My mum bought me a copy of Sara Gruen's novel, "Water For Elephants", for Christmas last year.
It was a novel I approached with some trepidation owing to the massive amount of hype surrounding it in the media. Such massively hyped publishing phenomenons have a tendency of letting me down....
...anyways, I found that I quite enjoyed it. It was an interesting slice-of-life piece about life in a travelling circus during the great depression, full of evocative period detail and lively (though somewhat shallow and stereotypical) characters.
It wasn't a literary classic or anything, and it's position on Dymocks' current "TOP 101 BOOKS OF ALL TIME" poll is, like most of the books featured on that list, more indicative of the amount of hype surrounding it than the quality of the book itself.
I wrote a full review for my reading blog and you can read it here:
~Link~A movie version came out this month, which I also approached with some trepidation...
This was mainly because of overhyped leading man, Robert Pattinson. Try as I might, I've never really understood his appeal. Sure, he's a good looking chap, but I've also found him to be an exceedingly bland and wooden actor in every role I've seen him in - I'm amazed that his performances in the "Twilight" franchise have found such a following, since I felt his acting was sorely lacking in passion, charm and charisma. He just seemed to coast through them with hardly any change to his facial expression and delivered most of his lines in an extremely aloof manner.
Frankly, I was worried that he would derail an otherwise fine movie with another wooden performance - seeing as all the other elements seemed perfectly in place.... bubbly blonde Reese Witherspoon seemed a good fit for star equestrian Marlena.... Christoph Waltz is an ebullient character actor whose over the top style is perfectly suited to the larger than life character of bipolar animal trainer, August... screenwriter Richard LaGravanese wrote one of my all time fave films, the witty philosophical comedy "The Fisher King"... and director Francis Lawrence's previous films, "Constantine" and "I Am Legend", were both visually striking affairs, even if they did have script issues.
I was, for the most part, happy with the film of "Water For Elephants"....
I didn't mind the way that screenwriter Richard LaGravanese approached the source material... he abbreviates the framing device of the main story severely, something I didn't mind in the least - considering that I found this device to consist of mostly filler material in the original novel anyway.
LaGravanese also combines several members of the novel's crowded ensemble into composite characters - again, I didn't mind... the novel has quite a few stereotypical characters who turn up, say something funny, then disappear for the rest of the book having contributed absolutely nothing to the main plot. By combining several of these characters, LaGravenese ensures that the audience still gets those juicy one liners, but the story stays focused, and doesn't meander as much as the book does.
The film is always pretty to look at. Francis Lawrence provides immersive period atmosphere on what is a pretty low budget by Hollywood standards... James Newton Howard's score is an interesting combination of grandiose orchestral sweep and intimate, folksy pieces that also evoke the period very well.
Reese Witherspoon proves once again that she's a very accomplished dramatic actress - it's such a shame that she doesn't do more straight dramatic roles, and instead so often squanders her talents on mindlessly formulaic romantic comedies, because this is where her strengths as an actress really are... she also handles herself very well in the physical scenes with the animals (or at least the ones where it's clear it's her and not a double, which I assume it must've been for the more dangerous scenes).
Christoph Waltz is a towering screen presence, both physically and emotionally... and I'd say the movie is worth watching for his darkly charismatic performance alone. It's a part that could've turned into a moustache twirling villain in the hands of a lesser actor, but Waltz taps into the character's beating human heart... successfully conveying not only the character's volatile temper and shockingly casual cruelty, but his dapper old world charm and all consuming passion for his art. Although one is ultimately repulsed by his monsterous treatment of others (human and animal alike), you can understand why the two main characters find him initially attractive and why his character can so easily persuade other people to follow his line of thought in business.
Then there's Robert Pattinson. He is.... not terrible.
I'll give the man his due. He actually tries out a variety of different facial expressions in this movie. He puts a few variations of tone and inflection into his line delivery. Ordinarily, I wouldn't be taken aback by this, but Pattinson's previous performances have been so very wooden and inexpressive that I'm frankly amazed he had this much in him.
However, he is still upstaged by every single member of the cast. I don't think there's a single scene in the whole movie that he shares with another actor where said actor doesn't totally dominate the proceedings and steal it right from under him.... and there are still many scenes where I felt he needed to turn up the dial emotionally....
Pattinson's chemistry with Witherspoon always comes across as oddly unbalanced, simply because Witherspoon always seems to be investing a vastly greater amount of emotion into the scene than Pattinson is.
Truth be told, I found the Witherspoon/Waltz chemistry much more palpable, and much more intense, than the chemistry between Pattinson/Witherspoon.... it unbalances the movie in a way, too. We're supposed to root for the Pattinson/Witherspoon combo to come out on top, but the Witherspoon/Waltz combo is just so much more interesting to watch, one is almost tempted to cheer on the bad guy in this love triangle equation.
I can't remember the last time I was so tempted to root for the "bad guy" in a love triangle scenario so much, and for such shallow reasons.... I guess the last time would be "Robin Hood: Prince Of Thieves", just because Alan Rickman's hammy Sherrif Of Nottingham was so much more interesting than Kevin Costner's bland Robin Hood, you couldn't help but cheer him on, despite the fact that The Sheriff had no redeeming features whatsoever.
Still, I'm glad I saw the movie. It was a fun Tuesday matinee and I'm sure that RPatz's legion of female devotees will eat it up.
Penny for your thoughts, people?
