Water for Elephants Review

As a fan of Sarah Gruen's bestselling novel, I was cautiously excited for the inevitable Hollywood adaptation.  Water for Elephants doesn't disappoint, though it almost stays too true to its source material.  Diehard fans of the book will likely be divided between those who demand accuracy and are thus pleased by how familiar it all is, and those who want to see the story expanded in new directions to take advantage of the strengths of its new medium.  As was the case with Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part I last year, I fall in the latter camp.

Not to harp on a point I love to emphasize, but it's incredibly frustrating to see a limp, easy take on an established property instead of seeing the material brought to life in a new way that is appropriate for the new medium it's being presented in.  What works on the page doesn't necessarily work on the screen, just as what works on TV might not be suitable in the cinema.  Every medium has its strengths and weaknesses, so it's disappointing to see such a point-for-point translation that doesn't allow a story to breathe anew.  The result here is a stale, if still enjoyable, realization of Gruen's circus-set Depression-era romance.

Of course, calling the film a romance is something of an exaggeration.  This comes down to misleading marketing and, again, how source material is manipulated in the adaptation process, but Water for Elephants is many things before it's a romance.  The focus is most squarely on the drama of circus life, specifically as it relates to young college drop-out and aspiring veterinarian Jacob (Robert Pattinson).  The period detail shines throughout, often proving more interesting than the rather sluggish story, which occasionally picks up to (barely) flesh out the love triangle between Jacob, star performer Marlena (Reese Witherspoon), and her ill-tempered husband August (Christoph Waltz).

The disparity in age between Pattinson and Witherspoon is one of the culprits in the lack of the overwhelming romance that film-goers crave from a movie like this; it certainly contributes to the lack of chemistry between the leads.  Just as Jacob and Marlena struggle to make their relationship work amongst the stresses of circus life (and, you know, her marriage), so the actors fail to find a way to make the attraction believable beyond a simple, shallow lust, and even that aspect utterly lacks any degree of steamy sensuality.

Waltz fares much better as the vibrant, violent ringmaster with the shortest of fuses.  As he did in Inglourious Basterds, Waltz creates a charming villain who is almost as easy to love as he is to hate.  Waltz is matched only by Hal Holbrook, who is to the film what Gloria Stuart was to Titanic.  As the elderly Jacob sharing his story with a modern-day circusman (Paul Schneider), Holbrook shines and utterly steals the movie.  In very little screentime, Holbrook fleshes out the character and captures the sweet emotionality that the rest of the film tries - and fails - to capture in its entire runtime.

Even without the expected tuggings of the heartstrings, there is a fair share of dazzle to the proceedings.  The Polish-speaking elephant projects more personality than Pattinson manages, and the various circus acts provide fleeting moments of pleasure, though they're few and far between.  The costuming, makeup, and hair design all shine throughout the film, meaning that even when the film is stumbling, there's at least something interesting to look at.  (Unless it's one of the unfortunately executed romantic scenes, which are shot with too little light and in too cliched a manner: then there's nothing to see, and it's hard to see it.)

With its unique setting, Water for Elephants had the potential to stand out in the dramatic and romantic realms.  Instead, with its focus on the lacking romance, the film is decidedly unspectacular, despite the supporting players and artistic direction doing their damnedest to make movie magic.