|
Post by Claire on Jun 27, 2017 23:05:53 GMT 1
As part of our Summer Reading Challenge this year we are comparing books and their film versions. There are 2 alternatives (or you can do both if you so desire). The other book/film tie in is Odds Against by Dick Francis/The Racing Game TV series. This thread compares the book The Black Stallion by Walter Farley with the film of the same name. Discussion runs from now until the end of the challenge at the end of September. Join in any time. Let us know what you thought of both book and film and how far the film is true to the book/how the two compare. There are 3 sections of the poll to vote in: a rating for the book itself, a rating for the film and also whether or not you think the film is true to the book. Have fun!
|
|
|
Post by rallycairn on Sept 11, 2017 18:40:51 GMT 1
Finished the book first and immediately started the film. I'll write about the film first.
For the first half to two-thirds, I had the same impression that I had as a child seeing the movie at the theater -- having read a somewhat tall tale, but one of a teen who has learned incredible self reliance and reached quite a level of maturity, having that concept of Alec in mind, and then seeing the opening shots in the film of a young boy in short pants! wow, that's just such a leap.
The Alec of the book, while not the most 3-dimensional character (far from it!), still has a steely resolve and self possession that comes through in the book. Alec was simply much too young in this film. It changes the whole dynamic of the story. No wonder the Alec in the film has his Dad with him -- no way would this child have been able to journey to India completely on his own. But then the father dies and there is this poor widowed mom element -- though not explored much in the film, it's just simply not an element that exists at all in the book.
After many artsy fartsy scenes and taking way too long to have Alec begin to tame the Black, with way too much time on silly faux games of horse and boy tag (it's like they played all day sunrise to after sunset in this one epic day of horse taming -- as if), we finally get the pair to New York. Then this wild stallion spends a fairly calm day (or days) in a suburban backyard, no shelter, no proper food (salad from the dinner table??), no fencing that would really keep him in -- I mean, at least in the book he went straight to a stable, with Alec charged by his father to arrange proper board or else keeping the horse was a nonstarter right then and there.
The movie does pick up a bit with meeting Henry and the training of the Black montages. And one plus is, unlike in the book, we do get more of the big final match race from Alec's and Black's point of view, rather than giving the scene up almost entirely to the race announcer, as the book does -- but first we have to get past the ridiculous costume-y helmet. I guess it was meant to disguise that Alec is a child??? Or some more Alexander the Great imagery??? Just a way to disguise a stunt rider??? I dunno but it was laughable and ridiculous.
But the race scenes were well filmed, though (of course!) we have to have a harking back to the much romanticized island idyll as the Black nears the finish.
I dunno -- it's not that it's such a bad film, but it is overly long, and just has such a different tone and approach from the book. Rather than a fast-moving adventure story, we get an idealized, romanticized depiction of boy and horse with parallels drawn to Alexander and Bucephalus. The film takes itself and its material far too seriously.
And Reno's acting is not very good. It seems better in his interactions with Mickey Rooney as Henry, and I don't know what order the scenes were filmed in, but he moves very awkwardly, stiffly, and has weird delivery of his (very few) lines at the beginning. Also, though reportedly he was very experienced with horses even when the movie was filmed, to me he pats the horses awkwardly throughout the film -- stiff-fingered, tentative thumping pats like someone interacting with horses for the first time.
But the movie has excellent production values, and I enjoyed the scoring, and it is gorgeously filmed (though could have used some editing). It also features some lovely horses, and there IS a nice bond depicted between a boy and a horse.
Good to very good -- being generous and voting Very Good.
eta: My very favorite part of the movie are the scenes during the closing credits -- the horse rolling in the sand and hanging out on the beach with Reno -- also the music. Lovely quiet beauty and whimsy in those brief scenes.
|
|
|
Post by brumby on Sept 18, 2017 22:44:08 GMT 1
I almost forgot to comment on the book/ film combination and it looks like this may turn out to be a 'marmite book & film' I won't say much as I have blotted both from my memory!
Other than I did't really enjoy either, the only redeeming feature of the film was Mickey Rooney. It probably rates as the most boring film I have ever seen, and the book was slightly better but not much.
Do agree with Rally's comments on the acting and the age of the boy.
|
|
|
Post by Claire on Oct 9, 2017 12:26:34 GMT 1
I liked the book, although it's probably one of my lesser favourites of the series. I found the island part a bit hard to swallow, but the racing part is really good. I like the character of Alec in the books, especially his bond with The Black. Also like the character of Henry and the interaction between the two of them is always good. Not so keen on the breaking in part which is the low point. Like I said in the main challenge thread I do have to smile at stories where the teenage characters are so independant and self-reliant. So different to many of today's molly-coddled kids!
As for the film I totally agree with everyone that the character of Alec was just far too young and changed the story-line completely. The story was a little unrealistic in the book but totally unrealistic in the film. Why did they change the age, to make the kid more cutesy, or to appeal more to younger watchers? Probably the latter, but pretty much spoilt it for me. That's why I have voted that the film was not true to the book, although the storyline was fairly similar. Good points of film are Mickey Rooney, the horses, Alec's bond with The Black and the filming. But for me I can't raise it above fair/average. I don't think I'll be watching the film again. I do feel like reading the other books in the series though.
|
|
|
Post by rallycairn on Oct 10, 2017 19:46:40 GMT 1
I read an Amazon review of the film that really latched onto perceived existential/survival issues in the film. The suggestion that maybe the film was exploring existential questions made me pause to wonder whether I had misjudged the film -- were the filmmakers perhaps NOT trying to be so artsy and visually stunning simply from a desire to create something gorgeous to look at, but also to explore existential questions of survival, both physical (on the island) and emotional (how Alec and his mother are impacted by the loss of his father and the survival of Alec)?
I kind of think that's giving the film too much credit, but I suppose it is possible the film was trying to be a quite separate artistic endeavor from the book and take on a lot more layers of meaning. I don't know -- I still think the filmmakers were just into gorgeous cinematography but maybe they really were trying to "say" a lot more with the film than the book delves into. ??
|
|
|
Post by Claire on Oct 10, 2017 23:18:00 GMT 1
Hmmm Rally that's an interesting take on the film but I'm not convinced. Such a deep existential view does not I feel really fit with the rest of the film.
I do sometimes wonder that with horses being such gorgeous and photogenic animals, if film-makers aren't so seduced by the cinematography angle that the content of the film can take second place. I've seen so many horse films that are beautifully filmed, look stunning, but in terms of plot/character are fairly mediocre.
|
|