Hidalgo Review

I frankly don't see a lot of westerns that I am truly enthralled by. They tend to be formulaic and come a dime a dozen. On the occasion that I do find a western that I enjoy, I usually like it a lot. In the case of Hidalgo (2004), I thought it was a really fun story that goes outside of the usual western setting of the western wilds of the United States and into the Middle East. It's far from perfect, but it hits the right notes.

Held yearly for centuries, the Ocean of Fire--a 3,000 mile survival race across the Arabian desert--was a challenge restricted to the finest Arabian horses ever bred, the purest and noblest lines, owned by the greatest royal families. In 1890, wealthy Sheik Riyadh (Omar Sharif) invited an American, Frank T. Hopkins (Viggo Mortensen), and his horse to enter the race for the first time. During the course of his career, Hopkins was a cowboy and dispatch rider for the U.S. cavalry--and had once been billed as the greatest rider the West had ever known. The Sheik puts his claim to the test, pitting the American cowboy and his mustang, Hidalgo, against the world's greatest Arabian horses and Bedouin riders--some of whom are determined to prevent a foreigner from finishing the race. For Frank, the Ocean of Fire becomes not only a matter of pride and honor, but a race for his very survival as he and his horse attempt the impossible.

So, Frank Hopkins himself was a real person who was known as a legendary distance rider, claimed to have won four hundred races, and was recognized by his contemporaries as supporting the preservation of the mustang breed of horse. His life and story were the inspiration for Hidalgo, and Disney marketed the film as "based on a true story," although subsequent investigations have failed to find any evidence of such a race. Hopkins was known for telling exaggerated stories about himself, even claiming that he was born in 1865, which also was never backed up with any proof. History buffs who care about accuracy are probably going to get all bent out of shape many times in this movie. It should be abundantly clear this is a made up story for the sake of telling a fun story.

And what a fun story it is! There's lots of gunplay, horse racing, saving damsels in distress, outrunning a sandstorm, swordplay, political intrigue, clashes of cultures, and outwitting scoundrels. On the one hand, the story is formulaic and does a lot of things that other westerns do. But on the other hand, I think it does a lot of these formulaic elements very well and shows us some good examples of these sorts of elements. I don't want to praise the movie as unique simply for being a western that is mostly set in Middle East, but that is what it is and I can't think of another movie that has done that.

This adds some interesting aspects to the movie; rather than clashing or fighting with Native Americans, we're clashing and fighting with Sheiks and Arabs. That's not a huge change of pace, just a different people and culture. Unlike older westerns which demonize Native Americans, the Middle Easterners here are depicted as honorable people with a rich tradition who happen to have some unscrupulous individuals who violate and make exception to those honorable values and traditions for their own personal gain. So, pretty much like every culture out there. As I have little experience with that part of the world I can't comment on the accuracy of their depiction in this movie, and I hope the historical accuracy is not an indicator if cultural accuracy.

This isn't just a western, it's also a horse movie. Horse enthusiasts will likely be enthralled by the relationship between Hopkins and his horse, Hidalgo. The main horse and Viggo Mortensen actually have a chemistry between them. Mortensen liked and got along with that horse so well that he later bought the horse. There are some great lines in the movie that are perfectly "western" and perfectly "horse movie." The damsel in distress asks Hopkins "Why do I feel that you truly see me when others do not?" to which Hopkins replies, "Well, my horse likes ya." Classic.

Whether or not the events depicted in Hidalgo really happened to Hopkins, it's still a fun story. Please ignore any tiresome scolds who complain that the movie is not really based on fact. I mean, duh. The story is full of some likable characters, plenty of action, a search for identity and honor, and some pretty impressive horses. If there's a downside to any of this, I'm not seeing it. Sure, it's formulaic. Yeah, it doesn't stray far from western movie tropes. But it's a fun movie, and I liked it. I recommend seeing this film if you enjoy westerns or simply love horses. Hidalgo is worth having a copy of if you fall in that demographic. It does get rather violent, so it's not something to watch with younger children present.  I already have a copy of this on my shelves; it's fun to take out and watch every now and again.

What's your favorite "horse movie?" Comment below and let me know!

A Dangerous Method Movie Review

As a psychology major, I was psyched to see this movie (forgive the pun). I’ve heard the tale of Sigmund Freud’s and Carl Jung’s diverging theories a good many times over in various psychology classes. Occasionally I have thought it could have potential to be a good biopic movie. A Dangerous Method (2011) was finally released, and I was anxious to see it. When I finally got the chance, turns out it was quite different from what I was expecting.

Suffering from hysteria, Sabina Spielrein (Keira Knightley) is hospitalized under the care of Dr. Carl Jung (Michael Fassbender). Jung has recently begun using the talking cure developed by Dr. Sigmund Freud (Viggo Mortensen) on some of his patients.  Spielrein’s psychological problems are deeply rooted in her childhood and violent father. She is highly intelligent and hopes to become a doctor, and eventually a psychiatrist. Later, Jung receives Otto Gross (Vincent Cassel) as a patient. Gross is a brilliant, promiscuous, and unstable psychoanalyst who prods Jung into the idea of an affair. The married Jung and Spielrein eventually become lovers. Meanwhile, Jung and Freud develop an almost father-son relationship. Freud sees the young Jung as a likely successor and standard-bearer of his theories. A deep rift develops between them when Jung begins to diverge from Freud’s belief that while psychoanalysis can reveal the cause of psychological problems, it cannot cure the patient.

Viggo Mortensen as Sigmund Freud is not a casting decision I would have made. I see him better suited in action roles, like in Lord of the Rings or Hidalgo.  I didn’t even think Mortensen looked the part of Freud. Once I saw A Dangerous Method my doubts were diminished.  Mortensen really does look and sound the part. He’s even smoking a cigar in every scene. Only once in a while did he seem to lapse into dramatic low tone that was more on par with Aragorn than with Freud.

Impressive as Mortensen is, the real credit must be given to Keira Knightley. She grants us a mind-blowing performance that seems to have been influenced by real patients suffering from hysteria. We see psychological fragility coupled with an intellectual toughness, which makes for an interesting character. She’s laughing like a madwoman one moment and frantically crying the next, and contorting her body in defensive positions. Then we see her slowing growing out of that state and into a calm and collected woman as her healing progresses. She played the mental condition so well, it’s disquieting to watch.

The way the story here is presented is not what I was expecting to see. It’s a very dialogue driven story. The dialogue is great and interesting, and you get a feel for Freud’s and Jung’s theories and views. But it’s almost as though most of the actual story was happening between scenes and we are mostly witnessing the characters discussing among themselves the real meat of the story after it happened. The movie does a lot more telling than showing. Granted the story is about the characters and how events affected them, but I would have liked to see more of the events themselves to understand why the characters are affected they way that they are.

There are two really great parts of the movie that are exceptions. The first part of the movie shows us Jung using Freud’s talking cure to help Spielrein. It’s still dialogue driven, but it was fascinating to see Freud’s theory at work. As a psychology major, it was almost like getting to witness the early psychoanalytic process as it was in the early 1900’s. Later we get to see Jung and Freud talking about their views. Freud is advocating the scientific method while Jung is discussing abstract supernatural concepts, and the tension mounts as their views conflict. Here we really see events happening; most other scenes simply talk about events happening.

Freud’s theories revolved a lot around the idea of sexual repression as the source of neurosis. As such, sex is discussed frequently in A Dangerous Method, though generally in an academic sense. There are also several brief sex scenes; you can’t seem make a movie about marital infidelity without them. The sexual content isn’t there to get a reaction from the audience; it really is pertinent to the story. But if you are offended by sexual imagery, discussion, or even partial nudity you may want steer clear of this film. Also because of this content, I wouldn’t recommend showing A Dangerous Method to young viewers.

A Dangerous Method isn’t what I was expecting from a Freud/Jung biopic, but it’s still a good drama. Even the details in costuming, lighting, and cinematography are impressive. If you don’t care for dialogue driven stories you may get bored with it. It would help to know something about psychoanalysis, or at least have an interest in learning, before seeing this movie. It’s a good movie that I think will appeal to only a small group of people, so I don’t recommend buying a copy or seeing it unless you are in that group.

What’s a dramatic movie about psychological problems that you thought was impressive? Comment below and tell me why!