Allow me to apologise for characterising Water for Elephants as a “chick flick” (and thereby implying it was not apt for general audiences), but my confusion was understandable.  The advertisements, the posters, the pre-release hype all play up the grand romance between Robert Pattinson and Reese Witherspoon.  Psh!  This is a perfectly satisfactory, at times grim, period drama and its “romance” (in my opinion) is one of its less-important attributes.  Pattinson and Witherspoon don’t have a lot of chemistry, not that the script gives them much mushy stuff to do, anyway.  Frankly, they’re thrown together chiefly because Christopher Waltz’s character is an insanely jealous and possessive brute, not because their eyes meet and celestial music begins.

Misconstruing the nature of Water for Elephants bothers me a bit: who knows how many films I’ve refused to watch on general principles which might have been entertaining?  Should I go back and look at Twilight?  Or Legally Blonde?  Or Furry Vengeance?  Whoa, let’s not get crazy here, life is too short and there are too many films to see, some hard choices must be made.  I’m happy I decided to watch Water for Elephants, and perhaps this will make me slightly less parochial in my film-watching in the future (though to be honest, I think I really do watch a wide spectrum of cinema, but admittedly I avoid certain genres), let’s leave it at that.

There isn’t much not to like about Water for Elephants.  Yes, the framing story smacks slightly of Titanic (one might logically wonder why Hal Holbook’s voice as Jacob isn’t heard throughout, since the voiceover narration is supposed to be him reminiscing about the 1930s from his 2000s perspective; but then again, that would mean we’d have to listen to Holbrook’s old-man voice during the film rather than Pattinson’s, so it was an understandable decision), and the circumstances which bring Jacob to the circus (thus putting the plot in motion) are moderately contrived, and I’ve already mentioned the somewhat unconvincing nature of Jacob and Marlena’s romance, but other than those minor points…oh, and a major plot development hinges on the fact that an elephant understands Polish and Jacob just happens to be the son of Polish immigrants…and the Benzini Bros. circus is allegedly on the brink of bankruptcy but has its own train and scores of employees and circus owner August carries around an extra set of evening clothes he loans to Jacob…but even taking into consideration those additional minor points, this is a darned good movie.

After the sudden death of his parents, Jacob drops out of Cornell’s veterinary school and hits the open road.  He hops a freight train out of town only to discover it’s the Benzini Brothers circus train and circus folk don’t rightly cotton to interlopers.  However, Jacob’s Ivy League education and his willingness to shovel horse manure earn him a temporary position with the show, later cemented by the revelation that he’s had veterinary training.  His innate love of animals causes him to shoot a suffering horse, against the orders of circus boss August (whose young wife Marlena is the show’s equestrian star), and this nearly gets him the boot once more.  Jacob’s job is saved when the mercurial August buys Rosie the elephant: Jacob discovers Rosie likes whiskey and understands Polish, allowing him to win her trust and thus implement her repertoire of audience-pleasing tricks.  The pachyderm—between bouts of savage abuse from August—becomes Marlena’s new ride and the saviour of the once-failing circus.  But the growing attraction between Jacob and Marlena spoils August’s temporary good humour and we’re in for some unpleasantness, don’t you know…

The evocation of circus life in Depression-era American in Water for Elephants is extremely satisfying: no glaring anachronisms (either in attitude or image) are apparent (although I wonder if police were actively “raiding” elegant nightclubs that just happened to be serving illegal alcohol, and if they were, did they actually arrest the customers?), and the overall milieu does not seem overly sanitised.  The behind-the-scenes footage of the circus folk has a realistic feel about it: this is no glossy fantasy world, but rather a place where people fight, drink, laugh, work, and cry, and where animals suffer, poop, and perform for appreciative but uncomprehending audiences. The production values are excellent and Francis Lawrence’s direction is assured and unobtrusive.  

The performances are generally quite good, which surprised me slightly: having never seen a Reese Witherspoon film and having only watched Robert Pattinson in his brief Harry Potter appearance, my (unwarranted and, it seems, unfair) low opinion of their acting ability was based solely upon hearsay, but I willingly admit they’re fine here.  Despite my earlier comments about the superficial nature of their romance and the lack of screen chemistry between Jacob and Marlena, both characters are genuinely well-delineated in script and performance.  Jacob’s rash decision to drop out of college marks him as impulsive and maybe something of a quitter, but he proves himself to be a regular guy, not snobbish or boastful, with a well-defined moral sense.  Marlena’s tale is the hackneyed orphan-raised-in-foster-homes-marries-older-man-and-is-grateful-to-him-even-though-she-doesn’t-love-him, but she’s sympathetic and likeable.  

Christopher Waltz seems to have spent the majority of his career working on German television before being “discovered” by Quentin Tarantino for Inglorious Basterds; he followed that with an amusing role in the light-weight The Green Hornet, and now seems slated to appear in every other film project being made in Hollywood.  The role of August is hardly an original one, but Waltz is convincing as the pathologically jealous, socially and personally insecure, unstable circus owner, switching from affable suavity to biting sarcasm to frightening sadism in the blink of an eye.

In conclusion, Water for Elephants reinforces my belief that choosing which films to see or not see will never be an exact science.  The Water for Elephants that was advertised was not one I wanted to see.  Indeed, apparently neither advertising, publicity, reviews, trailers, interviews, nor even word-of-mouth can be trusted, since these are all skewed to either sell the film, recommend the film, or not recommend the film.  What a dilemma!  

Fortunately, I ignored my instincts and did watch Water for Elephants and was rewarded with a solid, well-produced/acted/directed drama.  It’s not a great film, but it’s really rather good.