The challenge of adapting a novel into a screenplay is two-fold. One must please the audience with a story that resonates well on screen while gratifying fans of the book.
Richard LaGravenese, the writer who adapted Sara Gruen’s New York Times bestseller, “Water for Elephants,” into a feasible screenplay, succeeded. But LaGravenese is just one ingredient to the success of “Water for Elephants.” Led by veteran actress Reese Witherspoon and “Twilight” heartthrob Robert Pattinson, “Elephants” is a visual and emotional triumph.
Set in the Great Depression, “Water for Elephants” begins with Jacob Jankowski (Pattinson), one test away from graduating from Cornell University’s veterinary school, until he becomes devastated by the death of his parents in a car accident. Jacob quits school and jumps on the first train he sees, which turns out to be the famed Benzini Brothers Circus check name. After becoming the circus vet, he quickly falls in love with the gorgeous performer Marlena (Witherspoon).
Little seems to be lost in the translation to the big screen. The magic and wonder of a bygone era so carefully crafted by Gruen is remarkably depicted by director Francis Lawrence. But the same charm and emotional pull as the book is lacking.
Unfortunately, corners must be cut with a movie adaptation, and minor details and information were left out, leaving a fan of the book craving just a little more. For instance, Jacob in his older age is not given enough screen time compared to a regular presence in the book.
Another major concern for many moviegoers, “Twilight” fans and naysayers alike, was Pattinson taking the screen for a completely different kind of literary adaptation than the one he is most known for. Pattinson plays Jacob with the same wide-eyed nervousness and excitement on screen that defined his character on the pages of the book.
Certainly the most concrete performance was by Cristoph Waltz, who played August, the schizophrenic owner of the Benzini Brothers and husband of Marlena. Waltz stormed into Hollywood after his Oscar-winning role in “Inglourious Basterds,” and he hasn’t slowed down. Waltz had possibly the hardest acting task of the movie, portraying someone who can be inviting and loving one minute, then conniving and livid the next.
Acting aside, the most vital part of the movie was making sure the viewer got the feel of actually being in a 1930s circus. A large portion of the scenes were set in the railcars, and the sense of confined and overcrowded railcars was well-depicted.
The authenticity was not restrained to just the train. Sweeping landscapes, faded canvas tents and a medley of rare animals such as elephants and lions, and performers held the screen with tenacity.
Undoubtedly, “Water for Elephants” is Witherspoon’s best performance since “Walk the Line,” continues to prove Waltz is one of the best actors alive, and is a turning point for Pattinson, demonstrating he has acting chops fit for more than just a vampire.
Fans of the book will be left desiring just a little more, but solid acting and wonderful cinematography make “Water for Elephants” stand out in a wave of summer blockbusters.
B
