The New vs The Familiar

I sat at the table, eating dinner with my wife and young son while watching the newest release from Disney's live action reboots: Mulan. Upon reaching the final moments of the movie I was left with a strange discomfort towards the film I had just sat through. A familiar yet childlike voice uttered a phrase that is used in all types of settings but typically fronted with a hashtag to increase circulation; this particular one being: #notmyMulan

Overall as a story the film wasn't terrible to watch but it's a film that is familiar to many and at the same time, new to even more. As I sat remembering the animated film fondly I looked over to my son who had been playing and eating without concern or issue and realized the film is more or less meant to draw in his age group than it was mine. I knew that Disney had tried to make a film that was both familiar and reinvented to attract all audiences. Marketing wise, that goal was achieved but the response and backlash against it following its release was less than ideal for the infamously known corporation.

Following this film and a short conversation about Disney's run into the "live action" field with my wife; I realized I had not yet seen The Lion King and so we turned to the next film that was the last entry prior to Mulan that was made into a live action film. I immediately noticed the difference between the two features and was again reminded of the animated film that was released in the nineties. I noticed one thing above all though while watching The Lion King; it was an exact, shot-for-shot film that was released. Looking at both the IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes scores these two films sit relatively close to the same ranking and I am left with a question.

"Why?"

To answer this question I am going to go through these two films separately for a brief review and draw a final conclusion at the end. So as the obvious disclaimer must be said: SPOILERS AHEAD!

Mulan: The 2020 release of Mulan is the re-imagining of the classic tale where a young woman impersonates a man in order to save her disabled father from fighting in the approaching war that had been decreed by the Emperor. It features the familiar melodies and music cues of the originally released film in June of 1998. These "songs" include "Honor To Us All" and "Reflection" by Christina Aguilera" I placed songs in quotes because there is no actual singing in the film. The team responsible for the remake elected to create a more realistic film that reflected the period of the story accurately and the turmoil of war in a family-friendly manner.

This meant the removal of the Huns, the original antagonists of the animated film and replaced them with the Rourans, an accurate group of warriors that posed real threat to the dynasty in the time period depicted for the film. The eagle once seen at the beck and call of the animated films antagonist also carried further weight as it was revealed to be a shape-shifting witch that was fighting alongside the villains in the film. Her role was meant to show a contrast between Mulan and she as characters that were the same in their feelings of solitude yet different based on their choices and actions growing-up. The final large change in this film was the removal of Mushu, the comical miniature dragon that watched over Mulan in the animated feature. In his place was a silent and rarely appearing Phoenix that took the place of the familiar family guardian.

As a whole, the story is fleshed out well and the acting is top tier as is expected from the big name studio. While many of the acting names are fairly new in the industry they are sure to find their careers budding further after this release. The writing felt redundant as they came across various scenes and dialogue that explained what, visually, we already were aware of. The heavy application and reminder of "honor" and "family" were brought up several times and in places where it didn't feel appropriate or necessary.

Over all, it felt confusing to watch with the understanding that they wanted to tell an accurate story but then added supernatural elements that were in no way realistic or accurate to the tale. It was like they wanted to bring the elements of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon into the film but still attempt a believable story; unfortunately you can't have both of these themes interact and expect a realistic story to survive at the end.

The Lion King: This was a film that didn't attempt to re-imagine anything other than the method that some of the songs were delivered. This feature brought to the stage a mix of newer and well-known actors as well as having one reprising his role in the remake. From the very opening of the film we are greeted with the infamous opening song of the film followed by a CGI crafted basket of hard work and refined technology.

The animals themselves look thoroughly realistic and even in watching them talk it doesn't really do much to break the illusion that they are animals. Strands of fur and particles of dirt and dust are deceptive as they add to the realism that you are already pulled into. Each scene is recreated from the original animated stills of the film which isn't terrible but leaves little to the mind for expectations as you already know what is going to happen.

Because of this fact I was actually surprised to find that the change of one song in particular had been allowed. "Be Prepared"; a song that was originally sung by Jeremy Irons was altered to an almost low conversation that barely resembled the original theme. It was only when approaching the very end of the song that it begin to feel right. I have no idea why this change was made other than the possibility that the actor who voiced "Scar" in the remake wasn't able to meet the same range or tempo of the original song.

The more welcoming feature of this film was that of James Earl Jones who reprised his role as Mufasa. The familiar speeches and low tones of the popular figure sat well and I believe helped the acceptance of this feature to a public of all age groups. It lent the happy feeling of youth while establishing a new standard for family households all together.

Conclusion: "Why are these two starkly different films sitting at the same score ratings?" is answered simply as this: It's not for the old but for the new. With technology improving and our devices and TV's getting sharper and clearer it's not possible for the oldest of these films to retain their longevity. Today, films and television shows are ripped apart for their faults rather than enjoyed for what they were. Disney themselves is known to have missed editing cuts and even recycled their backgrounds and characters across multiple generations of film.

Recreating these familiar tales, whether it be a total reimagining or an exact copy is how Disney is able to fix the errors of their previous work and deliver stories that are less inclined for attack and dissection. This approach to filmmaking is able to appeal to the new generation because they expect greater from their technology and their surroundings. Video games are becoming more realistic; movies are turning to CGI to bring their stories to life; the safety and comfort controls of your home sit at the tips of your fingers via smart phones. So how would they be expected to watch the old films we grew up with and be content when we as a society have evolved into being able to give to them all that they ask?

I know at least that in some small way I am still able to pass down the experiences of my own youth with my son while still experiencing them in a new context. It's like going on a journey together because now, even as the adult in the situation, the films and emotions that will be associated with them shall be as unique as they were upon viewing the originals.