Never Cry Wolf

Rating:
Summary: One of the very best
Review: The first time I saw Never Cry Wolf on the big screen in 1983 is a day I'll never forget. When the credits started rolling and I came back down to earth, I could not remember where I was or what I had done that day up to that point. The film had so overwhelmed me that everything else seemed unimportant, and the film seemed like the only reality. That had never happened before and it's never happened since.

It took me many years and many more viewings to figure out why this film is so extraordinary. For the first 45 minutes or so, Never Cry Wolf is content to be a conventional "Man and Nature" film, with the "natives" being set up in the "noble savage" archetype--they are the ideal, the "good guys," the righteous ones, while White man is evil (except for our hero Tyler). It's a structure that's been used many times, and it's fine. Of course all this is beautifully-filmed and hauntingly beautiful, but the film was still fairly conventional, albeit extremely well-done.

But then it unleashes a surprise, which turns the story on its head. Tyler is talking to Mike, his Inuit friend, one of the "noble" ones, one of the "good guys." Mike reveals that he would like to kill wolves, and explains why. The reasons sound so much like the reasons of "White" man.

This casual revelation stuns Tyler--and us too. The film shatters the "noble savage" archetype in a brief, economic scene. (The penultimate scene, also between Tyler and Mike, which could be considered as an extension of this scene, is equally brief and economical. The script is a masterpiece of understated writing.)

Never Cry Wolf takes the old archetype of civilized man being dropped into nature and finding it a "purer," "richer" existence, and stands it on its head. No doubt Tyler still finds it this way, but he also learns Darwin's oldest rule: survival of the fittest. At the end of the film Tyler tells us he has learned there are no heroes and no villains. Indeed we never find out who is responsible for the film's final act of carnage, and that is one of the film's greatest strengths. This, and Bambi, are the only two Disney films ever made that embrace ambiguity as a dramatic element. For that reason I've always regarded these, and not "Fantasia," as Disney's riskiest--and greatest--films. So many movies make a lot of noise about how they are going to shake up our worlds. This one really does, very quietly. Yet even many of the movie's greatest proponents never seem to latch onto this. Some even see it as a wide-eyed call for conservation. It is actually nothing of the sort.

As others have stated, the music/cinematography/acting/directing are all marvelous. The wolves are well-trained performers--I once had the pleasure of visiting the wildlife preserve where they were living out their "retired days." And the last shot--an ad lib between Charles Martin Smith and Zachary Ittimangnaq, is endearingly sweet, without being sappy in the least. This is film with sentiment, but it is not *sentimental.* It would never get made today. (Seems like I say that about most of my favorite films.)

And that's the reason I *suspect* Disney treats this film very shabbily. It was made the year before Michael Eisner took over the studio. Eisner likes Big Event films. Never Cry Wolf is a small film. Eisner likes fantasy. NCW was based on a true story. Eisner likes stars. NCW has none. Studio chiefs rarely tout the work of their predecessors--if anything, they have an investment in making such work look as poor as possible. Yet it's hard to deny that while Disney has made more popular films since then, it has never made something as, well, deep. The studio today seems to have forgotten about the movie, or wants the world to. On the latest DVD release, except for a small legal notice on the disc itself, you'd be hard-pressed to find proof this is Disney's product at all. The transfer to DVD was farmed out. Even the Disney studio logo at the film's start has been completely lobbed off! (The logo of the company that transferred it to DVD replaces it.)

It's clear Disney wants nothing to do with this film today. Nothing in any of the studio's theme parks, collections of literature, or merchandizing even acknowledge its existence. The DVD has NO extras--not even a theatrical trailer. The Internet Movie Database lists a TV documentary, "The Making of Never Cry Wolf," that surely could have been included. It wasn't. Most upsetting of all, the DVD is *not* enhanced or anamorphic. That means it will look crappy on a high-definition TV. Comparing it to my old VHS copy, it appears the DVD was take from the same print of the film, meaning they probably just dubbed the VHS version to DVD!

A travesty. Maybe someone could do a proper restoration of this great, neglected film. (You listening, Criterion?) It's great to have the film on DVD, but it deserves better treatment from its studio than it's gotten so far. (You listening, Eisner?)

Rating:
Summary: Fine fictionalized documentary ahead of its time
Review: This fictionalization of the Farley Mowat book about his Arctic adventures studying wolves is amazingly enough perhaps the most controversial film Disney studios ever made. How sad is that? The reasons for the controversy would seem minor: first, the movie is not entirely true to Mowat's book; two, it's lightly plotted; and three, a man is seen running around naked in the tundra. To which I say, so what? so what? and gee, how offensive. (Maybe they should have clothed the wolves.)

The latter complaint is the major reason for all the ranting by some "reviewers." To them a Disney film showing human nakedness seems a sacrilege and they want their bowdlerized world returned to them, and they want Disney censured and made to promise never to do anything like that again! The complaint that there wasn't enough tension in the film is also off base since this is a contemplative, even spiritual film, not a slick thriller. People with sound-bite attention spans who need to mainline exploding cars and ripped flesh to keep them interested need not apply.

The criticism that Director Carroll Ballard's film is not entirely true to the book is legitimate, but I would point out that movies are seldom if ever entirely true to their source material. A film is one kind of media with its particular demands while a book is another. It is impossible to completely translate a book into a movie. Something is always inevitably lost, but something is often gained. Here the cinematography and the beautiful musical score by Mark Isham are fine compensations.

The acting by Charles Martin Smith as "Tyler" (Farley Mowat) and Brian Dennehy as Rosie, the exploitive redneck bushpilot, and Samason Jorah as Mike the compromised Inuit (who sells wolf skins for dentures) and especially Zachary Ittimangnaq as Ootek, the quiet, wise man of the north are also pluses. Note how compactly the main issues of the film are exemplified in these four characters. Indeed, what this film is about is the dying of a way of life, not just that of the wolves, but of the Inuit people themselves who are losing their land and their resources while their young people are being seduced away from what is real and true and time-honored for the glittering trinkets of the postmodern world. This is a story of impending loss and it is as melancholy as the cold autumn wind that blows across the tundra.

What I think elevates this above most nature films is first the intense sense of what it would be like for a lower forty-eight kind of guy to survive in a most inhospitable wilderness, and second the witty presentation of some of the scenes. Ballard works hard to make sure we understand that it is cold, very cold and desolate and that there are dangers of exposure and weather and just plain loss of perspective that have killed many a would-be adventurer and might very well kill Tyler. I think it was entirely right that near the end of the film we get the sense that Tyler is going off the deep end emotionally, that the majestic and profoundly melancholy experience has been too much for him.

Tyler begins as a greenhorn biologist dropped alone onto a frozen lake amid snow covered mountains rising in the distance so that we can see immediately how puny he is within this incredibly harsh vastness. The following scene when Ootek finds him and leaves him and he chases Ootek until he drops, and then Ootek saves him, gives him shelter, and leaves again without a word, was just beautiful. And the scenes with the "mice" and running naked among the caribou and teaching Ootek to juggle were delightful. The territorial marking scene was apt and witty and tastefully done. (At least, I don't think the wolves were offended.)

This movie was not perfect, however. For one thing, those were not "mice" that Tyler found his tent infested with. I suspect they were lemmings posing for the cameras. Those who have seen the film about the making of this movie undoubtedly know what they were; please advise me if you do. Also the "interior" of Tyler's tent was way too big to fit into the tent as displayed. Also it would be important from a nutritional point of view for Tyler to eat the "mice" raw as the wolves did! (The actual creatures that Mowat ate I assume were mice.) If Tyler had to exist purely on roasted and boiled rodent for many months, he would encounter some nutritional deficiencies. Still, eating a diet of the whole, uncooked mouse would be sustaining whereas a diet of lean meat only would not. (Add blubber and internal organs for an all-meat diet to work.) Incidentally, the Inuit people get their vitamin C from blubber and the contents of the stomachs of the animals they kill.

Where were the mosquitos and the biting flies that the tundra is infamous for?

Since this movie appeared almost twenty years ago, the public image of the wolf has greatly improved and wolves have been reintroduced to Yellowstone Park. I think everybody in this fine production can take some credit for that.

Rating:
Summary: Sooooo good...............
Review: I will keep this short: this movie is outstanding. Buy it.

Rating:
Summary: Bad PR for a good cause
Review: As a wolf-lover & conservationist I was thrilled to see this movie in theaters when it was released in 1983. Unfortunately it does not live up to expectations, and I'm afraid it does the wildlife preservation cause more harm than good. The movie is boring even for an animal lover, and it seems Disney was counting on the beautiful scenery to carry the movie over. There is no plot to speak of, with the whole idea of the show being that wolves are not the bad guys, men are. The story if there is one revolves around a scientist who goes "native" in the artic to study wolves. Going native includes running buck naked through the artic tundra with a herd of carbou, complete with a clear shot of the scientist's genetial, and disputing territory with the resident wolf by marking territory his way - urinating. I don't know how Disney got away without an R rating on this show. The end result is a show that protrays naturalists as excentrics, a reputation they already have a hard time living down.

Rating:
Summary: Outstanding movie
Review: I saw this in the theatre back in 1983 and it is just as good now as it was then. Don't listen to the reviewers that discredit this fine movie. It is obvious that they have grown up in the age of videogames and the WWF. If you consider yourself as having a brain, buy this movie. You won't regret it!

Rating:
Summary: AT LAST "WOLVES" GET GOOD REVIEW
Review: So for once Wolves are proven to be the good guys and, no less done even!, in an entertaining and sometimes humerous way. I would reommend this for adults and chldren alike. In fact a good DVD to introduce children to nature documentaries. I'm a Wolf fan myself as well as a fan of both stars in this so found DVD very satisfying. Will be watching this film many many times in the years to come. I would highly recommend this to everyone!!!!!! One problem though with DVD itself. Not enough features on it, in fact none at all!!!!! Still worth buying though, even just for two widths of screen viewing.

Rating:
Summary: Five stars...
Review: for this excellent film.
As for several of the other reviewers who panned the film...Perhaps they should study grammar and spelling (and Cinema for that matter) before attempting a review on a film of such obvious beauty and intelligence.

Rating:
Summary: Never Cry Wolf a Classic
Review: The reviews that call this a horrible film just shows how some of us have different tastes. As for me I would have to agree with the others a great film of all times. You cant miss having this in your collection.

Rating:
Summary: The money making this movie was completely wasted.
Review: This is the worst movie I have ever seen in my entire life.
There is no plot.
There is no character development.
There is no interesting dialogue.
There is not one thing of interest in this movie.
Please, please, please, do not waste your money on this movie. It will not be worth it.
I think that this is the worst movie of all time, quite frankly.

(note: many people think that the beautiful scenery is nice. It is nice, but if you want to see some Alaskan vistas check you local calendar store.)

Rating:
Summary: OUTSTANDING!
Review: This is without a doubt a magnificent film! Charles Martin Smith plays a biologist who travels to the Arctic to study the local wolf population. Along the way he encounters some very colorful characters and embarks on a journey of discovery that changes him thoroughly. The cinematography, script, plot and acting all come together to make one of the greatest movies of all time. Highly, highly recommended.