King), and I certainly don’t view anything in Disney’s catalog as sacrosanct. But that “Disney magic” that the company likes to carry on about—if it exists, it’s in short supply these days. Maybe it simply can’t coexist with nakedly craven money-grubbing. Or maybe it’s tough to elicit when audiences know how the story ends. Or maybe it’s just harder to suspend disbelief when the images on the screen look realistic than when they’re pure cartoons.
But I suspect that the lack of magic (I’m sorry, that word is my “moist,” too) has as much or more to do with the restorative quality of these films. Like with 4K TVs or runway models’ faces, perfection, or something approaching it, is ultimately rather dull. For the most part, these remakes are technically impressive—none more so than The Lion King—but they lack the wabi-sabi of the originals. Something intangible is lost by having Pumbaa look like an actual warthog, or by being able to make out individual blades of grass in the savanna. The original The Lion King was a perfect movie not in spite of its imperfections, but because of them. Favreau’s remake includes a rendition of “Hakuna Matata,” but here, no worries is just a passing phrase.
Originally Appeared on GQ
