War Horse (2011)

At tender age he was taken from his mother’s company and sent to work on the fields, harvesting potatoes. Shortly after that he was forcibly enlisted to fight alongside the Brits at the great war, then captured by the Germans, put on excruciating forced labour, pulling heavy artillery pieces until he was able to escape, and, on crossing “no man’s land”, got injured by the barbed wire, and, finally, was reunited with his former master. No, this is no human slave of any sort, neither any subject of the British Empire. Actually, the character is a horse, as this movie depicts its wonderings through Europe during the war. One of Steven Spielberg’s greatest virtues, as a director, is his capability to humanize everything he wants, ranging from animals even to extraterrestrials.

Right from the beginning of the movie the horse displays emotions that are common to ourselves, thus creating that bond with the viewer I usually refer to. Curious as it may seem, the animal’s fate is the main element of the story, and the humans are portrayed in a kind of incidental way. Even the leading human role, played by the young actor Jeremy Irvine, does not stand as a usual main character. He is almost absent  during the entire middle term of the film, and his grievances are shown only to the point when it matters to his relation with the horse. But Steven Spielberg is such a great story teller that his argument works well and, on seeing “War Horse”, we actually think about ourselves, about our own path on the wretched world we live in.

War Horse is not a war movie. Here the belligerence serves as a painful background on which the story is told. So the war could be replaced with a separation, an illness, a famine or some misfortune of the sort. What is of real importance here are the constant changes we are submitted during our lives, and how diminute sometimes is our grip over our own destiny. Future, as this movie asserts, can occasionally play tricks on us, for better or for worse.  The outright conclusion is that usual, but often forgotten, realization to responsibly enjoy good times as they happen…

Who's the main character?

The movie went alright till almost it’s very end. Here Spielberg committed a fault that is comprehensible, but difficult to forgive. Human experience has for long acquired the notion that life moves forward. For instance, it’s natural that everyone, from a certain point onwards, begins to earn its own living. Being this simple notion applicable to almost anything else regarding our lives, we perceive Mr. Spielberg inverted that order. When the young Irvine accomplishes the trials leading to his adulthood (he survives the trenches), and is expected to get on with his life, he somewhat does the opposite way: he gets back to his mommy’s arms.  As stated, it’s understandable, because the director’s desire was to end the movie with a definite sense of safety, of shelter from the unpredictable. But life is unforeseeable, and keeps moving on. Therefore, it would have been a more according finish if the young man had followed the french bidder, taking the animal to the girl, thus binding the loose links established over the movie, and just 'moving on' from that point. It would have been uncertain, but more feasible. On the other hand stands Robert Zemeckis’s “Cast Away” (2000), presenting us a much more credible finale, as Tom Hanks does not return to his sweetheart (although she more than hints she would accept), choosing to take the unknown path of knocking on a stranger’s door.

“War Horse” is great entertainment.

@jpvbm