Black Beauty

Back when there were no computers, long hours when there was often "nothing on" television worth watching (still true, by the way) made you search the library to look for some interesting books to read. My mother had Anna Sewell's "Black Beauty" on the shelf, but it didn't appeal to someone more interested in Tolkien and Twain. Horses were fun to ride, but could you do that in a book? Teenage boredom finally forced open the pages of "Black Beauty", and the horse was out of the barn. The story was immediately captivating because Ms. Sewell creates a wonderful animal character, and tells the story from the horse's point-of-view.

And, you believed it.

Now, you don't. In this adaptation, the all-important personality of the horse "Black Beauty" is almost non-existent, and the story is altered extensively - it really only vaguely resembles the original novel. Paramount filmmakers might have tried a "narration" to evoke some of the original's "first person" narrative, but they didn't. The animal's personality could still come through (as it does with "Lassie" and other animals), but it doesn't. So, we are left with a human protagonist, cute Mark Lester (as Joe Evans), who doesn't seem all that engaged in the role, and doesn't horse around for long. Chris Menges' photography is quite nice, though.

***** Black Beauty (4/71) James Hill ~ Mark Lester, Patrick Mower, Uschi Glas, Peter Lee Lawrence

I don't think a horse has seen so much violence.

Black Beauty, the name of the horse and the movie, is a horse that lived a very full life. He (I believe it's a he) was passed from owner to owner where he was witness to man's worse behavior. He suffered abuse and witnessed about three battles of varying sizes. Fortunately, at times, he was treated to some tender care.

The movie is really a series of mini-movies compiled into one feature length film with the horse as the only constant. Each time Black Beauty moves on we're privy to a new plot, new climax, and new resolution. I think the mini-episodes were simply OK on average. Truly, the only thing going for this movie would be the beautiful horse. Besides, t's not like the horse had any say in the script. Shoot! He didn't even have any say on whether or not he wanted to be in a movie!

I'm slightly shocked at a few reviews who imply that this film remains in any way faithful to Anna Sewell's excellent book. It absolutely does NOT. Nothing remains of the book but a few character names and the fact that Beauty is black with a white blaze on his forehead. It's misleading to even associate Sewell's name with this movie. It's quite obvious that several reviewers have either forgotten everything they ever knew about the book, or (more likely) never read it at all. If you are looking for a movie version of the book to watch, look elsewhere.

So, it's just a film about the life of a horse, and as such, it is so-so. The beginning of the movie does have some beautiful shots, set as it is in the British countryside somewhere. But it pretty much goes downhill after that, becoming a series of vignettes about Black Beauty's various owners, with little in the way of real depth, and even less focus on the horse himself.

It's reasonably entertaining for a rainy day. Older children would likely enjoy it most. I am personally unlikely to watch it again, and will be checking out the other versions in the hopes of finding something resembling a reasonably faithful adaptation.

Most of the reviewers giving this movie a low rating do so because they don't think it followed the original book. I didn't read the book, but watched the movie. It was fine, with action, adventure, some violence, humor and sadness. Even a touch of romance. So anyone reading this who has not read the book or seen the movie yet, it's good entertainment, but probably not for real young children. For those who have read the book, don't judge the movie on your misguided thinking that movies have to mimic the book. They can be different and both be good.

This is a movie that can be looked at one of two ways. You can look at it as an adaptation of Anna Sewell's classic novel, or you can look at it as a story about a bunch of people who all happen to own the same horse. I'll do both.

As an adaptation of the novel this movie disappoints terribly. The plot bears almost no relation to the original story. Classic characters like John Manly, Reuben Smith, and Jerry Barker are cut out completely. New characters are often shallow and one-dimensional. Ginger, one of the most important horses in the story, acting as a foil for Black Beauty and with her own heart-wrenching story is turned into a gelding, given about three seconds of screen time and has no involvement in the actual story. The plot, particularly the ways in which Beauty passes from owner to owner, often seems contrived. On more than one occasion Beauty is simply standing around in the middle of nowhere and someone comes along and finds him. Other times he performs some heroic deed which would merit his owners deciding to keep him forever and the next thing we know he's being sold again. While the novel deeply explores the society of the time and the effects of that society (for better or for worse) on both the humans and the animals this movie disregards that aspect entirely. It portrays some rather stereotypical views. Worse, some of the bad guys are just that: bad guys with no depth or personality. Take for instance the young squire who is cruel for no reason and loves to hurt horses just for the fun of it.

As a movie with complete disregard to the book it isn't half bad. The story as it is presented here is not about the horse; it is about all the different people who own the horse. Beauty isn't a character so much as he is a plot device. If you don't mind the focus shifting from animal to human it is an enjoyable sequence of stories. I stand by what I said earlier about many of the characters being one-dimensional, but when the entire cast is reviewed as a whole it displays a wide range of personalities and backgrounds. There is a good balance between kind and cruel owners. Pacing was fairly good. The movie had a nice balance with enough action but not too much. Cinematography was very nice. Many of the shots of the countryside were beautifully done (if occasionally somewhat overdone). Most of the stories were fairly standard plots (a decent farmer at the mercy of a heartless bank, young lovers forbidden from meeting) but some, such as the circus family were rather creative and even the recycled plots were well done. Acting was good overall.

My conclusion: A good animal and people story, but if you want something closer to the source watch the 1994 version.