March to Disney: The Jungle Book – Beyond the Bare Necessities


Last year to coincide with a trip to Walt Disney World in March, I decided to have a month-long focus on Disney fare. Their vaults are vast and varied enough such that this is a theme that could recur annually. Below you will find links to the inaugural posts written for the theme.

The Jungle Book: Beyond the Bare Necessities

The Jungle Book (1967, Disney)

I won’t speak for others in this regard, but I know to me, even though I’ve seen this movie a number of times; I typically struggle to put my finger on other scenes in The Jungle Book beside “The Bare Necessities” without racking my brain. I found that this happened with some of the late-’60s and ’70s titles and this is not because I don’t find them up to snuff with other Disney animated fare. I think what it is, as I noted after having also re-watching The Sword in the Stone (which I will cover here shortly), is that there’s a more sketch-like approach to the storytelling.

Previously on film the Korda brothers with Sabu in the lead brought this tale to life. However, with Disney’s penchant for anthropomorphism it was clear this was a candidate for a new treatment for a new generation. This title is yet another, of many, that is cited as being Disney’s last. I’ve heard this so many times I don’t even know which one is true anymore.

The voice cast features many legends from the Disney stable who made their presence known in other Disney films, many in the Winnie the Pooh shorts/feature: Phil Harris, Sebastian Cabot, Bruce Reitherman and Sterling Holloway.

In some ways the standout nature of the music in this film is an example of the double-edged sword that is the incredible talent of the Sherman Brothers. I always hum the songs and then have to remind myself of the voice talent that was assembled for this film.

The Jungle Book (1967, Disney)

The talent in general all around is there for at this point Disney animated features were a well-oiled machine with Wolfgang Reitherman at the helm directing.

What struck me upon this viewing of the film was that there is a certain subtlety to the approach of this story. There is an ongoing antagonist, Shere Khan, in this tale, he’s not omnipresent, but much like the Gmork in The Neverending Story many years later; he’s always lurking about. He’s less present here than in the live action. However, the thrust of this tale being can Mowgli continue to survive in the jungle as we slowly try to convince him to go to the man village, it is still important as Mowgli must learn man-like ways to adapt and survive. As sparse as Khan’s appearances are, he still nearly takes out a deer and immediately draws a dangerous parallel to Bambi heightening his fear factor.

Another subtle touch is the way in which the passage of time is indicated from when Mowgli is a baby to the present day: “10 times the rains had come and gone,” indicative of years seeing as how the rains refer to monsoon season. Lastly, there’s an underlying indicator (at least to a younger viewer) of the coming-of-age struggle in this tale when Baloo responds to Bagheera’s assertion that he to to the man village: “The man village. That’s awful, they’ll make a man out of him.”

The tale is narrated by Bagheera, a panther, the one who puts Mowgli with wolves in the first place. In terms of segments there’s Bagheera’s finding him, his being raised by wolves, and then his time with Baloo being the third segment.

The Jungle Book (1967, Disney)

There are also in these segmented tales difficulty in recalling that there is an ulterior motive in long song sequences. For example, King Louis is after something in “I Wan’na Be Like You’ it just takes a bulk of that song for it to come to the fore.

Brisker storytelling is found when the elephants are introduced by their marching song. Another Pooh alumni is found here as Clint Howard voices the young elephant and he was the first voice of Roo.

An interesting aspect of this film, and one that likely captures the imagination of the young to this very day, is here you have a boy who gets to roam the jungle and live with and be like animals; he tries to become them. It’s a whimsical tale that falls short of the horror of children becoming animals in Pinocchio.

One of the better elements of the film is that Baloo’s sense of responsibility in getting Mowgli to the safety of his own kind comes just as Mowgli learns he wants to be with Baloo. It’s a perfect midpoint. Mowgli has his own understanding of his belonging, Baloo’s eyes have opened and he has another entirely.

The Jungle Book (1967, Disney)

Another thing that really does work, and lends itself to a feeling of “looseness” about the structure of this film is that characters are often introduced as silly or caricatures, but end up serving a vital purpose. Mowgli is missing which brings the elephants back to search for him. The vultures who seem like nothing more than the Disney writers and animators riffing on The Beatles, and maybe a reactionary attempt to create non-controversial comic relief birds (see Dumbo) also factor into the finale.

Furthermore, I was reminded that a musical moment in this film provides one of its better jolts as Khan jumps in at the end of a song and gets the ball rolling on the climactic events of the story.

Perhaps this one of the things my subconscious decides to block out, but there is one of the more effective near deaths in the Disney canon. That and the dialogue-free execution of Mowgli’s decision is some of the finest animation and direction that they did. Everything is apparent, but nothing is painfully obvious. It’s sensitively and beautifully rendered and it’s something I recalled as soon as the film started. As many times as I’ve seen it it still gives me chills. It’s wonderful.

So, yes, the structure is a bit episodic and the songs are infectiously memorable. However, that ought not obscure some of the truly gorgeous and wonderful things that occur in this movie.



  1. jennifromrollamo · March 9, 2014

    The only thing I find somewhat “cheesy” in Disney’s Jungle Book is the quartet of vultures that are a riff on The Beatles. Too cute by half, imho.

    • bernardovillela · March 9, 2014

      I agree. They most definitely are, but that’s why it surprises me that they actually factor in an aren’t random. I do wonder if that part of the gag is lost on younger viewers today. I always new that because my parents introduced me to the Beatles.

      • jennifromrollamo · March 9, 2014

        It was lost on me when viewing it with younger nieces until my older sister-in-law mentioned that those birds were supposed to be The Beatles-she would have been 10 when TJB hit theatres for the first time, so she got it.

  2. Pingback: March to Disney: The Sword in the Stone | The Movie Rat

Comments are closed.