BEFORE: Wrapping up the war chain, for now, with a leap back to World War I. I'll explain the next diversions tomorrow, which should ultimately lead me right back, well, someplace close to here.
Linking from "A Mighty Heart", I'm down to grasping at straws - Demetri Goritsas, who seems like he had a very under-the-radar role in that film, was also in a film called "The Whistleblower" with Benedict Cumberbatch (last seen in "Star Trek Into Darkness").
THE PLOT: Young Albert enlists to serve in World War I after his beloved horse is sold to the cavalry. Albert's hopeful journey takes him out of England and to the front lines as the war rages on.
AFTER: I didn't have high hopes for this film, primarily because my Mom liked it, which is usually a bad sign. Surprisingly, she managed to recommend it to me without spoiling the ending, which is very rare - but this is probably because only someone who's never seen a movie before would have trouble predicting the ending. Essentially it's boy meets horse, boy loses horse, boy goes to find horse. What do YOU think will happen at the end? HINT: If it's not boy finds horse, then there wouldn't be any frickin' point, would there?
Let's start with "boy loses horse". The first lesson when war is looming in Europe is that soldiers are going to take whatever they need to win the war, be that young men or strong horses. And a solider saying "I'll do everything in my power to bring him back to you" is a non-certainty that's predicated on that soldier managing to stay alive, and given the statistics (and the nature of drama), things ain't looking so good. But always bear in mind that when someone says that war is good for the economy, they're not talking about YOUR economy.
We're meant to believe that the U.K. soldiers are somehow different or "better" than the German soldiers, but damn it if their process doesn't amount to the same result - there are families who as a result don't have horses, and can't plant their turnips. (Really? There's that much demand for turnips over crops that actually taste good, like, I don't know, cucumbers or something?) Actually, this seems to be quite a clever recruiting tool for the Allied war effort - "I'm taking your horse, and if you want to see him again, go and enlist and ask to be assigned to the 37th Regiment, but you didn't hear it from me..."
ASIDE: Actually, I've got a number of quibbles about the portrayal of this British family's farming skills - like how could they live on such rocky terrain and still call themselves "farmers"? And how did they farm before they got a plowhorse? And if they couldn't plow or farm or plant turnips, how did they get the money to buy the horse? And how does a horse who admittedly and non-apologetically looks nothing like a plowhorse become the world's best plowhorse? Something's just not adding up here.
Anyway, back to the war - this story is meant to show the differences in the fighting styles of the U.K. and Germany, and it becomes one of those "want of a nail" things - you know, for want of a nail the shoe was lost, for want of a shoe the horse was lost, and so on. Finally, the truth is revealed: if only the Germans had treated their horses better, the horses would have performed better, and their tanks and materials would have been moved into place more efficiently, and so on. But this seems like a gross generalization, and awfully convenient to boot, so it started to set off my B.S. meter. We could be looking at something of a cultural bias here - and an assumption that if Germans were cruel to Jews, gypsies and homosexuals, then by extension naturally (?) they were cruel to their horses. (You've got to watch this sort of thing, because painting all Germans with the same convenient brush hems a little close to the sort of thing that led to concentration camps in the first place...)
I actually don't know much about German films - I'm incredibly biased toward Hollywood films, and I admit I haven't given foreign films much of a shot here (current stats: 1,585 to umm, zero). And even though I'm of German descent and spent a couple weeks there on an exchange, my knowledge of German culture is quite limited. I know for sure it's NOT like Americans think, with people singing and dancing all the time, wearing colorful lederhosen and carrying around mugs of beer and plates full of sausages (except maybe during one week each year in Munich...) But how do they view World War II? What do THEIR war movies look like? (I imagine that German audiences have a very low tolerance for films that jump back and forth in time excessively, as I do. "What is this scheisse? Why are the scenes not in the proper order?")
ASIDE #2: Speaking of cultural throwbacks, here in NYC we've got these horse-drawn carriage rides that take people around Central Park, and the practice is quite divisive and controversial. People either view this as a quaint, romantic yet anachronistic way to see the park, or a cruelty-driven insane practice that should have been banned decades ago. There seems to be no middle ground. Even the people who are against the practice are split, because they're not sure if banning the carriage rides would save the horses, or if they'd all be summarily executed once they're no longer useful. Because investigating that sort of thing starts to sound like work, and that's where people lose interest.
Other people say, "Well, horses are like people. They NEED a job." This also sets off my B.S. meter, for two reasons. First, horses have been around for millions of years, long before humans started giving them odd jobs, and they seem to have gotten through that fallow period quite well. Secondly, there are plenty of people who don't have jobs, either by choice or by occurence, and most of them get through the day just fine - and even those of us with jobs are hoping that there will come a day when we can retire, and not have a job, and this also suits us. So don't tell me that horses NEED a job, when you're the one putting them to work, and your logic just happens to support your own needs.
ASIDE to ASIDE #2: Speaking of politics, what I've learned in my 28 years among the New Yorkers (and maybe politics works the same everywhere, but I have no idea) is that everyone here seems to be either strongly FOR or strongly AGAINST any given issue. I've never heard anyone speaking out on a topic who espouses moderation in any way. The carriage horse issue is a perfect example, as is abortion, as is "stop and frisk". I sometimes enrage people by taking the middle ground, which is perceived as a cop out, but that's usually how I feel. Sure, I support a woman's right to choose, but I would also like it if there were fewer unwanted pregnancies to begin with, and therefore fewer abortions. Do I think "stop and frisk" prevents crime? Sure, but who's to say it isn't also racist and trampling people's personal liberties at the same time?
Anyway, back to the film. This is almost complete sentimental rubbish because of the way that man and horse find each other again, or more accurately are thrown back together again. The boy joins the army, and the horse passes through a series of owners, on both sides of the war (he pulled loads for the Germans - why isn't this called "Traitor Horse"?) The film then tracks both of them (mostly the horse, but the boy gets some screen time too) and through a series of unlikely, nearly impossible contrivances, they are eventually reunited.
FURTHER ASIDE: What this reminds me of the most are those stories about lost dogs - as seen in films like "The Incredible Journey", but also what are essentially urban legends about dogs being separated from their owners, and finding their way across the country somehow in order to get back to what they consider home. Are these stories total B.S. too? I'm not inclined to believe that dogs can navigate by the stars, and being color blind reading a road map is out of the question, so what's the deal? Their sense of smell is powerful, so do they stumble around until they find one of their own pee-mails at a highway rest stop, then backtrack with that direction until they find another one? And for every dog that allegedly travels on foot 3,000 miles from Seattle back to New Jersey shouldn't there be like 1,000 lost dogs that never make it? What about the dog that makes it 99% of the way, and then gets hit by a semi when he's just a mile or two from home? Logically, it's got to happen.
I checked with good old Cecil Adams at the Straight Dope, and yes, this question has been asked and answered before. Cecil backs me up by supporting the theory that dogs more or less stumble around until they find a familiar landmark. However, dogs used in cattle drives have been known to travel home over 100 miles or more, but admittedly this was over familiar territory. I think that if you lose your dog on the other side of the country and he shows up on your doorstep weeks later, you really have to wonder why his markings are slightly different, he's a little shorter than before and how he managed to have grown his testicles back.
ASIDE TO THE FURTHER ASIDE: While I'm at it, what's the deal with missing people? I can see how a pet can run away, but has anyone ever come up with a constructive explanation as to why so many people seem to disappear each year? Where do they go? What happens to them? Can we tell the difference between someone who's met with foul play and someone who just drops out of society to get their head together? And did putting anyone's photo on a milk carton ever do any good? Because I haven't seen that take place in quite a while. I figure if you see someone's face on a milk carton that you recognize, while they're sitting across from you at breakfast, there's a pretty good chance that you're their abductor, so I don't know if that process was ever beneficial.
I know there was that girl, Elizabeth Smart, who came back to her parents after 9 months in a cult after being abducted - but what about all the others? Am I right in thinking that she seems to be the exception, and most of these cases go unsolved? We've got one of those cases going on now in NYC where an autistic teen left his high school unsupervised, and hasn't been seen since. A month has gone by and they keep posting his photo in the subways, as if we're all passing him on the platform and we're not paying close enough attention. Or perhaps he's in some alley somewhere, and someone just needs to spot him, because he can't quite figure out how to get himself back out on to the street. It's been 7 weeks now, so if this kid can't communicate or ask for food, I don't think his chances are good. Part of me believes that good and improbable things do happen sometimes, but the other part of me is more realistic.
The film, right, the film. Enough with the asides. I know this was based on a stage play, and that stage play used an allegedly remarkable puppet/animatronic horse. I'm now quite curious about this, because having seen the film, which is mostly live-action and partial CGI, I don't see how you could get much of this action across through puppetry. That would have to be one super amazing puppet.
Also starring Jeremy Irvine, Emily Watson (last seen in "The Boxer"), Tom Hiddleston (last seen in "The Avengers"), David Thewlis (last seen in "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2"), Eddie Marsan (last seen in "Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows"), Peter Mullan (last seen in "The Claim"), Niels Arestrup, Celine Buckens, and Finder the horse (last seen in "Seabiscuit").
RATING: 4 out of 10 guineas
No comments:
Post a Comment