"Seabiscuit" Out of the Gate Slowly

Haven't seen it yet - probably this week.

Jeff Bridges has never won an Oscar, but has been nominated 4 times: for Best Supporting Actor in Last Picture Show, Thunderbolt & Lightfoot, and The Contender, and for Best Actor in Starman.

I think this could be his time and the competition could be within the same film! So far.

I saw Seabiscuit and thought it a great movie. I agree that Bridges is going to be at least nominated for an Oscar. He played a sweet man and a man of strong character and he made it stick. When faced with gloom, despair, death, or life, he always chose life. When it comes to sweetness, "a little more than a little is (usually) by much too much," but Bridges brought it off.

Glad you enjoyed the film -- what was your favorite scene or sequence in the film, Haz?

The jockey in the film was hurt in a real life race over the week end. His horse spooked and threw him right at the finish line.

Interesting news -- real life being imitated by art and then being imitated by real life!

Theme: Faith in the underdog & in the wounded


What I liked was not so much any particular scene as it was the faith in the underdog theme of the movie. Chris Cooper saved a wounded horse from being put down, and when asked why by Bridges, he replied something like, "You don't end a whole life just because of a wound." That fit in with Bridges philosophy and the two of them became partners, inseparably. Once Cooper picked Seabiscuit, a horse with problems but with spirit, he and Bridges never wavered, well, practically never wavered, in their faith in the horse. Cooper picked Toby McGuire as jocky because he thought he had spirit to match the horse. He never wavered until McGuire lost a race and revealed he was blind in one eye. Cooper wanted to jetison him for the lie. Bridges reminded Cooper of his own words that you don't destroy a whole life because of a wound. Cooper saw the point. Later, when Seabiscuit won the race against War Admiral, Bridges felt vindicated in his faith in the horse and his team, he was deeply satisfied, but he did not glote. Finally, in the last race of the film, with so much at stake, Bridges allowed McGuire to ride the horse, despite the fact that McGuire's leg was so fragile. Again, faith in another human being, and an unwillingness to sacrifice a soul in order to win the cash and the fame.

Bridges values were the glue that held all this together, and yet he comes off as nothing other than a humble loving man. There is no false pride or attitude of "see what depth of character I possess."

It is to Bridges everlasting credit that he could carry it off.

The film defines loyalty and how a family isn't always composed of one's kin. Bridges has always been able to get into the refinement of a character, overriding his own personality. I enjoyed all the performances but his was the lynchpin, the magnet that drew all of it together.

Well the historical inaccuracies DID detract from the movie experience, for me anyway. The movie should've been about the horse, imo.

Which inaccuracies did you find were a distraction?
Why do you think the filmmakers made those changes and were those changes in the book?

Well I guess to ensure it became a film of mass appeal which isn't a bad thing to perhaps spark the interest of the non horse person in racing

The character of Tom Smith was softened, and War Admiral's owner Samuel Riddle came across as a man with a great rapport with the media which was not the case. Red Pollard's wife was non-existent in the film. There was no reason to describe War Admiral as being 18h (which is ludicrous). The chart of the '40 santa anita in the film isn't even comparible to the actual race. The movie jumps from his loss to Rosemont in the Santa Anita to his campaign for a match race with War Admiral. No other races were shown or acknowledged until the match race, when in reality, Seabiscuit ran 22 times in between those two races, including another defeat in the Santa Anita Handicap. In fact, when Seabiscuit lost to Rosemont, he had only won a handful of minor stakes at Detroit, Empire City, and Bay Meadows. There also was not any mention of Kayak ll in the final scene, Howard's other horse. Lastly, there was no mention of the multiple serious riding accidents Red incurred over his career with SeaBiscuit.

Mind you, I could be nitpicking because I'm a bit of racing buff heh.

Other than the film being six hours long following your lead, I didn't see a general rapport between Riddle and the media (they just showed up and stuck microphones in his face). The film was about the people who brought out the best in a racehorse, not just about a racehorse. I saw these same deviations and have mentioned them elsewhere including the trainer, Tom Smith being a notorious alcholic who often didn't show up for races. That alone would be a subject of an entirely different film and would likely throw the who equilibrium of the film off. The lack of any mention of Red Pollard's wife was a little more puzzling except that they would have been obligated to include more scenes including some dialogue which the writer apparantly thought would distract from the momentum of the film.

BTW, there just isn't any Hollywood historical film which sticks to the record. One either forgives them (as I can manage to do with, for instance, "Spartacus") because of dramatic license or not, demanding that such films be faithful documentaries. I'd like to see Ken Burns tackle horse racing!

LW

Phar Lap was kept quite accurate.

What is "quite accurate?" Does that infer there are still some inaccuracies? "Phar Lap" is watchable in cinematic terms but not nearly as powerful as "Seabiscuit." The Seabiscuit story is an extremely complex one in comparison to the more simple story of "Phar Lap." Where "Seabiscuit" will likely be the first film to be in the Oscar nominations and I believe it deserves it, "Phar Lap" is one of those family films that I found less inspirational than, say, "National Velvet."

Now if someone would produce a documentary beginning perhaps just before "Man of War" and through "Secretariat," that would be highly watchable.

Simple story of Phar Lap?????

A horse who won 37 of 51 starts, carried more weight than any horse in melbourne at the time, was almost killed by a drive by shooting and went on to win the melbourne cup the very day he was almost shot, travelled to mexico with a severe injury to his hoof via sea and managed to win in record time there, with a sudden death in 32 at a spring chicken age of 4 is a simple story line??!!?!?!?

There ARE documentaries on horses pre - Man O'War to Secretariat.

In fact there are heroes of today worthy of that kind of respect and coverage : Xtra Heat, Ipi Tombe, Azeri**, Hallowed Dreams, Sunline.

I didn't say "Simple story of Phar Lap." I said it was a more simple story despite the shooting and the few scenerios you're citing. The Seabiscuit story was filmed before in 1949 and as a TV documentary this year. Seems someone considers the story to be more important, perhaps for marketing as it is a U.S. story and you know how Hollywood deals with that. I apologize for them in ignoring even Seabiscuit up until now as the 1949 film was from, of all places, the UK. That production was not particularly accurate, either.

I was searching for documentaries on horse racing on DVD or VHS and couldn't find any. Any titles?

Perhaps with the success of "Seabiscuit," Hollywood, Australia or Canada film companies will decide to make films on other famous race horses. You might consider writing a screenplay with your knowledge of the subject.

Or maybe not -- "Seabiscuit" is just barely at 90M which by this time would not be considered a hit. The public's interest in a horse racing film dispite the cheering and applause I heard in the theater I was in is not being spiked by this film. It's released early enough that winning the Oscar is not going to help it. I guess they didn't want to put it up against the films later this year like the final part of "The Lord of the Rings," figuring it might get buried in the onslaught. Too bad, it's a great film in the old Hollywood tradition -- I suppose they should have included Red's wife with some juicy sex scenes?

Wen, you like horse racing movies, so you got a great one with lots of heart in Seabiscuit. The demand for total historical accuracy is hopeless. If they had made the movie fifteen hours long, they couldn't have gotten it all in and historical purists would still be able to say, "Yeah, but they left out the part about..." Movies like this one are focusing on the character of the people and what they meant to each other as they went through these experiences. It all has to be telescoped into an hour or so.

I gotta say, I loved this one.

Of course, it was highlights of "Seabiscuit" and reading the book will fill one in on many of the details. The film had a controlled momentum which gave it suspense and time to concentrate on what the characters each felt about the horse and each other. Leaving out Red's getting married was very wise -- was she to just pop up or would there be a soap operish wedding scene? The film avoided all the soap opera motifs and had the necessary drama with a lot of feeling for the characters. The horse racing scenes are spectacular with a presence very close to actually being close up at the track.