HIDALGO (**)
On the heels of the warmly crafted SEABISCUIT comes HIDALGO, another film revolving around its title-championed horse. Like its predecessor, it espouses and takes advantage of our inherit love of the underdog to propel our interest in its storyline. A fair share of controversy had been brewing upon its release, with its claims of being based on a “true story” and of its purported racism towards Arabs. But despite these accusations (valid or not), what really does the movie in is its poor execution and its lack of focus. Instead of getting a rousing swashbuckler, we receive schlock unworthy of our attention span or its lead actor.
The film claims to be based on the Middle-East adventures of Frank Hopkins (Viggo Mortensen), a long-distance endurance rider who is of multicultural descent (part Caucasian, part American-Indian, all cowboy). He regrets performing as a star of Buffalo Bill’s Wild West show, where Indians willingly paraded themselves as entertainment spectacles to be derided as defeated villains. The show’s claims of Hidalgo being the finest horse ever draws an invitation from Sheikh Riyadh (Omar Sharif), to enter a 3000-mile race across the Arabian Desert impressively titled the “Ocean of Fire.” Frank agrees to enter to save the honor of his horse (which he treats as a “brother”) and to find a measure of his own.
Story-wise, this is good stuff. You can already think LAST SAMURAI meets SEABISCUIT, with Arabs replacing the Japanese. Who wouldn’t want to see an unbridled mustang with a raw masculine cowboy put snobbish sheikhs and their stallions in their places. But there are so many unnecessary elements tossed in, that I wished I could have come into the editing room and gone crazy with my scissors screaming “No no no no no!”
Oh there are some very nice ingredients in place. I found much of the cinematography to be eerily beautiful. I can remember clearly shots of a ghostly ash fall, mournful Indian memories, searing desert vistas, a seascape climax, and an inspiring flight of mustangs. The race’s start and finish are exhilarating, even more so than those in SEABISCUIT. I felt a real sense of the speed that each of these sequences presented, especially in a sandstorm sequence that seemed to fall straight out of THE SCORPION KING.
The action scenes were also entertaining, but in a quaint way. Each sequence is laid out “old-school”, involving lovely production sets, and very little of the CGI (other than a couple of backdrops and two big cats). I found myself reminiscing fondly of the old INDIANA JONES movies, since we are allowed to follow the action, instead of being tricked into excitement with all the quick-cutting techniques that many action films employ these days.
Sadly, it’s what happens between these treats that mires the film. As it progresses, it seems to be improvising its storyline. Sometimes it’s good when a movie is unpredictable, as the great ones are. But not if its aimless. This becomes evident when the movie takes a break from its theme of competition to one of moral ambiguity, when we learn of the Sheikh’s daughter Jazira (Zuleikha Robinson), and her personal plight to be recognized as an equal within her culture. Yes, it’s a worthwhile subject, but best served in another movie as not to break this one’s pace (but it does).
Jazira’s plight turns into a dilemma, as she gets kidnapped, and Frank has to rescue her. Though it does add a few more shootouts and swordfights, it draws out the movie unnecessarily. Such displays could have been worked in another manner to better serve its real storyline, and their implied romantic instincts, along with her private conflict, seems more based in Western mores than that of Eastern traditions. I do not pretend to be an expert on Middle Eastern culture (contemporary or otherwise). But I have Saudi relatives, and I can say that many of their women do not view their traditions to be hindrances as we do, and would most likely be offended by Jazira’s characterization.
You can see where this is leading. Though some may disagree with me, I found this film to be littered with needless Arabic stereotypes. I rarely accuse films of being racist, since every film is racist in some way or another (consciously or not) because every filmmaker is conditioned to look at another race at a certain angle (as we all are). Yes there are a lot of movies that negatively characterize Asians, Mexicans, and African-Americans. Highly intelligent movie villains usually turn out to be British. Russians are commonly miscast as deceitful. And so on...
But in the movie, as one Emir shouts condescendingly that Frank cannot win, because the prince is of a great horse tribe. Frank replies:
“I too am of a great horse tribe.”
You wouldn’t believe for a second that the Arabs who compete in the movie’s race are of noble blood. Aside from their apparent wealth, and lovely looking thoroughbreds, most of them are petulant, arrogant, and surly towards foreigners (calling Frank an infidel without reason or provocation). I would like to think that these members of royalty (horse breeders at that!) are more cultured than one would have us believe. Perhaps the one great counterargument to my observations is Omar Sharif’s portrayal of Sheikh Riyadh, who embodies the dignity and honor that I find lacking. He single-handedly almost makes up for all the nastiness that every Arab male here oozes with. Almost.
Viggo Mortensen is too good for this material. His authenticity separates him from the rest of the cast. Fresh from THE LORD OF THE RINGS trilogy, he retains all of the manliness he effortlessly radiates, just with a different accent. I can understand why he chose this material. He seems drawn to characters that are reluctant by nature, but more than up to the task when called for. And Frank Hopkins’s spirituality is just as deep, as his characters draws on unworldly reserves in helping achieve his goal, just as Aragorn did at Helm’s Deep and Minas Tirith.
Alas, if only he had known that this material would be treated this way. Though its credits state it to be based on a true story, Frank Hopkins’s legendary story was just that… legendary (type “Frank Hopkins” at Google.com and see for yourself). I have no problem with movies taking dramatic license to make their stories more compelling (Historical facts belong on print, not celluloid), but Disney would have best served its product if it had not insisted on its validity. In doing so, it undermined HIDALGO, with its harmful societal depictions (God only knows for what purpose). If it had been leaner, more focused, and more honest, SEABISCUIT would have been an afterthought.