"You must avenge my death, Kimba... I mean Simba!"
When I saw this joke on "The Simpsons" many years ago, I thought it was funny, but I didn't quite get it. These days, many of us know about the dubious relationship between Disney's "The Lion King" and Osamu Tezuka's "Kimba the White Lion." Recently, I read about some Thai studio ripping off Disney's "Beauty and the Beast," and for some reason there was a bit of an uproar. So I decided, it's time we look back on my personal relationship with Disney, and it's self proclaimed "all-original story, The Lion King."
"The Lion King" came out in 1993. I was in 6th grade. Young, proud, and self-involved, I was compulsively illustrating my personal fantasies. From space-faring anthropomorphic cat people to complex fantasy religions to rendering every scale on a dragons back, drawing was second nature to me. When asked what my plans for my future were, I would answer, without skipping a beat: "I am going to work for Disney."
I'm certain I was not alone in my aspirations--the thought passes through many a young mind who so intensely enjoys Disney's beautiful animations. Animation that is so beautiful, in fact, that it is sometimes difficult for a child to consider watching anything else. Disney's track record was phenomenal during that time, too: from "The Little Mermaid," to "Beauty and the Beast," to one of my all time favorites, "Aladdin," I feel pretty lucky to have had such good films to grow up on. I consumed it all without a second thought. How could I not? I was 11, and even though I would soon embark on the great and arduous journey that would be adolescence, I knew I would never outgrow my love of cartoons. They're important for my career, after all!
So here comes "The Lion King. "
Despite my compulsive need to draw, at the time I very, very rarely illustrated human beings. I thought humans were "too mundane" (that being my excuse to avoid drawing something in which I had no confidence or skill to draw). So, I drew animals. Animals with human expressions, emotions, and voices. So here is a film, from my favorite animation studio, which cuts out all humans with which we were so familiar in previous features. This was a story about animals: beautiful, idealized, humanized animals that have human expressions and human voices. It was perfect. I did not consume this movie, it consumed ME. For months, I drew lions. I drew a comic about lions in the "Lion King" style, and while I excitedly told my friends about it, they joked about how I would get sued by Disney.
So here I am now, making comics still, illustrating still, and still just as involved with cartoons. Now, I am also a teacher. In my constant need of inspiration and education, I discovered Osamu Tezuka a LOT more recently. Well, I knew who he was a long time ago -- I learned about "Astro Boy" from a "Calvin and Hobbes" strip, and of course I knew the name from reading manga in high school. It was "The Simpsons" which introduced to me the Simba/Kimba conflict, but the connection wasn't made until much, much later. What I knew was academic, secondhand comparisons of the two properties. And now, this week, I finally made the decision to make this week to educate myself even further, and actually watch some episodes of "Kimba the White Lion," also known as "Jungle Emperor."
Click here to watch the first episode of Jungle Emperor in Japanese (English subtitles)I am not going to go into the debate about Kimba the White Lion and the Lion King too much, mainly because, well, there really is no debate. I watched episodes of both the original "Jungle Emperor" of 1964 and the dubbed "Kimba the White Lion." I also watched some different versions of "Jungle Emperor 1989," and the dubbed (and heavily edited) "Kimba: The New Adventures." There is no contest that every character, sequence, backdrop, every INCH of "The Lion King" has a counterpart in Kimba. So yes, Simba the Lion King is basically Kimba, with a color filter. For further information, look here:
[link]Wait, is that a white lion in that presentation reel? Scroll down, and you'll see a quote:
' During planning sessions for The Lion King, Simba started out as a white lion until one of the animators spoke up: "Not even OUR lawyers are THAT good!" '
Some folks would claim that The Lion King is not a copy, but a "homage." However, when you make an homage to something, generally you actually say what that something is. You don't claim you never heard of it when curious people start making comparisons. But this leaves me with the question: really, why does this movie exist? Was it really a huge scam, as many angry and disillusioned conspiracy theorists would imagine? Was it really a huge accident, as avid defenders of Disney would claim? Was Disney trying to make an adaptation, but didn't get permission? (The above quote would suggest otherwise.) Are we really supposed to believe that the most successful, highest quality, and richest animation studio in the WORLD would have never heard of a widespread, unique 1960's cartoon, which was the first color cartoon to be broadcast in Japan, and made television history? Much less its creator, who is known as "The Father of Japanese Animation" and "The GOD of Manga?"
Now, I don't want to create the impression that I am completely against Disney and I think the entirety of its staff were, are, and forever will be a bunch of scheming, underhanded hacks. "The Lion King" is a fantastic film. The animators who took part of this movie are all incredibly skilled. The songs are just as great and memorable as those in "Aladdin," "Beauty and the Beast" and "The Little Mermaid." (Well, all of the songs that were in the original theatrical release--a song was added in the DVD release, and it is abysmal.) This is not just nostalgia talking. I watched all of these movies last week, and if anything, I appreciated the skill involved even more. However, now that I am a little older and a little wiser, I know that every idea comes from somewhere. I can't blame awesome Disney animators for being influenced by awesome things--now that I have seen the sad bleached bones of "The Thief and the Cobbler" and the beautiful, haunting "Sea Prince and the Fire Child," it is quite obvious that Disney is no divine source of ideas. Disney is a corporation, and the artists comprise only a part of it. After all, we wouldn't all so readily recognize the venn diagram of Mickey Mouse without incredible--and vicious--marketing.
The greatest bone I have to pick with Disney over "The Lion King" is this: I didn't watch an episode of Kimba the White Lion until last week. I didn't really start reading Tezuka's comics until a few years ago. Given, a lot of this is my fault. But Disney, a highly respected, academy award-winning studio, which is considered the ultimate animation studio for film and television, had and still has a heavy hand in the upbringing in thousands of kids. It is a media giant, a corporate giant, and a staple of American culture. A lot of us seem to think, for some reason, that great power comes with great responsibility--but here I am, here we are, digging up gold that Disney has buried. Osamu Tezuka may have been one of the most influential artists in Japan, and many have proclaimed him the "Japanese Walt Disney." But despite Japan's past economic successes, the dollar value and international recognition of his properties can't hold a candle to that of Disney. Indeed, Tezuka was highly influenced by Disney... but wait a minute, he said so, didn't he?
So I guess the mystery here is, why didn't Disney just say that Kimba influenced "The Lion King?" Would Tezuka's foundation really have sued their pants off? Why was Disney so avid about denying their knowledge of a show that thousands of people grew up on, which really makes it statistically impossible that none of their staff had ever seen it? Was it complex legal jargon which caused such a baffling marketing stance? Or was it... dare I say... guilt?
Of course anything is possible at this rate. To conclude, I would like to say that Disney films are some of my favorite films of all time (although I have not seen a 2D film from them that I have been so satisfied with since "The Lion King," but that, however, may very well be nostalgia talking). I love those movies, but I am not going to allow that love to keep me from recognizing fault. Disney feature films have a lot in presentation, but depth is something they often lack. And depth is something Tezuka will blow you away with. His characters may look cutesy and dated, but they think and speak with a maturity and complexity that is almost baffling. His stories are as beautiful as they are tragic, with little attempt to sugar coat the consequences. So go watch Jungle Emperor--not the heavily edited 1989 English dubs, but the originals--and see what kind of narrative power simple cartoons can really have.