Water for Elephants (2011)

Water for Elephants is a recession-era film about a depression-era circus. Economics factor into both the story and its filming. Discerning viewers may palpably sense the budgetary considerations behind the scenes as the studio’s money men worked hard to protect their investment in the project. If they had to cut some corners with, say, production design or supporting characters, presumably they were justified by the expense of re-creating a period 80 years distant, as well as the salaries of the film’s stars. The result is like a damaged old photograph further marred by a large sore thumb in the middle. And that thumb’s name is Robert Pattinson.

A present-day framing setup (featuring Hal Holbrook and Paul Schneider from TV’s Parks and Recreation) leads into the story of Jacob (Pattinson), a veterinary student about to graduate from Cornell in 1931 when he’s suddenly orphaned and left without a home or money since it all went toward his tuition–“Maybe you shouldn’t have gone to college,” the foreclosing banker tells him. Hitting the road on his own two feet like many folks did during the Great Depression, he soon hops aboard what turns out to be a circus train.

Warily accepted at first by the roustabouts, Jacob proves he can shovel animal crap and work the crowds as well as any of them. Then he is introduced to the dictatorial ringmaster, August (Christoph Waltz), who initially dismisses him but admires his education, veterinary background, and chutzpah in defying the boss over the treatment of a horse in his star act, which also features the boss’s wife, Marlena (Reese Witherspoon). August soon acquires a new potential star act and drawing card, a semi-trained elephant named Rosie, and what develops is a quadrangle of love, jealousy, and violence between the college boy, the angelic-looking wife, the seething and ruthless husband, and the elephant. Don’t discount the elephant from the equation, as he’s ultimately more vital to the story than Jacob, and with stronger screen presence too.

I don’t intend to bash the whole Twilight phenomenon here; I admit that I’ve never read any of the books, and so far I’ve avoided seeing the movies. Vampire stories rarely attract my enthusiasm, although I thought Let the Right One In and its American remake Let Me In were both exceptionally good. But I want to be fair and not cast aspersions merely on the basis of an actor’s previous participation in something I’ve never watched. I know that Mr. Pattinson’s star has risen thanks to his role in the Twilight films, he’s obviously the main drawing card here, he’s in nearly every scene, and likely one of the largest line items on the film’s budget. He probably cost a lot, but it’s a trade-off by the studio to hopefully sell more tickets to the teenybopper demographic.

The problem is that Pattinson is a terrible actor in this film. He displays almost no emotional range, particularly in scenes that deserve some degree of an emotive response, like when he has to identify his own dead parents in the morgue. The only time he displays anything close to charm or screen charisma is when he’s completely covered in gunk by the other circus workers having fun with him. Otherwise, he’s as stiff as lumber, going through the mechanics of each scene with the slope-browed expressionlessness of an Easter Island statue. His awkward romantic scenes with Reese Witherspoon reminded me of how the studly hero of Tangled attempts to woo Rapunzel by “turning on the smolder.” Pattinson’s “smolder” leads to one of the most boring sex scenes ever filmed. There is no chemistry whatsoever between the two participants.

What makes Pattinson’s screen weakness even more pronounced is that he’s completely outshone by his co-stars. Witherspoon and Waltz have both won Oscars, and their skills are obviously superior when juxtaposed with Pattinson on screen. Reese seems to be very comfortable working with the animals and particularly adept with the elephant. She also seems to light up when sharing the screen with Waltz, even when he’s being abusive–but that could just be the lighting crew, which gives her a backlit halo through her blonde hair for almost every shot. Waltz delivers another role of grinning menace, somewhat like his role in Inglourious Basterds; his accent strays a bit, but I’ll give him credit for trying as a multilingual European actor, and it’s certainly a better performance than his clownish turn in The Green Hornet. And as for Pattinson’s four-legged co-star, he must have missed the old adage about never performing with kids or animals, because the elephant completely upstages him, even at the dramatic climax.

So with all the emphasis and expense on two Oscar-winning actors, a hot hunk du jour, and a talented elephant, other production aspects seem to have gotten short shrift. All other characters in the circus are nearly ignored, with no real connection made with any of them. The circus scenes look like they were shot on the same day, in the same location, although it’s supposed to be a traveling circus. The train sequences make it appear that the same stretch of track was used over and over. Apart from one brief moment when the train passes a camp of down-and-out workers, there’s a studious avoidance of displaying the poverty of the time, or even 1930s architecture. It’s all backlot sets and stuff pulled from the studio costume and props departments. It looks cheap and undetailed.

The story is predictable, it drags on and on before reaching the climax, and it’s lamely manipulative to cater to the tween-girl target, especially those who love animals. But it’s Pattinson’s miscast presence that really brings Water for Elephants down to a dull, forgettable exercise. Next time, the studio should save money and make a movie about just the elephant. I bet he works for peanuts.