The Legend of Tarzan
by Adam Cozad and Craig Brewer
Dark Horse Entertainment
The problem with The Legend of Tarzan is that the Tarzan mythos is a tale so steeped in racism, colonialism, and jingoism, that it’s impossible to adapt for a modern audience without being problematic. The movie tries, it really does, but even if you’re just here for the Adonis belts, there’s still so much WTFery present that I can’t take the movie seriously, at all.
The movie opens after Tarzan aka John Clayton III, Earl of Greystoke (Alexander Skarsgard), has been “civilized” and returned to England where he’s currently living with his wife, Jane (Margot Robbie). Tarzan is approached by George Washington Williams (Samuel L. Jackson), an American emissary, who has concerns that the King of Belgium is enslaving the native people in the African Congo. Williams wants Tarzan to accompany him to the Congo to see if it’s true. They are unknowingly being lured into a trap though, because Christopher Waltz, as his usual creepy bad guy self, is working for the King and needs to trade Tarzan to another bad guy for some diamonds or something.
None of this movie makes sense, not even the parts trying to make sense. There’s this whole King of Belgium needs to exploit the riches of the Congo (diamonds) to pay for 20,000 mercenaries to exploit the riches of the Congo argument that’s nonsensical in a way akin to “step 1. steal underpants. step 2…. step 3. profit!”
All you really need to know is that Tarzan and Jane go back to the African village where she grew up (her father taught English there), Jane is kidnapped by Waltz who is using her to trap Tarzan, and then Tarzan’s shirt falls off.
The movie tries to address the horrors of colonialism by having Tarzan and Williams not only in a race to save Jane, but to also stop Belgium’s enslavement of the people of Congo. That’s such a sticky, ugly topic though that it’s impossible to do it justice in a movie that’s mostly about Alexander Skarsgard’s washboard abs. Jackson is there to keep Tarzan from falling entirely into being the white savior, but one of the things that was so glaringly awful about the film was that it kept pointing to Belgium as the bad guys while America and England were portrayed as being real concerned that Belgium might be hurting people in their colonization efforts.
Right. America and England did some pretty awful shit to a lot of people (and the movie does mention the Native Americans and Mexicans specifically) so while I believe that they might have had competing economic interests with Belgium, I do not for a second believe that they were concerned about anyone out of the goodness of their hearts.
But the thing that bothered me the most though–and really pushed this review into F territory– was that Tarzan presumably saw other humans before meeting Jane. In the movie, Jane meets Tarzan while in the jungle playing hide-and-go-seek with some kids. Now I’m assuming they are relatively near the village since I don’t think the group was stupid enough to wander so deeply in the jungle as to be in completely uncharted territory. We know the people of the village Jane lived in refer to Tarzan as “the ghost in the trees.” We also know that certain tribes hunt the gorillas of Tarzan’s troop because
The reason this is so bothersome is that Tarzan doesn’t have an existential crisis until he meets Jane, the first white woman he’s ever seen. Yeah. Let me rephrase more bluntly: Tarzan does not realize he is a human being until he meets another white person. One henchman in the movie even makes a snide comment to Tarzan about how he must have been stunned to see Jane, “after all the negresses.” Whether by editing error, oversight, or intention, that’s such a troubling statement regarding racial identity, otherness and basic humanity that it blew the movie for me it. I couldn’t stop thinking about it even during scenes with a plethora of washboard abs and action that were supposed to be fun.
So even all of that aside, even if I’m here just to see this movie in its pop culture/historical context, or possibly though the female gaze, it’s still super fucked up.
Part of the appeal of Tarzan has always been that 1. he has a reason for wearing basically no clothes and 2. he’s been raised outside of society and has no sexual inhibitions, so he’d be this completely unrestrained, feral lover like no other.
The movie hints at these two points. The sexual chemistry between Skarsgard and Robbie is intense. Skarsgard is obligingly half naked through most of the movie, but then it turns into an action movie where Tarzan and Jane are separated. So if you want to see a movie about a dude swinging through trees, talking to animals and beating up bad guys, that’s fine. There’s plenty of that. If you are there for the Tarzan/Jane dynamic, it’s only there for about a third of the movie.
And I still had questions, namely:
- How the fuck did Tarzan’s mom and dad build that giant house in a tree? Okay, assuming the wood and tools were salvaged from the shipwreck and they weren’t out there cutting down trees and making boards, how the fuck did they get it up there? It took two grown men hours of swearing just to get our elliptical up the stairs and into the office.
2. Why does Tarzan even have crazy washboard abs? Carrie pointed out that gorillas spend a lot of time sitting around eating plants, and you know that Tarzan had to have a really protein-heavy diet to account for that musculature. The movie tries to explain this as his troop not being normal gorillas but some kind of super violent bro-rillas (I stole that from a friend, Sabra Nicole, on Twitter) so I guess they do a lot of cross-fit?
3. At one point Tarzan fights his gorilla brother and doesn’t immediately die. He fights a 400 pound gorilla and lives. Even if the gorilla was holding back IT’S A 400 POUND GORILLA.
4. Tarzan has no facial hair. He’s living in the wilderness, with no access to a razor, and he is completely smooth-faced. Unless he possesses a genetic anomaly where he grows hair EVERYWHERE EXCEPT HIS FACE dude would have a beard, no question.
Also, if you’re going to see this movie purely for the sexual allure of Tarzan, be warned that there’s not much sex and it’s pretty tame. Most of the movie is just Jane being a badass, Tarzan chasing after the bad guys, and CGI animals. The whole premise of Tarzan trades heavily on the sex quotient, and that’s not even present.
The Legend of Tarzan definitely isn’t worth the price of admission, and maybe not even the price of rental. If you have to see it, I’d recommend waiting for the library to get a copy or it to air on cable.
The Legend of Tarzan is in theaters now and you can find tickets (US) at Fandango and Moviefone.
My husband and I enjoyed the movie, you over think too much!!!
I was turned off immediately by the preview, because it made Jane look like nothing but a passive pawn. From the “scream like a damsel” scene to the “he will come for me!”, she looked like a complete Old Skool heroine. I’m glad if she was more of a badass in the movie, but there are still way too many dealbreakers.
I was thinking (or “over thinking”, thank you, Ronda!) during the trailer that this movie didn’t seem equipped to handle all the troubling race and colonialism issues that come with freaking Tarzan, and I feel sort of resigned and unsurprised to see I was right. I guess at least they attempted to sort of address it? But I don’t want to give out gold stars for that.
As always, appreciate your thoughtful (OVER thoughtful! Thank you, Ronda!) reviews!
I am going to point out that the Belgian Congo had some seriously horrific human rights abuses even by the standards of the day. Look up Leopoldville. King Leopold of Belgium was Queen Victoria’s uncle and helped arrange her marriage to Prince Albert. So, there are solid reasons why the British would be concerned that Leopold was risking a tribal uprising to line his personal pockets (not his country’s coffers).
Re. the beard – the blond men in my family can’t really grow facial hair. The best my brother can manage is a few straggly hairs on his chin like Shaggy in Scooby Doo.
I think the British actually were concerned about the extreme viciousness of Leopold’s treatment of the Congo, which violated the bounds of what the British considered ‘good, uplifting colonisation’. You know – here’s some bureacracy and railroads and cricket and corsets and a hearty helping of imposed Christianity, aren’t things SO MUCH BETTER for you lucky natives now? That said, it was morally rather on par with a genial slave owner in Maryland in the seventeenth century decrying the terrible conditions of slaves on the sugar plantations in the West Indies: ‘Dear, dear, they are doing slavery ALL WRONG.’
I am probably going to see this movie eventually even though the treatment of colonialism sticks it 100% in the ‘problematic fandom’ category just because of this genius review:
http://www.emilywrites.co.nz/i-saw-tarzan-and-this-is-my-review-after-some-wines/
I read this review five times over on a particulary bad day, and it made me gurgle with laughter every time.
Colette Gale has a series of erotic stories called Jane Of The Jungle if anyone is looking for more sex in the Tarzan world (lots, lots, *lots* more sex).
So if you overthink movies that makes them bad? It couldnt just be a bad movie?
@Tam, dear god, that review is gold! I’m actually crying from laughter.
Favorite parts: “I mean why the fuck is this movie pg13. What mum is going to watch this movie with her kid. Nobody wants to sit with their teenage son while they’re imagining Alexander Skarsgard diving into their lady parts . . . [A]t one point he comes up behind whoever the actress was and I let out this like guttural noise like I was dying and the guy next to me gave me a filth look and I was like fuck you what are you even doing here.”
I find the idea of the British having legitimate superior moral ground laughable, especially when they instituted the concentration camps in Kenya decades after the brutal Congo regime.
I had no intention of seeing this anyway.
I think Manohla Dargis of NYT’s also gave the movie a thoughtful review like this one. Though u think she was a bit more forgiving. 🙂 Fun read. Thanks.
I take a different views on some of the things you mentioned.
Here be spoilers:
The meeting with Jane was important because for the first time he had a reason to leave the jungle plus he got injured and was taken from the jungle without a say. He always knew he was “other”. He also admits in the film that he had no honor when he did what was hidden in the spoiler comment above.
Now this wasn’t the greatest movie in the world but it definitely wasn’t an F in my book. More like a C minus. Exactly like ghostbusters to me – amusing but forgettable.
Also I concur with the beard comment above. If you want a famous pictorial example see Sidney Crosby playoff beard on google
Society had different acceptable social norms back then so racism was part of that world. I cringed as well but at least the film makers were attempting to be historically correct. I had more of a problem with Samuel Jackson. He didn’t even attempt to conform to period language or voice inflection. I loved him in The Hateful Eight but not so much in Tarzan. The film was a hokey but doesn’t rate an F in my opinion. C, perhaps. It’s a good Redbox movie.
Old fart talking here.
I went to see the movie thanks to a pair of freebie tickets that I picked up at the local book shop.
I grew up reading Edgar Rice Burroughs. I thought that he had completely deballed Tarzan. First off, he doesn’t kill ANY freaking animals. In the books you couldn’t go two chapters without Tarzan throwing a full nelson on a bull gorilla and snapping his neck or killing a full grown lion with a hunting knife and a rope.
The movie stepped around all of that with him going Dr. Doolittle on the animals.
Secondly, he used to ride on Tantor the elephant.
In the movie he sees an elephant family while he is supposed to be running madly after a train to catch his kidnapped wife – and he stops and it’s all “Tantor, my brother, how you doing, let me skritch the baby elephant’s trunk”.
Come on. Wouldn’t you think that Tarzan might have thought to ask the elephant for a ride.
I know why they stepped around all of that. Killing animals is politically incorrect these days – so is riding on elephants. Hell, ask Barnum and Bailey about that. You can’t even see a whale jump anymore.
Now – before everybody figures that I am some great white hunter myself, forget about that. You throw me into the woods with a pocket knife and a rifle and say “There boy, survive.” and I’m going to be all “Holy shit, where’s the nearest Macdonalds drive in?” I couldn’t hit a rabbit or a deer or a water buffalo with a rifle if I tiptoed up and tried to club him death.
But I have read the books and what I saw was a politically-correct Tarzan.
Samuel Jackson was pretty good even though he was trying way too hard not to swear too much. Jane absolutely stunk up the joint. She was pretty and she made big talk about being a strong autonomous woman but basically all she did was play helpless-female-captive through most of the movie.
Let me see if I can answer some of the reviewer’s questions – and by the way, I thought this was a kickass review.
1 – The treehouse didn’t exist in the books. It was an abandoned cabin that Tarzan’s actual parents holed up in until the great ape tribe that eventually raised Tarzan decided to kill his parents rather than try and find a Justice of the Peace to write up adoption papers. The treehouse was in the movie, simply because it looked wicked cool. Johnny Weissmuller had a treehouse in his movies as well. Face it, tree houses freaking rock.
2. Washboard abs? Hell, they looked wicked cool. They did on the Frazetta covers that used to adorn Burroughs paperback novels. In the original books Tarzan was always described as “clean limbed”. I don’t know how that comes down to “washboard abs” either, but I have to admit, I liked the look of Tarzan. I want to see a dude who looks a little wiry, like he’s spent a whole lot of time swinging on vines and such.
3. We’ve already discussed him snapping the neck of a gorilla. Hell, anyone knows, Tarzan has crazy mad wrestling abilities. 🙂
4. The lack of a beard. In the books, Tarzan shaved with a hunting knife that he found in his parent’s cabin. I guess the local barber shop was too far of a distance to swing to – or maybe Tarzan just didn’t swing that way.
All right, you can hit me for that last joke.
Which brings me to my last beef.
Where the hell was Tarzan’s knife? I know I can’t expect it to be EXACTLY like the old-time books. Times change, attitudes change – but hell, if I was swinging through the jungle on a vine having to survive in the wilderness I would CERTAINLY carry a knife of some sort.
I mean, we’ve already established that I can’t shoot for shit.
Anyway – to sum up – I saw the movie for free and I still want my money back.
yours in storytelling,
Steve Vernon
I thought it was fun. No deep thinking just fun.
“The reason this is so bothersome is that Tarzan doesn’t have an existential crisis until he meets Jane, the first white woman he’s ever seen. Yeah. Let me rephrase more bluntly: Tarzan does not realize he is a human being until he meets another white person. One henchman in the movie even makes a snide comment to Tarzan about how he must have been stunned to see Jane, “after all the negresses.” Whether by editing error, oversight, or intention, that’s such a troubling statement regarding racial identity, otherness and basic humanity that it blew the movie for me it. I couldn’t stop thinking about it even during scenes with a plethora of washboard abs and action that were supposed to be fun.”
Thank you for mentioning this. I was on the fence about this movie precisely because I was concerned something like this would happen during a form of entertainment I’m paying good money for. Everyone else seems hesitant to mention that this happened. Thank you for doing so.
~Alexa
Enjoyed Tarzan, so I’m shallow: went specifically for the abs
It’s a good thing Tarzan was so pretty because he didn’t get to talk much. And Jane had some funny lines that went completely over the audience’s heads–at least the heads of the audience I was sitting with. The movie could have been so much better if they’d decided what it was (political? comedy? drama? WHAT???) and explored specific elements instead of the free-for-all it was.
Alexander Skarsgård = YES. It doesn’t matter if the movie is bad. I watched BATTLESHIP. (Also, points for the “steal underpants” reference, I use that one a lot; I almost always get movies from the library, so that’s probably how I’ll watch this one, and a lot of the problematic shit is straight out of the problematic novel that started it all.)
I’m trying to figure out what on earth lead Jane’s parents to conclude that there was a real need for people to go to remote villages in the Belgian Congo in the 1800s and teach English. What were the villagers going to do with their new-found English skills? Steal more underpants?
Very amusing review, but boy, I think an F grade is too severe. I, too, am constantly asking believablity questions when I see a movie, but you put me to shame! S
Somehow, you don’t know how Tarzan’s parents built a tree house (levies? lumber from, what. . . how did they get there, anyway?), but you accept the basic premise that this little baby not only is adopted by a gorilla, but actually grows up to be. . . wait for it. . . a British aristocrat who is actually able to fit in well enough to assume the title? He not only learns language AS AN ADULT, but also the arcane bits of manners, etc., necessary for acceptance as a British aristocrat. If you had trouble with Tarzan’s parents’ tree house, how ever did you accept Tarzan’s mystical harnassing of the wildebeasts, alligators, birds, (and probably lions, tigers, and bears too) to overrun the colonists’ settlement? (I assume this isn’t really a spoiler, as it’s shown in the trailer). You didn’t have trouble with Tarzan leaping probably 100 feet into the tops of trees, without injuring himself? The suspension of disbelief necessary in this movie is no greater than that demanded by the million action movies where the fate of the world is ALWAYS determined by two men, fist fighting (because Hollywood has never outgrown middle school).
Yes, Tarzan’s instant obsession with Jane, who presumably is the only and first woman he sees, is a problem in this movie where there are native villages that Tarzan has known. Realistically, he would have formed a relationship with one of these women, and his instant love for Jane is pure racism, but you have to admit, that exploring this realism would have bogged down the movie in irrelevance or unpleasantness. Either Tarzan is like the French planter in “South Pacific” (in love with his former mate, a black woman) or you have more than a whiff of interracial exploitation. Instead, past movies have sensibly side stepped it by making Tarzan grow up deep in the jungle (never mind that most of Africa is savannah), never having seen other humans.
I liked the movie because 1. it has a coherent plot, a rarity today in adventure movies 2. Tarzan and Jane are nice to look at 3. I personally like the trope of the man rescuing the woman, so kill me already 4. I liked the animals overruning the settlement. That was a novel solution 5. it was a fun couple of hours.
I agree that with today’s change of attitude toward racism (which I admit is blatant in Tarzan, especially if you try to make it at all realistic), that it’s nearly impossible to have a “Tarzan” that doesn’t offend people. My solution: watch the animated Disney version which is a lovely romance and a nice musical. The animation removes it enough from realism, racism, colonial exploitation, etc. to be just pure fun.
My grade for the movie Tarzan: B.
I will respectfully disagree with your rating. While the diamond bit was a way to get Mbongo into the story (and it was his tribe that was hunting the mangani –not gorillas–) King Leopold’s deprivations of the Congo are well documented as was George Washington William’s journey to the Congo. Not that Tarzan as a character by Burroughs or the Tarzan in this book are to be considered historically accurate.
As for Tarzan falling for the first white woman… I took it more as a case of this was the first human he came in contact with that wasn’t trying to kill his tribe….and then he protected her from the mangani and was seriously injured. He was carried back to the village and nursed back to health … that’s when they fell in love.
About Tarzan fighting his mangani brother… that’s the point. It was his brother, not the other mangani who would certainly have killed him. But his brother who deliberately knocked the other mangani out of the way. He was injured (pretty badly given a dislocated shoulder) but his brother was doing it on purpose… got to beat you up because you’re a traitor to the tribe but you’re still my brother.
The treehouse and the facial hair were addressed elsewhere.
As a representation of the Tarzan character as created by Burroughs it was a pretty good job. (full disclosure — attended a special screening at Warner Brothers for the ERBurroughs fanclub along with ERB’s grandson) Could it have been more politically updated — sure– but for what it set out to be, it did a good job. I give it a B as well.
> The reason this is so bothersome is that Tarzan doesn’t have an existential crisis until he meets Jane, the first white woman he’s ever seen. Yeah. Let me rephrase more bluntly: Tarzan does not realize he is a human being until he meets another white person.
Articulated this perfectly.
I went to this movie with a friend because I’d read Alexander Skarsgard was half naked for most of it. I was expecting it to be not very good and it wasn’t. I simply turned off my brain and enjoyed the eye candy.
With exception of the cartoon I have never really enjoy Tarzan movies, they always seem like they should be more than what they actually are. I had thought I would eventually rent this one for man candy but that changed when I read this review
The way race is done in this movie means it is not for me. That one comment alone makes it a big NO for me
I have not seen this movie, so this question is for those who have: did Tarzan have a concept of the African people he saw growing up there as human? My first thought upon reading about his existential crisis was it reminded me of the two little girls in India around the turn of the 20th century who were raised by wolves. They were found when they were something like 8-10 years old, but I don’t think they identified with humans at all after they were found and remained very lupine (sadly, I believe at least one died very young).
I don’t know if those girls ever saw other humans, but they obviously believed themselves to be part of the wolf lack that raised them. Maybe Tarzan felt himself to be gorilla so much that even if the villagers he saw equated to human in his mind, he was an ape and so they were two separate species. I’m guessing if Jane was explained to him as human (was she?) and she looked like him, that was what tipped the scales to a difference in perception?
*wolf pack
I LOVED this movie with a fiery passion and I thought they did almost everything right. Sure, it’s #1 goal is entertainment and raw sex appeal, but I loved the subplots as much as the Tarzan mythology. My thought leaving the theater was, “FINALLY! Someone did a Tarzan movie right!” I go to a movie to be entertained and I definitely was.
Tree house = block and tackle (ie, pulley). Been around since Romans or Ancient Egypt or something, and pretty darn easy. My kids play with them in the yard.
Absolutely available on ship, if that’s how Tarzan’s parents came (it was a shipwreck, right?).
This movie is a fantasy. Tarzan is a fantasy. Tarzan has no beard because the author created his character that way,in the image of a Greek god. Edgar Rice Burroughs didn’t want Tarzan to have a beard! Simple as that. Sheez! There’re so many things to pick apart in this review, I don’t know where to start. The apes in this movie look too much like gorillas. They are supposed to be an unknown species of ape, more man-like than gorilleas. Cross-fit? What’s that mean? Some twisted insinuation that these “gorillas” bred with humans? This reviewer has a dirty mind and a dirty mouth. Tarzan, up to about age 19 or 20, had never seen a WHITE woman. Of course he had seen other humans, but avoided any interaction with them because they were cannibals and he had an inherent disgust for that practice. He did not hook up with any of the natives. Here, I’m referring to the original story, not this movie. There is so much more I could counter with but this comment is way too long already. After this reviewer’s first paragraph, she should have given up. She has nothing.
Dude bOb –
Cross fit is a popular form of exercise. Combines cardio, weights, things like jump ropes and dragging tires. Typically done in a class or with a video – like America’s Biggest Losers, Jillian Whats Her Name, that stuff. It’s the type of exercise class the people on American Gladiator often teach so that they can work out hard all day. Type of class that focuses on getting abs like a movie star.
Perhaps now you will reply, “oops, my bad – I knew what cross fit was, I just forgot, so sorry for the attack/accusation about something I should have remembered/known! That wasn’t fair of me. Not who I want to be on the internet. Sorry!”
Because cross fit = type of exercise is kind of general knowledge, and you got all yelling/name-calling at someone who you don’t know about something you were mistaken about.
Regular commenter, going anonymous.
Hi bOb!
I absolutely have a dirty mind and a dirty month; however, cross fit is an intense form of exercise that quickly produces muscle definition.
I’m not sure why your mind immediately jumped to beastiality, but you might want to check out my review of The Orca King if that trips your trigger.
Thanks!
So, I went to see this movie with the divine Elyse and I agree with her 100%! This was a horrible movie. I legit went to see it so I could see Alexander Skarsgärd half naked and it took quite a ways into the movie for that to even happen. In fact, as we left the theatre I looked at Elyse and asked if it was supposed to be that bad. Definitely earned and deserved the F rating.
Okay, I understand that people sometimes feel defensive about bad reviews of things they loved, but are some of these reviews stealth performance art? Because that cross fit review (I *have* to believe that part was intentional parody) also just informed me that the Tarzan story isn’t racist; it’s just that all the black people around were gross, because they were all cannibals.
O.o
I’m not even calling that one out. I mean, I am, because ‘I wildly guess this phrase I don’t know means something, then yell about it’ was hilarious. But why do so many of these comments seem to go ‘I wasn’t bothered by the racism, therefore it didn’t matter, therefore how dare you mention it’? That’s not how… anything works.
I agree that this is the best review, possibly of all time, of anything, ever:
http://www.emilywrites.co.nz/i-saw-tarzan-and-this-is-my-review-after-some-wines/
And additionally I think that the woman who is behind it should write for SBTBs.
I agree with Melissa. That emilywrites review was darned funny. I showed it to my wife and she demanded that I put that review up on her Facebook page instead of mine, because like Alexander Skarsgard and all…