Directors make choices for a reason. Alexander Skarsgard is probably not one of the first ten actors anyone would think of as a potential Tarzan; maybe not the first 20; so the question to be considered is, why? If you look at all the other casting choices made by David Yates and the producers of Tarzan, they seem logical, smart, and on point. Margot Robbie is the arguably the hottest, most talked about female star in Hollywood of late (IMDB Starmeter has her fifth among actresses this week, and she doesn’t even have a movie that’s just come out); Christoph Waltz is one of the masters of the craft and can be relied on to produce a fascinating, multi-layered villain; Samuel Jackson, Djimon Hounsou, John Hurt….it all makes perfect sense.
Then there is Skarsgard.
The first thought: him? Why?
My impression of him has always been that he’s a tormented Nordic sole suitable for Ingmar Bergman type films. On True Blood he plays a thousand year old viking vampire; and a tour of his recent trailers reveals nothing that could remotely make someone think–now that guy would be a great Tarzan.
A tour of his stills on the internet reveals that he does have, or can have with a workout regime, a cleanlimbed, chiseled body. So that part of it is not the issue.
The issue is the character.
Looking at his trailers, there is for the most part a wounded, haunted quality that emerges in almost all of the characters he plays. His GQ good looks seem to be in counterpoint to his persona, and indeed, it seems like there is some mileage to be gained by playing those two elements off against each other.
But there seems to me to be no doubt that a Skarsgard Tarzan is going to present as a tormented soul. Sound familiar? Well, of coure, that was the direction Andrew Stanton went with Taylor Kitsch as John Carter, sort of. In his interviews Stanton talked about seeing Kitsch in Friday Night Lights and feeling that there was a damaged quality that was essential to the John Carter he was going to present to us … and that John Carter would not be the “Prince Valiant” type that Burroughs had written, or rather the Prince Valiant type that Stanton perceived that Burroughs had written.
If one looks at Skarsgard next to Kitsch, he occupies a similar psychic character space in that there is a tormented, wounded quality that pervades most of his character choices and performances. He is certainly capable of being charming, and he’s obviously considered to be a heart-throb. But a psychologically tormented soul.
Does that mean that fans of the books by Edgar Rice Burroughs will likely be as frustrated by the Yates/ Skarsgard’s Tarzan as they were by the Stanton John Carter?
I don’t think so.
Here’s why.
John Carter was never a tormented soul in the books, although he also wasn’t as “vanilla” as Stanton seemed to think he was. Burroughs’ Carter was a warrior-explorer whose advent on Barsoom felt to him as if it was spiritual destiny. His exit from Jasoom in the Arizona cave was miraculous, spiritual, and left him unsure whether he had died and Barsoom was what came next, or if he was still alive as always. But he felt a kinship with Barsoom almost from the beginning, and his journey was one of making his way in the alien land, proving his mettle, winning allies, and ultimately saving a planet. To take that character and turn him into a dark spirit, broken by the death of his wife, focused only on his “cave of gold” and how to get back to it….was a huge departure and a choice that disturbed many a fan of the books.
Let’s think about Tarzan, though.
There are many similarities. Like John Carter, Tarzan is physically superior to all around him; he can do things that others cannot. He can fight with power, intelligence, and skill. He is ultimately noble and good. And like John Carter, he is different from other people.
But unlike Carter, Tarzan knows why he is different. The thing that makes Carter different is, arguably, a good thing — he lives longer than the rest of us and can’t remember his childhood. This sets him apart and gives him a touch of the mysterious stranger, even to himself. But it doesn’t make him tormented.
With Tarzan, it’s different. He grows up thinking he’s an ape. When he sees his reflection in the water he is horrified at the puny, ugly creature that stares back at him. Gradually he comes to appreciate himself as a human — but even after he is educated by D’Arnot and learns the ways of civilization, there is a duality of spirit that is with him and a sense that if he’s an honorable man, honorable living takes place in the jungle, not among men, who are for the most part petty, despicable characters.
So with all of that in mind, I’m imagining what we’re going to see of Greystoke in England. He is living there, fully acculturated, where he is “the man formerly known as Tarzan” — not Tarzan. Has he forsaken all of that? It sounds that way. It sounds like he’s embraced his life as a British Lord. My guess is, he has repressed his youthful experiences in favor of his love for Jane, and his desire to build a proper life with her based on his standing in Britain, and the wealth that comes with that standing.
Then comes the call to adventure – which in this case means a return to the Africa of his childhood. With Skarsgard as Tarzan, I see a Greystoke who resists this call, a man who seems to understand that returning to Africa will cause him to confront things about himself that he has buried, and may want to keep buried.
Is this Burroughs’ Tarzan?
Not exactly.
But is it an arguably legitimate interpretation that is based on actual aspects of the books, rather than wholly invented (like John Carter’s dead wife)?
I’m not sure I can fully justify it — but I do know it doesn’t bother me and feels like an interesting take on the character that, perhaps, peels back more layers than we are used to but doesn’t fundamentally change the character.
With Skarsgard, I see a character who, when he arrives in Africa and sees the horrific machinations of Captain Rom and the Force Publique — he sees forced labour, hostages, slave chains, starving porters, burned villages. . . .
The official synopsis reads:
“It has been years since the man once known as Tarzan (Alexander Skarsgård) left the jungles of Africa behind for a gentrified life as John Clayton III, Lord Greystoke, with his beloved wife, Jane (Margot Robbie) at his side. Now, he has been invited back to the Congo to serve as a trade emissary of Parliament, unaware that he is a pawn in a deadly convergence of greed and revenge, masterminded by the Belgian, Captain Leon Rom (Christoph Waltz). But those behind the murderous plot have no idea what they are about to unleash.
“To serve as a trade emissary” sound very benign, yet it’s likely the actual mission is triggered by reports of abuses in the Congo, so that he’s not simply going out to promote trade — he’s going out to investigate reports of abuse. And when he gets there, he will find that the reports are real, and the land, with which he has such an emotional connection (albeit one he has repressed) is being raped. Those he’s been sent to investigate, including Rom, have “no idea what they are about to unleash” — and that suggests to me that what they are about to unleash is rage, which Burroughs’ Tarzan was capable of but most movie Tarzans have not exhibited.
* * * * * * * *
Okay, obviously I’m trying to talk myself into it.
I’m trying to make myself believe that Skarsgard is a shrewdly brilliant choice.
I’m not quite buying it, but I’m trying to. This is the stage where it’s important to believe … to hope for something better than what Hollywood has given us for a hundred years with Tarzan.
So I’ll keep trying to believe until or unless I see good reason not to. I ‘m bolstered by all the other apparently good choices that Yates and his producers have made. There is a sense that intelligence, and not just ego, is guiding this project. The casting of Skarsgard is the hardest piece of it to understand, but given all the other good choices, I’m giving Yates a pass and waiting to see what he’s come up with.
Time will tell, I guess.