M: ALOTJ - Dec 17

Now, a brief word about ‘Mowgli: A Legend of the Jungle’, because real life…doesn’t exactly suck, but sometimes? It rather does, regardless of any details. What about M: ALOTJ then?

The crux point here is not the presence of Tabaqui the hyena – in the original novels it was a jackal. Yes, a jackal is very different from a hyena, but this is creative license to you – even in the original novels, Tabaqui was a minor character, and he got killed…behind the scenes by Grey Brother, one of original Mowgli’s original wolf cohorts. Kipling did not even show that scene, Grey Brother mentioned to Mowgli (and in ‘Mowgli’, I suppose), because the latter was worried, that Tabaqui would tip Shere Khan off about Mowgli’s trap. To that Grey Brother implied that “Oh, don’t worry, I found Tabaqui earlier today and broke his back, so he’s dead now, don’t worry about him’. The end of the jackal/hyena/period. Not that Shere Khan’s death was much more dignified – in the canon, Mowgli trampled him to death with a buffalo herd, (something that was homage in Disney’s Mowgli remake – remember it?), the end of the tiger.

Yes, in the original novels Shere Khan wasn’t really scaring anyone in the jungle – they hated, despised, and reviled him; eating people was against the Jungle Law, (Kipling even included this statement in one of Mowgli’s poems) and it just asking for trouble – sooner or later colored people would come, and white people would come, and there’d be fire, elephants, torches, firearms – this is where Lockwood can come it, probably.

There are British character in the ‘Jungle Book’ – both novels, actually. The thing is that those stories are not Mowgli stories; in ‘Mowgli’ proper, the British exist somewhere behind the scenes, in a good way, but kind of…nebulous. ‘Mowgli’ stories are about India, its’ animals and people – no British are required, thank you very much. In the ‘Mowgli’ movies, of course, the situation can be very different; the British can play a prominent role, and Shere Khan is always someone to be feared… as, say, Megatron from the ‘Transformers’ franchise is. That is Western prejudice, pure and simple!

And Serkis did precisely that, (though not with Shere Khan’s character) – he presented the Western prejudice in the other, earlier Mowgli movies. Lockwood acts as a typical macho man, defending the weak, (whether they asked him or not), but caring only about strength and solving everything only through strength and violence. Mowgli – in the canon – had the smarts too – which brings us to the dholes.

A dhole is a species of wild dog that is only distantly related to such animals as grey wolves, jackals and domestic dogs. It is a representative of a much-older lineage, and it has no close, immediate relatives. Like many other dog species, (including grey wolves and bush dogs), it hunts in packs and as such, it is formidable. It was also the biggest villain in the original ‘Jungle Books’ – Mowgli had to team up with his wolf pack, Kaa, and a few other jungle animals to defeat the invading dhole pack, or as they were called there – ‘the red wolves’. I think, because it has been a while since I read the novels and so far, almost none of the movies showed the dhole story line. Apparently, Disney did play with it in one of its TV cartoon series – one that was actually based on Kipling’s ‘Jungle Book’ novels, but that was a long time ago as well. Anything else?

M: ALOTJ does not have the dhole storyline either, instead we have Mowgli dealing with both Lockwood and Shere Khan, the former because he had killed Mowgli’s wolf friend, Bhoot.

…Bhoot, or bhut, is a ghost in India’s mythology, and a nasty one. Here, Serkis did not do anything really radical either – in the original novels, Mother Wolf actually had a name – Raksha or Rakshasa, which is a demon in India’s mythology - again. Herein lies M: ALOTJ’s problem. Serkis’ version is actually closer to the original novels, especially in the atmosphere – by modern standards, Kipling’s novels, including his YA novels like ‘Mowgli’ – are not very politically correct or child-friendly at all. Neither is Serkis’ movie, but…

But the sad fact is that movies, mass media, are products for sale, abiding the laws of supply and demand as well as anything else. After the 2016’s ‘Mowgli’ version there wasn’t much of a demand for another ‘Mowgli’ version, so it wasn’t very much demanded, and now that it is released, it still isn’t much demanded, and people are comparing it to 2016’s adaptation and are finding it to be more to their liking. Kipling himself isn’t much in demand by contemporary readers and audience any more, Disney itself took a gamble back in 2016 with its’ remake – and yes, it paid off. Serkis’, well, did not. His twist on the story was the semi-evil Englishman; he possibly stands for something metaphorical, but people do not really care. They are upset that this movie is not child-friendly, and it is their call, and they are right. It is not. Serkis might not have been wrong by showing a ‘Mowgli’ that is not really for children, (Kipling’s novels are not really classified by modern standards easily), but this is not what the audiences demand, and in the end, it is their call. They made it. M: ALOTJ is not the success of 2016’s remake. We can move on.

…This is it for now, see you all soon!