Tarzan. The name alone requires an obligatory grimace as do many American classics. What comes to mind first is the image we grew up with--a very white and civilized Tarzan, complete with Jane and Cheetah (the chimp). Even if we can't remember how bad the TV shows were in their black and white glory, the conditioned response to 'Tarzan' is no less dramatic than an aversive response conditioned by hours of electrical stimulation. Let's face it, Tarzan's got no respect.

But what can you expect from the poor dilapidated ape-man? Having been created somewhere around 1912, he's been subject to every adaptation conceivable by the capitalist mind for just shy a century now--and much of that abuse came directly from Burroughs himself. Not content with a single book, the man piled some 20+ sequels on top of it, reaching a new state of self-duplication that truthfully deserves a name unto itself. Might we speak of the 'Burroughization' of a book or movie? For as many guilty parties that might spring to mind, none did it as well and as early as Burroughs. Nonetheless, Burroughs be the man. He brought us Tarzan, he brought us John Carter, and he bludgeoned us with thousands of pages of stupidity and we loved it! Yet, from this relatively late perspective, one must ask if there is anything left of Lord Greystoke to go around.

And the answer is yes, and perhaps even more than Burroughs ever saw in him. 1999 (gawd, I still can't write that year without wanting to put the word 'Space' in front of it…) saw The Disney's inexplicable release of Tarzan, and being a sensible movie-goer I avoided it like the plague. Why do I always have to be so sensible? Now a couple years later, and safely out of the same century as Burroughs, I thought I'd give the film a chance, and much to my surprise, I believe this one of the best things out of the mouse house in decades. Yes, honestly. Phil Collins songs, Rosie O'Donnell and everything. I am not ashamed.

More so, Disney's Tarzan may actually be an improvement on Burrough's original story, despite what raving Burroughs' fans have to say. Still, I hope to hell there is room in this world for both the Disney film, and Burroughs' absurdity, because it has really been a better place with both. What I could do without are the fanboys who need to berate one at the expense of the other. Why Tarzan still gets torn down as being too Disney-fied or not true to the real Tarzan is beyond me…but now I'm getting ahead of myself, coz big ape-man review still needs to be written, not just fanboy spanking, so here goes.

There are a lot of things in Tarzan that will win you over, and while there are those Disney elements which always have and always will detract from their films, I find them minimized and in no way measuring up to all the things that work here. Here's a list of some of the things I think make this movie a real winner:

-Some of the best hand animation I've seen in a Disney movie in a long time (not counting whatever team did Terk and Tantor.) As of late, especially with Fantasia 2000, I've begin to wonder if Disney even remembers how to animate without using a computer. Fortunately, Tarzan leaves that thought dead on the ground. The team behind Tarzan deserves more praise than I could ever heap on them for making a REAL Tarzan. Yeah, let's try not to remember whitey Tarzan from our youth. This is the real thing, moving like a bullet through the upper canopies of the forest, fighting leopards, making unbelievable leaps. This is the Tarzan out of Burroughs' books and the perfect visual embodiment of the meaty pulp hero described there. Other aspects of the hand animation are fantastic too, and this is consistent enough to make the movie highly enjoyable just for this aspect alone!

-But more about Tarzan--let's talk behavior. Part of what makes this movie so damn funny and entertaining is that Tarzan really acts like a big monkey. When he meets Jane, he really behaves like he's never seen a human being before, and the body language is done to perfection, even perhaps hinting at the eroticism that rears its ugly head in Burrough's novel:

"Again he laid his hand upon her arm. Again she repulsed him. And then Tarzan of the Apes did just what his first ancestor would have done. He took his woman in his arms and carried her into the jungle."

But more precisely, what makes Disney's Tarzan precious is his naïve and animal like qualities, such that his meeting with Jane, while perhaps having shadows of the above passage keeps Tarzan innocent, much like…well…a big hairless monkey--maybe more innocent than a big hairless monkey. Tarzan's behavior is as amusing to watch as any number of nature documentaries. For instance, when Tarzan first meets Clayton, he doesn't say hello, nor does he greet him in any sensible way, but begins to climb up him as might your pet chimp. This understanding of behavior paired with an understanding of how to animation Tarzan's incredible movement is enough to make Tarzan an artistic success. Love or hate the movie, the character of Tarzan works!

-Decent characterization. OK, I don't want to hear another Burroughs' fan complain about the characterization in Tarzan…you ever read the original book??? I didn't know cardboard cut-outs could have kids that grew up in the jungle, only to meet other cardboard characters later on. Disney gives us something we've never really had before, a cast of characters we care about because they actually deserve to be cared about, not because we have to. Disney's choice to focus upon the relationship between Tarzan and Kala is amazingly touching, far more so than the manufactured sentimentality we've come to know from films like Lion King. When Kala is killed in Burroughs' book, Tarzan is only briefly grief stricken, but one can hardly wonder, since she was never developed as a character. Here, Kala is actually useful, as is Kerchak. Unfortunately, this fit of quality characterization led them to Terk and Tantor. Bad, bad, bad.

-Good use of computer animation. Who would of thunk? Fantasia 2000 looks like some concoction for the Playstation2, and I'm afraid to look at Dinosaur. So why does Tarzan work. The first thing Disney needs to learn here is that the backgrounds are a lot more believable when you put hand-animated characters over them. I think Fantasia 2000 fails precisely because it doesn't do this, giving the whole thing a cold, emotionless vibe. Tarzan somehow manages to avoid this trap.

Still, there is more to it than simply combining the two forms of animation. With Tarzan, the CGI stuff is not painted by computers but by hand (albeit via a computer.) CGI in my mind doesn't work, mostly because the motion is too stiff, and the textures just don't look organic enough. By using CGI for background alone, the motion problem has been almost entirely avoided, and the textures look superb. I don't mean there is no room for improvement, but to date, this is the best use of CGI I've seen in a film. Just watch the opening sequence and I think you'll see what I mean.

-No musicals. OK, this may or may not be a plus. When it comes down to it, I like musicals, but that also requires liking the actual songs, and much of the time, Disney doesn't come up with material that is as compelling as classic musicals like The King and I (not that I'd necessarily expect them to.) The end result is a lot of Disney films seem to get stopped dead in their tracks for a musical that just doesn't merit the interruption. In Tarzan, the problem's been avoided with short pieces by Phil Collins which while nothing more or less than what you'd expect from him do manage to serve a function within the film, and surprisingly I find their inclusion a positive one. Could they have done something better? Hell yeah, but I know they could have done something worse.

-Gratuitously enlarged forearms. Yup, Disney knows what I like. Nothing like babies with big massive forearms. Oh hell, there is a ton of big forearm action going on here--one shot of Kerchak striding around in particular can't be interpreted as anything less than a glorious indulgence in the splendor of knuckle-walking. Honestly I don't know how long gratuitously enlarged forearms have been absent from animated films, but I for one welcome them back!

OK, enough with lists, coz I could see this is headed toward lists of all the problems with the films as well and who needs a list for that, its called Terk, Tantor and Trashin' the camp! I'd rather end this thing on a positive note, since all in all, Tarzan is a positive film--both for the sake of Tarzan and Disney. For what is perhaps the first time, Tarzan has been liberated of the racist, sexist mire he was born to--no longer does he kill random black folk and toss their carcasses into the center of their villiages. It is equally refreshing to note that he is not continuously referred to as the 'big white god of the jungle' (I'm not kidding!) nor does he base all his actions on defending helpless women. Jane can fortunately move a finger for herself and does not actively worship Tarzan. Hopefully these are changes which should signal that we are no longer watching 'Honkey of the Jungle'.

But as long as we've got a real ape man on our hands, I must ask, why not make more? With dozens of books awaiting, there must be some good ideas for a Tarzan sequel--and who doesn't want more adventures for our big pulp hero now that they've finally found a good medium for him? As for myself, I can't even tell you how much I'm anticipating Disney's rendition of Tarzan at the Core of the World! Yup, the mouse house has got a whole new lease on life if they play their cards right.

Thanks Chris! Remember, if you would like to contribute an article just drop me a line at gleep9@hotmail.com and I'll give it a look-see. Now swing on out of here to either the Second Movie or Main page you wild man you!