A film review by Craig J. Koban April 28, 2011
WATER FOR ELEPHANTS
2011, PG-13, 122 mins.
2011, PG-13, 122 mins.
Marlena: Reese Witherspoon / Jacob: Robert Pattinson / August:
Christoph Waltz / Old Jacob: Hal Holbrook
One of the rare and gratifying surprises of this spring movie season, WATER FOR ELEPHANTS – based on the Depression-era romantic novel by Sara Gruen – is not only a bravura showcase of old school production artifice, but it marries that with an equally old fashioned romantic melodrama that Hollywood just does not seem to fashion as habitually anymore.
it does is not easy: it not only has to deliver a soft and sentimental tale of
forbidden love with just the right tact so it does not come off as
laughably maudlin while framing that within a lush, large scale and palpable
period design that does not go overboard with lame CGI enhancements.
Also assisting matters tremendously is the fact that the film
co-stars Christoph Waltz, giving another persuasively mesmerizing
performance that - along with his work in INGLOURIOUS
BASTERDS - highlights an actor of eruptive power and transfixing
screenplay - credited to THE HORSE WHISPERER scribe Richard LaGravenese
– makes use of a framing device that he used in THE BRIDGES OF MADISON
COUNTY, which in turn echoes Gruen’s book, albeit with some minor and
unobtrusive modifications. The
novel begins with a 90-plus-year-old man serving up memories of his young
life in the circus during the height of the Great Depression.
In the film incarnation, we meet the aging Jacob Jankowski (played
by the great Hal Holbrook, who knows how to give characters like this a
grass roots gravitas and modest-minded authority) as he stumbles on to a
modern day circus. He
encounters the young circus operator who kindly takes the old man out of
the rain and into his office. Their
idle conversations turn more compelling, especially after the weepy eyed
Jacob looks at an old photo of a female performer on top of an elephant and reveals that he was a circus man himself.
narrative then flashes back to when Jacob is 23 and is an aspiring veterinary
student on the cusp of graduating from Cornell University when personal
disaster strikes. Just as his
final exams begin he is given the traumatic news that his father (a vet
himself) and mother were brutally killed in a car accident, which puts a
huge damper in Jacob finishing school and joining his father’s practice.
Even worse is the fact that Jacob’s father went deep into debt
and the bank has foreclosed on his home and practice.
With no family, no place of residence, and no desire to finish
school, Jacob has a breakdown and leaves his home in search
the dark of night he comes in contact with a large circus train caravan
and hops on board, but his clandestine efforts to secure a free trip
catches the eyes of some of the local circus pit crew and eventually leads
meeting with the head owner and operator of the circus himself, August
(Waltz). As the overseer of
his Benzini Brothers train and act, he his fiercely guarded of his creation, not
to mention that he does not take kind to strangers jumping on board his
train without an invite. He
decides to have Jacob thrown off the train, that is until Jacob tells a
white lie by informing him that he is a Cornell veterinary graduate that
can help him with one of his show horses that is showing ill signs of
heath. At that moment, August
hires the lad as his circus’ chief vet.
more time Jacob spends with his new surrogate circus family the more he
begins to see August as a man that is capable of being outwardly charming
and debonair while, underneath, he harbors a sadistic inhumanity directed
towards his animals and his crew. He
also becomes attached to the show’s signature performer, a bareback
horse rider named Marlena (Reese Witherspoon) who just happens to be
August's wife. Marlena
too becomes attached to Jacob, partially because of their mutually love
and appreciation for animals, but perhaps more because Jacob represents
the type of young man she could have found herself with if she did not
spend her life under the big top with August.
Jacob soon begins to find himself falling in love with Marlena,
which would prove to be an occupational - and maybe physical - death
sentence for him at the circus, but he also finds if difficult to endure
August's rampaging abuse of both Marlena and the circus' new star
attraction, a 50-year-old elephant named Rosie.
The story comes to an obligatory confrontation between all parties
where Jacob desires to flee the circus with Marlena in hand, but not
without the demonically possessive August having a say in the matter.
FOR ELEPHANTS was consummately directed by Francis Lawrence, whose
previous film resume would never hint at a film such as this: he made the
thanklessly decent post-apocalyptic thriller I
AM LEGEND as well as the insidiously entertaining CONSTANTINE.
Utilizing a paltry $38 million budget and the assistance of
production designer Jack Fisk (who has worked on all six of Terrance
Malick's films) and cinematographer Rodrigo Preito (BROKEBACK
MOUNTAIN), Francis conjures up a dreamlike and romanticized vision
of Depression-era circus life that utilizes a tried and true production
aesthetic instead of a heavy preponderance on computer effects (which
could have been tempting in lesser hands). Not
only does Lawrence evoke a startling sense of the period with an
indiscrete style, but he also creates a sense of Golden Age Hollywood
splendor with his use of real exteriors and virtuoso sets to convey time
and place. One of the film’s most fascinating montages shows the
tenuous grind of putting up the circus tent for an upcoming show, and the
scene carries an aura of tactile spectacle that few modern films have.
film is also surprisingly touching with not only the budding romance
between Marlena and Jacob, but also for the love they both reciprocate to
the animals that August beats with a stomach churning brutality (animal
lovers will have difficulty watching some scenes in the film).
I also found the smaller moments involving the discovery of how to
communicate effectively with Rosie (she responds to Polish spoken
commands) equally captivating. The
elephant on display here in not merely a prop for the film, but rather an
integral character of sorts that is deeply involved within the tense
character dynamics of the plot.
we are given a glimpse of Robert Pattinson actually investing himself in a
fully layered and disciplined performance that is not punctuated by the
actor’s past tendencies to let his stare, hairline, and annoying
broodiness sell his character. Pattinson
has the outward façade of a handsome, 1930’s era film leading man, but
I was surprised by what a low key, self-effacing, and calmly intonated
performance he gives. Witherspoon
has been criticized somewhat for playing a one-note victimized wife role
in the film without her trademark sassiness and energy (to be fair, my
main complaint with the film is the annoying submissiveness of its lone
female role), but Witherspoon is not playing a role full of rosy buoyancy
and pep: she is a wounded and melancholic soul that is not allowed an
independent existence. She is
suitably muted and delicately underplays her trophy wife part, and her key
scenes with Pattinson are equally nuanced and underplayed for just the right
of course, there is the great Christoph Waltz as August, who creates –
outside of his Jew Hunter in the aforementioned Tarantino film – one of
his most hypnotically unforgettable creations.
He plays August as a man that can disarm you with a gregarious
civility that, seemingly unprovoked, is prone to borderline volcanic bouts
of rage and antagonism. His August is both a man of limitless power, shameful
egotism, and pitifully jealousy. One
thing is clear: Waltz is an exceedingly rare breed of actor that is
impossible to look away from when he’s on screen; he’s just a commanding presence to behold in any part.
Hardcore cynics will find it hard to enjoy a romantic melodrama set in the Depression and within the confines of a traveling circus (on paper, yes, it sounds silly). Yet, WATER FOR ELEPHANTS has the aura of so many well-orchestrated throwback pictures that dared to tell ageless love stories amidst the backdrop of period spectacle. Like THE NOTEBOOK, it’s a tastefully rendered, exquisitely shot, and finely acted melodrama that, with the right frame of mind, you just have to simply accept and go with. I did.