A Case Study on Character: The Jungle Book (1967 vs. 2016)
On Twitter I see a ton of writers asking questions like “What’s more important, character or plot?” I hate this question, and I also get grumpy when I see talented writers waste energy trying to answer it one way or the other.
It’s like asking “what’s more important, water or air?” In the short term, it may seem that there’s an answer. After all, there’s got to be a reason survivalists sometimes say three minutes without air, three days without water, three weeks without food. But here’s the thing: Lacking one of those things will eventually leave you dead.
Plot without character, character without plot, one way or another your story will die.
With the recent release of Disney’s “live-action” Pinocchio remake, it would be too easy to simply point out all the issues with stripping a character of agency and regurgitating a colorful mess onto a streaming platform.
Instead, I want to look at what happens when you take a listless character and breathe life into them. That’s right, we’re finally tackling The Jungle Book, the only remake that I would argue wasn’t just good, but better than the animated classic it drew inspiration from.
To be clear upfront, it’s not my goal to get into problems with racial insensitivity. That’s not because those problems aren’t there or because I deem them unimportant. I simply am not the best person to address those issues, and they are beyond the scope of this post. I hope it will suffice to say that I think every story can be improved by removing racist depictions and harmful stereotypes while respecting the cultures that inspired the work.
With that, I’d like to jump in with the 1967 animated film.
The Jungle Book (1967)
In case it’s been a while since you’ve watched the movie, the basic plot is this: Mowgli, a human boy raised by wolves, cannot remain in the jungle for fear of Shere Khan, a dangerous tiger who hates humans. Hijinks ensue when Mowgli resists returning to the Man Village, but eventually Mowgli does return to his own species. Not a bad plot, as we’ll see when we get to the remake.
The theme of the movie could be summarized as: You cannot change who you are. It’s not necessarily a bad theme, though it’s a tad fatalistic for modern sensibilities, if you ask me. So if the plot and theme are workable, what’s the problem?
Let’s cut to the chase: the dysfunction with this film is Mowgli. It’s not a good thing when your primary protagonist is also the primary flaw.
As a kid, I always found this movie to be quite boring. Sure, the music is good, but I always lost interest quickly. As an adult, I understand now that the reason for this boils down to a static character. Mowgli doesn’t really do anything the whole movie. He stumbles his way through a few events, occasionally getting himself into a jam, and never once showing even a glimmer of character growth.
So let’s look at every choice Mowgli makes, and its direct effect on the plot:
Mowgli chooses to cling to a tree in order to resist Bagheera’s taking him to the Man Village.
No direct effect. Mowgli does wander alone for a bit before Baloo stumbles upon him, but there’s no reason Baloo couldn’t have stumbled into him and Bagheera together.
Mowgli chooses to go with Baloo and try to live in the jungle as a bear.
No direct effect. Mowgli is kidnapped by monkeys while with Baloo, but there’s nothing indicating the monkeys couldn’t have kidnapped Mowgli from Bagheera or while Mowgli was alone.
Mowgli chooses to run away from Baloo after Baloo agrees that returning to the Man Village is what’s best for Mowgli.
No direct effect. Mowgli does encounter Shere Khan while alone, but the movie makes it clear that Shere Khan was searching for Mowgli and that Baloo’s presence to defend against Shere Khan isn’t enough to dissuade him from attacking Mowgli.
Mowgli chooses to tie a burning branch to Shere Khan’s tail.
Shere Khan runs away, because only fire scares him. The weight of this effect is undercut by the fact that the branch was only burning because of coincidental lightning and that Mowgli only knew Shere Khan was afraid of fire because the vultures told him as soon as the branch fell at his feet.
Mowgli is naive, ignorant, useless, and overconfident. His actions have basically no impact on the story. In fact, while re-watching the scene with King Louie, I realized the entire plot point would have played out in the same way if Mowgli were an inanimate object that different characters wanted for different goals.
Imagine for a moment that Mowgli were replaced by a Bic lighter. Bagheera and Baloo want to return it to the humans who lost it. King Louie wants to figure out how to make fire using it. Shere Khan wants to destroy it because he fears the destruction it could bring. The story doesn’t change in any meaningful way.
That’s right: Throughout The Jungle Book (1967) Mowgli is a MacGuffin in his own story.
The Jungle Book (2016)
In Jon Favreau’s version of the story, the plot is basically identical. The theme could also be fairly summarized as you cannot change who you are.
The difference comes in the way Mowgli’s character learns the theme and changes over the course of the movie as a result. Where the 1967 film’s theme had the hidden subtext of “...so don’t even bother taking action or making choices,” the hidden subtext of the remake is “...so you’ve got to learn to play to your strengths.”
What choices does Mowgli make in the newer movie?
Mowgli chooses to suppress his “tricks” (his ability to make and use tools) in order to fit in better with the wolves.
This makes it so that Mowgli is at a distinct disadvantage in all “wolf training” activities, leading to Mowgli feeling out of place. He cares for the wolves, but also feels he doesn’t belong with them.
Mowgli chooses to leave the wolves to protect them from Shere Khan.
This basically sets off the entire rest of the movie. It’s his choice to leave, not something that is forced on him or that he was tricked into.
Mowgli chooses to run from Shere Khan, eventually escaping with the stampeding water buffalo.
This leads Shere Khan to return to the wolves and kill Akela, in an effort to draw Mowgli back.
Mowgli chooses to use his “tricks” to help Baloo.
Mowgli begins to see his differences as strengths. He begins to understand that “the wolf way” may not be the best for him.
Mowgli chooses to use his “tricks” to save the baby elephant from a mud sink.
As a result, the elephants gain a large amount of respect for Mowgli and are “in his debt” in a way. This makes the ending feel earned and not “Deus ex machin-esque.”
Mowgli chooses to resist and run from King Louie.
King Louie gives chase, destroying much of his temple, and telling Mowgli “don’t run away from who you are,” and “Akela is dead.”
Mowgli chooses to embrace his nature as a human and go after Shere Khan with fire
Not only did Mowgli put the pieces of the puzzle together that Shere Khan is only afraid of fire and fire is the ultimate “trick” of humans, but his plan leads to the entire jungle on fire, which Shere Khan uses to paint Mowgli as a villain. Just another destructive man.
Mowgli chooses to toss the torch into the river, again rejecting his humanity.
This leads to the other animals rising up to defend him and fight back against Shere Khan.
Mowgli chooses to rush into the fighting like wolves.
Bagheera stops him: “You can’t fight him like a wolf, you’re not a wolf. Fight him like a man.”
Mowgli chooses to set a trap using bits of information he’s gathered and retained throughout the movie.
Shere Khan falls to his death trying to kill Mowgli.
By the end of the movie, Mowgli has embraced his human nature while still rejecting the more destructive aspects of his potential. He has found a place where he belongs without trying to change the biological reality of who he is.
You can see the difference between the two films just in the sheer volume of meaningful choices Mowgli makes in the 2016 version.
Three Essential Parts of Characterization: Problems, Wants, Needs
At the start of The Jungle Book (2016) Mowgli’s problem is he doesn’t fit in with the wolves. He can’t keep up with them, and is stuck as a perpetual “pup” despite being much older than the newest pack-members.
Mowgli wants to fit in and be a valued member of the pack. He thinks that if he can suppress his “tricks” enough, memorize the Law of the Jungle, and try hard enough to fit in, he’ll be of value and belong with the wolves.
What Mowgli needs though, is to embrace the fact that he doesn’t fit in. He never will. His strength is part of his humanity: intelligence, tool use, and engineering. To be of value to the pack and to belong with them, he must come to terms with the theme: You cannot change who you are.
Contrast that with The Jungle Book (1967) and you see a much flatter story. Two-dimensional animation is wonderful. Two-dimensional characters are not.
At the start of the ‘67 film, Mowgli’s problem is that the jungle is no longer safe for him because of Shere Khan. What Mowgli wants is to stay in the jungle and live like an animal despite the danger to him (and his loved ones). What Mowgli needs is to embrace the reality of who he is and live with humans in the Man Village.
Over the course of the story, Mowgli does have his problem fixed, but it’s not by embracing the theme. In fact, Mowgli single-mindedly pursues his want throughout the story, learning nothing about his need. Then, in the last 5 minutes, when he sees the girl collecting water, he crushes on her and immediately has a shift to want what he’s needed all along: to live in the Man Village. His change cannot accurately be described as growth because it isn’t the result of learning or changing.
So what does that mean for you?
As a writer, you need to make sure that your plot isn’t devoid of character. In order to make dynamic, believable, worthwhile characters, you have to think about problems, wants, and needs.
When you write your stories, whether they are wholly original or adaptations of someone else’s work, make sure you write with a mind to good characters who grow and change through the course of the story. If you do that, you’re sure to end up with a 2016 and not a 1967.
Liked that? Then you’ll want to read this.
