It was in the 90s that The Lion King roared into our lives. The Disney Studios classic brought to life a magical tale of a lost, bewildered lion cub and his journey to becoming the king of the jungle. The global success of the animated film spun off a series of animated movies that came out at regular intervals.
In real life, the lions in the African continent might be ‘vulnerable’ as per IUCN status or shot for a few thousand dollars by avid trophy-hunters, but in reel life, they ruled the roost, raking in millions at BO across the globe.
After the immense success of the series, in 2019, the studios ditched the classy animated style and went in for ‘photo-realism’ — that converted the 2D funny Simba into a close-to-realistic one with CGI. It was surreal because suddenly the movie seemed real — somewhat like those Discovery and NatGeo docudramas — except instead of Sir David Attenborough taking us through the plot, you had Hollywood actors speaking on behalf of the lions and others.
This conversion into photo-realism presents a unique challenge, as at times, it is difficult to suspend disbelief, and the lions don’t seem like characters etched by screenplay writers but real ones in flesh and bones living in the plains of Masai Mara. Only during the incredulous parts, like all animals bowing gratuitously in front of the lion king, is when the brain jolts back to reality.
Nonetheless, a film like The Lion King: Mufasa has a fantastic opportunity to incorporate some aspects of the real world into the narrative, not just the skin tone or the walk and gait. But dig a little deeper and incorporate some aspects of animal life into the film. I so wish that, among the long army of CGI experts that the studio employs, they would also make space for a bunch of biologists who would aid in etching out the characters a tad more realistically.
Of course, I don’t mean converting the fun movie into a drab documentary, which only a few would watch—but just paying attention to some broader aspects. Things that glaringly stand out like a sore thumb.
Let me enumerate a few of them as a layperson. I am sure a biologist or a zoologist will have a laundry list of suggestions. But then, let’s aim for the LCM people. I hope the big bosses at Disney have got their notepads and tablets, so here it goes:
Lion: The king of the jungle. Really?
Once upon a time, there used to be kings and queens; now, well, let’s just say there are POTUS and Taylor Swifts. Even the good ol’ monarch of the erstwhile British Empire has lost his mojo. So the sobriquet of the king is rather tenuous these days. How about a leader of a political party that radicalises the population and becomes the president? Or a general who disposes of the elected leader in a military coup?
Even in the animal kingdom, the lion is actually not as brave and mighty as he (or she) is made out to be. Herbivores like elephants, rhinos, hippos and even the wily buffaloes constantly whack the lions around. Even the Wildebeest seem to have got on the trend, and now and then, you come across a video where they confront the lions en masse, rather than running around in disarray.
Yet in the Lion King filmdom, all the animals, including all the above and even carnivores like hyenas and cheetahs, are all curtsying to HRH. I am sure many of them wouldn’t even notice Mufasa or any one of his kith and kin roaring a few feet away. Rather than scurrying away, they would be much more likely to kick Mufassa’s butt.
Lionic Liaisons
So, let’s start with a bit of Panthera leo-101 (Latin name for lions, duh!). Everyone knows lions are apex predators, the top ones on the food chain, etc. Among all the big cats, they are the only ones that prefer to stay in a group — pride. But even when they do, they are still bound by certain genetically coded norms. For instance, the average size of the pride is around 15-20, usually lorded by a male or two. Fortunately, unlike humans, there is no primogeniture in the lion world. For the lion dad, his offspring is not his successor but competition. A young male will only be tolerated in pride until around 2-3 years of age and will be chased out to seek life on his own.
Thus, all this father-son thing is pure bunkum in the lion world. And so is the cutie-cutie romance. You see, the idea of lording over a pride is that you can proudly mate with all the lionesses. This sex business is the cause of constant strife in a lion’s life. While incest is not common in the lion kingdom, it is certainly not impossible. Darwin’s Law — survival of the fittest is at play in the wild. By the way, Darwin did not make that law, but then you get the hint.
Coming back to our goodly Lion Kings’-dom, all this display of monogamous affectation, be it for Sarabi, Nala or whosoever, is not a possibility. Neither is Mufasa’s love for Simba or Masego for Mufasa or even Ahadi/Obasi for Taka (Scar). Honestly, the only character in the film with a little bit of real-world ‘lionity’ is Scar. Yes, the scheming, plotting and coveting-the-throne Scar. The rest are just — let’s say, not lion enough.
The age of chivalrous cooperation
The root of the word chivalry comes from the French term Chevalier. While the English term romanticises the idea, giving it a courteous and honourable spin, the French term had a more militia or military connotation. The moot point is, are wild animals chivalrous, or can they be? Well, yes, they can if you look at them from the French prism.
Unlike in human society, there is minimal cooperation within the animals, especially between different species. Thus, you might see a troop of baboons acting together, but you will never catch a pack of baboons and chimpanzees cooperating. They would much rather square off against each other than work along. In short, there is never an inter-species alliance formulated in a lion’s world. It is a simple eat-or-be-eaten universe.
Thus, all this imagery about animals coming together and fighting off a common enemy is way too preposterous even to consider. Maybe the scriptwriters at Disney need to reconsider the Braveheart kind of drama, where a speech by the hero will move all the others into action. That doesn’t happen.
Masking the carnivore
If you happen to watch the real lions on Discovery and NatGeo, they are constantly doing one of three things: sleeping, eating, or mating. Meanwhile, the reel lions in Disney films do none of these. They are continually playing, they barely hunt, and since it is PG, they can’t have sex either. Forget sex; I haven’t even seen Disney lions splaying and marking their territory like they do all the time in the real world. The meerkat Timon and warthog Pumba joke on the lions’ diets. But we don’t witness any hunt in the film until villains like hyenas or the outsiders come into the picture. It is almost like the good lions in Disney films eat berries or insects at best, while the bad ones eat meat. The noble ones are vegetarians, and the villains are non-vegetarians. Neither is there this promised land of Milele — lions have territories miles and miles of it, and they learn to live within it. They don’t wistfully look at the horizon, coveting what someone else has.
The only touch of reality betrayed is when Obasi tells his son Taka that the best male lions do is sleep while the lioness hunts. Or, for that matter, when Rafiki corrects someone that he is not a baboon but a mandrill. Sadly, such instances are relatively limited.
A bit about Anthropomorphism
Anthropomorphism can be defined as a literary device that attributes human characteristics to non-human entities, like animals. Human emotions like love, jealousy, brotherhood, etc. We have seen anthropomorphism at work in books like Panchatantra, Jataka Tales, Aesop Fables, and Jungle Book. Usually, this tool is used in children’s literature.
The real challenge arises when we start ascribing human traits, especially to wild animals, such as brotherly love. This way, certain animals get labelled: cunning fox, wily wolf, stupid monkey, etc. Automatically, our biases get stronger over time, and we look at justifications in animal behaviour to justify our beliefs. This can be very detrimental to conservation. People might fight to save a forest populated by the ‘cute’ Koala bear but for the hunting dogs or Dhole.
My only humble suggestion to the Disney-wallas is to consciously avoid anthropomorphism actively. Try to incorporate nuances of animal behaviourism — let the lions utter deep, guttural growls, snarls, chuffs, moans, and grunts, in addition to the iconic roar from Pride Rock. In the fim, Zootopia — Nick the Fox brings out this contradiction beautifully, stating that predators are assumed to be wild while herbivores are gentle. That truly is a consequence of anthropomorphism.
That is why foresters are wary of ascribing names to tigers instead of numbers in Tiger Reserves. As people then try to get emotional — that tigress is Machli’s daughter, that one there is Sultan’s son and so on. These are wild animals, and we must respect the wildliness in them.
In the end, my request to the Disney studios is that just like they have invested in the movie’s ‘photo-realism,’ they should also look at some biological-realism in the films. Maybe that will aid in conserving these animals in the wild and not just on celluloid.
Shashwat DC
Recent Comments