Shitbiscuit

So, as I wrote yesterday, Emily were planning to watch Seabiscuit on DVD. Being the go-getters we are, we followed through with these plans.

Fuckin A', was that movie a disappointment. The reactments of the horse races were cool, but that is about it. The narrative was disjointed and if you didn't read the book, there are about 12 story lines you missed.

It also really irks me when movies alter the narrative of a book or historical figure all in the name of a happy ending. John Ford first did it with The Grapes of Wrath because he wanted a "USA ROX!" ending rather than Steibeck's populist theme. Because of Ford's switcharoo with the book's and his movie's ending, his Grapes of Wrath and Steibeck's Grapes of Wrath are too very different works of art (though both masterpieces).

Shitbiscuit, the movie, ends with the jockey Red Pollard riding Seabiscuit to victory in the "Hundred Grander," talking about how Seabiscuit changed all parties involved for the better. Each charachter had his human frailties and this horse helped each charachter overcome his own deamons.

Well, Seabiscuit the book actually bothered to throw in an epilogue. Turns out Red died a poor, arthritic drunk. If Shitbiscuit weren't so fucking simplistic, it could have made room for guys like Red who never could overcome his deamons, despite the life and inspiration Seabiscuit gave him.

My point isn't so much that Shitbiscuit was a bad movie or to reinforce the old cliche that the book is always better than the movie. Rather, I am just getting a pet peeve off my chest. There are some adequate to good movies with really inaccurate portrayals of historical events. Shitbiscuit can join Dances With Wolves, Wyatt Earp and Mississippi Burning in this list of movies that piss me off for forsaking history in the name of either an uplifiting story, or charachters we can sympathize with.