I don’t make it out to the theaters very often these days, so when I do, it’s usually for a flick that either just looks like there’s no conceivable way it could blow or I have some attachment to. The latter was the case when the decision was made to take in “Water for Elephants.”
I read the novel primarily because it was created as part of NanoWriMo, or National Novel Writing Month (October). I’ve participated in this event, which involves trying to write a novel in 30 days, so I was amazed that someone had actually generated something worthwile out of it. I really enjoyed “Water for Elephants” by Sara Gruen -- in fact, it achieved the #2 ranking in the Scooties book awards for 2009.
Director Frances Lawrence’s film, based on the screenplay by Richard LaGravenese, was very true to Gruen’s work. As in the novel, aspiring veterinarian Jacob Jankowksi (Robert Pattinson) drops out of Cornell just before graduation and runs away to the circus after his parents die and their business is lost. In unlikely fashion, he earns himself into the confidences of August Rosenbluth (Christoph Waltz), the circus owner and head animal trainer for Benzini Brothers Circus. Recognizing Jacob’s knowledge of and temperament with animals, August gives him a job trying to train a stubborn elephant, Rosie. Along the way, Jacob becomes smitten with Marlena (Reese Witherspoon), putting himself in constant danger with the moody and oft-violent August, which propels the plot toward the sort-of-dramatic finish.
In terms of casting, most of the shaky reviews have centered on this aspect of the film. Witherspoon was very good as usual, and Waltz captured the tempestuous August nearly perfectly. But Pattinson was hard to take in the lead role, and he has suffered withering criticism due to the lack of on-screen chemistry between himself and Witherspoon.
The device used to relate the story is a 90-year-old Jacob, who tells his story in old age. However, his living situation is not depicted at all in the movie, and none of the melancholy and desperation that define his final years in a retirement home are shown here. Jacob is much more bitter in the book version, and I found his relegation to the background something of a missing element in the translation to the big screen. After all, in the novel, Jacob’s battle for latter-life relevance really comprises an important second peg for the plot to stand on.
Some feel that some of the middle-of-the-road reviews for “Water for Elephants” stem from some controversy over the treatment of animals in the movie. However, I felt that the movie was purely missing the spark and personality needed to push it to another level. The cinematography was great, the treatment of circus life was well rendered, the stunts and animal work were nearly unbelievable—but the film felt like it was mostly void of passion and heart. As others have noted, Lawrence appeared to take the easy way out by taking no risks with this flick, and I feel he really missed the mark with the casting of Pattinson, which severely hindered the movie’s chances to really shine.
The result is a nice, well-done movie -- but one that seems to lack in the intangibles that really seize the viewer’s soul.
No comments:
Post a Comment