web
counter
 

Water for Elephants Review: Almost Everything is an Illusion

By Agent Bedhead | Posted Under Film Reviews | Comments (48)



waterelephants2sm.jpg

Water for Elephants is an unexpectedly successful adaptation of Sara Gruen’s novel that, contrary to what its trailers would tell us, manages to not fall into the Hollywood trap of focusing solely upon a love triangle that just happens to exist within an otherwise captivating and fairly original story. Even stranger in regard to this positive experience is that the film was directed by (get ready for this) Francis Lawrence (Constantine; I Am Legend), who has previously shown a great capacity for visual flair at the ultimate expense of story. Here, the screenplay by Richard LaGravenese trims the unnecessary moments out of the book so that Lawrence is then free to lavish his trademark flourishes without dragging the entire production into oblivion. It’s a wonderful partnership that must be replicated in future films. In fact, it is to the credit of LaGravenese’s sharply focused script and Lawrence’s attention to detail that the movie’s characters (and the primary three are remarkably well developed) are allowed to convincingly reveal the motivations behind their actions within the swirling chaos that was life in the Great Depression. The circus setting, of course, provides a temporary respite from the threats that exist when one doesn’t live in a moving caravan, but there are tradeoffs to the lifestyle, as Jacob Jankowski (Robert Pattinson) soon realizes.

The film opens with a very brief introduction by Old Jacob (Hal Holbrook, playing the same sort of role that Gloria Stuart did for Titanic), who begins to tell the tale of why he wants to “come home” to the circus. Then, we meet up with young Jacob while his sheltered life as a Cornell veterinary student comes to a screeching halt when his Polish immigrant parents are killed in an off-screen car accident. Since his parents remortgaged the family home to pay for their son’s education, Jacob is left destitute and decides, on a whim, to hop onto a freight train. Upon awakening the next morning, he discovers that he’s hitched a ride with the Benzini Brothers Circus and quickly falls in as the production’s veterinarian. Naturally, he takes notice of the show’s star performer, Marlena Rosenbluth (Reese Witherspoon), and is taken under the wing of her husband, August (Christoph Waltz), whose character has been slightly expanded from the book, so that he’s not only the animal trainer but also the man-in-charge, which presents all sorts of financial impetus for his character’s inevitable rages.

By condensing certain aspects of the story from the book version, the screenplay removes the possibility of overpowering a movie that’s already rather epic both in its grandeur and scope. When dealing in particular with the character of August, it’s no mistake that this story churns against backdrop of the Great Depression with the story picking up in 1931 at the height of falling circuses. As a matter of course, August informs Jacob that he runs his circus as a “sovereign nation” subject only to his own rule and “where everything is an illusion.” However, as hard as August tries to insulate himself and his company from real-world troubles, he also fails magnificently. By adding the fallout from August’s financial realities into the mix, the film does not place August’s character traits solely under the realm of a mental disorder (as in the book) but also situates him as a manifestation of what some men will do in the most desperate of times. It must be noted, however, that August’s behavior is never excused by any means, but the movie provides a rather engrossing look at an even more complicated character than the book dares to suggest.

Those with a delicate stomach should realize that the movie does not omit the book’s instances of cruelty (both against animals and humans) that persist throughout August’s reign of terror. Everything is beautiful on the outside when the circus tents go pop, but the horrible ugliness of life with the Benzini Brothers traveling circus always simmers under the shimmering surface. In addition, the dynamic between the story’s three main characters is an interesting one to boot. When each of them interacts with just one of the others, it is in an entirely different manner than with the absent party or when all three are present together. Again, this movie is not the stuff of high art, but it’s a more than serviceable adaptation of this particular novel, and readers will enjoy the give and take going on between the major players. Unfortunately, the roustabout characters are a bit more buffoonish, but a very nice turn comes from Mark Povinelli in the role of Walter, a.k.a., “Kinko.”

Overall, most of the performers within Water for Elephants fare better than expected. Reese Witherspoon finally gets back to creating some movie magic in a way that she hasn’t pulled off since long before her Oscar days. Her portrayal of Marlena is at times wounded and at times calculating, and Witherspoon manages to infuse the character with more ambiguity than her literary counterpart. It is not a perfect performance by any means but reminds us that Witherspoon is still capable of pulling off something with more dimension than one of her stock romcom characters. While Robert Pattinson probably won’t entirely shed his Edward Cullen reputation in the role of Jacob, he’s taken a step in the correct direction here as well. Pattinson’s not a magnificent actor, and it’s doubtful that he will ever even be considered a good one, but once he moves past his character’s awkward beginnings, he largely holds his own during the latter half of the movie. Or at least he does so during scenes when he’s up against Witherspoon or any of the film’s minor players. Against Waltz, poor Pattinson just doesn’t have a chance, nor does anyone else. Waltz is just that good, and while the movie reveals less about August’s mental condition than does the book, his rages are no less terrifying; and indeed, he is a fully horrifying man, but Waltz does something entirely magical by refusing to reduce the character to a cartoon figure, which would have happened at the hands of nearly any other actor. Instead, Waltz reaches inward to give us moments when we truly feel something resembling pity for August even though we realize that it’s just a moment of time before he loses his shit again and takes it out any number of poor, innocent creatures.

In the end, anyone who enjoyed Gruen’s novel will also adore this movie as well. It not only preserves the book’s spirit but brings these multi-faceted characters to life with added qualities. The movie also fully realizes the intensity of the book’s finale, although I found it impossible to tell exactly how much (if any) of that scene was enhanced by CGI. My guess would be “a little bit,” but honestly, the filmmakers might have fooled me entirely in that regard, which is to their credit because being unable to tell whether something is CGI or not is something that most movies cannot manage; that is to say that everything looks authentic in Water for Elephants, and at least the illusion of the movie itself doesn’t come crashing down before the end credits.

Agent Bedhead lives in Tulsa, Oklahoma. She and her little black heart can be found at agentbedhead.com.









Each Time You Like, Share, Tweet or Stumble a Pajiba Post, An Angel Does the Paul Rudd Dance



Entirely Too Much Attention To Detail: The Sci-Fi Pets Edition | The Weekly Murdertank: Bad Rom-Coms, The Turk Dance, and The Arrival of Game of Thrones









Comments

Wait... This is actually good??? Huh. That was unexpected. The trailers made it look absolutely terrible.

Posted by: camytaru at April 22, 2011 6:52 PM

oh, god. don't tell joanna this has a whiff or more of cgi. she's a big sensitive.

Posted by: splinter at April 22, 2011 7:12 PM

Oh hurray, I really enjoyed the book but thought the best parts were the non-romantic ones. I wasn't looking forward to this because the trailers just make it look like a bland romance. But now you've got me interested.

Posted by: Anne (no longer in Reno) at April 22, 2011 7:29 PM

I actually didn't really like Gruen's novel. Robert Pattinson is in this so a big PASS is in order. Reese Witherspoon annoys me kinda, the character in the book didn't really look like her all that much. Anyway...

Posted by: Gina at April 22, 2011 7:55 PM

I'm puzzled and pleasantly surprised by this review. I was never planning to see the movie, and I'm still not planning to see it. But the commercials running on TV make it look like the blandest and most cliched of romantic melodramas. My mom, who's read the book, says every time the commercial comes on: "What the fuck? That book was not a romance."

So, marketing fail. Except, of course, that if they marketed it as a really intense and horrifying story, no one would go and see it.

Posted by: MM at April 22, 2011 7:59 PM

Speaking of JoRo, she just posted this on the ol' Twitter machine: "Is "water for elephants" circus-code for elephantine urine? I'm pretty sure I just watched two hours of urine."

...

PAJIBA FIGHT!!!

Posted by: RobP at April 22, 2011 8:23 PM

Seriously, though, I did think this looked pretty interesting, even in spite of R-Patz.

Posted by: RobP at April 22, 2011 8:25 PM

I tore through this book and played hooky from work to catch the first matinee. I totally agree with this review; I thought it was a fantastic adaptation of the book. It was obvious from the energy in the room that the audience was mostly full of people who ready the book because you could see people prematurely wince whenever anything unpleasant was about to ensue. My biggest fear was how they would film the big moment, which is bad-ass in book form, but might look totally silly on-screen. Happily, they changed is oh-so-slightly and yay, it worked! The audience clapped!

Regarding the marketing, the trailer didn't make me want to see the movie, but it DID make me want to read the book. Which I did.

I wish books had trailers. Can someone make that happen?

Posted by: Skyler Durden at April 22, 2011 8:45 PM

I've been having some doubts about this film, and was particularly hesitant to read the review before I saw the film, however, kudos to Agent Bedhead for addressing a number of the issues I'd already begun wringing my hands over (the Reese thing in particular). I feel...more of a sense of relief that the likelihood of me absolutely giving up on Reese Witherspoon won't be happening...just yet.
But if I see it tomorrow, hate it and spend THE REST OF MY DAY chewing, very aggressively, I may have to change me story.

Posted by: beet salad at April 22, 2011 9:05 PM

Even as a child I wasn’t interested in the circus. And I am even less interested in that vampire guy. But most of all I absolutely cannot stand Witherspoon, not that she did anything wrong it just seems like it’s such a chore to bang her. Even thought the review was mildly interesting I’m going to have to give this movie one star.

Posted by: Pookie at April 22, 2011 9:25 PM

The trailer looked absolutely insipid. There was nothing in it to indicate it was about anything but a love triangle at a circus. This sounds like the movie's more like "There Will Be Blood" crossed with "Carnivale", which is a LOT more interesting. Whoever worked on the marketing should be flogged.

Posted by: jvon at April 22, 2011 9:38 PM

I wouldn't spend one red cent to see Pattinson smirk and Reese simper.

What happened to scathing reviews for bitchy people, people?

Posted by: sittingpat at April 22, 2011 9:58 PM

Huh. Well, that's a pleasant surprise.

Posted by: Dingles at April 22, 2011 10:14 PM

@Skylar Durden:

Book trailers do, in fact, exist. They suck. Hard. All of them, no exceptions. They need to go away.

Posted by: Rest In Peace at April 22, 2011 10:22 PM

OK, totally OT, but it's Friday and there's no After Dark thread to post this on, so it's going here. I just watched the second ep of The Paul Reiser Show (yes, I know, but I had to try) and the funniest thing I saw was in the credits: "Special Guest Star Mel Brooks as the Angry Cat". I hope that was true.

Posted by: Three-nineteen at April 22, 2011 10:46 PM

*breathes huge sigh of relief*

I wanted this to be good (and so, I'm sure, did Mrs. , -- we both read and liked the book) and it sounds like it is. Pattinson was a huge red flag but it sounds like he's not terribly annoying.

Thanks, Bedhead. We'll be checking this out next week.

Posted by: , at April 23, 2011 1:02 AM

Hmm, I thought the trailer looked ok. I try not to let my feelings about certain actors influence my film choices

Great review!

Posted by: Protoguy at April 23, 2011 2:47 AM

Huh. I'm still kinda skeptical about the whole Pattinson deal, but I'll try to reserve judgement.

Although I'm going to have to keep the whole giggle factor down, what with "Edward" portraying "Jacob".

Yes, at times my mind can get pretty damn infantile.

Posted by: Four Eyes at April 23, 2011 4:19 AM

I've been mildly interested in this since reading the plot outline even though I'm a bit (irrationally) prejudiced against Pattinson and I'm not fond of Witherspoon. This review makes it sound even better than I expected, thank you for that. I foolishly went to the forums at imdb to get some opinions and it's filled to brimming with obsessive Twilight fans arguing with anyone that has even a mildly negative opinion on the movie. Don't like Reese's hair? HOW DARE YOU! One thread is actually keeping track of any Rotten Tomatoes percentage point change. Holy shit.

Posted by: snapnhiss at April 23, 2011 8:58 AM

You Reese haters can just shut it. My grandfather's name was Reese and my uncle's name is Reese, and if she's good enough for them, she's good enough for me.

Posted by: , at April 23, 2011 10:39 AM

I like Reese Witherspoon, too, ,. Not sure what it is about her, but I think she's probably worth the effort.

Posted by: RobP at April 23, 2011 11:03 AM

You Reese haters can just shut it. My grandfather's name was Reese and my uncle's name is Reese, and if she's good enough for them, she's good enough for me.

Posted by: , at April 23, 2011 10:39 AM

It is not the Reese name that we hate; it is the person we hate like so much spinach. I have no idea what your relatives are like, and I can respect the fact that you speak highly of them which tells me that they are stand up people. Now Witherspoon is another story, our collective hate for her stems from the belief that she is a ball breaker and a cold, black- hearted assassin.

Posted by: Pookie at April 23, 2011 11:07 AM

I haven't read the book, and wasn't interested in the movie until this review; however, I am this: delicate stomach.

Is there anyone out in the Pajiverse who could white-text spoil the animal cruelty parts so I can decide whether I should put myself through it? Someone knows how to do that, right?

Or, just tell me flat out yay or nay as my cat died a couple of days ago and I'm nowhere near being over it.

Many thanks.

Posted by: Shonda at April 23, 2011 11:08 AM

I haven't read the book, and wasn't interested in the movie until this review; however, I am this: delicate stomach.

Is there anyone out in the Pajiverse who could white-text spoil the animal cruelty parts so I can decide whether I should put myself through it? Someone knows how to do that, right?

Or, just tell me flat out yay or nay as my cat died a couple of days ago and I'm nowhere near being over it.

Many thanks.

Posted by: Shonda at April 23, 2011 11:08 AM

Sure honey, but I bet you don’t have a problem with some poor guy working extra shifts just to buy you Kobe beef so he can be in your good graces.

Posted by: Pookie at April 23, 2011 11:17 AM

Oh, please. He begged me to allow him to work those shifts.

Posted by: Shonda at April 23, 2011 11:44 AM

I'm going to start stalking Pookie, because I am in awe/creepish love.

Posted by: sittingpat at April 23, 2011 12:05 PM

@Shonda:

I haven't read the book, so I don't know the grand secrets, but Wikipedia usually has really detailed plot outlines, so you could probably go to Wikipedia and find out what the "squicky finale" is all about.

Also, oh SNAP! Tangling with Pookie is an art.

Posted by: MM at April 23, 2011 12:40 PM

White text doesn't work on this site. I tried it on another movie and it didn't work.

Since I am also sensitive to animal stuff, I will spoil. You can judge whether you can stomach it.

ANIMAL SPOILER ANIMAL SPOILER ANIMAL SPOILER:

1) Awesome to watch: The elephant grabs a metal spike and clocks a character over the head. It is pretty bloodless, unlike the book where I believe the phrase "split open like a melon" was used.

2) Unpleasant to watch: A brief shot of the bottom a horse's injured hoof, which has open wounds.

3) Hard to watch: two scenes of the aftermath of abuse, where blood seeps from the wounds.

4) Really fucking hard to watch: two scenes where a character aggressively jabs at an elephant with a pointy-ended prod


/ END SPOILER

I cried and cried, but I watched it all. Sometimes you just have to remind yourself that it's just a movie, it's just a movie. No animals were really hurt!

Posted by: Skyler Durden at April 23, 2011 4:26 PM

What did I say now to get banned?

Posted by: Pookie at April 23, 2011 5:56 PM

Ok I'm sorry about what I said about PETA.

Posted by: Pookie at April 23, 2011 5:58 PM

Damn, I go away for a little while and Pookie gets banned?

MM, Wiki! Shit, I forget the wiki 'cause I'm old. And I drink.

So many thanks, Skyler. Unless I can take a date who will indulge my quirks and nudge me when the bad scenes are over, I'm not watching this. And for sure won't fucking read it.

Posted by: Shonda at April 23, 2011 9:12 PM

Pookie,

I eat, and like, spinach. Yesterday I had a spinach salad with grape tomatoes, button mushrooms, walnuts, craisins and my own crab cakes, with Ken's sweet vidalia onion dressing. That was some fine eating.

Reese, I don't know about.

My grandfather was a coal miner who died hacking up a lung. My uncle flew Air America missions during Vietnam. Judge them as you wish.

Posted by: , at April 23, 2011 9:37 PM

@Shonda

I didn’t get banned but I thought I did because I made a comment about PETA and I hit the Post Comment button and it didn’t post. But somehow I hit a different button by mistake, and now all is well.

@ , I would never judge your peeps, they sound like salt of the earth, people that actually built this country.

“I eat, and like, spinach. Yesterday I had a spinach salad with grape tomatoes, button mushrooms, walnuts, craisins and my own crab cakes, with Ken's sweet vidalia onion dressing. That was some fine eating.”

Give me some crab cakes and a Sunkist orange and I’m in heaven.


Posted by: Pookie at April 23, 2011 9:59 PM

I read the book, and thought MEH, but also thought THIS WOULD MAKE A GOOD MOVIE. Pretty much the only time ever, as I am a chronic reader and rare movie-watcher. I have yet to truly love a book/movie adaptation.

Posted by: Janey at April 23, 2011 10:55 PM

...and yet: "Christoph Waltz".

I'll probably settle for seeing this at home.

Posted by: Fredo at April 23, 2011 11:04 PM

Pookie, your endearing charm is that inevitably everything you say makes someone want to ban you. it's what makes you so sexy (in an innocent internet way, or not, whichever makes you happier)

Posted by: idleprimate at April 24, 2011 12:02 AM

Good to hear he will be leaving. Why hasn't he left?

You should read the thread closer. He wasn't banned. He was mistaken.

Posted by: Protoguy at April 24, 2011 5:04 AM

Well, that was kind of amusing in an annoying sort of way. Someone posts that they've been banned (which would make posting about it a little difficult) and a minor uproar ensues at the injustice of it all. That damn Rowles!

Posted by: snapnhiss at April 24, 2011 8:01 AM

I want to explain what happened last night concerning the “ban” which did not actually take place. A commentor made a comment about being a animal lover and not wanting to see any animals hurt in the “Water for Elephants” movie. I then attempted to post a comment about my disgust with PETA. By mistake I pressed the wrong button and my comment was not posted. I then jumped to the conclusion that I was “banned.” After calling a guy that runs one of my websites and explaining to him my problem he initiated a program review and discovered that I inadvertently pressed the wrong button. I take full responsibility for the misunderstanding. Since this has happened, I have been inundated with emails and phone calls about this situation. To all of my followers and my work group members and to my friends around the world I have not been banned.

Posted by: Pookie at April 24, 2011 10:20 AM

Liberté, égalité, fraterPookié!

And all is right with the world.

Posted by: Shonda at April 24, 2011 11:18 AM

Vous avez une très habile maternelle Shonda!

Posted by: Pookie at April 24, 2011 12:22 PM

I know I was terribly concerned. What a huge relief.

Posted by: snapnhiss at April 24, 2011 12:27 PM

Banning has its place, and about 99% of the time it's jolly well justified.

As for the movie, are there clowns? If there are clowns I wouldn't see it if my pet cat was being threatened with disemboweling.

I fucking Hate clowns.

Posted by: The Wanderer at April 24, 2011 12:52 PM

And there was much rejoicing.

Posted by: RobP at April 24, 2011 5:16 PM

I read this book so quickly that I retained none of it. I do remember that the elephant speaks Polish though...

I might watch this just for Christophe Waltz. Also, when were Reese's Oscar days? Did I miss something?

Posted by: denesteak at April 25, 2011 5:22 AM

All snark aside, the movie was pretty damned good, and though I never thought I'd be able to stomach R. Patz because of how deeply I loathe "Twilight," I found him to be...attractive. As in REALLY attractive.

It's a good way to spend a Sunday afternoon, if nothing else.

Posted by: The Pink Hulk at April 25, 2011 11:24 AM

it was very nice to read a review that acknowledged a crucial contribution from the screenwriter to the success of a film.

Posted by: celery at April 25, 2011 11:28 AM

i don't mean to suggest that people on this site don't credit the writing. rather, i just read three reviews this morning of this film, none of which even mentioned the screenwriter or the script.

Posted by: celery at April 25, 2011 11:35 AM