Warhorse Review

Spielberg once spoke about being disappointed with his own complacency as a director with the making of 'Hook', and promised to never work in that way again. Sadly, 'Warhorse' feels like a work full of complacency and predictability.

The film begins promisingly. You sense the Spielbergness of it all -- interesting characters young and old, the complexity of parent/child relations, epic cinematography, and the backdrop of war.

Unfortunately, those early resemblances stick; and don't take us anywhere new. Usually I'm on board with Spielberg's sentimentality and emotional manipulation -- It's good storytelling with a bit of heart. 'Warhorse' falls short in this manner. The scene where the German soldier and English soldier come together to help the horse get out of the barbed wire -- this is such a flagrant attempt at tugging the heart strings that I seriously doubt anyone could ever find it moving or touching. Spielberg is a crowd pleaser and makes movies for the whole family to watch; but even so, it seems too broad and simple in this movie, even by the standards of the lowest common denominator. 

The same can be said for John William's score. He is, undoubtedly, the greatest living film composer, but his work on 'Warhorse' is overly-familiar and predictable -- and the horse's theme reoccurs like clockwork whenever something emotional happens. It's obvious and panderous. 

What I am saying, I think; is that this feels like Spielberg at his laziest, creatively. The elements are there; but it falls short of truly grabbing you, of inspiring. Of course, we expect too much from Spielberg. We expect 'Jaws' and 'Saving Private Ryan' every time. That's not possible, which is obvious; but the problem with 'Warhorse' is that Spielberg doesn't take risks, he doesn't tread new ground. When he's at his best; regardless of genre, he brings something new to the table. As bizarre as this comment might sound -- 'Warhorse' felt like a re-make of some of his older films. It was Spielberg doing Spielberg. 

Care to share?

Tweet

Should they really be making all these Holocaust films?

When 'Schindler's List' came out it touched everyone in a way that I don't think any film ever had before. It proved that a film can have a lasting effect on its audiences. It proved that a film can make a difference in the world. The one thing we know for sure about the Holocaust is that it must never be forgotten, and what better way to do that than have the world's most successful film director Steven Spielberg making it.

I do a lot of work with Holocaust survivors, and I have been involved in some film projects about it too, but I often find myself asking; should all these films be getting made? There was a time when I would always have said a definite yes. I've done work in schools where I've seen children having absolutely no knowledge of the attempted extermination of the European Jews and it brings me to the conclusion that we should keep on making these films, keep on getting them out there.

I didn't like "The Boy In The Striped Pyjamas," it seemed distastefully Hollywoodified to me. But then, I was doing a workshop with Holocaust survivors in a school last year and the students were really passionate about it. These children were beginning to have interesting ideas and lots of compassion towards Germans, whereas I remember when I was in school we were all "I hate Germans!" which was based mainly on ignorance and stereotyping.

Let's cut to the chase though. The Holocaust films coming out of Hollywood today aren't being made to honour the memory of the millions who were tragically lost. They're being made to line the pockets of the producers with lots of money. Far from being like Steven Spielberg, crying during scenes whilst filming in Krakow, Poland-- they're sitting in their warm Hollywood studios raking in the cash.

From a storytelling perspective, the Holocaust is gold. There are so many millions of untold, complex stories-- and they all revolve around the power, relationships, good versus evil, alienation, confusion, heartbreak, death, etc. Everything you could want from a story you can get, easily, every single time - whenever you venture into the events of Hitler's Final Solution. But this doesn't make it okay.

I find myself asking that a lot now whenever I see a World War two film. Is it okay when a stupid, pathetic horror film like "The Unborn," takes the Holocaust and uses it as a device to illicit more emotion from its audience? Is it okay when Quentin Tarantino has revengeful Jews running around scalping people's heads for fun in 'Inglorious Basterds'? Is it okay when Tom Cruise and his co-stars are playing Nazi's but have perfect American accents, in 'Valkyrie'? You see, the Americanisation of the Germans in 'Valkyrie' wasn't so that people could understand the events better, it was so that the film would be more marketable.

The Holocaust survivors are still here, with us. They are still coming to terms with what happened and they are still sharing their stories. When they share them, there is nothing more heartbreaking or profound. When you hear a Holocaust survivor tell you how their family got shot in front of them, how their kids were taken away-- the importance of it hits you. It impacts your life in ways you couldn't imagine. I don't feel it is fair to these people to turn the death of six million Jews into big screen fodder that lines the pockets of filmmakers with millions and millions of Dollars. The subject is too important for that.

Do I think films should be made on the subject? Yes. Films like 'The Counterfeiters,' help us understand, they help us learn and they help us grow. In the film, Salomon Sorowitsch and Adolf Burger are two Jews who are counterfeiting bank notes for the Nazi's. They do it to survive, it's their only choice. But the two characters are caught in their belief systems. Salomon does what the Nazi's want, because he feels it's the only way he is able to survive. Whereas Adolf has major problems with it because he feels it is unethical and helping the German war-effort. The palpable conflict between the two characters is mesmerizing and you can't help but put yourself in their place and question what you would do. That is powerful filmmaking -- and it's important filmmaking. Perhaps the difference is that this film, like the incredible 'Downfall,' was made in Germany by German filmmakers. The German attempts to understand their history through these films in recent years is remarkable, gut-wrenching and moving. The films are important. The same, I feel, cannot be said for the constant Holocaust themed movies rolling off of the Hollywood production line.

It's time to stop and think. The Holocaust MUST be remembered and we MUST find ways to make sure future generations learn about and feel about the Holocaust. But we must do it right.

Care to share?

Tweet

Competition Winners.

Congratulations to Alyson in South Carolina, USA - who'll be receiving 'Lost In Translation' on DVD, and Oliver in West Sussex in the UK who won 'Jaws' on DVD. They both correctly identified the quote I posted as being the words of Tom Hanks.

For everybody's viewing pleasure - here is Tom Hanks' acceptance speech for his AFI Lifetime Achievement award. His words sum up everything that is wonderful about the movies; and it really makes you realize how remarkable Tom and his career are.



Thanks to everyone else who entered the competition.

Care to share?

Tweet

Tom Hanks.

I love Tom Hanks. Not in a gay way. But I love him in the same way I love Jack Lemmon and Jimmy Stewart. Hanks was probably the first person I actively begun to follow when I realized I was going to be a film lover rather than an ordinary functioning human. I loved the Ephron Rom-Coms, I loved the Oscar-winning stuff - and I loved all the old stuff like Punchline and The Burbs. Back then, Hanks was really Hanks. In fact, he was probably at his most Jack Lemmon back then.
My concern is that he just doesn't take risks anymore. He just seems to take the pay-cheque. I would love to see him in a low-budget comedy, something that tries to be a bit different; but it's just not something that Hanks ever does. The strange thing is that the Tom Hanks everyman character doesn't seem to excite so much anymore. A part of me would be more drawn to see a Will Smith blockbuster than the latest Hanks flick.

I see his career in three stages. The first was the 'earlier, funnier ones'. From Splash in 1984 through to A League Of Their Own in 1992. This was a great period for Tom Hanks; whether the films were brilliant fun like Turner And Hooch or pathetic like The Man With One Red Shoe, one thing stayed constant -- Hanks was just so compelling on screen. Whether he was spying on weird neighbours, going on stake-outs with a dog or dating a mermaid; you just went along with it. He was just so appealing to watch, so funny, and so interesting.

The second stage is where he went from being a great comedy actor to being an all-time great, a legend in his own right. From Sleepless In Seattle through to Road To Perdition. Career-wise, he did very little wrong. It could be down to his 'crack team of showbiz experts' as he often jokes. Or it could just be down to the fact that he was a dedicated, passionate, and risk-taking actor. It's hard to see now but to play a homosexual with aids, immediately followed by playing a simple, somewhat retarded Alabamian was a risk. Two risks that rewarded us with breathtaking and ground-breaking performances, and rewarded him with two back-to-back Oscars and a license to pretty much have any role he wanted for the rest of his career. And this is a license that, for many years, he used very well.

In Sleepless In Seattle and You've Got Mail he was perfect. You can write them off as fluffy rom-coms, but I really like the films. Hanks manages a state of complete naturalness. When you watch him talk, think and move; he is not an actor, he is not performing, he just is. In You've Got Mail you can see he's having the time of his life; bringing himself into the role in a way that parallels Jimmy Stewart in The Shop Around The Corner, from which You've Got Mail was adapted.

Apollo 13, Saving Private Ryan, The Green Mile and Cast Away are, for me, completely perfect films. In these films Tom had perfected the art of acting. The art of becoming a role. Of course, in these films he got to work with masters of modern cinema - Ron Howard, Steven Spielberg, Frank Darabont and Robert Zemeckis -- so he was in good hands. With great writing and directing backing him he excelled. I could happily watch these four films on repeat for the rest of my life. His journey as a character in these films are like the journeys of the everyman getting through life. These are roles that define who Tom Hanks is and what he means to us. They are roles that proved beyond doubt that he is the greatest actor of our generation and quite possibly any generation.

And then came stage three. From Catch Me If You Can through to Angels and Demons. You begin to see the pattern of him falling into the same films again and again. Rather than playing a complex and flawed character like Capt. Miller in Saving Private Ryan he played rather uninspired, predictable characters in his two next Spielberg films Catch Me If You Can and The Terminal. Both were watchable, in fact Catch is possibly quite good; but they're safe. By the numbers box-office fare that will happily yield a pay-cheque and a new offer after release. The same complaint could be made about Spielberg as it could Hanks but I'll save that for another time.

The Da Vinci Code is the icing on the cake. Rather than playing a heartbreaking Andrew Beckett or the conflicted Paul Edgecombe, he took on a role in the biggest franchise at the time. The Da Vinci book was hyped beyond control and the movie was guaranteed to rake in the dollars. Where Ron Howard's Apollo 13 was inspired and moving, Da Vinci is just dull, long and - well, you've all seen it, just bland. Of course, it's highly likely that Tom thought the film would be much better than it was; but then here he is again in the sequel Angels & Demons. For the first time in my life; I have absolutely no interest in seeing a Tom Hanks film.

When you rack up his credits in the last seven years compared to those in the decade prior to that, it's sad to see how poor it is. It's not that he misfires; it's just that he is content playing with the big-timers in films that rarely have anything to say and the comedies like The Ladykillers and The Terminal lack the freshness of pretty much every comedy he did prior to the turn of the millennium.

I worry. Not for Tom the working actor, but for Tom the artist. Tom the man who meant so much to us. The man who is now churning out the average on a consistent basis. Whether this is bad choices and safety or just pure bad luck, I don't know. I mean, I'd have thought having him acting out the words of Aaron Sorkin in Charlie Wilson's War would produce one of the greatest films of our time but it wasn't to be the case.

Whatever happens, I feel that we are now approaching chapter four. His next few decisions will determine the rest of his career. I just hope he takes some risks.

Care to share?

Tweet