Monday 4 January 2016

Film: 'In the Heart of the Sea'

Had to drag myself along to see this one. Having seen the trailer enough times to cause substantial irritation, the subject matter itself (whaling - in this case to obtain their oil), I find far from engrossing - in fact rather repugnant. Here I automatically sided with the great white whales - and one whale in particular which kept 'stalking' the whalers (well, wouldn't you be miffed if you had to go around with a harpoon stuck in your back?) - rather than identifying with the crew with whom one was, presumably, meant to sympathise. But even aside from that I found that, despite the spectacular effects (there seems to be absolutely no limit now on the images that can be created), and despite several sequences of high drama (all set, invariably, to busy orchestral chugga-chuggas to hold ones interest), it all felt curiously functional and only distantly-involving.

Ron Howard's film, 'based' on a true story (as every second film these days seems to be), is framed and interrupted by ageing old salt, Brendan Gleason, recounting to Hermann Melville (Ben Whishaw - yes, he again!) his experiences 30 years previously in 1820 as cabin boy and general dogsbody on a whaling ship at the age of 14 (Tom Holland, looking at times startlingly like the young Jamie Bell in 'Billy Elliott', such that I half-expected a demonstration of twinkle-toed, terpsichoreal skills). It hardly needs saying that Melville uses information in the account to furnish his 'Moby Dick'. 
Among the ship's crew the most recognisable name to me was Cillian Murphy. 
There's plenty of action - on ship, on small boats and in the sea itself. The crew's motivation changes halfway through the film from whale-hunting just to their plain survival, the whale having scuppered their main means of 'transport'. Many in the audience will recognise in the men's fate considerable echoes of Coleridge's epic poem 'The Rime of the Ancient Mariner'.
Being a heavily male-dominated film there are no women's roles of real substance, and the couple that there are only appear on shore prior to the sailing and briefly at the end. 

I didn't find this a particularly satisfying film. If it had been a subject I could have warmed to my verdict might have been different, but apart from some truly remarkable visuals (we expect nothing less these days - and I saw it in 2D while I believe there is also a 3D version at certain venues), it's not a film I can honestly describe as being one that I 'enjoyed'..........................4.

14 comments:

  1. I have heard an audio version of the book on which this is based and found it both disturbing and fascinating. I see that the film sank pretty fast at the theaters, however. As a former librarian and a writer, it saddens me that so often huge movies about good books do no service to the book or to their audience. Of course, some of them go on and make big bucks ...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi, Michael. Of course it's the old story of where there's a chance to make money it'll be taken. It's very rare when a film lives up to the book on which it's based, and even rarer to find a film which improves on the original written work. On the other hand a good film can raise enough curiosity in some of the audience to make them go out and acquire it in the form it was first conceived. It's not the case here, though - at least for this viewer. I don't find the subject matter grabs me enough anyway.
      I didn't know that this had already been released and bombed in America. It's not drawing in the crowds here either.

      Delete
  2. I've never even heard of the film Ray, so poor has it been received I suppose. I won't be adding it to my list!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It seems to be tanking over here, Craig, which is rather appropriate.
      I don't think it's only me who doesn't find whaling absorbing enough to hold ones attention. It seems so much a subject for yesterday's entertainment, though of course it (very regrettably) still carries on on a large scale.

      Delete
  3. even with Pwoar Thor, is in it I wont be seeing it. The reviews I have seen have been poor. if it is on the tv then maybe I will watch.

    Hope you are well.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't know who this 'Thor' is, Sol. Obviously one of the many TV progs I don't watch.
      But I wouldn't so much describe the film as being 'poor' as that I fail to see who, nowadays, would be that interested in such a subject as whaling which now seems very dated as being a pretext for an 'adventure'. Time moves on.

      I'm as well as can be hoped, thanks - for my age, I mean. I trust and hope that you are too.

      Delete
    2. Chris Hemsworth plays Thor in the Marvel series. and he is PWOAR! lol

      Can we have a cat post/update

      Delete
    3. Thanks for the info re C.H., Sol, but I'm not much the wiser - and I guess it'll remain that way.

      I'm very happy to do another pussy post but I would like it to include new and latest pics - and with this computer it really is a hassle to get them loaded, but I'll give it serious thought. Meantime I can tell you that all three are well and currently all snoozing in their latest favourite locations in three different rooms. When they wake up I'll tell them you were enquiring.

      Delete
  4. Like Craig, I haven't heard of this film, either. The subject matter doesn't particularly intrigue me - - and I'm not exactly a fan of Ron Howard's films, anyway.

    I want to thank you for informing me of the recent demise of Boulez. It didn't seem to be mentioned in the American news. I had to find the news story via the BBC.
    Glad to know you had nothing to do with it (*smile*).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I shouldn't think that the subject of whaling would be getting too many excited, Jon. It might serve to raise people's awareness that the hideous practice still goes on, and at a far larger scale than for the official reason of 'scientific research' (particularly by the Japanese and also by Norway), something which fools no one.

      There's fulsome praise for the departed P.B. in our arts world here, though God alone knows why. I certainly don't intend to add to it.

      Delete
  5. Replies
    1. I can do that with ease, Dr Spo - and not without some satisfaction.

      Delete
  6. Just watched GRANDMA Raymondo
    Liked it.....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's good, isn't it? I'm already feeling a tad guilty that it didn't make my own Top 10 for last year, but it was rather crowded up there. I see it hasn't received any nods at all in the BAFTA nominations which is almost, but not quite, as disappointing as Charlotte Rampling being overlooked for her'45 Years' - which is simply an outrage!
      But, yes, 'Grandma' had a lot going for it and well worth seeing a second time.

      Delete