War Horse (Steven Spielberg, 2011)

[Grand Illusion]

I believe Kushner's writing his Lincoln project. Spielberg is a weird person. One of the only directors who does one for them, one for me just for the fuck of it. He could just make whatever passion projects he wants until the day he dies, but he still keeps propping up his box office.

Didn't hear that about Kushner and Lincoln. That'd make my day.

And yeah, I remember reading an article about Schindler's List and Jurassic Park, and Spielberg mentioned how he likes doing a fun movie to clear his mind after a more serious film.

As schmaltzy as this looks, TinTin is just bizarre. It really seems like something he'd have handed Robert Zemeckis.

[knives]

A lot of directors for a long time have done that. Just in the last couple of years you have the two Paramount Fincher flicks and that's basically Soderbergh's MO.

[MichaelB]

And Clint Eastwood's - for every Bird there's a Pink Cadillac and for every Unforgiven there's a Rookie.

But that's fair enough, especially with regard to Bird, an expensive and seriously uncommercial project. Eastwood, an exceptionally efficient director who prides himself in trying to finish ahead of schedule and under budget, has always struck me as someone acutely aware of the value of money, especially when it comes to financing more personal work.

[Nothing]

That alternating model is the best most anyone can hope for in Hollywood these days (although, as I pointed out in the other thread, Soderbergh still had to go to France to finance Che, Social Network and Dragon Tattoo are both jobs for hire and I can't see Fincher making another Zodiax anytime soon - so even this level of freedom is dying). Speilberg, on the other hand, is a special case - he's so successful and so well known that I'm sure he could indeed finance fairly large budget pictures of his choosing until the end of his days. However to retain his current top-of-the-A-List status, access to $200m+ budgets and hefty points on the gross he does still have to keep a firm eye on his box office.

[rs98762001]

This is exactly what you'd expect from the trailer. Old-fashioned, full of dialogue and moments that were cliches back in the 1930s, sentimental to a fault, and tedious as hell. It never recovers from a truly awful first 45 minutes, which unfortunately places its focus on the deeply irritating Jeremy Irvine rather than on the horses (then again, maybe it's not Irvine's fault, as Peter Mullan and Emily Watson are equally poor). It seems from the outset that Spielberg really doesn't trust his audience at all, as every desired emotional response is signposted, delivered, and then underlined by John Williams' heavy-handed score. The film does, however, improve - barely - as it goes on and occasionally hints at how much better it might have been in another filmmaker's hands when Spielberg turns his attention away from the humans and concentrates only on his magnificent animals. How much more thrilling an entire movie shot from their points of view could have been! The equine performers act the socks off their human counterparts, although that might be because they're fortunate enough not to have any tin-eared dialogue to deliver.

It's ironic that Richard Curtis was one of the writers, because there's more truth, honesty and emotion in the last five minutes of his Blackadder Goes Forth than in the entire 150 minutes and $100M worth of War Horse. Having said all that, I'm sure this will do well come Oscar time as it's filled with the usual broad crap that Academy members love, and I can't wait to hear Armond preach how it's infinitely superior to that hack Bresson's Au Hasard Balthazar.

[aox]

and I can't wait to hear Armond preach how it's infinitely superior to that hack Bresson's Au Hasard Balthazar.

This is the only thing that excites me about this film!

[Matt]

This probably could have been a truly great film if, say, Peter Weir had directed it.

[colinr0380]

This probably could have been a truly great film if, say, Peter Weir had directed it.

Didn't he already do that, just with humans? (Without knowing much about it as yet, I've just been thinking of the premise of the film as Gallipoli meets The Black Stallion)

[knives]

I don't think even Weir could have done much with the play which falls pretty squarely in the DPS category.

[gfxtwin]

Methinks the board doth protest too much. War Horse looks like classic Spielberg all the way, and his sentimentality (if you wanna call it that) has almost always resonated with me. I can see how many dislike his work because they find it pandering and overly sentimental, but sometimes it can be easier to not take an emotional stance on the images being presented instead of underlying them in a way that "plays all the right notes" for the audience. That most of his films tend to also resonate with a large majority of the audiences that see them is a testament to Spielbergs skill as a director who can reach out and communicate emotions effectively to mass groups. Can the same be said of his peers like Micheal Bay (who receives plenty of backlash) or Peter Jackson (who might go down as a 3-hit wonder)? The only director who has managed to do what he does at that level is James Cameron. Like any director, though, sometimes he misses his mark, but that is an uncommon occurrence in the filmography of someoner who is otherwise a master at playing audiences of all ages and intellectual capacities like a fiddle.

That said, if I have one complaint of the trailer it's that the score being used doesn't do it for me and might be just one of those mark-missing moments. The intention is too clear and, yes, maybe a tad too much pandering is going on. Whether this occurs in the film itself is something that remains to be seen though.

[Mr Sausage]

...or Peter Jackson (who might go down as a 3-hit wonder)?

I like to think you mean his early run of Bad Taste, Meet the Feebles, and Dead-alive.

[Matt]

Don't give me this warmed over "Spielberg's films are good because they're popular and people often cry at them" argument.

[hearthesilence]

I haven't heard any positive reactions to this so far, at least from people I've talked to. They screened this over the weekend, and one person I talked to thought the best thing about it was the war scenes while the rest fell flat. Another person said it was another one of Spielberg's failed attempts at making a genuine 'grown up' film, and another said it wasn't her favorite Spielberg movie and that she didn't like it at all.

[matrixschmatrix]

Don't give me this warmed over "Spielberg's films are good because they're popular and people often cry at them" argument.

Haha, I think saying his only peer is James Cameron is damning the man with faint praise, to say the least

[domino harvey]

Only if you pronounce it like someone who is peeing

[dad1153]

Caught "War Horse" at the Ziegfeld in NYC the day after Christmas (a couple of days after seeing Scorsese's "Hugo" 3D in the same venue). No surprises here, the trailer pretty much tells you what the movie is and that's what you get. Its Spielberg and Co. (Williams, Kaminski, Kahn, Kennedy & Marshall, etc.) almost on auto-pilot assembling their latest, expensive feel-good and historically-accurate (as far as background and period details are concerned) motion picture event that affirms the value of family, honor and tradition. It's "Au hasard Balthazar" meets "Empire of the Sun," and we know from "A.I." which side of this mash-up ends up dominating when Spielberg directs/produces.

I just saw "Balthazar" last month for the first time so Spielberg's attempts to humanize the horse (including the too-obvious use of animatronic and/or CG effects to have the horse's eyes express emotion) stood out, especially because he didn't try to do this often but only a handful of times. But then there are so many little tribute/homages to "Balthazar," "Paths of Glory," "How Green Was My Valley" (fitting since this is Spielberg at his most John Ford-ish) and Steven's own movies throughout "War Horse" that one can't help but admire Steven's mastery of his directorial craft just as you're shaking your head in disapproval of the screen bleeding schmaltz from every pore. No surprise that the horses (there's a black one besides 'Joey' that's almost like a sidekick) are the most-compelling and better actors of the movie with a couple of notable exceptions. God bless Emily Watson for allowing herself to be typecast in the concerned wife/motherly voice of reason for so long, but her scenes with Jeremy Irvine (the CW-approved bland lead) and Peter Mullan (whose drunk patriarch schtick and silly farm duck made the cut from the stage play... got that Minkin?) make me appreciate the lift she gives to every movie she's cast in. And Niels Arestrup's handful of scenes (especially one near the end) as a concerned grandparent are also good. The absence of any actors recognizable to most regular moviegoers (only David Thewlis, Arestrup and Watson stood out) actually helps "War Horse" because you're basically left with the horses as the only recognizable and familiar thread through the many owners, countries, battles and World War I events it passes through. The 'money shot' of the movie when the horse runs through the trenches of a WWI battlefield (most of it made it into the trailer) is cinematically thrilling, as are a handful of moments (a "Paths of Glory"-type trench battle that feels like a PG-13 "Saving Private Ryan" moment, the charging of the British brigade against a German front, etc.) that are constantly undermined by Spielberg underlining every emotion/twist with a too-obvious reveal ahead of time so that slow audience members (i.e. little kids) aren't lost. That said there's a line late in the movie to explain why all the characters (German and French besides the Brits) speak English, along with some schtick between a German and British soldier, that literally brought down the house (i.e. the 35-40 patrons that came to the Ziegfeld that night).

Spielberg is not unaware of how square "War Horse" is. He just doesn't care and is obviously playing over most cinephiles' head and aiming squarely for both the cheap seats (any undemanding movie goer will be moved to tears by sentimental stuff that would make this forum's regular posters go blind from rolling their eyes too far back) and the immortality of film scholars in future generations assessing his body of work rendering opinions on his 'auteur' stature. Alas, that's what I was in the mood for the day after Christmas and that's what I got. Had to watch "Young Adult" an hour after seeing "War Horse" to cleanse the palate and regain my cinephile senses (didn't really like "YA" but I can admire what Reitman, Cody and Theron were going for even if I don't completely buy what they're selling).

[Cde.]

I read somewhere that there are actually only three CG horse shots in the film. The horses are excellent actors, but sadly not very interesting characters. I never cared for Joey or his friend in the way I cared about Balthazar, that's for sure.

Come to think about it, that's a major setback of the film as a whole. There are some great actors in this (minus Jeremy Irvine), but their characters don't transcend their conception as stock roles. The opening English pastoral act is particularly annoying.

There are some fantastic set-pieces in this. The small handful of combat sequences are truly extraordinary. Much of the rest of the film feels almost tossed out. The swooping camera moves and sentimentality are there, yet long stretches of the first two acts lack Spielberg's personal touch. The final stretch of the film has it in spades though. The scene dad1153 mentions with schtick between a German and British soldier is a highlight.
Much more consistently energized direction from Spielberg is on display in The Adventures of Tintin.

[Professor Wagstaff]

The horses are excellent actors, but sadly not very interesting characters. I never cared for Joey or his friend in the way I cared about Balthazar, that's for sure.

I agree with every point you made here, Cde. John Ford is a noble benchmark to have for a director like Spielberg, but definitely not if How Green Was My Valley is your main source of inspiration. I kept questioning if it's really that hard for a director to form an emotional bond between his audience and an animal character. Many people (myself included) have that connection right away in even the corniest of films, but not once did I feel anything for Joey. I think Spielberg is so caught up in his grand theatrics that's he distracted from the human drama, making this material comes off entirely insincere in his hands. I saw this yesterday and today I caught We Bought a Zoo. Crowe's movie is cheesy and predictable for sure, but I found myself really involved in that film because of Crowe's sincerity and affection for his animals and people.

[dad1153]

Who Has the Bluest Eyes in 'War Horse'?

[stroszeck]

At the behest of my girlfriend I reluctantly went to see this last night. The original plans were to see Dragon Tattoo but the showings were sold out and it was either War Horse or Alvin and company. I have to say, without being overly dramatic, that I had a mini-epiphany after watching this. For so long, I, like many others on this forum had all but written spielberg off. After all, when was the last time anything he had done seemed to be of any real substance? For me, Munich was the only time in the last couple decades where I was surprised by his artistry and sheer mastery of technique and his insistence in creating a hard edged, complex piece of work. A morality play of sorts.
All of the criticism thats been flung at War Horse are indeed valid. Overly sentimental. Schmaltzy. In short, Spielbergian. Every moment underscored by the Williams score, everything sort of neatly put into a package and handed to us in a bow. Several annoying moments struck me as particularly annoying and straight out hard to swallow:

SpoilerShow

the childish business with the goose, the fact that at every turn Joey seemed to knowingly jump in and "save" the black horse from doom.

I also didnt care much for the episodic nature of the piece and felt that most of the mini-episodes seemed very contrived and didn't have the particular significance the movie seemed to want to instill. It was until the last beautiful final shots that Spielberg unleashed on us, his Ford-esque final moments and at the beginning of the closing credits, someone behind me whispered to his S.O. "those were beautiful shots" that I sort of had this epiphany - perhaps its not Spielberg who is at fault, but us. I went into this movie with pre-conceived prejudices, and was sitting there literally just studying the film, not watching a movie. I was so pre-occupied with analyzing Spielberg's shots and compositions and camera movements that it was only halfway through that I noticed I was engaged in the story. Now it could be that I'm a big time animal lover and that the subect matter would easily sway me, but damn it, i actually enjoyed the experience. I opened myself up to the sentiment and really the ending of the movie has got to be some of the most beautifully realized photography I've seen in a Hollywood production in a long time. A few months ago the internet and trades were all abuzz about "Drive" and how it was not so much an original but was so stylistically inventive that it was a worthy entry into the noir genre. If the likes of Refn can be given so much credit for style then why shouldn't SPielberg? Sure, when it was all said and done I still cannot for the life of me understand why, with all of his mastery of the language, the Berg won't make more difficult, challenging work and why he doesn't experiment more often with the abstract or even with his choice of photography the way he does here. But at least I'm pleased to say that with this recent entry (by the way Tintin was total crap so it shall remain unmentioned), I'm going to go back and rewatch some of Spielberg's filmography and perhaps re-evaluate his place among my favorites.

[dad1153]

^^^ That's what I meant when I said Spielberg has stopped aiming for the current cinephile culture (like us, the type of person impressed by "Drive") and instead is appealing to either everyday non-cinephile viewers or scholars of a future era. The closing shots of "War Horse" are indeed beautiful (shades of "Gone With The Wind" along wth your favorite John Ford movie) and only someone without their resistence to Spielberg's up can appreciate them. And, once Steven's gone and we're old (or a new generation of viewers come to appreciate him like we currently do the likes of Ford), that's when the true measure of his total output as an old-school-by-choice filmmaker will surface. There will always be an 'A' tier of Spielberg everybody loves ("Raiders," "E.T.," "Jaws," "Munich," "Close Encounters," etc.) but the 'B' and 'C' tiers ("Always," "Empire of the Sun," "Amistad," "The Terminal," "War Horse," etc.) are the one's that stand to benefit the most from a dispassionate, distant viewing that separates the current feeling by cinephiles toward the director from those that will be seeing his work a hundred years from now.

[gfxtwin]

dad1153 and stroszeck make some good points.

I saw this earlier in the week with my grandparents. I really liked it, but there truly was more than enough sappiness, especially in the first 45 minutes. Like you guys mentioned, the score underlines everything. The characters beg you to love them. Oh, and Spielberg face galore. You know those trademark shots in his movies where a character has a look of distress or shock or awe on their face and the camera zooms in for closer look? You'll get plenty of that. There was one dramatic scene where the family was in a barn arguing over the horse. I think it was when the father was about to shoot it point blank with a rifle. Anyway, during the end of that scene you see a token instance of that zoom effect on a duck. A fucking duck. Or goose, whatever. Really, Spielberg?

Yet, despite the corniness, I enjoyed the movie. I was with my grandparents so I kinda saw things the way they might have. You know how the energy changes when you're watching a movie with someone you care about and you can't help but feel their reactions as much as yours? Maybe that's why I liked it so much. To the movie's credit, the battles were amazing. The scene of Joey running across the battlefield put a chill up my spine and I even got teary eyed and swept up in it due to the context. That was the moment I realized I really liked the film. Spielberg has a knack of putting his greatest action sequences in a certain emotional context that makes them feel more epic (Beach storm in Saving Private Ryan, the cathartic moment when Jaws blew up, etc). He definitely works similar magic here. Hell, after the movie was done I was so much under its spell that I brainwashed myself into liking the first 45 minutes in retrospect (only to become disillusioned when seeing it again with my dad). Still, if that cheesy farm sequence does anything right, it's giving more context to the harsh (yet violence-free) battles.

But yeah, with all it's sappiness and sentimentalism, I still felt genuinely moved by the film. I knew I would. I knew Spielberg knew I would. I even predicted most of the times I would get teary-eye...erm...I mean the times an eyelash fell out. But there's something about how well Spielberg communicates those moments. You know he's not just doing it to win the audience over -- I think he gets choked up at his films too. I share the same sentiment, I suppose.

[D_B]

Just saw this.

I'm surprised in a board which I presume has the usual share of John Ford worshipers, there are not more fans of this film here. There are a lot of allusions to Ford - the one that struck me most were the farm scenes similarity to the Ford sequence (which I liked a lot) in "How the West Was Won"

So anyway, for me, there was enough great stuff in this film for me to be really sad that Spielberg - as usual, ends up chickening out to the perceived demands of mainstream audiences.

There were so many beautiful moments in the film - a major complaint on that score is the film rushes through things too fast for Speilberg to make more substantial set-pieces out of promising tableaux (for instance, a cavalry charge that begins in a wheat field, that could have been AMAZING if Spielberg would have taken his time).

Having seen the play Warhorse on Broadway, I can't get too upset about the acting in the film because it was of a higher caliber (the puppeteers got the biggest applause at the end of the play).

As for relying on special effects: I am fine with that in most cases - I'd rather a special effects horse get tangled up in barbed wire than a real one.

I have no problem with a certain degree of sentiment in a tale about the bond between a person and their pet. I hope nobody here would put down "The Yearling" because its just inherently 'wrong' to make a film about such a thing.

Having seen the play and now the film, what really pisses me off is how Speilberg ends the film:

SpoilerShow

In the play (and possibly the book the film and play are based on) the boy and the horse both return home from the war as permanently crippled and give a kind of 'fuck you' to the father who is portrayed far less heroically than he is here. Even though it is still a 'happy' ending insofar as boy and horse find each other, it has a far more bittersweet and thus 'earned' feeling. That Spielberg has Joey looking completely recovered considering getting completely tangled up in barbed wire is so ridiculous as to be insulting

It is just amazing to me the way that Speilberg always somehow finds a way to tarnish even his really good films (I think Empire of the Sun is another example of this). Oh well.

[knives]

Alluding to someone at this point means nothing. I want the meat and potatoes of his cinema instead.

[Brian C]

I'm surprised in a board which I presume has the usual share of John Ford worshipers, there are not more fans of this film here. There are a lot of allusions to Ford - the one that struck me most were the farm scenes similarity to the Ford sequence (which I liked a lot) in "How the West Was Won"

Allusions to Ford, perhaps, but to me it didn't feel anything like an actual Ford film.