Los lobos no lloran

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.

(Note: Over 500 of my movie reviews are now available in my book "Cut to the Chaise Lounge or I Can't Believe I Swallowed the Remote!" Get it at Amazon!)

This film is not a typical Disney movie; so much so that you wonder why they did it. The simple good-evil storyline common to most Disney movies does not exist here. All characters have a different motive, and all are convinced of their own morality. What's more, they convince you. You see the issue of enviornmentalism in Alaska from all sides; and even if you may not agree with everyone, you can at least see it from their perspective. In the end however, the message is far more simple and it is tough to argue with.

Another trait that immediately stands out about this movie is its striking rawness. For a good part of the film, the main character narrates, and one gets the feeling he's writing home, as opposed to telling an audience. This adds both an intimacy and a sincerity and is very effective.

Though it is largely unknown (and therefore largely under-appreciated), Never Cry Wolf is a beautiful, complex and forceful. A high point for Disney -- no contest.

I remember when this movie came out I had no interest in seeing it. I thought it was a Disney kid's movie and basically forgot about it for years. About a year ago I caught it one night on cable and began to watch it. I immediately knew that I was seeing a great film, it was obvious within 5 minutes. Since I caught it in the middle and had missed the beginning, I decided to not ruin it and I turned it off with the idea of renting it the very next day, which I did.

"Never Cry Wolf" is a beautiful and breathtaking film about a biologist who travels alone to an extremely remote part of The Yukon in order to live with white wolves, and study their behavior. Charles Martin Smith, who I've always felt is an under-rated actor (see "The Untouchables" and "Starman") gives an unforgettable performance. The cinematography is spectacular, the music is superb, and the message is subtle and haunting.

One of those rare films that can easily be rewarding for adults and kids. "Never Cry Wolf" is a true classic in every sense of the word, I would give it a 10 out of 10 and I do not throw the "classic" word around lightly. Do not miss this film.

This movie premiered at an age in my life when I was fascinated with wolves and their impact on nature - at 10 years old, I met a researcher while on a trip with my parents who actually lived with wolves for 9 months out of the year. On his recommendation I read Farley Mowat's "Never Cry Wolf" and finagled my theater-phobic parents into taking me to see the film shortly thereafter.

Its impact on me, partially because of my love for the subject matter, has been lifelong.

Although the film does not always capture the humor of Mowat's narrative, it does a brilliant job of portraying, with patience that may grate on the nerves of blockbuster-seasoned moviegoers, the experience of its protagonist. Complaints that the film does not focus enough on the wolves are understandable, but the book and the movie are about one man's journey to understanding the wolf's place in a natural ecosystem. He must learn to be like them, understand their behavior (which mirrors humans' in so many ways), and ultimately choose a loyalty to one or the other species.

It is advisable that the viewer adopt expectations similar to those for a National Geographic documentary, although the story is only loosely based in fact. Sometimes things happen slowly in the arctic. Sometimes they don't happen at all, or the things that happen are not what you'd want out of the "plot". Cinematography and the environment are stunning. Charles Martin Smith's Tyler is a regular guy, without spectacular heroics (but brave enough to tackle activities "Fear Factor" contestants won't touch for a pile of money).

Because it was filmed entirely on location and without pretense of special effects, its visuals stand up very well in comparison to the films of today. Its pace is the sticking point that will make it unpalatable to some viewers, but I give it a rarely-awarded 9 rating for its beauty, social conscience and thorough enjoyability, taking away 1 point only for its somewhat heavy-handed finale that is less palatable than Mowat's original message.

"Never Cry Wolf" is a good reason why I like the movies. Human characters, compelling story, warm humor and breathtaking scenery (with the Atlin area in Northwestern British Columbia filling in for Alaska) combine to make it a favorite of mine.

"Tour de Force" doesn't seem quite the right turn of phrase for Charles Martin Smith's performance as the scientist Tyler for such a low-key character but he is the heart of the movie. It's especially noticeable when I associate Mr. Smith as Toad in "American Graffiti". His scene with the wolves and caribou is amazing and primal.

Samson Jorah is marvelous as the Inuit Mike ("He says, 'Great idea!'")

What a treat it is to watch compared to all the noise and quick-cut editing that dominate modern movies.