For those folks who were big fans of this International Best-Seller, there is a great movie out there. The film adaptation of Water for Elephants (or Like Water for Elephants as I will always call it) is a true-to-the page piece. The fact of the matter is that I am a reader of the book who had certain problems with its story and I believe they persist. What this movie will be for someone who has no relationship to the story -- I don't precisely know. And as I have mulled it over these past days since I screened the pachyderm pic, I realize that I can't give it a rave. The truth is that it is a beautifully filmed problematic picture that didn't take the time to iron out the problems that existed in the source material. While there's something to be said for loyalty, there's also something to be said for wisdom and straight-up "ironing." A book can have wrinkles a film can't. It was surprising to watch them persist.
Non-readers, fear not! I won't spoil the plot!
When it comes to the cast of characters this was the perfect professional move.
Robert Pattinson is three movies deep into the Twilight Saga -- Saga by the way? -- and try as people might, Remember Me wasn't exactly the break-out "I'm not just a vampire" folks desired. The fact is getting blasted by Voldemoort and becoming -- well... DEAD and looking a lot like Edward Cullen is far more of one of Pattinson's "also-knowns." But the young cute veterinary student whose parents are killed in a car crash and who innocently joins the circus in the midst of The Great Depression to stand up for the animals -- and who is far and away the most handsome attraction in the three rings... well that's a role you take. Half the folks who are coming to the movie are already in love with his character -- that's a good starting point. The problem is this character has virtually no arc. He never outsmarts anyone. He never comes up with anything. He is never the wisest person in the room. He is the young innocent throughout the entire film who is caught up in the wrong situation -- shit, who wouldn't be on a circus train? But the cool factor Pattinson has been building these past years is completely lost in Jake the vet.
What Pattinson has going for him is a heart of gold, flattering period outfits, his looks -- duh -- and the young Ms. Witherspoon.
This role was a wise choice for Reese.
The James L. Brooks picture didn't go as anyone planned -- it couldn't have. And no one can blame any of the folks who got on board. Rudd, Wilson, Witherspoon, Nicholson? Nicholson alone you say yes. Then you pair Jack with a writer/director who's responsible for two of his three Oscars? It's a no-brainer. Turns out the film was mindless. Funny how that works.
But why not play the absolute beauty, high atop her mystical horses, later holding the reins of the titular elephant. Dashing evening dresses, sequins performance-wear, endless champagne, and the object of every man's desire -- young and old. It's a daring choice for a woman as young as Reese to play the "slightly" older than the young hot thing role. But it's a smart move. She isn't Bella Swan. She's Elle Woods. Doesn't mean they both don't end up with Pattinson. Why not get in on the reverse angle of the slight-age gap romance? There's no cougar quality here -- this is just a question of kindred spirits of similar "soul age" finding one another in a tumultuous world they never intended to be a part of. And Reese looks great. She's a believable circus performer -- though her intensity is a far cry from a certain rollercoaster ride I seem to remember.
The problem is August -- the role played by Oscar winning "Bingo" Nazi, Christoph Waltz. None of this blame rests on Waltz' head. It lies somewhere in the novel -- somewhere in the translation of the character to the screen -- and ends up right there before your eyes, in my good pal, the flickering light-beam. One gets the impression -- particularly from his proclamations -- that August is a horribly abusive man who has done what it takes over the year to stay on top. Much of what it has taken has been absolute criminal behavior including murder! You can call it "red lighting" all you want when you huck a person off a fast moving train onto the rocks. When their brains get dashed out somewhere between Albany and Weehawken -- I call that murder. And yet we're supposed to buy into his troubles. Sympathize with his troubles. Forgive him because of his troubles. I asked the book, I asked the film, and now I ask you, America, what on earth are his troubles?
The man is a wife-abuser, a psychopath, a thief. And just for future film reference to all of planet earth -- a German accent never helps these maladies.
And then there's the animal abuse. It's one thing to write about it. To throw some italics into the text so we know just how bad it's actually getting!! (<--Note the double exclamation points!!) It's just not something you can film. This isn't an Inarritu pic -- this is something whose visual landscape gives one the impression of ... well... Seabiscuit -- a movie I highly enjoy. But you're not going to really watch that horse go through anything.
And thus we don't really watch all too much happen here -- we simply know it has -- we flashback to it -- we see the black-eye -- we hear the rumor. It's not precisely a "show don't tell" problem, either. What on earth are you going to show? I don't want to watch an elephant get beaten. And even at my most misanthropic, I never want to see a person suffer -- hence my complicated relationship with the work of Marty Scorcese. And that's not the kind of helmer this picture required.
And somehow, the majesty of it all -- including a great flashback lead-in by the always amazing Hal Holbrook -- overcomes the pictures flaws. We're in the good land of literary adaptation. Just settle in for a ride through a visualized novel.
And if you do happen to actually read this blog and think otherwise, I'd love to hear your thoughts -- especially if you're a non-reader.
-Matthew J. McCue
No comments:
Post a Comment