VS.
The movie “War Horse” is based
on a young adult novel by Michael Murpago.
It was first published in Great Britain in 1982. This review will highlight the differences
between the book and the movie. Spoiler
alert: plot points will be brought up.
In the book, Albert first meets
the horse after his father buys him at an auction for 3 guineas (not 30 as in
the movie and there is no bidding war with an evil landlord). “Joey” is meant to be a second work horse as
the family already has an elderly horse named “Zoey”. The father is more of a mean drunk than in
the movie. There is no trouble training
Joey to plow. There is no evil landlord
who is threatening to take the farm. (It
goes without saying that there is no landlord’s son to be a rival to Albert.) There is a field plowing incident but it
involves a simple bet between the father and another farmer. There is no devastating storm that destroys
the turnip crop.
Mr. Narracott sells the horse to
Capt. Nicholls, much to the anguish of Albert.
At the military camp, Joey meets a large black stallion named Topthorn,
but unlike the movie, the two horses become friends and are never rivals. Nicholls and Topthorn’s owner, Capt. Stewart,
are actually best friends. The movie omits
the tempestuous crossing of the English Channel. The first combat is when the cavalry unit
ambushes an infantry unit on the march. Nicholls
is killed and Joey is given to a private named Warren. After a rough winter, the unit makes an
attack across no man’s land that is disastrous.
Joey and Topthorn make it all the way, but Stewart and Warren are
captured. At this point, Joey and
Topthorn become ambulance horses. The
movie adds the subplot of the two deserting German brothers. Joey and Topthorn are stabled at the farm of
Emilie and her grandfather. Each day,
after transporting the wounded, they come home.
They are treated well by the Germans and develop a relationship with the little girl.
When the hospital moves on, they are left behind. Later, they are conscripted as artillery
horses. They are part of a six horse
team. It is not easy, but there is no
villain and they are treated as well as could be expected. However, Topthorn does die of
exhaustion. Immediately after this
scene, there is a British attack involving tanks that creates panic and Joey is
left behind. He ends up in no man’s land,
injured but not tangled in barbed wire.
Both sides are sympathetic and want the horse. A soldier from each side comes and the Brit
wins the coin toss.
Joey is taken to a veterinary
hospital where it turns out Albert is stationed. He had entered the army and insisted on being
assigned to a vet unit. He recognizes
Joey after cleaning off all the dirt and grime.
The book has a scene where Joey almost dies of tetanus. When the war ends (as in the book), the
horses are to be auctioned off. All of
the vet unit chip in to buy him for Albert.
Emilie’s grandfather buys him, but then gives him to Albert when he sees
how much Albert cares about him and for the promise to keep Emilie’s memory
alive.
As you can see, the movie added
quite a bit of melodrama to the story.
This is most likely because the movie was aimed at a mass audience
whereas the novel was aimed at young adults.
Also, you have to factor in the fact that the movie was directed by
Steven Spielberg. It is a typical
Spielberg emotion-tugger. He throws in a
comical goose as a sop to the kiddies, but adds a few villains to make the
movie more serious than the book. The
book is strangely free of any villains.
Even the Germans are uniformly sympathetic characters. Everyone loves Joey. The biggest difference between the book and
the movie is the book is told from the horse’s point of view. This makes the novel unique and noteworthy. Understandably, the movie does not take this
perspective. It is more cookie-cutting
by Spielberg.
Which one is better? It is a bit hard to compare them because of
who their target audiences are. Each is
effective entertainment. Each is flawed
for a war movie and war novel lover. The
book is definitely juvenile. The
dialogue is hard to read without grimacing.
Murpago writes too sincerely. But
the book does not have as many laughable scenes as the movie. Spielberg throws in ridiculous
scenarios. The book is not as
predictable, but it is more simplistic.
BOOK = C
MOVIE = C
The movie was so uneven. It had the sappy parts such as the duck and Albert blubbering over his horse. But, it also had scenes which I think would be disturbing to children such as the 2 kids getting shot for desertion. I thought after SPR and Schindler's List Spielberg was past manipulating his audience. The only scenes I liked were the British attack when the Colonel yells "Be Brave" and when the British and German soldiers cut the horse from the barbed wire.
ReplyDeleteTotally agree. Spielberg can be great, but too often he dumbs his movies own. Which considering the intelligence level of target audience is probably smart profit-wise.
DeleteOn another subject, Ever since "SPR" and "When Trumpets Fade" there is so much profanity in WW2 movies. I have seen interviews with WW2 vets and they claim that they never used that type of language. However, in the book "Citizen Soldiers" Steven Ambrose writes that every other word the soldiers used was f@@k. Do the vets just not remember themselves cussing all the time? Or, do movie makers put in the profanity for today's audience?
ReplyDeleteI have always believed soldiers have potty mouths based on my reading. I would have to go with Ambrose on this. I am willing to entertain the theory that WWII soldiers swore a lot less than Vietnam grunts. I do feel that post-1960s movies have made it a point to up the cursing. Not for more realistic banter, but to be "modern". I suppose the true language is somewhere between John Wayne and Tom Hanks.
DeleteThe movie has an old-fashioned feel that's disconcerting: Spielberg wants to depict a muddy, bloody conflict while eliding the actual blood (there is a fair amount of mud). Hated the long opening with the farm, which seems like a cut scene from a bad John Ford flick. The war scenes vary from effective to mawkish. Not one of my favorites.
ReplyDeleteMawkish is a good analysis.
DeleteYour analysis is informative because I just watched this film today and is planning to read its play adaptation by Nick Stafford very soon. I guess the novel will be closer to the theatrical version. Spielberg's film is too long, digressive and sometimes difficult to watch. As you suggest, in the novel the part about Albert's father's ownership of Joey is less dramatic than that in the film. Maybe Spielberg wants to emphasize how miraculous Joey is.
ReplyDeleteAnything Spielberg does is to make the film more schmaltzy.
DeleteIm 13 and i need more answers for my ELA work :D
ReplyDelete