Branding Broadway

Disney's The Lion King as Culture and Commerce
FILM 212- THe MUSICAL
Sarah Kozloff

It is often forgotten that first and foremost, film is a business: a multi-billion dollar enterprise forged on the heartache of bad box office returns and delight of surprise successes. The art form may not have progressed to its international status were it not for the lucrative returns garnered on successful implementation of a formula or a well conceived experiment. Perhaps one of the greatest manipulators of this formula is the Walt Disney Corporation. Using anthropomorphized animals, celebrity voices and catchy, upbeat and current sounding or thematically appropriate songs, Disney has drawn audiences by producing a familiar product in various iterations of the aforementioned formula. Starting with Snow White (1937) the company has produced a stream of exceptionally well-received animated features, many of which earned Academy Awards, even before the advent of the “Best Animated Feature” category in 2001. It is no small surprise, therefore, that as consumer culture matured and product tie ins became a normal and fiscally advantageous feature of live action films, that Disney’s animated films increased their already impressive product through marketing tie ins.
In expanding the already well established brand, it is not shocking that Disney turned to Broadway to pursue further successes of its films. The Lion King, released in theaters on June 24, 1994, was put into production as a Broadway show only a few years later and opened on November 13, 1997. The film’s gross earnings seemed positive evidence that The Lion King as brand would translate profitably, even in a literal transference of the screen material to stage. But when noted experimental theater maker Julie Taymor, fresh off successes with alternatively staged productions of Titus Andronicus and eclectic, multinational productions using puppetry, was courted to direct the project, the fate of the Disney musical brand was tempered by its amenableness to adaptation. Taymor’s drastically different shaping of The Lion King, which includes more African inspired musical numbers and highly stylized execution of the film’s completely animal cast can certainly be seen as an element of the musical’s enormous success. Yet it must not be overlooked how the consumer, courted by the Disney branding of the play, bought in not only to Taymor’s spectacle, but to the Disneyfied Times Square as a destination and the show, with its merchandise tie ins conveniently located next door in an enormous Walt Disney Company Store, as a consumable.
To properly consider The Lion King (on stage and screen) as an expression of the Disney brand, one must first look to the original film to process the dimensions of its success and explore their cause. During its theatrical run and re-release on IMAX, the film grossed $312.8 million, an unprecedented amount for Disney and the fifth highest domestic grossing film in history. It is also the best selling home video of all time, having sold over 55 million copies. “Although not unlike other Disney animated films that use catchy songs, rich animation, and a diverse cast of voices, The Lion King has grossed significantly more than early popular films such as The Little Mermaid (1989), Aladdin (1995), or even the only animated film to be nominated for a Best Picture Oscar, Beauty and the Beast (1991). It captured two Academy Awards and two Grammys for its music.” The film exists within the canon of the new Disney of the nineties (starting with The Little Mermaid and running through to The Hunchback of Notre Dame, 1996.) At this point, computer generated imagery was a relatively new phenomenon, and the inclusion of 3D images (such as the scene of the wildebeest stampede) made it an impressive development of the art form. The computer program used to actualize the visceral experience of the stampede was written specifically for the film’s production. These exciting new visuals contributed to the appeal of the film, as a technological development of the tried and true Disney animated feature.
Appeal it did, and to a vast spectrum of demographics. “The ''Lion King'' phenomenon is due to the unusually strong crossover appeal of the romantic adventure to kids and adults, and both genders. Most telling is the fact that many kids-and some adults- [were] already going back for repeat viewings.” Accessing all of these groups truly made the film a popular destination for the whole family. The film’s 89 minute run time and inclusion of pop musical songs by composer Tim Rice and lyricist Elton John helped infuse additional familiarity (especially to those comfortable with the Disney film equation for success.) Catchy songs such as “Hakuna Matata” and the ballad “Can You Feel the Love Tonight” were not only celebrated by film audiences, but also the music industry, who rewarded the composers with two Grammy Awards. Celebrity voice work by James Earl Jones, Matthew Broderick, Jeremy Irons, Whoopi Goldberg and Jonathan Taylor Thomas ensured that star power was also a draw. As mentioned earlier in reference to the “formula,” audiences are most comfortable with the familiar. Hearing James Earl Jones voice Mufasa connected Jones’ star factor and the amalgam of his on screen personalities to the character, lending a sort of context that a non-celebrity probably would not have provided.
Unfortunately, what is familiar is not always authentic, especially when a film attempts to depict unfamiliar terrain such as Africa. The Lion King’s illustration of the Pridelands (fictionalized Africa) is non-specific and involves very few references to the actual continent it is intended to represent, much less any individual nation within that environment. This is not entirely surprising, as the film was almost singularly produced by Americans and Europeans. Lebo M, a contributing composer who wrote the Zulu language chorus to “Circle of Life,” was the only African working on the film’s production team. This is a particularly resonant fact, considering the film’s creation during the fall of apartheid in South Africa. While he and Hans Zimmer did add some African elements to the score, only “The Circle of Life” has Zulu lyrics. Additionally, while the production team originally considered using African fabric patterns in the visuals of the backgrounds, this was deemed overly stylized and was thus rejected in favor of the vast, mystical expanses that made the final film. This lack of African elements, which would seem appropriate for the film’s non-ethnic geographical setting, was somewhat rectified by the 1995 release of Lebo M’s album Rhythm of the Pridelands. Nine of the ten songs on this record incorporate some Zulu lyrics, and several of the tracks would ultimately be incorporated into the stage musical. As the film only shows animals of Africa, and does not strive for connection to African culture (which is apparent in the lack of African crew members) the pop sound of Elton John and Tim Rice’s score did not clash with the artistic direction- there was little need for an authentic African sound in this “Dark Continent” Disneyland.
Proven with the earlier films of the 1990s, commercial success and consumable characters went hand in hand. “Because of the success of the first six animated feature films produced in the ‘new era’ of Disney animation (the Little Mermaid, 1989; Beauty and the Beast, 1991; Aladdin, 1993; The Lion King, 1994; Pocahontas, 1995; The Hunchback of Notre Dame, 1996) and their mass merchandising, Disney animated characters became ubiquitous for children of the 1990s.” Adding to this ubiquity were the well-selected marketing tie-ins. For The Lion King’s June 24, 1994 release, seven figurines were available with kid’s meals at Burger King, and noted advertiser Saatchi & Saatchi mounted a 10 million dollar campaign to unite the two brands. Disney animated features seem tailor made for promotional marketing, considering how the animated animals lent themselves to recreation as toys, through which the fantasy of the movie could pursue indefinitely through the invention of new story lines for the toy-character. Mark Crispin Miller, in his bitingly titled article, “Advertising: End of Story,” elucidates this point more clearly:
The convergence of the movies with both cartoons and ads makes sense, because the ad and the cartoon each present a fantasy of perfect wish fulfillment: that is, a wish fulfillment that seems both immediate and absolute, arising, on the one hand, from a purchase (which will make life perfect now) or, on the other hand, from the animated spectacle itself (in which the universe appears responsive to your wishes.)
While Miller addressed this concern towards the trend shift in Hollywood towards creating “cartoon-like” live action films, the theory certainly applies when the film is originally a cartoon. Not only can children follow Simba’s adventures on the screen, they can expand on his future with their own plaything. The astounding box office success of the film and the outstanding performance of its Burger King tie ins exemplify sales synergy. “Said a Burger King spokesman: 'This is the best Disney promotion we've done. Kids meal sales have tripled since we started (June 20). We produced 30 million premiums for the promotion, which lasts three more weeks.” The film feeds the frenzy for the toys, the popularity of the toys hypes the film and develops a cult around its characters, creating additional desire to become an audience member/participant in the movie.
The move from film to Broadway was not, as for other movie musicals, as secure a prospect in the 1990’s as it is currently, with multiple studios arranging theatrical departments rather than simply selling the rights to their intellectual property. In 1996, at the onset of production for The Lion King on Broadway, Disney’s only other venture from animated film to live action theater was Beauty and the Beast. At the time of The Lion King’s debut, Beauty and the Beast had been running for four years and was estimated to have brought in $150 million in profits. However, the show was little more than a literal translation of the film to the stage, with all the flash of the animation but little expansion of the narrative. “Disney's first Broadway musical, Beauty and the Beast--based on the film and directed by a theme-park veteran, Rob Roth--was a traditional stage confection that came as close as possible to being a literal, three-dimensional re-creation of the movie.” This seems, in hindsight, a safe bet for the Walt Disney Corporation; a live staging of an already popular and familiar plot could do little wrong in fostering brand identification and positive ties to the story line. But in terms of spectacle and artistry, the seasoned Broadway theatergoers were seemingly unimpressed by the pyrotechnics and dancing teacups of the live staging, some going so far as to consider it “a big tacky kid’s show.”
Developing The Lion King as the successor to this live action cartoon required breaking with tradition in order to embrace the theatre community than alienate it. As soon as theater-maker Julie Taymor was courted to direct the project, thoughts of the Disney musical as a palatable, “safe” translation of the film without any deviation from the original source could be quickly discarded. Taymor herself acknowledges that she came on to the project as a creative force, rather than a re-creative one:
‘I had not yet seen the film when Tom [Schumacher, Executive Vice President of Walt Disney Theatrical Productions] called and asked me to consider conceptualizing The Lion King for Broadway,’ explains the New York City based Taymor. Once she saw the film, Taymor was convinced that it was ‘good source material. It felt like a good story that one could elaborate on.’ She says. ‘naturally, it would be aesthetically different.”
In signing Taymor, the Disney executives were well aware of her theatrical background, which included productions across the Asian continent and studies of mime and mask making worldwide. The executives seemed eager to work in concert with the artist, rather than outwardly force her hand. Julie Taymor’s previous work is hardly evident of the type of literal translation that was utilized in the stage adaptation of Beauty and the Beast. Those familiar with Disney and Taymor’s experimental, eclectic theater expressed skepticism before the show’s release that the two defined aesthetics could coagulate into one successful show. “It might appear that Disney has hakuna matata’d right off the deep end. Taymor’s highly stylized theater work—using masks, puppetry, mime and other non-western techniques, seems as far from classic Disney animation (and from those dancing teapots in Broadway’s Beauty and the Beast) as one can imagine.” Yet it is exactly that incorporation of international elements, and the stylized artistic design of the stage musical that are often attributes considered causal for its wild success.
One of Taymor’s major departures from the production of the film involved more global creative input. Lebo M was not to be the only African to contribute to this project. Scenic designer Richard Hudson, who won a Tony for his work on the production, was born in Zimbabwe and lived there until he was eighteen. This permitted him a better understanding of “stylized Africa” based on first hand experience. His color palate and the textures utilized to create the set pieces evoke some of the images of fabric patterns and tribal art that the animators originally rejected in shaping the film’s landscape. Sound designer Tony Meola used sound effects recorded in Africa. He also insisted that percussionists situated throughout the house would add to the communal feel of experiencing theater, despite opposition from Disney. This is a practice unfamiliar in the global North, wherein the audience and spectacle are traditionally kept separate. By situating musicians amongst the audience, elements of communal international theater are employed, emphasizing the group experience over the individual’s.
Julie Taymor’s specialty in mask making, derived from Asian theater practices, instantly separated her musical from Beauty and the Beast through its representation of animated characters as amalgam between masked human/unmasked animal—to varying degrees dependent on the character. For example, the mask for the character Mufasa sits above the actor’s head, so audiences must divide attention between the actor-human and the still lion character elements. On the other hand, the mask for Scar, Mufasa’s brother, is mechanically articulated so that the actor playing the role can control the lion’s facial expressions with subtle movements of a control in his hand. In the movie, the characters are anthropomorphized and uniformly presented as animated animals. Their personage does not require the same reconciliation between costume and character, as the only disparate element is the idea of a talking animal—one with which Disney audiences have made their peace decades ago.
Critics lauded Taymor for her departure from the source material. “Taymor has turned the show into a gorgeous display of world theatre, with a more African sound than the film and an array of Asian theatre techniques, as well as her own theatrical contrivances to render onstage such fantastic things as a supercilious hornbill, a life-size elephant, a flock of gazelles.” Visual and stylistic departures aside, which could be expected in the translation of an animated feature to live action, the most profound changes accrued in the staging of the musical are the addition of new musical numbers, which also help to expand the material’s cultural source and create the experience of communal theater. Lebo M’s contributions to the Broadway score complimented Taymor’s international influence on what was otherwise the patented Disney myth. These materials, much of which was written originally for a concept album that accompanied the animated film’s score, depart from John and Rice’s pop fare and draw from Lebo’s South African background. Lebo wrote and arranged two new songs for the musical, and co-wrote four others. His compositions allowed for the inclusion of an intricate dance piece for the female members of the company called “The Lioness Hunt,” which not only focuses attention on the lionesses of the Pride Rock community (previously overshadowed by their male counterparts) but also allows for the addition of African style dancing in a way that the Western compositions of Rice and John do not. Ensemble numbers Lebo M composed for the stage employ the use of a South African chorus, singing in Zulu and English, which ties in neatly with Taymor’s extensive international renovations to the show. “Eight musical numbers have been added, ranging from African style choral music to new songs by Elton John and Tim Rice, the movie’s original composer and lyricist.”
The inclusion of new material was carefully positioned within the show, as to not unsettle audiences expecting only to see their familiar Disney friends. The first three songs in the Broadway production were all originally written for the movie by Tim Rice and Elton John. The second number, “The Morning Report,” was animated but ultimately not included in the film. The fourth song, “Chow Down,” is also a John/Rice composition. It is not until the fifth song, “They Live in You,” that original material by Lebo M makes its debut in a full ensemble number. This is also the first large scale singing and dancing number with primarily Zulu lyrics. However, while this is a departure, the familiarity returns with the final two songs before intermission- “Be Prepared” and “Hakuna Matata,” both of which existed in the movie. Taking stock of the first act of the Lion King as a stage musical, the material is evenly split between pre-existing songs written for the movie and new compositions for the show. However, the majority of the numbers that Elton John and Tim Rice contributed appear in this first half.
After Act I reassured audiences with comfortable musical numbers from the movie, Act II was permitted a bit more freedom to deviate in its adaptation and implement Lebo M’s contributions to the score. In this act, only one original number from the movie is included (“Can You Feel the Love Tonight”) and all other songs include a Zulu chorus sung by a South African chorus. Granted, there are fewer musical numbers in the second act, but this departure from the source material contributes greatly to the internationality of the production and strengthens its ties to its African setting. After setting up the movie music (written by white composers) and drawing the audience into the setting of the musical (with all of its international attributes,) Act II is allowed to expand upon the Lion King movie and flesh it out into a vibrant, multiethnic spectacle, rather than one constrained to what was established by the film version and, concurrently, what audiences would expect from a literal translation.
The danger in so drastically changing a widespread brand is the potential backlash against the unfamiliar stylized adaptation. The Elton John and Tim Rice songs from the movie musical are those that kept theaters packed in the summer of 1994. Yet audiences and critics alike seemed to warm to Lebo M’s contributions to the score, while indicating that something was lost in translation of the John/Rice songs.
The music is also not consistently successful. Most of the songs written by Elton john and Tim Rice for the Disney film have been carried over to this production, and the pair composed three new ones for the play. Their Hollywood Disney character now seems strangely out of place. Not so the other lyrics and music composed by Ms. Taymor and others: M. Lebo, a South African born composer and performer; Mark Mancina, who had assisted in the writing and arranging the music for the Disney film. The African chant, sung by a chorus of mainly south African singers, often using native languages, bestows a new authenticity and casts a spell over the proceedings from the moment the play begins.
Of the three songs John and Rice contributed to the stage musical’s score, “The Morning Report” was written for the film, edited out, and then re-added as additional material after its success on Broadway. The other two, as the above review indicates, were seemingly less palatable additions to the diverse expression of the narrative as conceived by Taymor.
Julie Taymor’s notable contributions to the adaptation of The Lion King into a more communal experience with international accessibility via its varied inspirations can be seen as a notable departure from the Disney brand’s staid formula. Yet judging by the show’s sweep of six 1998 Tony awards, including Best Musical and a Best Director nod for Julie Taymor (making her the first woman in history to win this award) as well as eight Drama Desk awards in 1998, the critical response was overwhelmingly positive. Popular approval was also exceptionally well established. Today, ten years after its debut, the show has made over 3 billion dollars worldwide and still garners over 1 million dollars a week in Broadway ticket sales.
The enduring fiscal success of The Lion King on Broadway plays positively into the idea of the impermeable influence of the Disney brand. “’For me it’s both the animation and theater,” Mr. Schneider [president of Walt Disney Studios] says. ‘We knew we would be able to attract the Disneyites,” he says. He was counting on the people who loved The Lion King movie to be first in line at the theater box office- and then draw the sophisticated theater crowd afterwards.” The show’s original home theater, the New Amsterdam, was physically connected to a large Disney Company store, in which audience members need not even wait until the end of the musical in order to sate their consumerist desires. The store was open during intermission, its doors inviting traffic flow between the theater and commercial space and permitting the spectators to possess their own personal, physical representations of the characters on stage before them, almost immediately. This combination of commerce and creativity was seen by some as an invasion upon the sacred art space of theatre by capitalism.
The theatrical embodiment of cartoon characters allows Disney and other corporations in the entertainment industry to transform what have become traditional capitalist strategies for attracting consumers… by creating environments and narratives through which spectators/consumers are creating interpolated into fictions produced by and marketed in both shows and stores, entertainment and retail based corporations allow bodies to inhabit commodities and so suggest that commodities, in turn, can be brought to life.
This attitude ignores the reality that the majority of audiences for big budget Broadway shows are not highbrow theater patrons comparing Lion King to Taymor’s Titus Andronicus. The major ticket sales go to tourists. Just as Disney World is an international destination, so too is Broadway, and the marriage of the two permits exceptional commercial success.
At this point, one would be remiss if one did not address the involvement of Disney in the creation of “the New Times Square.” Beneficial to its branding to have a show on Broadway, Disney’s presence was also seen as a positive contribution to the real estate value of the area. “The other time Times Square was reinvented was in the 1950s when it was the heyday of Broadway ‘was celebrated around the world as a vibrant theater district bathed in a flood of electric lights. A vital crossroads, it combined a communications and media center with a theater and movie district, hotels, restaurants and bars, office towers, and nearby garment show rooms and factories.” However, by the early nineties, the grey slush of shady dealings had sullied the Great White Way. In his efforts to make New York a safe, family friendly destination again (and bring in tourist revenue) Mayor Rudolph Giuliani courted Disney to develop the area, allowing them to make alternative deals with theater unions so their expanded projects would be able to succeed. Bringing the Disney magic to Times Square seems to have served this purpose:
A few years ago, it was home to hookers, dirty bookstores and grungy B movies palaces. Now a little stretch of 42nd Street, west of Broadway in New York City is the most happening piece of show biz real estate in the world. On one side of the street is the refurbished new Amsterdam theater, where Disney’s The Lion King, a stage version of Simba’s tale that opened to raves in November, is the hottest selling show in Broadway history.
At significant financial investment (The Lion King’s $20 million price tag was the highest in Broadway history at the time of its release) the expansion of the Disney brand to include commercial interest in Times Square tourism appears mutually beneficial; as the tourists flock to Times Square, they have the opportunity to invest in commercial aspects of the company that cleaned it up, through ticket sales and merchandise purchased at the 42nd Street Disney Company store.
The commercialization of Broadway as represented by The Lion King may disturb those for whom the stage is a sacred space, for fear that the marketing hand of Mickey Mouse may be quashing artistic freedom. Taymor repeatedly stated in interviews that the understanding with the Disney corporation was that she was allowed her creative freedom, and they were allowed to oversee her process. Rather than threaten to compromise her artistic vision, the arrangement Disney reached with Taymor was that in the event of dissent, they could part company rather than leave either party unsatisfied. Ultimately, Taymor was allowed almost complete creative control, albeit supervised. This agreement may be seen to protect the interests of both involved parties. Yet while it is far too easy to look at The Lion King as an extremely artistic commercial endeavor, a less cynical view might be to see how the Disney brand draws those inexperienced with theatre into the seats, planting seeds of love for the stage arts in audience members previously unmoved by live action art. “The Lion King is going to be seen, in this country and around the world, by masses of children and adults unacquainted with either her brand of theatrical invention or with the magical possibilities of theatre itself.” Experimenting with Broadway, reassured by the familiar Disney branding of the show, parents and children may gain exposure to an art form they otherwise may not have accessed due to its often alienating, highbrow façade.
The mid-1990s were the perfect time for the marriage of a proven commercial formula with more expansive artistry. The success of the film version of The Lion King, with additional interest raised by its marketing campaigns, created a product that fit neatly within the schema of the Disney musical. Investing in Times Square to promote a proper playground for its latest brand offshoot, Disney created a viable creative space in which they could still pursue commercial returns. The stage musical of The Lion King itself similarly expands the potential of the space inhabited by both the film and the then nascent concept of Disney on Broadway. In adapting this film for the stage, Julie Taymor discarded the processed safety of the film and saved the essence of the story, preferring to present it as accessible due to its international applications. Additions to the score by Lebo M permitted this permutation without isolating those who enjoyed the Tim Rice/Elton John music made familiar by the film. Expansion is perhaps the best phraseology employed when discussing how the stage adaptation differs from the film, and the possibilities created for the Disney brand by that difference. The marriage of Disney’s domestic appeal to the Asian and African elements of The Lion King permits audiences to experience not only theatre, but also the world, in a trustworthy environment. The commercialization of art seems mostly unpalatable, but in cases such as The Lion King, in which it exposes inaccessible audiences to major creative forces, one may be more willing to accept the branding of Broadway as a somewhat manageable adaptation of the times.