Ensign Lestat's Film Log, 05/02/2012
Steven Spielberg's 'War Horse' is an adaptation of the Michael Morpurgo novel of the same name. It follows Joey, a young horse bought on an impulse by Ted Narracott (Peter Mullan) and then raised and trained by Ted's son Albert (newcomer Jeremy Irvine). The Narracotts are farmers, but they have been unable to plow the land,till Albert gets Joey to do it. Unfortunately for them a storm ruins their crop just before they have to pay up a debt. With the Great War impending, a desperate Ted sells Joey (without Albert's permission) to the dashing Captain Nicholls (Tom Hiddleston) on recruiting day. Nicholls promises to keep Joey safe.
From here on we follow the people who Joey ends up being saddled with (quite literally). I understand it was the author's intention to present the various sides of the the Great War (or World War 1, to most of us) through the point of view of a horse. Joey is a spectacular horse - a quick learner, very strong and fast. This keeps him in good stead through his many travails during the war.
This film has garnered a lot of acclaim ever since its release at festivals and more so after its global release. One cannot blame the critics. The story is simple, the emotions genuine. There are no gimmicks, no contrivances. Stories about war are heart-wrenching as it is, and this one gives us many sides of an old tale. There are some especially fantastic moments in the film - the best being one that is reminiscent of the Christmas Truce of 1914. If this film goes on to win the Oscar for Best Picture (unlikely), I can imagine a lot of people being very emotional about it.
The trouble with 'War Horse' is not with the film, it's with me. I have always found it difficult to relate to films about animals. I just can't understand them. The more serious and emotional they are, the less I can invest in them. This film has a lot of moments that draw you in, make you want to smile and maybe many that can make you cry, but those moments don't involve the horse. But I will admit that might just be me. War is such a futile exercise, that it seems to me even more futile to spend your emotions on the poor animals that were dragged in to it.
I believe you have to be a very special kind of person to love and be loved by an animal, and for those special people this film will speak volumes. What humans inflict on each other is bad enough, but what they heap on speechless beasts is just as bad if not worse.
I suppose I decided to invest in the humans of the story, and hence was dumbstruck when they quickly disappeared. The big names in this film have extraordinarily small roles, and that disappointed me. Well, my fault, this is called 'War Horse', so it's about the horse, not the humans. And I have to say the horse does do rather a splendid job. My sister had mentioned that fans were petitioning for the horse to get some kind of recognition for its work - "And the Academy Award for Best Acting goes to Finder! for his role as Joey in 'War Horse'!" Seriously? I think that's pushing it, but, yes, I agree, there was one scene when it looked like the horse really was emoting! Quite scary actually.
My one criticism about the film, barring the handful of moments when the acting faltered, is that the French and German soldiers speak in accented English. That really took me out of the film. I have watched 'Inglourious Basterds', and honestly, when a film has already succeeded in integrating so many languages into its narrative, I fail to see why Spielberg didn't incorporate it as well. It would have elevated this film to the realm of realism. A poor judgement call by Spielberg and the rest.
A short note about the music. I love John Williams' music. What is 'Star Wars' without him? But the music in this film is so... soppy! It was more irritating than the film itself, and really piled on the sentimentality value of the narrative.
But, despite my own prejudices, there can be no faulting this film. It seems, to me at least, a little different from Spielberg's usual work, but it is nonetheless stunning and well-made. The film just isn't my type of film.
From here on we follow the people who Joey ends up being saddled with (quite literally). I understand it was the author's intention to present the various sides of the the Great War (or World War 1, to most of us) through the point of view of a horse. Joey is a spectacular horse - a quick learner, very strong and fast. This keeps him in good stead through his many travails during the war.
This film has garnered a lot of acclaim ever since its release at festivals and more so after its global release. One cannot blame the critics. The story is simple, the emotions genuine. There are no gimmicks, no contrivances. Stories about war are heart-wrenching as it is, and this one gives us many sides of an old tale. There are some especially fantastic moments in the film - the best being one that is reminiscent of the Christmas Truce of 1914. If this film goes on to win the Oscar for Best Picture (unlikely), I can imagine a lot of people being very emotional about it.
The trouble with 'War Horse' is not with the film, it's with me. I have always found it difficult to relate to films about animals. I just can't understand them. The more serious and emotional they are, the less I can invest in them. This film has a lot of moments that draw you in, make you want to smile and maybe many that can make you cry, but those moments don't involve the horse. But I will admit that might just be me. War is such a futile exercise, that it seems to me even more futile to spend your emotions on the poor animals that were dragged in to it.
I believe you have to be a very special kind of person to love and be loved by an animal, and for those special people this film will speak volumes. What humans inflict on each other is bad enough, but what they heap on speechless beasts is just as bad if not worse.
I suppose I decided to invest in the humans of the story, and hence was dumbstruck when they quickly disappeared. The big names in this film have extraordinarily small roles, and that disappointed me. Well, my fault, this is called 'War Horse', so it's about the horse, not the humans. And I have to say the horse does do rather a splendid job. My sister had mentioned that fans were petitioning for the horse to get some kind of recognition for its work - "And the Academy Award for Best Acting goes to Finder! for his role as Joey in 'War Horse'!" Seriously? I think that's pushing it, but, yes, I agree, there was one scene when it looked like the horse really was emoting! Quite scary actually.
My one criticism about the film, barring the handful of moments when the acting faltered, is that the French and German soldiers speak in accented English. That really took me out of the film. I have watched 'Inglourious Basterds', and honestly, when a film has already succeeded in integrating so many languages into its narrative, I fail to see why Spielberg didn't incorporate it as well. It would have elevated this film to the realm of realism. A poor judgement call by Spielberg and the rest.
A short note about the music. I love John Williams' music. What is 'Star Wars' without him? But the music in this film is so... soppy! It was more irritating than the film itself, and really piled on the sentimentality value of the narrative.
But, despite my own prejudices, there can be no faulting this film. It seems, to me at least, a little different from Spielberg's usual work, but it is nonetheless stunning and well-made. The film just isn't my type of film.
Comments