MovieChat Forums > Greystoke: The Legend of Tarzan, Lord of the Apes (1984) Discussion > Several key changes would be huge improv...

Several key changes would be huge improvements

posted 11 years ago by MyDarkStar
10 replies | jump to latest

I regard this movie as being somewhat underrated. However, I also regard it as a missed opportunity to create the definitive Tarzan movie. I believe several key changes could have elevated immensely. These changes not only help the logistics of the movie, but also improve the dramatic effect of the movie as a whole. They may not be enough to raise it to the stature of "Classic" but they would go a long way.

Key changes :

- The name "Tarzan" is never mentioned once, making the very title of the movie confusing. This could have been solved with a quick 5min scene of natives (with subtitles) in which they refer to him as "Tarzan" among themselves after encountering him. Just that scene would have made a world of a difference by not only explaining the name but would have also elevated the Tarzan "legend". It would have shown us he was such a legendary creature of such stature to the natives that they even named him among themselves.

- He should not have been shaved. Somebody mentioned on here that he had shaved himself in the book in order to make himself look different from the apes. If that's the reason he was shaved in the movie then they should have shown him doing that in the movie. Otherwise it is something which looks unreal in the movie. I believe he should have been shown completely unshaved with a huge beard. It would have seemed more realistic and would have made for a much more striking figure when first encountered.

- He learned English far too quickly to seem realistic. He spoke quite well when he arrived at the Greystoke estate. He could even read it. His speech should have been completely broken when he arrived, only capable of short simple sentences. It also would have made for a much more effective Greystoke arrival scene.

- Andie McDowell should simply have not been casted. If they had to overdub her voice due to her accent then it makes no sense to cast her. Once you are aware that her voice had been overdubbed it's very obvious. There's plenty other actresses. I'm sure the role would have been used in more ways if the director did not have to worry about the overdub not being a distraction if another actress had been used.

Overall it's a very good movie, but a missed opportunity to make what would have been the definitive Tarzan movie. Christopher Lambert is great in it ; his best role no doubt.

[–] fingerst 10 years ago

Agreed.
I would also remove the "hearing lines people said earlier echoing in the character's mind" device, it's incredibly cheesy.

Just because your truth isn't the true truth, doesn't mean there is no truth, Ruth.

[–] MyDarkStar 10 years ago

I don't see how they can make a Tarzan movie and never have the name "Tarzan" appear once in the movie. It's almost like there are scenes missing in the final edit.

[–] spookyrat1 10 years ago

... making the very title of the movie confusing.

I think the title of the movie made it very clear this was to be a different sort of Tarzan movie. It went out of its way to not confuse IMO.

He learned English far too quickly to seem realistic.

He was in the jungle for some 6 months with Philippe, plus the time taken to get back to England. The film also suggests he is highly intelligent and a great mimic, which would assist the quick acquisition of language.

I believe he should have been shown completely unshaved with a huge beard.

Your opinion.

I believe the film simply suggests that he hadn't really started growing a beard and when Philippe came on the scene, he was taught to shave, perhaps offering an explanation why Tarzan is traditionally depicted without a beard. This after all is an origin story.

Andie McDowell should simply have not been cast.

I'm not sure why an English actress wasn't cast, or why her normal accent wasn't used, as her character was said to be an American ward. Having said that, I don't find Glenn Close's dialogue to troubling and Andie definitely has the looks.

Christopher Lambert is great in it ; his best role no doubt.

Too true, I think it is a really underrated performance. He simply just looks the part and his physical acting in particular is just superb.

[–] MyDarkStar 10 years ago

I think the title of the movie made it very clear this was to be a different sort of Tarzan movie. It went out of its way to not confuse IMO.

How can the title not be considered confusing if the word "Tarzan" is never mentioned once in the movie ?

[–] spookyrat1 10 years ago

It certainly didn't confuse me. The film sought to give a more realistic origin story of the Tarzan/Greystoke character. I didn't need to hear the word uttered to understand that. May be you did. Are you saying you saw the film and were confused it was not a more traditional Tarzan story?

[–] MyDarkStar 10 years ago

What is "Tarzan" ?

[–] jasonleedham-170-304863 10 years ago

In the novel Tarzan means white skin in the language of the Apes, clearly the Apes would not pronounce it as we would.
I guess Tarzan was the name we all know him by and was therefore used in the title, greystoke is the family title in the novels,

[–] MyDarkStar 10 years ago

How are we supposed to know what "Tarzan" means if we're never shown the apes use it or ever mentioned in the script ?

[–] Wuchakk 9 years ago

I believe several key changes could have elevated immensely. These changes not only help the logistics of the movie, but also improve the dramatic effect of the movie as a whole. They may not be enough to raise it to the stature of "Classic" but they would go a long way.

I believe "Greystoke" breaks the threshold of greatness, but agree that it could've been even better with a few changes. I disagree, however, with the changes you cite, which mostly strike me as petty, irrelevant or are simply a matter of preference (e.g. getting someone other than MacDowell), no offense.

The name "Tarzan" is never mentioned once, making the very title of the movie confusing.

"Tarzan" was the name given him in the ape language of his tribe of apes meaning "white skin," which sounded more like a bestial grunt to human ears. While it's likely that Tarzan shared his ape name with D'Arnot the filmmakers decided to omit it, maybe on the grounds of making the movie more realistic and moving away from the whole "me Tarzan, you Jane" cliché that (presumably) started with the Weissmuller flicks. This explains the movie's title: "Greystoke: The Legend of Tarzan" and not "Tarzan."

I respect your opinion and even agree that they should've used the name at least a few times (and maybe they did in deleted scenes), but to me it's a pointless issue and has no bearing on the quality of the movie.

He should not have been shaved. Somebody mentioned on here that he had shaved himself in the book in order to make himself look different from the apes. If that's the reason he was shaved in the movie then they should have shown him doing that in the movie. Otherwise it is something which looks unreal in the movie. I believe he should have been shown completely unshaved with a huge beard.

When Tarzan found the knife he learned to use it for many things -- killing, trimming his hair, shaving in a rough manner, etc. D'Arnot later teaches him how to shave more finely with a razor. Where's the beef? Besides, if Tarzan had a full beard as an adult it would've ruined the first scenes depicting Lambert as Tarzan, including the great one where he finds D'Arnot wounded with a couple other apes behind him. Lambert simply looks better with a shaven face and film is a visual medium, so they depicted him shaved, which is faith to Burroughs' book.

He learned English far too quickly to seem realistic. He spoke quite well when he arrived at the Greystoke estate.

He was already familiar with the letters of the alphabet and words due to the children's books in the tree house. Combine this with what D'Arnot described as an "uncanny ability to mimic" and Tarzan's exceptional intelligence and he learned both English and French quite quickly. Besides, D'Arnot had well over half a year to teach him on a daily basis, including the weeks-long trip to Scotland. Although he could speak well the movie shows him frequently slipping back into his ape lingo, not to mention he's never shown going into overlong dialogues; just relatively short statements.

One thing that sets "Greystoke" apart from previous Tarzan flicks is that the filmmakers were determined to depict him the way Burroughs did in the books, as an extremely intelligent man who happened to grow-up with a tribe of apes and not as a dim-witted wild man who had a hard time construing five proper words in a sentence.

Andie McDowell should simply have not been casted. If they had to overdub her voice due to her accent then it makes no sense to cast her. Once you are aware that her voice had been overdubbed it's very obvious.

MacDowell is fine in the role, even stunning, and I didn't even know she was dubbed by Glenn Close until someone pointed it out, which shows they did a quality job with the dubbing. Who's familiar enough with Glenn Close's voice to notice anyway? It's not like she was ever a mega-star (a star in the 80s, for sure, but not a mega-star). MacDowell is one of the reasons the love scene worked so spectacularly. She and Lambert had great chemistry.

My 150 (or so) favorite movies:
http://www.imdb.com/list/ls070122364/

[–] creatorof2002 9 years ago

Interesting comment on the name "Tarzan" never being used, though I saw it 30 years ago and cannot remember. I feel that this was one of the earliest "Nolanized" films. The colloquial verb "Nolanize" began in 2005 with BATMAN BEGINS and it means taking a classic but somewhat unrealistic story and modernizing it and also making it somewhat more realistic.

This felt in retrospect like Nolanized Tarzan. It was more of a drama than a crazy story where Tarzan is a super hero defeating evil villains and saving the day and rescuing Jane etc and more of a drama. I came up with a great way he could have been named "Tarzan". It would NOT be the name he had his whole life just a "nickname".

My idea is this: Being a semipro Scrabble player I have a huge vocabulary and I learned years ago that "tarzan" is a regular word meaning a very tough and strong person. Maybe somebody should have said to him "you are quite a tarzan" in DESCRIBING him using a regular word and somehow it sticks and winds up becoming his nickname.