LEGEND OF TARZAN Swings Solidly to ☆☆☆1/2 out of ☆☆☆☆☆

THE LEGEND OF TARZAN
☆☆☆1/2 out of ☆☆☆☆☆

For those who don't know, I am a lifelong fan of the Tarzan character.  In fact, I am drawn to all the mythical "feral man" archetypes including Tarzan, Ka-Zar, Mowgli, and others.  The thing about Tarzan is that much like the Frankenstein Monster and Dracula, most people have a rather simplistic and distorted view of the character influenced by film and tv bastardizations that bear very little similarity in depth with the original literary version.  Perhaps we might call the novel version the "prime" version?


I also have to add that other than the 80s film GREYSTOKE: THE LEGEND OF TARZAN, LORD OF THE APES starring future Highlander, Christopher Lambert, pretty much every Tarzan movie is close to unwatchable after the age of 8.  The primary reason for it, in my opinion, is that the filmmakers usually have no desire to translate the character from the novels to the big screen -- they want to just churn out some cheap jungle action with a stuntman running around in a loin cloth, or in John Derek's TARZAN, THE APE MAN, make some jungle-based soft porn starring your wife.

So, does THE LEGEND OF TARZAN break the mold and give us a Tarzan for our times?  For the most part, the answer is yes.  It's not a perfect film, but it is a good movie and it is entertaining throughout (altho a couple of slow spots in the middle).  The best thing about the movie is Alexander Skarsgård who absolutely nails the role of Tarzan/John Clayton every moment he's on screen (minus the forced hug at the end).  He's giving it his all internalizing the beast within as a John Clayton who has turned his back on the jungle to assume his role as England's Earl of Greystoke.  The motivation for he and his wife, Jane, staking out a new life in England is John's grief over the loss of their child.  It's a solid motivation and the stoic Lord Greystoke can't help but show his pain through his eyes.  Skarsgård gets it.  He is physically everything the Tarzan of the novels describes tall and athletic.  He is brooding but charismatic; cunning and clever; driven and intense; and always in conflict between his human nature and ape nurture.

This film, for the first time (at least that I can recall) makes the effort to bring out from the novels the fact that the apes that raised Tarzan are not normal apes.  They are the Mangani.  They are much more intelligent, organized, and violent than normal gorillas.  This film incorporates the famous jewels of the hidden ancient city of Opar.  (I'm told that this was mentioned in that awful Caspar Van Diem TARZAN movie from the '90s, but I've apparently blocked out those details.)  I thoroughly enjoyed the backstory flashbacks giving Tarzan's origin story and establishing the conflict with his ape father but also the camaraderie between Tarzan and his ape brother -- whose signal of brotherly affection is a slight bump with the back of his hand, which is used effectively for both humor and drama.

Really I cannot find anything to criticize about Skarsgård's performance.  I know I came away from this film very glad that he did not get cast as Thor because it very likely would've prevented him from taking on this role as a 19th century super-hero. Lord Greystoke is a man of few words but all of his actions have impact and meaning, even if it is just a nod of his head or a bend of a finger. So, what the filmmakers have done is surround him with people who talk....a lot.  The exposition and dialogue that the lead character might usually be informing the audience with is put into the mouths of those surrounding him.  His wife, the American Jane Porter, is played by Margot Robbie and she has quite the mouth on her.  She's feisty and sassy but also compassionate and strong. She was so strong that it actually bothered me that she was forced into the damsel in distress role for nearly the entire film.  I would've liked to have seen her partnering with Tarzan more equally.  The character, George Washington Williams, played by Samuel L. Jackson, is based on a real person but is saddled with a motormouth of bad dialogue.  As I mentioned, I understand the need for someone to drive the story's dialogue since Tarzan is mostly silent, but man...I wish they could've written it stronger.  His manner of speaking was anachronistic and more of the modern annoying American tourist type of dialogue.  Christoph Walz was...well...the same bad guy he's been for the last 25 movies he's been in.  I love the guy, but I want the casting directors to start challenging him with something more different than whether his character has facial hair or not.

The storyline is also a bit preachy and involves a slavery  storyline as well as ripping a little from the real world with King Leopold of Belgium attempting to win a real-life game of RISK over possession of the African Congo.  It really does turn into a super-hero movie by the huge climax where Tarzan is basically Land-Aquaman but I loved it. It was a silly romp and very satisfying.  I definitely hope it does a brisk business this weekend because I'd love to see Skarsgård's Tarzan in another adventure.

#legendoftarzan

LORD OF THE JUNGLE #1 (Tarzan) Reviewed

LORD OF THE JUNGLE #1

Writer: Arvid Nelson

Artist: Roberto Castro

Publisher: Dynamite Entertainment

“Cowards! Scoundrels! How can you strand us here like this? After Lord Greystoke saved your life. How can you leave us here?” — Alice Clayton (Lady Greystoke)

Yes, dear readers, the “Lord of the Jungle” is Tarzan. If you don't know that then you should not even be allowed to read comic books anymore. Tarzan is also “Lord of the Apes”, “Lord of the Trees,” and “Lord Greystoke” (or more accurately “Viscount” but I won't go into that here. With the roar of a great bull ape, Tarzan comes to Dynamite with the LORD OF THE JUNGLE comic book. I come into this comic with the baggage of being a longtime reader of the Tarzan novels, comics, and viewer of the various films and TV series. It's a classic and archetypal feral man story with many different iterations and interpretations over the decades. My overall impression of the comic is positive.

As with many of Dynamite's series, the first issue has multiple variant covers, my copy is the Alex Ross cover. It's a dynamic cover design with a crouching Tarzan decked out in loin cloth, arm bands, wristbands, shoulder strap and wielding a knife. Behind him are a bunch of gorillas. The colors are a bit softer than I would expect, but it's still a nice cover. The “Lord of the Jungle” masthead is a strong design that looks carved from the wood of a tree.

Lucio Parillo cover

I expected the comic to set out on its own path with a quick origin recap, so I was surprised to find the comic appears to be actually adapting the original TARZAN OF THE APES novel by Edgar Rice Burroughs. And, in the pattern of modern comic book storytelling, they are adapting it over the course of several issues as this one comic barely gets through the first 3 or 4 chapters of the novel (and that's by ignoring the set-up with the mutiny on the ship that leads to John and Alice Clayton being abandoned to the coastline of the Belgian Congo).

As adaptations go, it is pretty faithful to the book. The passage of time goes quickly as John builds an elaborate tree house to keep his pregnant wife safe from the dangers on the ground. The primary danger is shown to be a tribe of aggressive and powerful apes. In the novels, they are called Mangani and are described as a previously unknown species of great apes that is somewhere in intelligence higher than gorillas (Bolgani) but lesser than humans.

Most adaptations in film and TV have just ignored this aspect and made the apes into gorillas for purposes of telling the story. I'm not sure, yet, where writer Arvid Nelson is going with his adaptation because the apes in this comic appear to be gorillas and communicate with your basic “ooh ooh” ape-talk rather than the Mangani language that Burroughs described. However, there is an interlude with some Bantu tribesmen entering the jungle who encounter a vicious tribe of man-eating ape-like creatures that are identified with this exclamation: “What are these things?! They're not apes, they're not men—what are they?!”

Ryan Sook cover

They look very much like some of Frazetta's ape-monsters. They look like apes but are taller and leaner than the apes seen elsewhere in the comic and they wear loin cloths, armbands, and use knives. So, I don't know exactly how the whole Mangani versus Bolgani thing is going to eventually come down in this title, but what I read is intriguing.

This issue covers the nearly 2 years in which the Claytons arrive in the jungle, have the baby, and then meet their end so that the baby, John, can be adopted by a female ape who has just had her newborn brutally murdered by the bull ape who leads their tribe. It's a familiar story and retold quite well (although I'm sure Nelson had to find it funny to be writing things like “Aah! Aah! Aah!”, “Rah! Rah!”, and “Ooh! Ooh!” into a script).

The art is reminiscent of Neal Adams' Tarzan covers and drawings without directly copying it. Clearly Adams and Frazetta are an inspiration to artist Roberto Castro in his approach to the this comic book. I am going to once again ring that bell I ring everytime I review a Dynamite comic book though. It would benefit from using an inker rather than coloring directly on the pencils. There are moments where it works, but most of the time the line work is lacking and the color is overcompensating. It's a well-drawn comic. It would be stronger with a good inker and more subdued coloring.

Paul Renaud cover

POSTSCRIPT: Most people these days seem a bit more knowledgeable about copyright issues than they were just a mere 10 years ago, so it probably isn't news to anyone about why Dynamite is publishing a “Tarzan” comic book without the name “Tarzan” in the title anywhere. In the briefest way possible, it boils down to fact that while the first few “Tarzan” novels have slipped into the public domain, thus allowing Dynamite (or anyone) to adapt and do derivative works based on those; the fact that these stories are public domain has no bearing at all on the “Tarzan” trademark still owned by the estate of Edgar Rice Burroughs. If Dynamite wants to stick “Tarzan” in the title they would have to get permission from, and pay a licensing fee to, the ERB estate. So, they chose a descriptive title that evokes “Tarzan” without violating the ERB trademark.

Being the nerd that I am, I made the mistake of reading the indicia at the beginning of the comic just to confirm for myself that there were no attributions to or permissions from the ERB estate. But what I did find was that “Lord of the Jungle” is listed not as a trademark of Dynamite Entertainment but of “Savage Tales Entertainment, LLC.” So, I tried to do a little research to find out just who “Savage Tales Entertainment, LLC” happens to be and what I found was a bit confusing. I couldn't find anyone publicly associated with “Savage Tales,” yet they appear to be out there just basically squatting on any unused publishing trademarks they can find. For example, I found “Savage Tales” claiming trademark ownership of Pete Morisi's “Peter Cannon, Thunderbolt”...since 1966? “Savage Tales” claims they own the trademark to “Charlton Comics”, “The Human Fly”, and other obscure marks like that. I don't know exactly what's happening, but it appears they are doing like web domain squatters but with trademarks. I sent a message last week to the attorney listed on the recent legal ruling In Re Savage Tales Entertainment, LLC  just to ask for clarification. He was under no obligation to reply back...and he didn't. So, the best I can do is speculate. My best guess is that based on Dynamite's pattern of digging out old public domain characters and grabbing trademarks on new versions of them, that “Savage Tales” is a subsidiary of some sort (or a partner) with Dynamite and they function as the licensing subsidiary of Dynamite. That would offer some legal protection to Dynamite they might not otherwise have. Setting up “Savage Tales” as an LLC gives an even greater degree of personal legal protection.

That's my best guess. I would love to know for sure but information is hard to dig up online and the couple of people I contacted to ask about it either had no information or were unwilling to share. So, there you go. The comic's pretty good, but I have no clue what's going on with the whole “Lord of the Jungle” trademark thing.