The pinnacle of Hollywood tomfoolery

Rating: Null/10 (13 August 2003)

I remember a Three Stooges short where whenever Curley would see cheese, he would freak out and the only way to calm him down was to rub a tassel under his chin. Never mind the fact that I enjoyed that more than Seabiscuit, I was struck that in much the same way it seems writer/director/producer/Clinton speech writer Gary Ross thinks he can keep his audience from revolting by using slick cinematography and Irish penny whistles in the movie Seabiscuit.
This movie is cheese, but it's tricky little tassels did not fool me or calm me down. I use the term 'movie' loosely, as one would in regards to a two hour political commercial. "Their candidate wants to kill your pets with a giant knife! Our candidate wants to give everybody a hug and free money." I was eager to see this film going in; I thought the trailer looked fantastic, I enjoy sentimental feel good films, if done well, the cast was great, wonderful story etc... But halfway through Seabiscuit, mind you, not knowing who made the film, I leaned over to the person with me and said, "was this directed by Bill Clinton?" When I got home I looked it up. I was close, one of his speech writers. That Seabiscuit is not panned across the board is a tragic sign at how effective the media has become at lulling people, especially it's own, into a false sense of superiority. I mean that. Many a demagogue has taken advantage of such weaknesses.
This is NOT a good movie. It is hardly even a movie. It is a set of images and messages, most unrelated and pointless, meant to stimulate your feel good senses like a political speech. The true story of Seabiscuit is one of the most inspiring movie ideas in decades. It is almost a guaranteed hit. Almost. Leave it to Spielberg's buddies (producers) Kathleen Kennedy and Frank Marshall to drop the ball. Can you say "Congo"? I know this sounds snobby, and I hate snobs, but this film can only be enjoyed by the very simple. I'm not talking about Capra-corn like simple, my favorite film is It's a Wonderful Life, I'm talking about Rambo III like simple. Independence Day simple. Propaganda simple. I present the following to make my case:
Exhibit A: The screenplay: it stunk. Ross wrote it. In lieu of possible elements like, oh, say  character development? he uses a narrator. On a side note, Ross foolishly employs David McCullough from Ken Burns epic civil war series. This made the film feel like it couldn't make up its mind whether it was a documentary or a feature film. (Back to the horrible writing) Using a narrator was nothing more than a diversion to cover up the fact that Ross couldn't convert the information in the best selling book to dialog. Every time the narrator spoke it took you out of the movie and made you think of the documentary. It did not fit with this format. Here's a thought, Gary, have the characters or action explain the story.. Imagine if a similar film, say Rocky, had a narrator.
Exhibit B: Pacing: most of the scenes, especially in the beginning, were choppy and too fast. As mentioned, the narration also ruins the pace. Is this the editors fault? I don't know, but it drove me crazy. Not that good pacing will fix a story that isn't making sense.
Exhibit C: Directing: many of the characters show confusing emotions for unexplained reasons, except, perhaps, to manipulate gullible audience members. At any rate, much of the emotions make no sense. A good example of this is the "poetry at the dinner table" scene. It is downright laughable. Red's mother told his father Red needed to earn a horse, not just be given one. So the father makes young Red earn his horse by reciting a poem from memory, which he cannot do. The father finishes the poem for Red and suddenly everyone at the table is cheering and Red gets his horse. What? Did I miss something here? If you don't think about it, however, it doesn't matter.
Exhibit D: Story line: It had too many, a problem that seems to plague modern film making. Pick a storyline and stick with it. It's like the clowns that make Dumbo jump from the elephants, "If 40 feet was funny, 80 feet will be twice as funny!" So far as I can tell there were no less than five story lines in Seabiscuit.
Exhibit E: Cinematography: Stunning, like in one of those fancy orange juice commercials. In fact, too good. Too perfect, too contrived, too Pepperidge Farms (fancy commercial in the US). It was obvious it was there for me to admire, not to communicate the story.
Exhibit F:Soundtrack: I found the soundtrack to be inappropriate to the action. From the beginning it felt like I was watching the ending of the movie. Obvious, sappy, manipulative and annoying. I expected a slow-motion pan of an Indian crying while trash is thrown from cars.
Closing arguments: This film's failure can be summed up by it's 'chock-full-o' style imagery. There were too many pointless close ups of cool looking props. I felt like I was watching a gay rodeo. Certain shots seemed to be included for no other reason than that they looked cool. Never mind the fact that it creates a red herring for the viewer. But apparently, if peoples positive comments on the IMDb can be trusted, making sense is not high on anyone's priority list. I therefore ask the jury to find the defendant, Gary Ross, guilty of crappy film making and that Seabiscuit be given the maximum punishment of a 1 (awful) rating.