"Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron" -- A Response
Timmy Ramone
review, but after scanning it and seeing the reaction to some of
the inaccuracies and downright mis-information about this movie,
I felt I should make at least a few quick comments.
(Appropriate spoiler warnings apply...)
First off, there are some problems with the film. I think the
biggest is the lack of a strong supporting cast. There isn't a
Timon or a Jenna or a Cogsworth-type character for comic relief
or moral support for the main character. But, in some ways, it
is less distracting, allowing the story to focus almost entirely
on Spirit's struggle to get back to his herd. The end result is
a captivating and enthralling movie. (How can I tell? Children
made up about half of the audience at the two previews I attended,
both of which nearly sold out. And from the first few moments
of the film on, the kids were QUIET. That should tell you
something.)
Second, Bryan Adams would definitely not have been my first choice
to write the songs for this (or any other) film. Thankfully, his
songs aren't too annoying and Hans Zimmer's score more than makes
up for this deficiency.
As for the horse "communication," it's an interesting approach,
and I'm not sure how well it will sit with moviegoers (though the
preview audiences didn't seem to mind). But the horses feelings
and emotions were conveyed very effectively, and entirely *without*
dialog (and, no, horse-like noises do NOT count as dialog). This
"dialog" was done mostly through expressions and body language, and
this is one of the most difficult things to pull off in animation.
The artists at Dreamworks met this challenge exceedingly well:
SPIRIT has some of the best character animation I've seen since the
heyday of the "Nine Old Men" at Disney.
And I never got the sense that the cavalrymen were "evil." They
were none too friendly, but that's consistent when viewed from
Spirit's perspective. At times, James Cromwell's Colonel is almost
an over-the-top heavy, but there is nothing that this character does
-- even the last "surprise" he pulls at the end of the film -- that
is inconsistent with the behavior one might find in a military
commander of that time period. I would sooner deal with a fictional
horse soldier like him, than a real-life fiend like George Armstrong
Custer; the Colonel was a tea-totaler, by comparison.
Juan's criticism of Little Creek was especially ludicrous. "He always
seemed to know the right thing to do when teaching Spirit?" Then
why did he ultimately fail to teach Spirit anything? In fact, both
Little Creek and the Colonel eventually come to the same conclusion:
That Spirit could not be tamed. The only difference is how they
dealt with it, once they realized this fact.
For someone who criticized me for my complaints about Native American
stereotypes in PETER PAN, it gladdens me that Juan is now very
concerned about potentially offensive stereotypes in SPIRIT. But fear
not: There aren't any. The Indians are not portrayed as bloodthirsty
savages, nor are they all-knowing nature mystics. The film is guilty
of showing Little Creek's tribe in a more positive light than the
white soldiers but, hey, it is a tale of the Old West, and there are
Good Guys and there are Bad Guys. But none are completely shallow or
utterly devoid of personality and motivation.
I could go on, but I think I've covered the main points. The rest
of Juan's complaints suggest he wasn't paying very close attention.
(Where'd the knife come from? Little Creek's buddies outside the
Fort -- duh!) I'll only add that the animation, especially the
layouts, backgrounds and much of the effects work is stunningly
gorgeous. This was by no means a Disney "cheapquel," and it's
amazing just how far the old "House of Animation" has let the
ball drop on "2-D" animation -- only to have it picked up by the
crew at Dreamworks. Thumbs up, 3.5/4 stars, and a hearty heigh-ho
Spirit, Stallion of the Cimarron!
--
"Hey, ho -- let's go!" -Ramones
Juan F. Lara
first name. Sorry about those mistakes.
In article <3CE974...@mones.4.ever>, Timmy Ramone <R...@mones.4.ever> wrote:
SPOILER WARNING
> But the horses feelings and emotions were conveyed very effectively, and
> entirely *without* dialog (and, no, horse-like noises do NOT count as
> dialog).
There were several scenes of the horses facing each other and grunting
back and forth, like before Spirit checks out the camp. That scene is no
different from a scene in a foreign film where two characters face each other
and make noises between themselves and you don't understand precisely what they
mean but you have a good idea of the meanings nonetheless.
> This "dialog" was done mostly through expressions and body language
The body language and especially the facial expressions were too human.
Typical was that scene where the calvary horses were cheering Spirit behind the
Colonel's back but then they snapped to attention when the Colonel gave them
the evil eye. Just like calvary recruits instead of calvary horses. The
horses were not convincing as horses.
> "He always seemed to know the right thing to do when teaching Spirit?" Then
> why did he ultimately fail to teach Spirit anything?
Little Creek never got angry or fed up as his attempts to train Spirit
kept failing. He responded to every failure with a smile. Not even Mickey
Mouse is as patient and cheery as this guy. Little Geek needed to be more
human.
Another point: From Spirit's perspective the Lakotas lassoing him
should've been a major betrayal after Little Creek had befriended him. So he
should've been a lot more hostile to the Lakota humans than he was. But that
was very downplaying: Spirit just roles his eyes at this new inconvenience.
- Juan F. Lara
http://ccwf.cc.utexas.edu/~jfl/intro.html
Little Creek: Oh, no!
Spirit: Oh, yes.
[ Oh, Lord.....]
Timmy Ramone
Juan F. Lara wrote:
>
>
> In article <3CE974...@mones.4.ever>, Timmy Ramone
> <R...@mones.4.ever> wrote:
>
> SPOILER WARNING
>
> > But the horses feelings and emotions were conveyed very effectively,
> > and entirely *without* dialog (and, no, horse-like noises do NOT
> > count as dialog).
>
> There were several scenes of the horses facing each other and
> grunting back and forth, like before Spirit checks out the camp.
> That scene is no different from a scene in a foreign film where two
> characters face each other and make noises between themselves and
> you don't understand precisely what they mean but you have a good
> idea of the meanings nonetheless.
Heh -- I'm glad one of us speaks "horse." :) Ether that, or I was
right, i.e., the animators were very skilled at conveying thoughts
and emotions without the use of (intelligible) dialog. And that is
one of the most difficult things to do in animation. Kudos again to
the artists and writers at Dreamworks.
> The horses were not convincing as horses.
As realistic *horses*, probably not. But the same could be said
about the horses in SNOW WHITE, CINDERELLA, SLEEPING BEAUTY,
101 DALMATIANS or MULAN. As realistic *characters*, however, they
were very convincing, especially Rain and Spirit. In a film like
this one, that's more important than whether or not "real" horses
have human-like body language and facial expressions.
> Little Creek never got angry or fed up as his attempts to train
> Spirit kept failing. He responded to every failure with a smile.
> Not even Mickey Mouse is as patient and cheery as this guy.
I'd agree with you, except I know people like Little Creek --
eternal optimists who almost never let things get to them. And
they smile, too -- all the time. People like that drive me
absolutely *nuts*! But they DO exist. Besides, your original
point was that Little Creek magically knew "the right thing
to do every time," implying that he was some kind of stereotypical
Indian nature mystic. Well, he wasn't. As I pointed out before,
he comes to the same conclusion as the Colonel, i.e., that Spirit
could not be tamed. That was very consistent -- and very believable.
> Another point: From Spirit's perspective the Lakotas lassoing him
> should've been a major betrayal after Little Creek had befriended him.
> So he should've been a lot more hostile to the Lakota humans than he
> was.
A point, but a very minor one. By that point in the film, Spirit had
been dragged through the woods, put in a pen, fought off several
attempts to ride him, starved and dehydrated for three days before
making a daring and difficult escape from the fort. So it was
understandable if his sense of betrayal was a little underplayed.
But in spite of all that, he still tried to escape from Little Creek
the first chance he got, only to be held back by Rain. No
inconsistencies there -- just more plot nitpicking.
To everyone else: Go see the movie and decide for yourselves. If
for no other reason than to show your support for theatrical "2D"
animation.
Juan F. Lara
In article <3CEEAF...@mones.4.ever>, Timmy Ramone <R...@mones.4.ever> wrote:
> Heh -- I'm glad one of us speaks "horse." :) Ether that, or I was right,
> i.e., the animators were very skilled at conveying thoughts and emotions
> without the use of (intelligible) dialog.
I'd really like to read a review from someone who's had a lot of
experience with horses. Say a horse owner or a jockey, or someone who's worked
in a farm that raises and breeds horses. I'm very interested in hearing
his/her comments over how well the mannerisms of the films' horses matched that
of real horses, and exactly how do real horses communicate with each other.
>> The horses were not convincing as horses.
> As realistic *horses*, probably not.
Wasn't that the point, that they were supposed to be realistic horses?
> But the same could be said about the horses in SNOW WHITE, CINDERELLA,
> SLEEPING BEAUTY, 101 DALMATIANS or MULAN.
All of which are fantasy films wherein the reality is defined to have
animals that think like humans, though in the last film you mentioned that
fantasy element felt very out-of-place. But "Spirit" is supposed to represent
real life.
> I'd agree with you, except I know people like Little Creek -- eternal
> optimists who almost never let things get to them. And they smile, too --
> all the time. People like that drive me absolutely *nuts*!
It's difficult to warm up to these nice guys, which alienated me from the
film somewhat.
> To everyone else: Go see the movie and decide for yourselves.
I say the same thing. See the movie and tell us all what you thought of
it. The more boxoffice and the more online discussion the better.
Hobbes gy
horses?<<<<<
IMHO.. I think your missing what it is Spirit was trying to do with the horse
characters
they may have been more realistic then say..the animal characters in "Lion
King" But its pretty clear they weren't going for a completly rigid,true to
life, Discovery Channel representation of horses . not when they smile and
cheer and nash there teeth with anger. the main characters in "Spirit" may have
been horses, but its still a very human story with human emotion .. even in the
horse characters. The horses in Spirit reminded me a great deal of the deer in
Bambi. from the neck down they are fairly accurate representations of there
respective species. But the faces have been humanised just enough so that the
audience can relate to the character and understand what they are thinking
(note the Horse's larger, forward facing eyes and shorter snouts)
Derek Janssen
>
> > To everyone else: Go see the movie and decide for yourselves.
>
> I say the same thing. See the movie and tell us all what you thought of
> it. The more boxoffice and the more online discussion the better.
Well, according to CNN, I should go see "Disney's 'Spirit', opening this weekend"...
...And Jeffrey wins again. : (
Derek Janssen
dja...@ultranet.com
Stephen W. Worth
F. Lara) wrote:
> The body language and especially the facial expressions were too human.
> Typical was that scene where the calvary horses were cheering Spirit
behind the
> Colonel's back but then they snapped to attention when the Colonel gave them
> the evil eye. Just like calvary recruits instead of calvary horses. The
> horses were not convincing as horses.
There were some terribly unconvincing elephants in Jungle Book
too! Imagine! An elephant carrying a riding crop and acting like
a British soldier! Absurd! That could never happen in real life!
See ya
Steve
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
CARTOONY JAZZ! British Swing / 20's Dance Bands
Great music from original 78s. Download FREE
MP3 samples: http://www.vintageip.com/records
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Brad Austin
> Spoiler warning
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> In article <3CEEAF...@mones.4.ever>, Timmy Ramone <R...@mones.4.ever> wrote:
>> Heh -- I'm glad one of us speaks "horse." :) Ether that, or I was right,
>> i.e., the animators were very skilled at conveying thoughts and emotions
>> without the use of (intelligible) dialog.
>
> I'd really like to read a review from someone who's had a lot of
> experience with horses. Say a horse owner or a jockey, or someone who's worked
> in a farm that raises and breeds horses. I'm very interested in hearing
> his/her comments over how well the mannerisms of the films' horses matched that
> of real horses, and exactly how do real horses communicate with each other.
I've had some experience with horses, not a huge amount,
but enough to notice some glaring inaccuracies. Probably
the worst one was the scene where the cavalry captain was
on Spirit's back, and Spirit was trying to buck him off,
and couldn't. Any real horse that pissed off would have
just rolled onto his back and squashed the guy like a bug.
(In fact that happened to a friend of mine. Snapped his
pelvis in half.) And I saw enough things like that to be
pretty confident that the animators were not horse owners.
But I thought the expressions and vocalizations were
actually pretty good, compared to the other things. They
were definitely mixtures of human and equine, but I don't
see any reason to complain about that. Certainly good
enough for a kids' movie.
> All of which are fantasy films wherein the reality is defined to have
> animals that think like humans, though in the last film you mentioned that
> fantasy element felt very out-of-place. But "Spirit" is supposed to represent
> real life.
To a point. In real life Yellowstine Park, Jackson Hole,
Monument Valley, Rainbow Bridge, and Yosemite aren't all
within a few tens of miles of each other either. And
none of them are anywhere near either the Cimarron River,
or the area where the Lakota lived. In fact I got the
definte impression that they were delibrately mixing
things up a bit, in order to give the movie a slightly
surreal feeling.
a here.c | Brad Austin
r t o |
tax@ne m | Oceanside, CA USA
kimba
>
> To everyone else: Go see the movie and decide for yourselves. If
> for no other reason than to show your support for theatrical "2D"
> animation.
>
Absolutely!
I was surprised at just how much restraint they had in this film - they
really didn't go for the cutesy shmaltz I expected to see.
I've worked around horses a good part of my life, mucked out more than
aa few stalls, did a lot of riding- and I was impressed at how the
horses moved realistically, how they communicated with each other
realistically. Kudos to the animators - and the clean up people.
They did a good job.
Have you ever really tried to draw a hoof or a hock realistically and in
full rotation? Go ahead - try it. It's not easy.
Nitpicks?
Sure- I hated the eyebrows on the characters,but I understand why they
were there, and I really didn't like the character design for Rain at all.
I wasn't all that fond of Bryan Adams' songs- but at least it wasn't a
musical...with singing horses and cavalry men.
I loved the 3D effects.
And, at the screening I attended- 3/4 of which were kids-
the kids were enthralled. None of them were running up and down the
aisle, they were glued to their seats- and so involved in the film-
screaming at the screen when character's were in danger.
And both boys and girls seemed to love it.
Hey- I hope it does really well, and it gives traditional animation a
boost in the arm, for sure.
It's way better than Dreamworks last trad effort, Road To El Dorado.
I suspect, sadly, it will get lost in the shiffle between Spidey and AOTC.
Hopefully it will make it's money in DVD and video sales and rentals.
I concur- I give it 4 out of 5 stars. It's worth seeing, and supporting.
I am!
Kimba
Skeleton Man
"kimba" <catin...@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:3CF15A4E...@rogers.com...
> It's way better than Dreamworks last trad effort, Road To El Dorado.
> I suspect, sadly, it will get lost in the shiffle between Spidey and AOTC.
> Hopefully it will make it's money in DVD and video sales and rentals.
>
> I concur- I give it 4 out of 5 stars. It's worth seeing, and supporting.
>
> I am!
> Kimba
>
>
I defintiely see Spirit as worth seeing and supporting, but I put it in the
same league with El Dorado, not above it. They both seemed to have the same
problem of "just being there".
--
Skeleton Man
Animate without pay until someone offers pay. If nobody offers pay within
three years, the candidate may look upon this circumstance with the most
implicit confidence as a sign that sawing wood is what he was intended for.
Allen Kitchen
My two cents.
I went into the theatre thinking that it would be silly kiddy fare. Well, I was wrong.
This was a GOOD movie. 4.3 out of 5 stars for me.
The artwork was just... gorgeous! The story was strong and well done. And even though
most of the "dialog" between horses was done by gestures and expressions, it was easy to
know what was going on. There was plenty of action and a ton of humor. (That poor
blacksmith...) I went with my 5 yr old daughter; neither of us was bored. It is a rare
movie that appeals to a serious adult and a small child at the same time. This succeeded.
I heartily recommend the show to anyone.
Allen Kitchen (shockwave)
HTTP://www.blkbox.com/~osprey/