OSC's interesting take on the circus, adultery, and Water For Elephants

OSC nails something here that most don't talk about - why I have no interest
in adultery stories. I went to Pearl Harbor for the battle scenes and
quickly regretted not just waiting for the DVD. I like what OSC says here,
and how he says it.

http://www.hatrack.com/osc/reviews/everything/2011-05-05.shtml

I was never interested in the novel *Water for Elephants*, by Sara Gruen.
> First, the flap copy told us it was an adultery story. Maybe it's because
> I'm old, but the fact is that adultery stories never made much sense to me,
> from Lancelot and Guinevere on forward.
>
> What's romantic about a married person who "falls in love" with somebody
> else? If your spouse is a nightmare, get divorced and *then* fall in love;
> otherwise, you have no business being in a situation where falling in love
> is possible. Of course it happens, but never *quite* accidentally.
> Somebody always knows what's going on and consents to it.
>
> The second reason I didn't read *Water for Elephants* was that it was
> about the circus. I don't like the circus. I don't like books about the
> circus. I don't like movies about the circus. Maybe it's because everybody
> assumes there's something magical and romantic about the circus, but I never
> have. To me, it was smelly, the animals looked mistreated and sad, the
> clowns were somewhere between embarrassing and scary, and the sheer
> existence of the sideshows was appalling.
>
> The only performers I was ever impressed with were the acrobats, and as an
> acrophobe, I could hardly bear to watch them.
>
> The third reason I didn't read *Water for Elephants* was that it seemed,
> from a cursory glance at a few randomly chosen pages, to be the kind of
> pretentious, faux edgy writing that bad literature and writing classes
> encourage semi-talented writers to pursue.
>
> Since the movie came out, a couple of friends have attempted to read the
> novel and they assure me that my initial impression was spot on -- the book
> is a waste of time, they say.
>
> But the movie isn't. A waste of time, that is. Screenwriter Richard
> LaGravenese knows how to create characters and build a world of
> relationships (the very thing that is so utterly lacking in, say, HBO's *Game
> of Thrones*). LaGravenese has experience turning deeply stupid books into
> good movies (*The Bridges of Madison County*; *The Horse Whisperer*), and
> this may be his best work in that weird but well-paying genre.
>
> We went to this show (we were choosing between this and *Jane Eyre*)
> because our skeptical 17-year-old wanted to see if Robert Pattinson could
> actually act -- there is no way to tell from the *Twilight* series, in
> which most of the actors perform as if their characters are dead.
>
> But right from the start, as Jacob (Pattinson) is pulled out of his final
> exam at Cornell's school of veterinary medicine and has his life taken away
> from him, I was sucked into the story -- and into Pattinson's fine, subtle
> performance in a difficult role.
>
> Quite by accident, Jacob finds himself aboard a circus train -- he was just
> boarding the first open boxcar that came along. His knowledge as a
> veterinarian helps him with horses, but doesn't really prepare him to deal
> with the elephant that becomes his responsibility.
>
> Nor is he prepared to deal with the sick marriage of the brutal, troubled
> circus owner, August (Christoph Waltz) and his star performer, Marlena
> (Reese Witherspoon). All three actors give strong performances with plenty
> of chemistry.
>
> But the real magic of the movie is the creation of the dark life of the
> circus on the road. I've never seen a circus movie that shows so much of
> what life was like on the train -- but since that's where they actually
> lived, moving from town to town, it felt revelatory. Where the novel works
> at making many of the characters repulsive, the movie makes them real. Love
> and loyalty amid the squalor and fear are as redemptive in the movie as they
> are in real life.
>
> Is this a great movie? Absolutely not. Fundamentally, the story is silly
> and predictable -- most faux edgy novels are. If any of the characters had
> the tiniest bit of intelligence there'd be no story. But the screenwriting,
> acting, and *gorgeous* design and cinematography allow it to transcend its
> shallowness and give the illusion of depth.
>
> The result is a *pretty good movie,* one worth getting out of the house to
> see. In a year when *Hop* is one of the big winners at the box office,
> it's good to keep your expectations low. Except in the design categories,
> don't bother putting *Water for Elephants* on your Oscar-watch list.
>


Johne Cook
| http://raygunrevival.com | http://authorculture.blogspot.com |*
*
-- 
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot