The Jungle Book Re-Imagined

Home , Shere Khan, The Jungle Book 2, William Henry Sleeman

This may be the author’s version of a work that was submitted/accepted for publication in the following source:

Hawkes, Lesley (2017) The Jungle Book Re-Imagined. In Childrens Media Symposium, 2017-11-24 - 2017-11-24. (Unpublished)

This ﬁle was downloaded from: https://eprints.qut.edu.au/122454/

c 2017 The Author

This work is covered by copyright. Unless the document is being made available under a Creative Commons Licence, you must assume that re-use is limited to personal use and that permission from the copyright owner must be obtained for all other uses. If the document is available under a Creative Commons License (or other speciﬁed license) then refer to the Licence for details of permitted re-use. It is a condition of access that users recog- nise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. If you believe that this work infringes copyright please provide details by email to [email protected]

License: Creative Commons: Attribution-Noncommercial 4.0

Notice: Please note that this document may not be the Version of Record (i.e. published version) of the work. Author manuscript versions (as Sub- mitted for peer review or as Accepted for publication after peer review) can be identiﬁed by an absence of publisher branding and/or typeset appear- ance. If there is any doubt, please refer to the published source. Re-imagining Rudyard Kipling’s The Jungle Book

Introduction

There have been at least four feature films (The Jungle Book, 1967, Rudyard Kipling’s The

Jungle Book 1994, The Jungle Book 2, 2003 and The Jungle Book 2016) of Rudyard

Kipling’s The Jungle Book with another due in October 2018. There is also talk that Disney will release a follow up to its successful 2016 version. Rudyard Kipling’s The Jungle Book was published in 1893 and is set in Seoni (Kipling spells in Seeonee) in Madhya Pradesh,

India. Kipling had spent a lot of time in India. He had been born in Mumbai (Bombay at that time) in 1865, had left at a young age to be educated in Britain and had returned in 1882.

However, he had never been to Seoni. He based his descriptions in the stories on retellings of the landscape from friends who had spent time there on vacation and on books by Robert

Armitage Strendale and William Sleeman.i When a fan sent Kipling a letter requesting information on the accuracy of the jungle landscape Kipling wrote back, ‘I should be the last to deny the accuracy of your geography, but in fact I never went to Seoni’ (Ghate, 2007, 1).ii

Rudyard Kipling’s original story is filled with colonial ideas of institutional power and control and much has been written on the imperialist point of view evident in his writing. The latest film versions of The Jungle Book have attempted to distance themselves from colonial points of view but they still retain an anthropocentric point of view. The animals have agency and their own voice but their intelligence is still viewed through a human lens. There is also a strong hierarchy of animals with the young male human placed at the top of this hierarchy.

The 2016 version of The Jungle Book (John Favreau, 2016)iii stays away from colonial ideas and allows a more nonhuman philosophy to emerge but even this film has strong binaries of good animals and bad animals. This article explores the 2016 film adaptation of The Jungle

Book and Kipling’s original stories and examines how the animals and the land are framed by

1 an anthropocentric lens. It also explores how narrative boundaries are beginning to be pushed and subverted to reveal nonhuman imaginings and stories.

Human Centred

Rudyard Kipling’s The Jungle Book begins with Tabaqul- the Dish-licker jackal looking for food scraps and being shamed for his habits by the superior wolf pack (they are called the

Free People). A discussion occurs on why all animals should not eat humans: ‘The real reason for this is that man-killing means, sooner, or later, the arrival of white men on elephants, with guns, and hundreds of brown men with gongs and rockets and torches’.iv It is also ‘un-sportsmen-like’ to hunt humans because they are physically weak. From the beginning of Kipling’s story strict moral rules and laws are set up. Humans, white men in particular, are seen as having technology and power and the desire to enact revenge upon the animals.

Escaping the clutches of Shere Khan (the tiger), a small human male child enters the wolves’ den and is taken in by caring wolf-parents: ‘a naked brown baby who could just walk.’v

Mother Wolf’s maternal instinct is so strong she cannot pass up the opportunity to care for a lost, playful and brave man cub who is alone and needs help: ‘How little! How naked, and – how bold!’vi The 2016 film version takes a very different approach to framing the story. It begins with a young Mowgli (Neel Sethi) swinging through the trees and in full adventure mode. We only hear of how he got to the jungle through a flashback section when he is lost in the hypnotic eyes of Kaa the python (Scarlett Johansson).

The original stories place more emphasis on the effect of being brought up within a family of wolves. The wolves are represented as being of a superior class and standard and see it as their rightful duty to protect the man-cub. In comparison the film version emphasises the independence and individuality of Mowgli. Justin Marks wrote the screenplay for the film

2 and based it on both of the Jungle Books. However, Marks’ story is more about the coming together of an individual child, an individual bear, a black- panther, a tiger, and a snake, than the original stories. The original stories emphasised species and types. Marks has removed ideas of essentialism and the idea that all animals belonging to one species are the same.

Kipling’s stories are more essentialist in tone and they set up that the narrator knows the animals in a universal and all-knowing manner. Shefali Rajamannar finds that, ‘Kipling thought of the animals in terms of fixed essence’.vii Each animal stands in for and represents its species. Kipling puts forward the idea that one of Shere Khan’s greatest flaws is that he acts as an individual who does not follow community rules but thinks only of himself: “He has no right!” Father Wolf began angrily—“By the law of the Jungle he has not right to change his quarters without due warning.”’viii Shere Khan is dangerous because he thinks for himself and does not follow conventions. Tharini Viswanath writes, “Indeed, one has power when he/she establishes a sense of individuality and the capacity to act consciously independent from his/her social group” (Viswanath 2017, 3).

Tess Cosslett writes, ‘many of Kipling’s stories depend on a narrator who has inside knowledge of some secret or esoteric society, culture or organisation’ix. The narrator in

Kipling’s stories relays seemingly truthful and insider information about animals and laws to the reader. Cosslett finds that Kipling’s stories promote the idea that adults know what the differences are between animals and humans and adults know how each species is defined.

They have knowledge of an ‘adult truth’ which they pass on to children.x The film allows for a more subtle understanding of each animal to occur. The animals appear to have a more developed and complex personality which is not known by Mowgli until he spends time with each of them and they choose to tell him their stories. This is an interesting point of difference. The animals have a backstory and history and they reveal these stories in their own time. For instance Baloo saves Mowgli from being eaten by Kaa but only so he can use

Mowgli to get honey. Baloo does not see the human as someone higher up than him on any hierarchal chain but rather as someone he can use for his own gains. Mowgli slowly learns the complexity of Baloo. In the book Baloo is the teacher of the young wolves. He teaches them the law of the Jungle and has a freedom to roam because he only eats ‘nuts and roots and honey.’ He is not a threat to the power structure in any form. His role in the stories is solely as teacher to the wolves, Mowgli and the readers. He is a narrative plot driver. In the movie he has a more developed and rounded role.

Location

As mentioned earlier Rudyard Kipling was not in the Indian jungle when he wrote the story.

He was actually living in Vermont in New England in the United States. The 2016 film version is also not shot in India but rather in a warehouse in Los Angeles. Sune Borkfelt finds artistic depictions of animals and landscapes have ‘helped shape human perceptions of animals, nature, and the parts of the world where they reside’.xiThe images in the film are visually striking but the constructed settings and animals take away from the specifics of the landscape. The photorealistic digital renderings make the land and the animals believable but in a hyperreal fantastic way. In many instances the film resembles an epic Gothic spectacle.

Perhaps, one should expect this from a director whose previous films include Iron Man

(2008), Iron Man 2 (2010) and Cowboys and Aliens (2011). Seoni is a location in central

India and today, in a somewhat ironic twist, contains the Pench Tiger Reserve. Neither the stories nor the film focuses on the actual physical location and prefer, instead, to create a fictional setting for the story. This is not a new occurrence in film or works of fiction but it raises questions of authenticity of landscape. Stephen Prince writes of how ‘the process of amalgamating environment is a routine condition in cinema’ and digital photorealism adds another layer to this amalgamation.xii He finds that this hybrid style is not an attempt to stand in for the physical landscape but offers ways of seeing it anew. As already mentioned Kipling

4 set his story in an imagined version of Seoni and the film adds another dimension to this imagining. The film does emphasise the importance and power of weather cycles and shows the effects of these shifts. The close interwoven relationship between animal and land is emphasised far more in the film version.

Much of the harshness and the cruelty of the story is taken away in the film version. For instance, in the book, after Shere Khan is killed Mowgli skins him and takes his hide back to the Wolf pack. In the film there is more humorous interaction between the characters and adventure is stressed. An example of added humour is in the characterisation of Baloo (Bill

Murray). Baloo is far more of a free spirit in the film and his entertaining songs hark back to the original Disney film version rather than Kipling’s stories. However, the film is still quite dark and has an underlying Gothic sensibility but this Gothic sensibility is created through imagery rather than through storyline. Dark rivers, dim lighting, hidden caves and unknown stories and mysteries are all markers of Gothic and are all in the film. The books are harsher in their storylines but not as Gothic in description. As mentioned the location of the film is

Gothic but the characters and their interaction is not.

Human Laws as Laws of Nature

In both Kipling’s stories and Favreau’s film the animals play the role of instructor and teacher to Mowgli. Kipling’s stories are more didactic in tone and there are many moral lessons to impart to his young readers through his anthropomorphic teachers. Shefaki

Rajamannar writes that Kipling’s stories are ‘didactic fantasy’xiii and the lessons Mowgli learns are really to allow him to fit back into human life. Animals follow human social conventions and the structure of human institutions: marriage, family, education, village life are all set out in the same pattern as they would be in the human world. In the later Mowgli stories Mowgli marries and works as a Public Servant. Mother Wolf even tells Mowgli that in

5 the end, ‘Man goes to Man at the last’.xiv John McBratney writes Kipling’s stories purport the myth that young boys can grow up in the Jungle and still be, ‘Manly, Christian and British’.xv

He goes on to write how Mowgli’s wolf brothers are always, ‘junior brothers (using Chinua

Achebe’s term)—brethren in intimacy but juniors in rank’.xvi He gives the example of how even when he was a young boy Mowgli could outwit and out stare the other wolves. In the film this power relationship is more complex but is still evident. Young Mowgli is always using his human intelligence to make tools to become a better hunter and the animals are always perplexed by this process. Near the end of the film when Mowgli has to fight Shere

Khan, Bagheera, the black- panther (Ben Kingsley) reminds Mowgli to ‘fight him like a man—we will hold him off’. In other words, the animals will use their physical strength but

Mowgli must outwit Shere Khan using human intelligence. The elephants help put out the red flower (fire) but only under the direction of Mowgli. At the end of the film Mowgli is known as ‘Master of the Jungle’ and Bagheera says, ‘A little boy could bring all the jungle together for the first time’.

Some animals are seen as intelligent and ethical in human terms: Wolves, elephants, bears, and panthers are seen as powerful, intelligent and caring. Other animals are represented as stupid, mad and unethical. The worst category appears to be mad. The lead villain (Shere

Khan, played by Idris Elba in the film) is said to be illogical, irrational and mad. There has been much research about why the tiger was chosen to be the ultimate villain in The Jungle

Book and many of the findings suggest that it represents the Colonial fear of change. The tiger does not obey orders and ‘Kipling is following conventional imperial representation of this animal as an anarchic beast whose destruction is essential to the maintaining of order’.xvii

The tiger is seen as a threat to the Colonial belief system. This explains why the tiger was also a much sought after trophy for white hunters. The tiger also has a disability and it is implied that this disability is one of the reasons why he is so dangerous for the wolves: ‘“His

6 mother did not call him Lungri (the lame one) for nothing,’ said Mother Wolf quietly. “He has been lame in one foot from his birth. That is why he has only killed cattle.’” xviii Buffalos, monkeys, jackals and hyenas are also seen as weak, stupid and uncaring. In the film Shere

Khan is so evil he dies at the end in a hellish fire pit. Tigers are blamed for bringing humans to the jungle and it is their fault that humans kill the animals. The tigers were the ones who first killed domestic animals belonging to humans and they must have known humans would seek revenge. The blame for humans hunting animals is therefore placed back upon the animals themselves. In the film there is an important scene when Shere Khan recognises the danger that Mowgli represents for all animal species and demands that he ‘show everyone what you really are.’ In this moment the audience recognises that Shere Khan has a complex understanding of the dangers that humans will bring to the Jungle. However, by the end of the film the other animals see Mowgli as their saviour. The animals are prepared to follow and believe in Mowgli because he has followed the Law of the Jungle while Shere Khan has not.

Rajamannar finds that Kipling presents the Law of the Jungle as a part of nature itself and all animals of the jungle, except for the monkeys and the tiger, ‘willingly accept this law as in their best interests and live by it, thus harnessing the animal in the service of the empire’xix. In other words the animals are colonised by human order and structure and accept this colonisation process as being in their best interests.

Human concepts of gender binaries are evident in both the book and the film. The animals follow traditional hierarchal gender structures: males provide for their families and make decisions while the females are very nurturing and protective. This is the case in both the stories and the film version. Mother Wolf is kind and gentle. Her name is Akela but she is mainly called Mother Wolf. The male wolf is Akela and is the leader of the pack. There is the hint in Kipling’s stories that Mother Wolf is powerful and strong but she is not logical. She thinks with her heart rather than her head: ‘Shere Khan might have faced Father Wolf, but he

7 could not stand up against Mother Wolf, for he knew that where he was she had all the advantage of the ground, and would fight to the death.’xx The story goes on to suggest that

Mother Wolf had not thought about the consequences of saving the man-cub, ‘“Shere khan speaks this much truth. The cub must be shown to the Pack. Wilt thou still keep him, Mother .

. . “But what will our Pack say?” Said Father Wolf.’xxiThe human woman in Kipling’s story is also kind and gentle and takes Mowgli in when the others in the village wanted him thrown out. The villains in the story are all male, except for Kaa who captures her prey by being seductive, alluring and sneaky. Both the film and the book reinforces gender stereotypes in humans and in animals.

Conclusion

At the end of the 2016 film version Mowgli outsmarts the tiger. The young boy uses human intelligence to devise a plan that ultimately leads the tiger to his death. In the written stories the tiger is stampeded to death after Mowgli directs a herd of buffalo into a gully. In the film version Mowgli outwits and kills the tiger, gets the elephants to stop the red flower and returns to the other animals riding the baby elephant he had saved earlier. The film ends the way it began with Mowgli having great adventures. However, this time he is the teacher rather than the student. The young wolves are learning from the experience and wisdom of

Mowgli. In the book Mowgli is accepted into the Pack and is looked upon with respect. In both versions it is male human rational thought and logic that wins the day. The animals learn their place and are happy to accept it. However the film also leaves the audience with the underlying message that, perhaps, Shere Khan had more of an understanding than the other animals of the dangers that humans may bring. It will be interesting to see if the new 2018 version Mowgli (it was formerly titled Jungle Book: Origins) pushes the anthropocentric boundaries or reinforces them.

Notes

i William Henry Sleeman’s pamphlet “An Account of Wolves Nurturing Children in their Dens” was thought to be a key source and so, too, were Robert Armitage Strendale’s books on Natural History. Kipling was also influenced by a story in Boys Own Magazine 1864 called “King Lion” written by James Greenwood. ii Rhona Ghate (2007) “Kipling’s Jungle: Fact or Fancy” Readers’ Guide Kipling Society UK. http://www.kiplingsociety.co.uk/bookmart_fra.htm

References

Borkfelt, Sune. (2009) ‘Colonial Animals and Literary Analysis: the Example of Kipling’s Animal Stories’ English Studies, vol. 90, No. 5, October 2009, 557-568. 557.

Cosslett, Tess. ‘Children’s place in Nature: Talking Animals in Victorian Children’s Fiction’, Nineteenth-Century Contexts, 23:4, 475-495. 487.

Favrerau, Jon. (2016) The Jungle Book, Disney Films, Los Angles.

Kipling, Rudyard. (1894) The Jungle Book, Macmillan, London, https://www.gutenberg.org/files/236/236-h/236-h.htm

McBratney, John. (1992) ‘Imperial Subjects, Imperial Space in Kipling’s Jungle Book’, Victorian Studies, Spring, 1992, 277-293, 277.

Prince, Stephen. (2012) ‘Digital Environment Creation’ Digital visual Effects in Cinema: the Seduction of Reality, Rutgers University Press, 2012, 145-182. 156.

Rajamannar, Shefali. (2012) Reading the Animal in the Literature of the British Raj. Palgrave Macmillan: London.

Viswanath, Tharini. (2017) ‘“Sorry, I Don’t Speak Bear” Voice, Agency, and the Mother- Daughter Relationship in Disney’s-Pixar’s Brave’. Papers: Explorations Into Children’s Literature. 25.1

iii The Jungle Book (Jon Favrerau, 2016) Disney Films. iv Rudyard Kipling, The Jungle Book, Macmillan, London, 1894. https://www.gutenberg.org/files/236/236‐ h/236‐h.htm v ibid. vi Ibid. vii Shefali Rajamannar. Reading the Animal in the Literature of the British Raj. Palgrave Macmillan: London, 2012, 132. viii Kipling, The Jungle Book ix Tess Cosslett. ‘Children’s place in Nature: Talking Animals in Victorian Children’s Fiction’, Nineteenth‐Century Contexts, 23:4, 475‐495. 487. x Ibid. 476. xi Sune Borkfelt, ‘Colonial Animals and Literary Analysis: the Example of Kipling’s Animal Stories’ English Studies, vol. 90, No. 5, October 2009, 557‐568. 557.

xii Stephen Prince, ‘Digital Environment Creation’ Digital visual Effects in Cinema: the Seduction of Reality, Rutgers University Press, 2012, 145‐182. 156. xiii Rajammar, Reading the Animal, 132. xiv Kipling. xv John McBratney, ‘Imperial Subjects, Imperial Space in Kipling’s Jungle Book’, Victorian Studies, Spring, 1992, 277‐293, 277. xvi Ibid. 288. xvii Rajamannar, 138. xviii Kipling. xix Rajammar, 138. xx Kipling. xxi Kipling.