It is a testament to the prevalence of self-destructive 'escapism' in the US (and elsewhere) that an admirably informative program like this has not even been reviewed in more than a decade of its existence! I was privileged to borrow this set of 3 VHS tapes from a PBS library, and watch it several times. Otherwise, one can hardly hear of it --even in New York, years after 9/11. The program on fire was the most impressive to me, even though one can appreciate an even larger series of programs like these, dealing with different kinds of accidents, natural disasters, etc. "Escape! Because Accidents Happen: Fire" offers several case histories, showing different kinds of fires, and gives a short account of some of the technological innovations that have been made in fire-fighting. One of the unexpected heroes in this history is the inventor of the idea of sprinklers. No doubt, much progress in the future has to be made in city planning, forms of communication, methods of evacuation, and the creation of the possibility of 'transhumance' for large numbers of people. Mere fire-fighting can save only so many lives (and too little of the property). All in all, the program packs valuable information into its hour, and it can help save lives! Teachers are urged to obtain copies, and beg the producers to update this set.
Reviews
8 Reviews
Well worth watching over and over again.
4 November 2009
Warning: Spoilers
Well worth watching over and over again.
I was fortunate enough to watch (and tape) this program on PBS (WNET, New York) in Aug. 1995. I had found it unusually calming, the first time I watched it. The choice of music is very much to my taste (other viewers may or may not care for it). The selected gardens and the photography also make this an exceptionally tasty program. Despite the beauty of the scenery, etc., I do think that some of the 'art' is basically pretense and unquestioned tradition (the tea ceremony, especially). Even for a cynical outsider who does not buy into Zen Buddhism or the Japanese culture, however, the program offers much that can be instructive and illuminating. As someone who has over 1,000 documentaries, I find it hard to name a handful of programs that can make me feel more reverent for natural beauty. Possibly, there are far better and far more detailed programs like this in original Japanese (or in other languages). If so, there is much that English-speaking audiences are missing. In the program, a few minutes are given to two sculpture gardens by Isamu Noguchi (November 17, 1904 - December 30, 1988). If I were to have a large garden to design, I would put far more emphasis on edible plants and plants that may invite birds and bees. Meditative potential would not be paramount to me. That said, I recognize that there is much to learn from masters in the Japanese and Zen traditions.
I was fortunate enough to watch (and tape) this program on PBS (WNET, New York) in Aug. 1995. I had found it unusually calming, the first time I watched it. The choice of music is very much to my taste (other viewers may or may not care for it). The selected gardens and the photography also make this an exceptionally tasty program. Despite the beauty of the scenery, etc., I do think that some of the 'art' is basically pretense and unquestioned tradition (the tea ceremony, especially). Even for a cynical outsider who does not buy into Zen Buddhism or the Japanese culture, however, the program offers much that can be instructive and illuminating. As someone who has over 1,000 documentaries, I find it hard to name a handful of programs that can make me feel more reverent for natural beauty. Possibly, there are far better and far more detailed programs like this in original Japanese (or in other languages). If so, there is much that English-speaking audiences are missing. In the program, a few minutes are given to two sculpture gardens by Isamu Noguchi (November 17, 1904 - December 30, 1988). If I were to have a large garden to design, I would put far more emphasis on edible plants and plants that may invite birds and bees. Meditative potential would not be paramount to me. That said, I recognize that there is much to learn from masters in the Japanese and Zen traditions.
Well worth watching, despite the fact that it is from the US.
25 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
I was able to obtain the entire 4-VHS-tape set through WNET (the PBS in New York) in 2004. Since then, I watched the set a few times, and recommended it to friends and foes.
This expensive project was started by Ted Turner in the late '90s (1998, as I remember). A great deal of research had been made and a good deal of footage was prepared before 9/11/2001. However, after 9/11, the producers decided to 'start from scratch', and they came up with these 4 programs in 2003. To the credit of the producers, the series does not try to hide some of the criminal record of the US government. It also has a wide enough global reach (covering events in Japan, China, Russia, Afghanistan, and Sri Lanka --among other places). In history, it goes as far back as Ancient Greece (when mentioning the first known use of 'biological weapons').
The 4 programs, running close to 8 hours, make a decent effort to demonstrate that the issues are global in nature. However, in the end, too little criticism is directed to nation-states and empires that are responsible for much of the existing human threat to humankind --directly and indirectly. At the end of each program (after about 90 minutes of highly-concentrated informative footage), a few 'experts' are interviewed by Frank Sesno. The vast majority of the 'experts' are, sadly, from the US. Few of these experts have the courage to express a need for supranational approaches to the problems.
This particular program (# 2 out of 4 in the series) shows a 'nuclear thief' who claims, after he was caught trying to sell nuclear material to undercover agents, that he was trying to build an animal shelter for the cats that he rescues! Sounds like a good enough excuse to blow up our planet, doesn't it?! Prime candidate for public execution, if they ask me! Despite the lack of courageous 'remedy proposals', the programs may be useful for most mortals on our planet. There is also a companion book to this documentary. Sadly, I have not seen that yet.
This expensive project was started by Ted Turner in the late '90s (1998, as I remember). A great deal of research had been made and a good deal of footage was prepared before 9/11/2001. However, after 9/11, the producers decided to 'start from scratch', and they came up with these 4 programs in 2003. To the credit of the producers, the series does not try to hide some of the criminal record of the US government. It also has a wide enough global reach (covering events in Japan, China, Russia, Afghanistan, and Sri Lanka --among other places). In history, it goes as far back as Ancient Greece (when mentioning the first known use of 'biological weapons').
The 4 programs, running close to 8 hours, make a decent effort to demonstrate that the issues are global in nature. However, in the end, too little criticism is directed to nation-states and empires that are responsible for much of the existing human threat to humankind --directly and indirectly. At the end of each program (after about 90 minutes of highly-concentrated informative footage), a few 'experts' are interviewed by Frank Sesno. The vast majority of the 'experts' are, sadly, from the US. Few of these experts have the courage to express a need for supranational approaches to the problems.
This particular program (# 2 out of 4 in the series) shows a 'nuclear thief' who claims, after he was caught trying to sell nuclear material to undercover agents, that he was trying to build an animal shelter for the cats that he rescues! Sounds like a good enough excuse to blow up our planet, doesn't it?! Prime candidate for public execution, if they ask me! Despite the lack of courageous 'remedy proposals', the programs may be useful for most mortals on our planet. There is also a companion book to this documentary. Sadly, I have not seen that yet.
Soldiers of Music
(1991)
TV can be life-changing. This program is a great example.
4 September 2006
Warning: Spoilers
I watched this program only once, in 1991. Sadly, a program of this greatness has not become a staple on PBS. At the time when I watched it, as a relative newcomer to the US, I did not know much about Mike Wallace and "60 Minutes". From a 1991 review on the NY Times website by John O'Connor, I hear the opinion that Mr. Wallace has tried to insert his famous self into far too much of this documentary. I don't remember enough of the program to pass judgment on that. However, it is fair to say that both Mstislav Rostropovich and his wife Ms. Vishnevskaya willingly make the documentary focus more on Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn than may have been the original intent of the producers.
Then again, part of the greatness that emanates from these people is not that they are top-notch musicians, but that they are human beings who have made the respectable decision to place their political commitment above their musical careers (glamorous as they may have been). Of course, in the process, they put their lives at the mercy of Soviet bureaucrats who did not spare the lives of many others before them --whose defiance may have been far less conspicuous. The image of Ms. Vishnevskaya talking about their decision (16 years ago, I guess) is one of the most impressive and touching things that I have seen on TV. They stood up for Solzhenitsyn, harbored him in their home, and she does not regret her decision after so many years of paying the price... I still remember the strong nod of her head, and her straight look into the eyes of the interviewer, as she said something to the effect that she would do the same thing, because this is what the righteous people do.
Along with "Weapons of the Spirit", where there are several old men and women who 'did the right thing' during World War II, this program deserves to be shown to young people as an example of real-life strength and courage. (The image of the mother in "My Left Foot" is another one. But that is not a documentary where one sees the 'real thing'.) There is also some good information in this documentary about Solzhenitsyn as a writer --how frugal and hard-working he was.
I hope I will be able to find and re-watch this program soon. After that, I should be in a better position to sing its praises all over again.
Some of the people who produced this documentary (Peter Gelb among them) were also involved with other respectable titles like "Horowitz in Moscow". I raise my hat to them.
Then again, part of the greatness that emanates from these people is not that they are top-notch musicians, but that they are human beings who have made the respectable decision to place their political commitment above their musical careers (glamorous as they may have been). Of course, in the process, they put their lives at the mercy of Soviet bureaucrats who did not spare the lives of many others before them --whose defiance may have been far less conspicuous. The image of Ms. Vishnevskaya talking about their decision (16 years ago, I guess) is one of the most impressive and touching things that I have seen on TV. They stood up for Solzhenitsyn, harbored him in their home, and she does not regret her decision after so many years of paying the price... I still remember the strong nod of her head, and her straight look into the eyes of the interviewer, as she said something to the effect that she would do the same thing, because this is what the righteous people do.
Along with "Weapons of the Spirit", where there are several old men and women who 'did the right thing' during World War II, this program deserves to be shown to young people as an example of real-life strength and courage. (The image of the mother in "My Left Foot" is another one. But that is not a documentary where one sees the 'real thing'.) There is also some good information in this documentary about Solzhenitsyn as a writer --how frugal and hard-working he was.
I hope I will be able to find and re-watch this program soon. After that, I should be in a better position to sing its praises all over again.
Some of the people who produced this documentary (Peter Gelb among them) were also involved with other respectable titles like "Horowitz in Moscow". I raise my hat to them.
Dry Summer
(1963)
Kudos to the Turkish director -- shows Turkish Republic's shame
31 July 2006
Warning: Spoilers
I was born and raised in Turkey (Turkiye). I did watch the movie on Turkish TV more than 20 years ago. Sadly, it was only once. What I remember may not be enough for me to do justice to the movie. I may add that my knowledge of films that deal with similar themes is rather limited. I am in no position, for instance, to decide whether the theme was borrowed from a previous work, or whether it was dealt with here for the first time. What I do remember is that one of the most important moral issues that the movie dealt with was the question of whether or not water can be fairly dammed by a person (or people) upstream, if it is clear that such a dam would cause serious drought downstream. The villain (Erol Tas, a gentle person in real life, and arguably the best/most hated villain in Turkish cinema thus far) acts as if he has every right to cause such a drought. He even seems to enjoy himself taking a bath in the pool/artificial lake that he creates, while his neighbors go without water for their land and their daily use. Erol Tas's villainy is not limited only to this. However, it is interesting that this gem of a Turkish film also points out to the criminality of the Turkish Republic's construction of a series of dams that are sure to deprive Syria and Iraq of life-giving water. As far as I know, this film was the first Turkish film to receive a prestigious award and critical acclaim in Europe. It deserves to be remembered, re-watched, and made available on DVD.
The Honest One
(1984)
More than just a comedy, this film offers serious commentary
2 July 2005
'Namuslu' is a word close to 'honest' and 'reliable' in English, and it is a word that sums up a man or a woman with integrity. It is not a bad or insulting word. Unlike a phrase like 'simple-minded' or 'innocent', it can't even be used in a condescending way in certain contexts in Turkish. Yet, it is generally used in this film as an insult against the protagonist. This is an early sign that the work is satirical. One of the complaints about 'globalization' is that it (whatever 'it' is) promotes the spread and domination of a human type that is dishonest, greedy, opportunistic, ruthless, etc. --even in cultures that had long managed to keep such people under social control. This, of course, is yet another complex issue that a simple word like globalization can't possibly cover. Although this film makes no reference to international influences on Turkish society, it represents a serious attack on a trend that gained momentum in the '80s and continued unabated to our day: The spread and legitimation of greed. The shock value of this dark comedy reaches its height in the personage of the mother-in-law of the protagonist, played by the veteran actress Adile Nasit. This venerable old lady who usually stands for respectable (and lovable) women appears to have completely bought this 'alien' greedy outlook, and fully expects the son-in-law to steal left and right. Lady Macbeth characters are not common to Turkish literature or movies. What is even less common is elderly people who are less than exemplary. (Stupid they may be, but evil?!) The arrival of a character like this is a clear signal that something is indeed rotten in Turkey. The plot and the comedy may not be insuperable. However, the film is a respectable effort, and holds a mirror to many people who are currently busy eroding one of the bases of a good economy anywhere: Trust. Those who are familiar with the centuries-old humor of Nasreddin Hoca will hopefully have a greater appreciation of the film.
At
(1982)
Honest work. Highly recommended for "Free the Children" supporters.
12 June 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Read AFTER you watch the movie (it is worth watching again, anyway): I grew up in Turkey (Turkiye). Turkish is my native tongue. Although this film received much-deserved international acclaim, it is sad that the subtitles are not always accurate (I wonder if they were improved upon later). A crucial point that should not be missed is this: A few minutes into the film, on an ox-cart with his uncle and his son, the father talks about finding a job and sending his son to school ("If only the boy could learn."). What is not translated is that he is told, during the military service (where each soldier is expected to at least learn to read and write), that he and his kind are not 'men', but they should strive to make 'men' out of their children. This shows one good thing about Turkey, and one disgrace: Turkey does offer some opportunities for poor children to excel through education, etc. (ethnicity or 'class' is not destiny there); but it has next to no program for 'adult education'. What became even worse since the times depicted in the film is that many villages and small towns that _did_ have decent schools had to close them due to accelerated migration to cities. Involuntary migration, no doubt, is a global problem, and one for which no political ideology seems prepared for...
Another thing I must note for the non-Turkish viewers is that Genco Erkal (the father) is a highly-educated 'actor's actor' who received many awards in his 40+ year career. I was privileged to watch him in his one-man play of Gogol's "Diary of a Madman". Some think that he can easily go 'over the top'. To his credit, in this film, he gives no hint that he is anything more than a poor and ignorant (almost emasculated) peasant.
Some of the music is by Okay Temiz, one of the most respected (Turkish) instrumental musicians in Europe.
I have not lived in villages like the one depicted here, and I never saw a supposedly traditional 'play' like the one that opens the film. However, I see very little in this film that is unfair or unkind to life experience in Turkey. I can only say that, to the credit of no humans, Istanbul offers beautiful sceneries even to the poorest and most desperate visitors --once in a while. Besides, there are at least 2 architectural wonders in Istanbul that crown the tops of 2 hills, and there is no charge for gazing at them. I hope no one expects this movie to be fair to the city of Istanbul itself.
One minor point where the movie misrepresents life in Istanbul 'fairly' is when someone tries to sell some poetry on a ferry (one of their first experiences in the city). In several years of riding those ferries, I never witnessed such a classy sale! Perhaps it did happen somewhere, but I have the feeling that the director is making a plug for the poet, Ilhami Bekir, here. (I will be glad to see myself corrected.) Ilhami Bekir, whose poem is only poorly translated in the subtitles, was also orphaned at a young age; he died in 1984.
The mother who lost her son (and her mind)... Though I never saw a woman like that myself, I can't doubt that there must be an increasing number of them these days --with increasing prostitution, among other things...
It may be striking to some in 'the West' how strong these Turks' faith in education is --despite the common indifference of the educated people towards the poor! (I remember the comments of 'Kaffir Boy' on too few black Americans going to free libraries...) I suppose, there are many college graduates, these days, who are pushing similar carts in Istanbul.
It may also be striking how 'innocent' many of the boys are, compared to the stereotypical poor kids of 'inner cities' of the USA. It is perhaps a fair generalization (and unreliable as most generalizations go) that there is more widespread affection towards children and youngsters in Turkey, as compared to many Western societies. ('Dead-beat dad' is not a common expression in Turkey.) But there is too little social organization to protect children's rights.
This movie is well worth watching -- but not for its cinematography, and certainly not for its 'entertainment value'. Since it shows only a tiny sliver of life in Turkey, I hope no one expects it to suffice for a project of "Let's get to know about other cultures". It can go some distance, though. And, unlike many high-budget movies, this one at least gives you enough credit: It assumes that you are capable of compassionate social activism. One does not need to be a 'socialist' to see a redeeming value in this effort (I am definitely not one). Highly recommended for "Free the Children" supporters who are over 16 (there is a short and unglorified sex scene here, where the boy's tears are not uncharacteristic).
The film was dedicated to the director's father. Some may think that it is an 'adaptation' of "The Bicycle Thief (1949)" by Vittorio De Sica. It may be safe to assume that Ali Ozgenturk was familiar with that film. Still, one needs to ask him about his own experiences first...
Another thing I must note for the non-Turkish viewers is that Genco Erkal (the father) is a highly-educated 'actor's actor' who received many awards in his 40+ year career. I was privileged to watch him in his one-man play of Gogol's "Diary of a Madman". Some think that he can easily go 'over the top'. To his credit, in this film, he gives no hint that he is anything more than a poor and ignorant (almost emasculated) peasant.
Some of the music is by Okay Temiz, one of the most respected (Turkish) instrumental musicians in Europe.
I have not lived in villages like the one depicted here, and I never saw a supposedly traditional 'play' like the one that opens the film. However, I see very little in this film that is unfair or unkind to life experience in Turkey. I can only say that, to the credit of no humans, Istanbul offers beautiful sceneries even to the poorest and most desperate visitors --once in a while. Besides, there are at least 2 architectural wonders in Istanbul that crown the tops of 2 hills, and there is no charge for gazing at them. I hope no one expects this movie to be fair to the city of Istanbul itself.
One minor point where the movie misrepresents life in Istanbul 'fairly' is when someone tries to sell some poetry on a ferry (one of their first experiences in the city). In several years of riding those ferries, I never witnessed such a classy sale! Perhaps it did happen somewhere, but I have the feeling that the director is making a plug for the poet, Ilhami Bekir, here. (I will be glad to see myself corrected.) Ilhami Bekir, whose poem is only poorly translated in the subtitles, was also orphaned at a young age; he died in 1984.
The mother who lost her son (and her mind)... Though I never saw a woman like that myself, I can't doubt that there must be an increasing number of them these days --with increasing prostitution, among other things...
It may be striking to some in 'the West' how strong these Turks' faith in education is --despite the common indifference of the educated people towards the poor! (I remember the comments of 'Kaffir Boy' on too few black Americans going to free libraries...) I suppose, there are many college graduates, these days, who are pushing similar carts in Istanbul.
It may also be striking how 'innocent' many of the boys are, compared to the stereotypical poor kids of 'inner cities' of the USA. It is perhaps a fair generalization (and unreliable as most generalizations go) that there is more widespread affection towards children and youngsters in Turkey, as compared to many Western societies. ('Dead-beat dad' is not a common expression in Turkey.) But there is too little social organization to protect children's rights.
This movie is well worth watching -- but not for its cinematography, and certainly not for its 'entertainment value'. Since it shows only a tiny sliver of life in Turkey, I hope no one expects it to suffice for a project of "Let's get to know about other cultures". It can go some distance, though. And, unlike many high-budget movies, this one at least gives you enough credit: It assumes that you are capable of compassionate social activism. One does not need to be a 'socialist' to see a redeeming value in this effort (I am definitely not one). Highly recommended for "Free the Children" supporters who are over 16 (there is a short and unglorified sex scene here, where the boy's tears are not uncharacteristic).
The film was dedicated to the director's father. Some may think that it is an 'adaptation' of "The Bicycle Thief (1949)" by Vittorio De Sica. It may be safe to assume that Ali Ozgenturk was familiar with that film. Still, one needs to ask him about his own experiences first...
The Black Stallion
(1979)
Masterpiece, says a master filmmaker.
12 June 2005
I will not try to establish my credentials. Suffice it to say that, in my own estimation, I am someone who has a great deal to contribute to film-making as a visual art form. I am also someone who has watched thousands of movies, and can't recommend even 100 movies to 'future generations'. It would be criminal not to recommend this one...
I offer the following personal detail, just this paragraph, hoping that it does not ruin anybody's enjoyment of the film. I was in college, already with a reputation/notoriety as a hard-to-please critic. I read a short summary of the film in a newspaper. It said things like "... boy finds himself on a deserted island with a horse ... wins race". Based on that summary (and what summary can do justice to this movie?!), I decided that the movie would not be worth my while. Luckily, I later forgot about the summary and my judgment, and turned on the TV (a 19" black-and-white TV), and saw the first scenes on the ship (gambling, etc.). I was absorbed by the film in a few seconds (even though these are not the best scenes). I had a full bladder, and kept on waiting for a dull moment to take a leak (as a healthy young man, this wouldn't take me long). For better or for worse, I could not find a single dull moment in the rest of the movie. (I was then in Turkey, watching the film on a state-subsidized TV channel that had no commercial interruptions.) This has been the one and only film that I watched on a full bladder.Though this is not the highest compliment that I can pay it, at least it should establish my sincerity.
The following day, a college friend who knew well how hard-to-please I am, asked me what I thought of the movie. I replied "Wooonderful! If you ask me whether any one of the movies I have ever watched will maintain its value even 20,000 years from now, I say this is it!" Looking back, I wonder why I settled for 20,000. Even though such statements are 'irrefutable' (in the Popperian sense), I could easily have said 500,000,000 years (we should have at least that much juice left in our sun, right?).
Some things are not subject to improvement. Will humankind be able to hug any better millions of years from now? Can technology help humans express the love between different species any better than we can? (Those of you who watched Sister Wendy Beckett's comments on the cave paintings in France may do well to remember them.) Although I am pleased to hear comments about how 'sexual' this movie is, I submit that this film is full of LOVE. This may be one warning that we should give to naive viewers: The real world is not really as full of love as this movie is. Here, there are not even true villains. Even the Arab on the ship is almost portrayed kindly as he pulls Alec's ear and calls him "Sheytan/Sheitan!" --Arabic for Satan, and not to be taken literally. The father's rubbing of Alec's belly, the mother putting a blanket on Alec, who is sleeping outside with the horse... There are times when one can tell that Ballard is working like an impressionistic painter and almost licking the characters with his love (and inviting us to do the same --as if we need invitation). Alec talking to Henry (Mickey Rooney) with a straw in his mouth... (Was it in the book that Henry had shaving cream on his face when they first meet, or was it Ballard's idea?)
For a long time, I was of the opinion that horses can at best put up with us. I saw no reason why they might enjoy giving us humans a ride. This movie was the first to convince me that a horse can actually enjoy giving a ride to a small kid (who saved his life). This, in no way, excuses the rides that the rest of us feel entitled to get, of course. One claim that Ballard can make is that this movie is one of the most beautiful and convincing examples of love between a young human being and a horse. As long as this theme remains dear to the hearts of human beings, and assuming that nobody else succeeds in improving on this film, it will be deemed a masterpiece. I hope I will live long enough to see similar films about humans and dolphins, dogs, etc.
Although social commentary does not appear to be a focus of this film, there is also a 'great' adult theme here: "Is it right to keep a child from doing things he is uniquely qualified to do (be the jockey in a horse race), simply because there are serious risks involved?" As someone who is not part of the 'western' or 'olympian' culture, I must say that I do not care much for horse races, or 'competitive sports' in general. Even though I find the race scene in the movie quite beautiful and 'professional', it is mostly the scenes on the island that earned my admiration. Having also watched "Black Stallion Returns", I sense that winning races (and building a career out of one's friendship with a horse) is not Alec's objective. It just feels good to know that your team can do it. "Phar Lap", a movie not as great as this one, suggests that even some horses may learn to enjoy themselves win races.
Ballard later made another great movie, this time based on a true story of 'love' between a girl and geese: "Fly Away Home" (1996). His mother must be proud of him. I salute him. Mrs. Coppola sure can compose! The score deserves several hundred words. I ran out of space.
I offer the following personal detail, just this paragraph, hoping that it does not ruin anybody's enjoyment of the film. I was in college, already with a reputation/notoriety as a hard-to-please critic. I read a short summary of the film in a newspaper. It said things like "... boy finds himself on a deserted island with a horse ... wins race". Based on that summary (and what summary can do justice to this movie?!), I decided that the movie would not be worth my while. Luckily, I later forgot about the summary and my judgment, and turned on the TV (a 19" black-and-white TV), and saw the first scenes on the ship (gambling, etc.). I was absorbed by the film in a few seconds (even though these are not the best scenes). I had a full bladder, and kept on waiting for a dull moment to take a leak (as a healthy young man, this wouldn't take me long). For better or for worse, I could not find a single dull moment in the rest of the movie. (I was then in Turkey, watching the film on a state-subsidized TV channel that had no commercial interruptions.) This has been the one and only film that I watched on a full bladder.Though this is not the highest compliment that I can pay it, at least it should establish my sincerity.
The following day, a college friend who knew well how hard-to-please I am, asked me what I thought of the movie. I replied "Wooonderful! If you ask me whether any one of the movies I have ever watched will maintain its value even 20,000 years from now, I say this is it!" Looking back, I wonder why I settled for 20,000. Even though such statements are 'irrefutable' (in the Popperian sense), I could easily have said 500,000,000 years (we should have at least that much juice left in our sun, right?).
Some things are not subject to improvement. Will humankind be able to hug any better millions of years from now? Can technology help humans express the love between different species any better than we can? (Those of you who watched Sister Wendy Beckett's comments on the cave paintings in France may do well to remember them.) Although I am pleased to hear comments about how 'sexual' this movie is, I submit that this film is full of LOVE. This may be one warning that we should give to naive viewers: The real world is not really as full of love as this movie is. Here, there are not even true villains. Even the Arab on the ship is almost portrayed kindly as he pulls Alec's ear and calls him "Sheytan/Sheitan!" --Arabic for Satan, and not to be taken literally. The father's rubbing of Alec's belly, the mother putting a blanket on Alec, who is sleeping outside with the horse... There are times when one can tell that Ballard is working like an impressionistic painter and almost licking the characters with his love (and inviting us to do the same --as if we need invitation). Alec talking to Henry (Mickey Rooney) with a straw in his mouth... (Was it in the book that Henry had shaving cream on his face when they first meet, or was it Ballard's idea?)
For a long time, I was of the opinion that horses can at best put up with us. I saw no reason why they might enjoy giving us humans a ride. This movie was the first to convince me that a horse can actually enjoy giving a ride to a small kid (who saved his life). This, in no way, excuses the rides that the rest of us feel entitled to get, of course. One claim that Ballard can make is that this movie is one of the most beautiful and convincing examples of love between a young human being and a horse. As long as this theme remains dear to the hearts of human beings, and assuming that nobody else succeeds in improving on this film, it will be deemed a masterpiece. I hope I will live long enough to see similar films about humans and dolphins, dogs, etc.
Although social commentary does not appear to be a focus of this film, there is also a 'great' adult theme here: "Is it right to keep a child from doing things he is uniquely qualified to do (be the jockey in a horse race), simply because there are serious risks involved?" As someone who is not part of the 'western' or 'olympian' culture, I must say that I do not care much for horse races, or 'competitive sports' in general. Even though I find the race scene in the movie quite beautiful and 'professional', it is mostly the scenes on the island that earned my admiration. Having also watched "Black Stallion Returns", I sense that winning races (and building a career out of one's friendship with a horse) is not Alec's objective. It just feels good to know that your team can do it. "Phar Lap", a movie not as great as this one, suggests that even some horses may learn to enjoy themselves win races.
Ballard later made another great movie, this time based on a true story of 'love' between a girl and geese: "Fly Away Home" (1996). His mother must be proud of him. I salute him. Mrs. Coppola sure can compose! The score deserves several hundred words. I ran out of space.
Tell Your Friends