Welcome to Tarzan-istan: Tin-Tan, El Hombre Mono (Mexico, 1963)

I came across the DVD of the Mexican Tarzan spoof Tin-Tan, el Hombre Mono at a street sale on my block just this past weekend. Despite the fact that it being a comedy coming to me without the benefit of English translation makes it impossible for me to fairly and properly assess its virtues, the just as un-ignorable fact of it virtually dropping into my lap in the middle of Jungle Adventure Month makes me feel that I’m obligated to cover it.

My discovery of the film also provided me with another opportunity to wonder at both the universality and astonishing elasticity of the Tarzan character -- all the more wondrous for the fact that so much evidence of it exists despite the notorious litigiousness of the Edgar Rice Burroughs estate. Of course, films like El Hombre Mono and Ismail Yassin’s Tarzan, being parodies -- and thus being presumably protected under the idea of fair use -- are immune to such penalties. But others are simply too numerous and far-flung to be caught within the estate’s legal net. Thus were able to flourish such off-brand cinematic versions of the famous ape man as those many produced in India, as well as those from Turkey, China, Portugal, Russia, Italy, Bangladesh and beyond. If you broaden the scope to consider appropriations of the character that took place outside the world of film, you’ll see that even Japan got into the game, by way of a Tarzan manga that was at one time drawn by the master himself, Osamu Tezuka.

Continuing on that tack, I just recently learned that Tarzan had been the subject of phenomenal popularity in Israel, peaking in the early-to-mid 60s, when the character was the star of a series of homegrown -- and wholly unauthorized -- stories featured in an astonishing number of Hebrew language pulp magazines produced by several competing publishers. These stories featured Tarzan in an array of fantastic scenarios, including fighting off invasions from outer space and tracking down Nazi war criminals. One adventure even had him meeting up with his Indian counterpart Zimbo. But, most interestingly, they also enlisted Tarzan in Israel’s fight against its Arab neighbors, with competing versions of the character intervening on the nation’s behalf in the Suez crisis and even becoming an agent of Mossad. In response, Syria and Lebanon -- countries in which Tarzan also enjoyed enormous popularity -- created their own series of tales in which the character fought to defend their respective homelands against Jewish antagonists.

In the case of Israel, Tarzan’s popularity sprang in part from a belief on the part of many Israelis (mistaken, it turns out) that Johnny Weismuller, the actor most identified with his screen incarnation, was Jewish. This extended to Tarzan himself being considered an honorary Jew, and even to the character, as a typically lone figure fighting a just battle against overwhelming opposition, becoming a symbol for the state of Israel itself. In other countries, particularly those in the developing world, the Tarzan story often seemed to function as an expression of anxieties over encroaching modernization, with the pure and incorruptible son of the jungle standing in opposition to dastardly interlopers -- urban fortune hunters, unscrupulous scientists, fugitive criminals and enemy agents -- from the so-called “civilized” world.

In contrast, the makers of Tin-Tan, el Hombre Mono follow another well-trod -- not to mention noble -- path by appropriating the Tarzan mythos in order to good-naturedly mock a beloved gringo pop cultural icon, while at the same time using its milieu as an excuse to feature a lot of shapely women in skimpy jungle attire. Thus we get lots of exotic dance numbers presented under the diaphanous guise of primitive rituals, along with Mexican actors with face paint and bones through their noses cooking up pith-helmeted explorers in over-sized cauldrons. Oh, and, of course, lots and lots of stock footage of various jungle critters. In other words, El Hombre Mono is exactly the movie that I expected Ismail Yassin’s Tarzan to be, and which Ismail Yassin’s Tarzan surprised me by turning out to be very different from indeed.

The Mexican actor German “Tin Tan” Valdez had crossed my radar previously via some late career comic relief roles in 1970s lucha films -- most notably the Blue Demon efforts La Mafia Amarilla and Noche de Muerte, in which he played Blue’s goofy, albeit direly unfunny, sidekick. Actually, Valdez’s heyday had occurred during the late 40s and 50s, when he portrayed a zoot-suited, “pachuco” type figure in a string of successful comedies. El Hombre Mono finds him mid-career, essaying the role of the bumbling and cowardly jungle hero “Tin-Tan”.

Opposite Tin Tan, and providing a generous portion of the film’s eye candy, is Mexican sexpot Ana Berthe Lepe (whom diligent Lucha Diaries readers may recall from such examples of Mexican fantastic cinema as La Nave de los Monstruos, Santo contra el Rey del Crimen, and El Asesino Invisible) in the role of jungle princess Konga. European sexploitation starlet Ingrid Garbo (Cemetery Girls, Maniac Mansion) is also thrown in for good measure, playing the micro-shorts wearing daughter of a hapless jungle explorer whose serial imperilment requires Tin-Tan’s frequent attention and, as a result, incites Konga’s jealous ire. Finally, cementing the film’s lucha movie affiliation once and for all, is the presence at the helm of Frederico Curiel, the director of more touchstone Mexican wrestling films than can be listed here, here doing his usual workman-like job of providing a film that is modestly handsome within its means without reaching for anything even remotely beyond that.

Like I said, El Hombre Mono’s lack of English subtitles prevents me from evaluating how successful it is both as a film and, more particularly, as a comedy. I can’t tell you how funny its jokes were or what their overall level of sophistication was. Although, if it’s any indication, its hard to imagine any of its visual gags -- like Tin-Tan’s ridiculous facial hair, or the one involving him being trapped inside an alligator’s stomach -- going over anyone’s head, no matter what their age or level of smarts.

What I can tell you is that the film’s parade of leopard-print-clad bathing beauties and ogling, cartoonishly wolfish men made it play, for the most part, like an extended burlesque show skit. A lot of the action involves Lepe and Garbo fighting over Tin-Tan like a jungle-bound Betty and Veronica, with Lepe swinging around a comically large club for added effect. There’s a bit about one of the explorers discovering oil which doesn’t seem to have much of a bearing on anything, and then, for the final five minutes, the movie switches from black and white to Technicolor and the entire cast does the twist in fast motion to some vanilla sounding rock & roll music. It’s all kind of enjoyably dopey -- I find that I have a much higher tolerance for Mexican comedy than I do Mexican comic relief -- but one definitely gets the sense that its not the most nuanced or highfalutin take on Burroughs’ jungle man out there.

And that’s alright, really. After all, Tin Tan’s is also, apparently, far from being either the most ideologically freighted or the most anti-Semitic Tarzan, which can only be a good thing. It takes all kinds, after all. Even when all of them are Tarzan.

This review is part of "Stranded in the Jungle", a month of jungle adventure themed posts at 4DK.

Friday's best pop song ever

Balak aur Janwar (India, 1975)

Balak aur Janwar certainly didn’t disappoint in terms of jungle adventure thrills, but it also delivered a lot more, combining a sort of “Boy Tarzan” tale with elements of Arabian Nights fantasy and, to a significant though lesser extent, Indian Mythological films. With no English translation, it was all a bit hard to follow, but the presence within it of things like miniaturized dancing girls, underwater kingdoms, a statue of Ganesh that comes to life and shoots sparks out of its trunk, and floating and talking disembodied heads went a long way toward sustaining my interest despite that. It was also a weird film in that, while made in 1975, it looked, even by Indian cinema standards, like one made ten years previous – like the sort of thing that Homi Wadia and/or Babubhai Mistry would have come up with in 1965.

What seems pretty clear, though, is that the film’s events are set in motion by an evil sorcerer king played by Randhawa (Don’t call me Dara Singh’s brother. Don’t call me Dara Singh’s brother.), Dara Singh’s brother (D’oh!). Note that Randhawa was the only actor in the entire film that I recognized, which really tells you something: When a film’s only identifiable player is an aging Randhawa, you know you’re in deeply obscure territory.

Anyhoo, King Randhawa appears to be quite smitten with a particular, virtuous maiden whose name I couldn’t catch, but she belongs to another: a righteous fellow who I think was named Swami (or who was a swami, or whatever). Foiled in his romantic pursuits, Randhawa decides to simply content himself with making Swami, his bride and their newborn child miserable. This pursuit culminates in him shooting his evil sorcerer hand rays at Swami, which burn the shit out of Swami’s face, after which Randhawa takes the baby, Suraj, and tosses him in the river. (Presumably after saying something like, “Now THIS is happening, fools.”)

And at this point, you’re probably saying, baby Suraj is threatened by a hungry alligator, only to be rescued in the nick of time by a helpful chimpanzee. But you are wrong; that’s not what happens at all. What really happens is that baby Suraj is threatened by a hungry alligator, only to be rescued in the nick of time by a helpful elephant. You see what they did there? Suraj is then raised by the elephant herd with the help of a helpful chimpanzee, growing into a full fledged jungle boy. But Suraj has more going for him than just a rapport with animals. We also see him walk on water, and, at another point, the god Krishna shows up to gives him something that will allow him to become invisible.

Balak aur Janwar also focuses a lot on Suraj’s uncle Jundun, a swashbuckling type who’s pretty fancy with a bullwhip. Jundun sparks up a romance with the evil King’s daughter, whose contemporary looking denim outfit throws a little much needed wardrobe what-the-fuckery into the mix. Needless to say, King Randhawa is none too pleased with this development. After a confrontation with the King leaves Jundun wounded, he is forced to throw himself into the river in order to escape. Unconscious, he is carried downstream, where Suraj and his animal pals rescue him and nurse him back to health. Meanwhile, we see a lot of Suraj’s parents wandering around and looking sad, and then occasionally stopping so that Suraj’s mom can massage Suraj’s dad’s feet.

Now united, magic jungle boy Suraj and swashbuckling Jundun can get started with the whole business of exacting bloody vengeance against King Randhawa. Whee! A highpoint of the film occurs when the two of them, along with the King’s daughter, make a trek down into an enchanted underworld in order to find a golden blossom that will help restore Swami too his former, not burned self. Here we get a giant, lumpy idol that comes to life and talks and a couple of hostile yetis, as well as a slew of wonderfully surreal looking sets.

Finally, all of the principles end up being imprisoned in the King’s castle, and, just like in Zimbo, it is up to our little hero’s elephant friends to charge in and bring the place down around the villain’s ears. Then little Suraj gleefully runs that villain through again and again with a sword.

I’ve got to say that Balak aur Janwar was a lot more than I bargained for, but in a good way. It was one of the many Indian VCDs that I bought based solely on what was on the cover. And what was on the cover was a little kid dressed like Tarzan, some elephants, and an assortment of other jungle animals. Like I said, it delivered all of that, but, were I the person who designed that VCD sleeve, I would have also included some of the other crazy shit that happened in it. I mean, it’s simply hard for me to believe that anyone would be disappointed that a movie about a boy Tarzan would turn out to also have Yeti fighting and cartoon hand rays in it, or that anyone would be dissuaded from buying the movie if they new that those elements were present. It’s like Tarzan with crazy gravy, which to me means that everyone wins.

This review is part of "Stranded in the Jungle", a month of jungle adventure themed posts at 4DK.

Chanoc en el Circo Union (Mexico, 1979)

In my defense, it was not until I began watching Chanoc en el Circo Union that I realized that it was perhaps not the most appropriate film to include in Jungle Adventure Month[TM]. However, its hero was born in the jungle (or, as Fletcher Hanks would phrase it, “jungle born”), and it has a circus setting, so even though the action doesn’t take place in the jungle, we still get jungle movie staples like tiger wrestling and mischievous chimp sidekicks… not to mention the added bonus of midgets with blowguns.

After all, what is the circus movie if not an offshoot of the jungle adventure movie? The only difference between the two, setting aside, is that, in a jungle movie, the tigers are free to attack and chomp on humans as they please, whereas, in a circus movie, they compliantly jump through flaming hoops. God, circus movies suck!

But not Chanoc en el Circo Union, which is a bit surprising to me. It’s director, Rafael Perez Grovas, around the same time as he directed this film, also helmed a couple of particularly wan late Santo films that really did their aging star no favors. Since Circo Union doesn’t show evidence of any previously undisclosed gifts on the filmmaker’s part, I’m going to assume that he here benefited from the combination of a colorful setting and a more youthful and energetic star.

Obviously, the character Chanoc needs no introduction. Psyche! Seriously, though, if you lived in Mexico during the 60s or 70s, that would probably be true. But for the rest of you, Chanoc, at least from his first appearance in print in 1959 until the debut of Kaliman in 1965, was Mexico’s most popular comic book hero. A Tarzan-like figure who was driven from his jungle home, Chanoc somehow came to settle in a Mexican fishing village, where he continued his work as a noble defender of the weak and downtrodden.

Such was Chanoc’s popularity that his adventures became the basis for eight feature films. Chanoc en el Circo Union is the next to last of these, with star Alejandro Fuentes taking over the lead from professional animal wrangler Humberto Gurza, who had starred in the previous three. For some reason, Fuentes didn’t return to the role afterward, which I can only guess was his own choice, as he does a pretty good job here. He’s not only suitably charismatic (if not overwhelmingly expressive), but also an athletic performer, and can be clearly seen to perform many of his own stunts in the film.

While previous Chanoc films would pit their hero against vampires and other supernatural foes, his opponents in Circo Union are comparably more prosaic. Here we see Chanoc offering his services as an animal handler to a circus in order to flush out a gang of black marketers that is using it as a cover. While doing his undercover bit to determine the identity of the gang’s mysterious leader, he also finds time to thrill the crowds with his ability to make formerly wild animals perform humiliating tricks and also to romance a buxom trapeze artist played by top-billed star Diana Torres. Meanwhile, Chanoc’s godfather/sidekick, Tzekub -- who I think can most accurately be described as a “daffy old coot” -- goes about playing detective in his own fashion, which naturally results in him constantly having to be bailed out of trouble by Chanoc.

When I took on Jungle Adventure Month[TM], I knew that one of its major perils was going to be that I would inevitably stumble upon animal stars whom I wish I had included in the recently wrapped-up 4DK Animalympics (SPOILER: the marmoset won). And with Chanoc en el Circo Union we have the first instance of that happening. Now, here I am not talking, as you might expect, about Chanoc’s chimp companion Chuchu Chuchu, although the Chuch-ster indeed has a lot to recommend him: an ability to mug and jeer alongside the best of them, the requisite knack for bopping bad guys over the head with comically large bats, anthropomorphic costumery, etc. No, the exceptional beast that I am talking about in this case has a part in Chanoc en el Circo Union that, though very brief, casts a mighty shadow upon all that surrounds it:

This anipal’s appearance occurs as part of a circus performance in which an elephant is shown stepping over star Diana Torres and letting its giant foot hover just inches over her reclining form. By this means the animal displays its uncanny ability to restrain itself from stomping the life out of a small and annoying human despite the fact that it undoubtedly really wants to.

Immediately following that, a clown leads onto the stage a tiny dog in an elephant costume who replicates the elephant act in miniature with a couple of Barbie dolls.

Fuck. And. Yes.

In the final tally, Chanoc en el Circo Union is a moderately diverting, Saturday matinee style entertainment, much along the lines of the type of adventure films that Hollywood studios churned out as B programmers during the 40s and 50s. I think part of the reason that it passed muster with me is that, as a Mexican action film from the 70s, its lack of a hero wearing a wrestling mask with a sport coat and tie reduced my expectations of awesomeness correspondingly.

And speaking of which, after Circo Union, Chanoc would make one final screen appearance, starring alongside the Son of Santo in Chanoc and the Son of Santo vs The Vampire Assassins (though in that instance, with one-timer Nelson Velazquez in the role). Word is that that film’s pretty dire, but, after Circo Union, I’m nonetheless curious to see Chanoc do his stuff against a more traditional lucha movie style foe, by which I mean a Frankenstein, or a wolfman, or a Dracula.

But, you know what? I’d watch Chanoc fight a man made out of pipe cleaners if I knew that tiny dog in the elephant suit was going to be in the movie.

This review is part of “Stranded in the Jungle”, a month of Jungle Adventure themed posts at 4DK.

Friday's best pop song ever

Ismail Yassin's Tarzan (Egypt, 1958)

Oh, Tarzan. Why do you fascinate the world so? Is there no escaping your influence? Here we are, two reviews into Jungle Adventure month, and I've gone from covering what was just one of India’s seemingly infinite number of cracks at your legacy to Ismail Yassin’s Tarzan, a less than respectful potshot from the number one screen comic of Egyptian cinema’s golden age.

Of course, whether they feature Tarzan or not, one need only watch a few examples of these jungle romps to see the appeal of the thematic template they provide. Whether made by American, Turkish, or Indian hands, they almost invariably serve as a means of exploring, with varying levels of commitment, the bestial nature of man (and -- in the Indian examples, especially -- of woman). This applies especially to those damned city folk, who generally show up in the jungle for the sole purpose of demonstrating, by way of their wanton violence and greed, that they are the least civilized creatures of all. It all goes some way toward showing that, wherever you look in the world, when popular cinema is used as a tool for moral instruction, it is generally as a means for very wealthy professionals to inform poor folks of the virtues of poverty.

In its treatment of this particular theme, Ismail Yassin’s Tarzan proceeds as if written by Egypt’s answer to Rod Serling, so crisply does it dispense its dollop of instructive irony. However, while the basic message is expected, much of what the film otherwise delivers is anything but. In fact, writer Abu El-Soud Al-Ebyari’s screenplay only appropriates the Tarzan mythos as a jumping off point for what turns out to be a much broader and more city-bound social farce. And when that mythos serves no purpose to the narrative at hand, it is unceremoniously pushed to the background without so much as a look backward. It’s hard to even call the film a parody, since that suggests a focus on the traditional Tarzan story that’s clearly outside its agenda. But to the extent that it does focus on that story, it displays an admirable level of irreverence.

The film begins with the family of Mr. Morad (Stephan Rousty) all doing their best to conceal their elation over the death of Morad’s wealthy brother. Soon the lawyer arrives at the house for the reading of the will, which, as is so often the case, turns out to have some unforeseen stipulations. In order for this greedy and clownish lot to obtain their share of the inheritance, they must first track down the decedent’s son, Tiger, who was lost in the jungle some twenty-five years ago, and, upon finding him, marry him off to Murad’s daughter Hassanat (played by comedienne Zenat Sedky, a regular fixture in Yassin’s films).

With this economical little set up out of the way, Murad and his loutish son Andil (Abd El-Salam El-Naboulsy) are off to the jungle, where, after a couple of the requisite perils (mostly in the form of some harmless looking snakes), they are soon face to face with the legendary Tarzan, portrayed by a pot-bellied and preposterously mustached Ismail Yassin. It is quickly established, by way of a tell-tale birthmark, that Tarzan is indeed the lost relative that they are looking for. However, upon the arrival on the scene of Cheetah (played, in this case, by a person in an ape suit even shoddier than the one seen in Jungle Love) it becomes apparent that the family’s grand scheme will be more difficult to execute than expected.

It turns out that this Cheetah is a female Cheetah, and not only is she Tiger/Tarzan’s trusted animal companion, but his fiancé, as well. And, in case you thought that that designation might just be an error in translation, we’re shown Tiger lovingly kissing his monkey mate on the lips as the rest of the cast winces in revulsion. (And if that’s not explicit enough, another character later refers to Tarzan/Tiger being “used to bestiality”.) To top things off, Cheetah is also the jealous type, and has a tendency to go berserk whenever another woman comes within Tiger’s orbit.

Eventually it is discovered that Tiger has a weakness for music, and so one of the many musical numbers in Ismail Yassin’s Tarzan is used to lull him into compliance. Once back at the family home, the rest of the Morad family is held hostage to his animalistic ways, so afraid of losing out on their big payday that they’re forced to look on approvingly as he and Cheetah cheerfully lays waste to all of the expensive tchotchkes adorning their spacious estate. During this section of the film, Yassin’s performance is a dialog-free combination of physical gestures and eruptions of gibberish, and he does a great job of injecting an infectious merriment into Tarzan/Tiger’s role as a bringer chaos and server of just desserts.

So much more monkey than man is Tiger that the lawyer eventually determines that, in order for him to legally meet the conditions of the will, he must first undergo some serious civilizing, which should first and foremost entail the mastery of Arabic. After a few disastrous attempts, this task ultimately falls to Safy, a distant cousin who, despite living in the same household, is treated by the family as a servant. (Safy is played by former child star Fayrouz, here making her debut as an adult actress –- a fact that is somewhat nauseatingly trumpeted in the film’s original trailer by referring to her emerging as “a flower in full bloom” or some such.) Safy shrewdly chooses to teach Tiger via song, which not only makes for a couple of amusing musical numbers, but also within weeks transforms Tiger into a perfect caricature of upper-class sophistication, complete with crisp suit, pocket square, and neatly trimmed pencil mustache.

Of course, this process also results in Tiger and Safy falling in love, which in turn results in the Morad family, now further from the loot than ever, resorting to some surprisingly nasty methods in order to see their scheme through. And if you think that, in the course of confronting those methods, Tiger and Safy come to some foregone conclusions about the relationship between money and happiness, you’re absolutely right. Hey, you must have seen this one before!

Over the past months, I’ve become something of a cheerleader for these classic Egyptian comedies, and for the films of Ismail Yassin in particular. And I have to say it: Ismail Yassin’s Tarzan is another winner. I also have to say, though, that I’m a bit surprised to be saying so. With this film, I was expecting just another lame send-up of all of the typical Tarzan tropes, but underestimated the care that would be taken in crafting the film to fit Yassin’s distinctive comic persona. In his films, Yassin definitely fools around, but is never, at the end of the day, the fool, and rather is usually revealed to be the smartest guy in the room despite appearances. Thus the typical caricature of Tarzan as an oafish simpleton won’t work here. Yassin instead makes of him a force of gleeful anarchy who upsets the balance of hypocrisy in the Morad household and entertains the bejeesus out of us while doing it. Go Tarzan!

This review is part of "Stranded in the Jungle", a month of jungle adventure themed posts at 4DK.