The Lion King Roars as a Classic

FILM

The Lion King

Directed by Roger Allers & Rob Minkoff

at local theaters

First of all, this is not The New Yorker.

Usually that would be clear right away. But this piece is talking about "The Lion King," and for the past few weeks, any mention of the movie overheard by the reviewer has been accompanied by a mention of Anthony Lane's review in that august journal.

This review differs from Lane's in two small but important ways--first, it's being printed in a newspaper, not a magazine; second, it's fairly positive. Lane's harsh words notwithstanding, "The Lion King" is one of the better movies of the summer.

It's certainly one of the more dramatic. The movie begins with Mufasa, king of the plains (NOT the jungle--the Disney people are too smart to fall for cliches here) presenting his small cub, Simba, to his assorted subjects. Elephants trumpet. The soundtrack rises in pitch. And then, the scene suddenly disappears from the screen, abruptly replaced with "THE LION KING"--blood-red, no less (more on that later).

You've heard the story already, no doubt. Mufasa, a feared but well-liked ruler, his mate Sarabi and their son Simba live together in the seemingly harmonious land of Pride Rock. There's something rotten in the kingdom, though--Mufasa's brother Scar, the younger sibling simply green-eyed (literally) with jealousy of his brother's power.

Carrying out the Hamlet-esque overtones of the tale, Scar plots to kill Mufasa and Simba and seize power. While Simba survives his uncle's machinations, Scar manages to convince him that Simba was responsible for hid father's violent death, causing Simba to go into exile.

But Simba, thought to be dead, finds a paradise and some protectors. Eventually, he grows up and, prodded by his best friend Nala, returns to claim his birthright.

There are the bare bones (no pun intended) of the tale. Of course, in the 87 minutes of the movie, much more is presented. Simba's relationship with his father and the effect Mufasa's death has on the small cub is a prominent subtheme. Their bond carries even beyond death, and Simba's wish to make his father proud is a realistic drive. While the father-child relationship is a common element in Disney tales, this one is somehow much stronger, perhaps because the father is neither overly harsh (a la "The Little Mermaid") nor a bumbling fool ("Beauty and the Beast," "Aladdin").

Or perhaps it's because it's so clear that this father would kill to protect his son, and nearly does at one point. Which brings up the topic of violence. In terms of modern-day action flicks, "Lion King," isn't too bad, but for a children's tale, it's a bit on the heavy side. Fortunately, the violence is confined to certain scenes rather than being endemic, but it's still there.

Presumably if you're reading and comprehending this review, you're old enough to handle a few fight scenes. But if you're thinking about bringing small children along, you might want to be on the lookout. (Then again, if those small children are into violent cartoons, they probably won't have many problems). And Mufasa's death scene is enough to make even the most jaded child ask his/her parents if "they'll always be there for them.

Of course, the violence wouldn't be such a factor without the vivid animation. Some reviewers have complained about the over-head angles and sweeping panoramic views used in the film. Nuts to them. The wilds of Africa are not the tame civilization to get in the beauty and the devastation in the movie without a wide-scale dramatic presentation.

And, of course, the lions move like real lions, the giraffes move like real giraffes, the warthog moves like a real warthog...you get the picture. The animation is, well, classic Disney. Which means it's good--amusing at some points, breathtaking at others.

There are some particularly good examples of animation in the film--such as the evil Scar, who slinks around the kingdom. In fact, Scar is such an interesting character that it's a testament to the moviemakers that he doesn't eclipse the honorable Mufasa. He fairly radiates unctuous evil wherever he goes, although Simba never seems to notice.

In fact, Scar (whose voice is provided sinisterly by Jeremy Irons) is somewhat reminiscent Irons' character in "Reversal of Fortune." Wonder why. He may not be human, but he definitely takes his place in the annals of Disney's great villains (hey, he allies him self with hyenas).

Scar, in essence, represents destruction and disarray, a clear threat to the balance of life the movie stresses. But this theme is not one of the movie's stronger points. While Mufasa may tell his son that the food chain is a circle--though the lions eat the antelopes, the lions' bodies become grass that the antelopes eat--he's speaking form his exalted position at the top of it. Let's put it this way--this movie makes it clear that lions are not vegetarians.

In other words, Mufasa is one of history's few great kings who literally has his subjects for dinner. Yet they still seem to adore him, and he's popular in Pride Rock. So goes the split personality of "Lion King," something that detracts from the film.

But Mufasa is essentially right about the interdependent nature of ecology. The movie makes it clear that its characters exist as part of a delicate environmental balance, a balance that allows the characters to live. When the balance is destroyed, the land suffers.

Sound simple? Tell that to the poachers in Africa, or to those farming on rain forest land. "Lion King" somehow manages to be ecology-minded without being preachy. It doesn't offer platitudes, Just the stark reasons for maintaining a balance in nature.

And in the real world, packs of animals live alongside the lions that they know will eat them. True, it seems a bit much to suggest that Mufasa's subject adore him. But if you thought your king might eat you if you showed disrespect, you'd celebrate the birth of his kid in fine fashion too.

In other words, suspend disbelief for a bit and enjoy other parts of the movie. Such as the soundtrack.

Yes, it's necessary to deal with some Tim Rice lyrics (which make me mourn Howard Ashman even more every time I hear them). Yes, the songs seem a bit gimmicky at times. But they're good. I can't really describe them will, but take my word for it, the music is powerful and moving.

And the voices are extremely well-chosen. Whoopi Goldberg makes a great hyena, and Robert Guillaume a hilarious baboon/mystic. James Earl Jones has the true vocal chords of a king (and hey, we're used to hearing his disembodied voice). Even the lesser-known voices seem to fit their characters well, except, unfortunately, for the adult Simba's tones. Somehow, Matthew Broderick just doesn't remind the average viewer of a powerful lion king.

The voices have an unexpected, subtle effect--that of diversity. In fact, the combination of an all-animal cast and a diverse group of voices gives an aura of diversity much stronger than any from "Aladdin," ostentatiously Disney's grand effort at diversity.

Why? Maybe it's because many of the voices are readily associated with well-known actors of different races, or maybe it's because Disney's not trying too hard this time.

Oh, and one more enjoyable point to the movie: the lionesses hunt. Yes, that's right, just as in real life, the lionesses, not the lions, hunt. Mufasa may be cool, but it's Sarabi that brings home the wildebeast bacon. And when Nala and Simba are reunited, she's on the prowl for dinner. Nice to see some accuracy about animal behavioral patterns in a child's film.

There are, of course, many other things I haven't mentioned about "The Lion King" that are important. Such as the scene where a hornbill voiced by "Four Wedding and a Funeral's" Rowen Atkinson starts singing "It's a Small World." That's because the movie is too much to fully encapsulate in one review. If you want the full effect of "The Lion King," shell out your seven bucks. For better or for worse, it's quite an experience.