Just What Did They Feed This Horse?

Several times throughout Steven Spielberg's "War Horse," Brittish and German soldiers alike refer to Joey, the horse of the title, as remarkable.  Yes, but perhaps a bit too remarkable.  Oh, I have seen some remarkable horses do some remarkable things, and nobody who has spent time training them would doubt their intelligence and stalwart independence.  But when a horse can pummel through almost unthinkably violent events and take them all in stride with no more than a scratch on the leg, my plausability meter tips just this side of raising my eyebrow and saying "mmmhmm." 

"War Horse" starts as a marvelous frontier epic that brings to mind the vast landscapes of "Legends of the Fall" or the scope and feel of "Far and Away."  There is even a noble Irish family trying to make their way with humble crops and hard work.  Albert Narracott (Jeremy Irvine) seems to have an unusual fascination with horses for a boy of his age.  He gazes longingly at a neighbor's beautiful mare producing an even more majestic colt and while this is all well and good, I couldn't help but compare him to myself at age 17, gazing longingly at a lot of beautiful things, none of which were horses.  Meanwhile, Albert's father Ted (Peter Mullan) has concerns of his own.  He and his wife, Rose (Emily Watson), are under the watchful eye of an uncompassionate landlord named Lyons (David Thewlis) who wants his rent and wants it now.  Problem is, Ted needs to plough a field full of rocks in order to produce enough crop to sell at market.  He visits the local auction and low and behold, there is the very colt his son has been so fond of.  Certainly not a working horse, Ted chooses this magnificant animal over a strapping Clydesdale.  This decision may be more informed by alcohol than by fascination, however.  In any case, it pleases Albert, and it is left to the boy to train his new horse "Joey" for the ploughing of the field.

The passages on the farm are the film's shining moments.  I was swept along with the family's plight as they overcome various odds to remain on their land in spite of the landlord's sniveling.  There is even an angry goose to chase off troublemakers and honk boisterously to state his opinion on matters.  Watching Albert attempt a relationship with the horse has a certain charm and mystery to it.  I have long wondered how horses regard the beings that mount them, whip them and order them along; considering their intelligence, I feel they must instinctively know the order of things.  Albert loves this horse, but by golly, he just is not a plough horse, and Ted in another drunken stooper tries to rectify his mistake at the auction with a 12 gauge.  Albert convinces him to give Joey a chance and sure enough, in the film's most empowering scene, the  horse is able to struggle through and prepare that field for harvest.

Farmers often find great success mixed with unforseen failure.  A good horse can plough the field, but it can't stop it being destroyed by the weather.  With all other options exhausted, Ted takes the only course of action he can and sells the horse to the British Army.  In his eyes, his family must come before a boy's relationship with his horse, but the way he makes this decision is cruel.  The Officer who purchases Joey is Captain Nicholls (Tom Hiddleston in an unfortunately brief role).  He is not dismissive of the boy's protestations, but he needs a horse for war and assures Albert that Joey will be under his personal care and returned should the horse survive.  Captain Nicholls is honorable and even sends Albert drawings of his pal Joey crafted by his own hand.  Indeed, when the good Captain rides valiantly toward his final battle, I believe his look of concern is for the boy and his horse rather than for himself; you don't become a Captain with the allusion that you will always make it out of battle alive.

One of the things I admire most about "War Horse" is how it portrays death, always obscured or off-camera. Rather than show graphic depictions of violent death, Spielberg gives us images to cue us that it has occured.  A twirling windmill, or a horse galloping without its rider.  It is a stark contrast to his "Saving Private Ryan" and is a wise choice for this type of feature.  However, the scenes of battle are also where the movie strains credibility; not in its portrayal of World War I, but in the way that the soldiers behave in relation to this horse.  Joey begins changing sides as German soldiers collect him after a great battle.  Attached to Joey throughout the film is a regimental penant owned by Albert's father.  This penant must surely mean something to Albert, but how and why would it ever mean anything to two young German soldiers?  Each character that encounters Joey ascribes great meaning and regard to, not only Joey, but to the penant as well.  Its payoff at the end is obvious and contrived because it is an unnecessary emotional through line that is already served by the horse himself.

Another issue is the way that the British and German soliders risk their lives for Joey, but only when the plot requires it.  We see horses being shot for not being able to drag artillery up a hill and we see them shot for being in surplus after a great battle.  Yet, when Joey becomes hopelessly entangled in barbed wire between the trenches, a British and German soldier lay aside their qualms and work together to try and save him.  As Joey races tragically into this predicament, I raised my hand to my mouth and cringed, mostly because of what I know must certainly happen after a horse becomes entangled this badly.  When horses are shot earlier in the film for far less, why would anyone go out of their way to attempt to save a horse that is not likely to live?  They wouldn't.  The scene struck me as manipulative because it is staged purposely for an emotional reaction rather than being played out honestly.  What if, for instance, the horse struggled and died and we were shown images of both the British and German soldiers reacting the same way?  It would be more effective because it is exactly what the audience would feel and we'd be right there with them.

There is a nice middle-act sub plot where Joey finds refuge on a French farm with an old man and his granddaughter, Emilie (Celine Buckens).  This mirrors the life Joey had back home but also provides a grim look at the way war can shatter a peaceful existence quite suddenly.  So touched by this horse are the old man and his granddaughter that he comes back late in the film to provide a last ditch attempt at a moral conflict for Albert and Joey.  This also doesn't work because there is no conflict, the horse belongs to Albert; we know it and so does the old man.  The forced sentimentality is overkill at a point when some movie goers will already be exhausted emotionally.  I suppose part of the issue is that the vast majority of the conflict and its consequences rest on our ability to comprehend the way Joey might feel about all this.  But since Joey is a horse, where does that leave us?

'War Horse" is a fine film but it is not a great one.  Steven Spielberg has long been a wonderful director and he provides elements here that really work.  The cinematography by Janusz Kaminski is gorgeous, depicting the beauty of Europe's landscapes and the alternate destruction of it by war.  The camera work is nearly flawless, providing sybolism that fits the sentimental nature of the film.  Sentiment can work, to be sure, but it is in recent years that Steven Spielberg has seemed overly sentimental and heavy handed in his approach.  That seems to be the case here as well.  "War Horse" stretches for greatness and does so valiantly; alas, it stretches itself too far.  Horses are indeed remarkable creatures and I believe this story respects that, but it does so to unrealistic levels.  It might have been neat to see that goose go off to war with Joey and see which of them fared better.  At least you can't accuse Joey of not being willing to die for his country.  My money is on the goose.