 |
| Gregory Peck in Moby Dick |
Welcome to Alternative to What: a weekly column that tries to find a great alternative to driving to the multiplexes. Based on releases of that week, the selections will either be thematically related or feature recurring cast and crew. The goal is to help you better understand the diversity of cinema and hopefully find you some favorites while saving a few bucks. At worse, this column will save you money. Expect each installment to come out on Fridays, unless specified.
THIS WEEK:
Moby Dick (1956)
- Alternative To -
In the Heart of the Sea (2015)
It is hard to get around one of the dullest trends in movies: reboots and spin-offs. Basically, if there's anything that has any relationship to anything else, it's likely to be the basis of its own movie. For many, In the Heart of the Sea likely just looks to be another action packed sea voyage movie in which a crew of men fight whales. There's no denying that even having Ron Howard directing offers something of an intrigue to the whole endeavor. However, there's something that's immediately shallow and obnoxious about the film to those willing to do their research. This is the story that inspired Herman Melville's whaling classic "Moby Dick." Wait a minute, why is the story that inspired "Moby Dick" more worthy of an adaptation than "Moby Dick" itself? Explain yourself, as this seems like a shallow concept that was merely done in order to get around infringement clauses that I am not aware of.
Yes, "Moby Dick" is an iconic piece of literature, even if its legacy suggests it to be a dull story. I have no commentary on whether or not this is true. However, I do think that if you're going to go see a movie that shares a relationship to "Moby Dick," why not just see a Moby Dick instead? It makes far more sense than basically seeing where a writer gets his ideas from, albeit in what is either a sensationalized fashion, or a dull as nails alternative. Whatever In the Heart of the Sea offers, it's likely not as exciting to the fictional, sensationalized story that's full of rich subtext and interesting characters. I'm not saying that In the Heart of the Sea can be good. I'm mostly saying that it's not likely to be great.
Let's move on to Moby Dick, specifically the 1956 edition by director John Huston. Having made such adventure films as The African Queen, he's a trustworthy name for those who like older cinema that isn't quite prestigious or at all vapid. If anything, it manages to do a rather entertaining job of turning the journey of whalers into a captivating story. While I cannot comment on its accuracy to the book, I can say that what Huston has here is something that is immediately captivating and makes for good cinema. You fall into the cabin of its passengers and are immediately enthralled by their exploits.
Yes, "Moby Dick" is an iconic piece of literature, even if its legacy suggests it to be a dull story. I have no commentary on whether or not this is true. However, I do think that if you're going to go see a movie that shares a relationship to "Moby Dick," why not just see a Moby Dick instead? It makes far more sense than basically seeing where a writer gets his ideas from, albeit in what is either a sensationalized fashion, or a dull as nails alternative. Whatever In the Heart of the Sea offers, it's likely not as exciting to the fictional, sensationalized story that's full of rich subtext and interesting characters. I'm not saying that In the Heart of the Sea can be good. I'm mostly saying that it's not likely to be great.
Let's move on to Moby Dick, specifically the 1956 edition by director John Huston. Having made such adventure films as The African Queen, he's a trustworthy name for those who like older cinema that isn't quite prestigious or at all vapid. If anything, it manages to do a rather entertaining job of turning the journey of whalers into a captivating story. While I cannot comment on its accuracy to the book, I can say that what Huston has here is something that is immediately captivating and makes for good cinema. You fall into the cabin of its passengers and are immediately enthralled by their exploits.
At the center is an amazing performance by Gregory Peck. Known as playing the stern leader types, Peck takes on the role of Captain Ahab: a ship captain who is dead set on achieving his goals, even if it kills him. What makes the performance work is that he is both aggressive and menacing while also being poised. There's a professionalism to him that's definitely admirable. However, you're willing to go along with his exploits because you can believe that underneath everything, there's a passion lurking that is a flawed system inside all of us. It's a great performance from a great actor who gave many great performances. If anything, the acclaim around this performance is understated when compared to his more prestigious work. Even Peck liked his work in a Moby Dick miniseries from later. However, his work here with Huston is superb and worthy of carrying the movie - even though everyone else is no slouch.
The question is if In the Heart of the Sea is even halfway capable of having something that matches the enthusiasm of a Moby Dick story. It is baffling how this true story is exactly supposed to be riveting cinema. It could be something far removed from the fiction that spawned from it. However, even the peril feels predictable, largely because the writer clearly survived. I know little about Melville's life, but it was probably best remembered through literature. I could be wrong. I'd like to be wrong. However, I still don't understand why there needed to be In the Heart of the Sea when it's been a few years since the last good "Moby Dick" adaptation.
The question is if In the Heart of the Sea is even halfway capable of having something that matches the enthusiasm of a Moby Dick story. It is baffling how this true story is exactly supposed to be riveting cinema. It could be something far removed from the fiction that spawned from it. However, even the peril feels predictable, largely because the writer clearly survived. I know little about Melville's life, but it was probably best remembered through literature. I could be wrong. I'd like to be wrong. However, I still don't understand why there needed to be In the Heart of the Sea when it's been a few years since the last good "Moby Dick" adaptation.
Comments
Post a Comment