Review XCIX - Watership Down

Review XCIX
Watership Down (1978)

Hello everyone! I'm back and here to review a film you may have heard of. Remember when Donnie Darko was one of those cool films? One of those kind of weird films? Well, now I know films like Qui êtes-vous, Polly Maggoo? (don't watch it - it's bad), so Donnie Darko is really just typical American bullshit now. I say this after thinking the film was god-send when I was a teenager. Anyway, remember that scene with where they discuss that film there and Donnie's like screw the rabbits? I'm going to talk about the film they watched, Martin Rosen's animated film Watership Down, based on the awesome book by Richard Adams. And I really liked that book. I even read it again before watching the film for the first time so I could compare. And yes, it isn't fair, but the 1978 version of Watership Down is considered a classic, so I wanted to be especially critique-y about it.

Fiver (voiced by Richard Briers) has a vision one day that the warren he lives in will be destroyed. His brother, Hazel (John Hurt), is quick to believe him, but unfortunately the Chief Rabbit (Ralph Richardson) does not listen to their warnings, so they gather a group of rabbits to head off and face the storm. They include Bigwig (Michael Graham Cox), Blackberry (Simon Cadell), Pipkin (Roy Kinnear), Silver (Terence Rigby), Dandelion (Richard O'Callaghan), and Violet (no voice actress so you know she dies early on). The group will face new dangers with only Frith and El-ahrairah on their side.

All right, so, the film was very 70s. This doesn't mean it's a bad thing, but given it's animated, you can really feel it's dated in the techniques used. However, I still liked it. The story is about rabbits, so it's only dated in terms of the animation quality - otherwise, I think any child could understand the film. But by god is the violence real. People talk about The Lion King and the death of the dad (Mufasa was his name? I dunno. I didn't grow up with the movie and I didn't like The Lion King when I saw it). Guys. Watership Down takes it to a whole new level. The field covered in blood? That's only the beginning. There's blood and death all around this film - it's crazy. And that's why, while the book could probably be read to a child of six or seven, I'd wait to show them the movie. I could see a six-year-old crying in fear after this film. Maybe I'd be too soft a parent, but damn, guys, this film is violent. But I like it for that. It doesn't sugar coat anything. It shows the savagery of animals - including humans - and really puts death in your face. I mean, the book does it too, but when a child is that young, they might have an active imagination, but the details of DEATH might escape them. Anyway, violence aside, I didn't mind the film. I hated what they did to Kehaar (Zero Mostel... Now I understand), making him just some comic relief (as expected given the voice actor), and I was kind of sad that they took out some details, but I had to be realistic in my expectations given the film is a little less than an hour and a half and the book is almost 400 pages (my edition was, anyway. Either way, long!). They really did do their best to include all details from the book, just changing things around a bit. So really, the film did a good job of adapting the book. I would have liked to hear more from the characters, but again, if you're looking for the full story, go to the book. And as a stand-alone, the film was good. It was hopeful, cute, violent, and heroic. Hazel was awesome, Fiver was cute, Pipkin had the deepest voice and that was totally unexpected (I laughed every time, you have no idea)... It works. There's something to be said for it. And if you're interested, I'd say go for it. I had a good time, even though I balled my eyes out. I guess some things never change, even as an adult.

"But wait!" you say. "Is Donnie right? Are the rabbits not representing people?" Richard Adams, the author, claimed the book was about rabbits and nothing else, i.e. there were no political statements being made by the book. This gets more debatable. I've heard the argument countless times that maybe the author didn't mean for the pipe to be a penis (Freud), maybe we just assume that it has a deeper meaning. And that can be true. Still, though, I find it much more fulfilling to get more out of a story than just a superficial layer. And in fact, I think good authors can try and do that. Look at Stanley Kubrick and how deep his films can be. He is for sure trying to do something more with his films, and it's something he even seems to encourage. While some won't really want to look deeper than just, "He killed her with the penis-shaped statue" (I'm on a phallic roll here!), if it's something that interests you, why not? If you see something more and it helps you understand something, why not? And if the story is just entertaining to you, then why not? It goes either way. Maybe the rabbits represent us, maybe they don't. I leave it up to you (but you're wrong if you think differently than me).

Bottom line, Watership Down is a fun film, short, sweet yet bitter, and worth a watch if you're looking for something... different. It is violent, so I wouldn't advise it for young children. But what do I know? And the book? Read it. I don't care how old you are - read it. It was so fun.