Il richiamo della foresta

There have been at least three film versions of the classic Jack London story, "The Call of the Wild". The 1972 version isn't particularly famous and much of it could be because the leading man himself, Charlton Heston, though it was an incredibly disorganized production and he actually encouraged folks NOT to see it! But is it really that bad?

Buck is a German Shepherd in this film, though in the story he was half Shepherd and half St. Bernard...making him a much more massive dog than the one shown in the movie.

The story begins with Buck being stolen and abused horribly by a jerk wanting to make him a sled dog to be used in the Yukon gold rush at the end of the 19th century. Thornton (Charlton Heston) buys the dog and uses him on his sled team and soon Buck proves his worth and Buck becomes devoted to him because he's one of the few who treated the dog well. What sort of adventures occur from then until the end of the story...you'll have to see for yourself.

As I watched the film, I was a big concerned as several times it appeared that the filmmakers MIGHT have abused animals to make the film. While the scenes where Buck is being abused clearly aren't abusive, they look real enough. But the dead, frozen horses and the scene where the sled dogs try to tear an Arctic fox to pieces are more worrisome and hard to see. I am sure this would turn off some viewers.

So in spite of this, is the film any good? And, was Heston perhaps too harsh about this movie? Overall I'd say the film is okay...not as bad as Heston said but also not as good as it should have been.

Call of the Wild, The (1972)

*** (out of 4)

A house dog is stolen from its owner and sold to a group of men who abuse him and eventually sell him as a sled dog. The sled owner (Charlton Heston) soon grows attached to the dog and we see their adventures in Alaska, which includes hunting for gold. This version of the famous story isn't as good as the 1935 version with Clark Gable and Loretta Young but this one does remain entertaining throughout. There are some major problems with the film that keeps it from being great but even through there are problems there's still a wonderfully touching movie here. What doesn't work is that the film really appears to have originally been three hours and then edited down to its 100-minute running time. I say this because there seems to be some rough editing and there are various parts of the film that seem rushed. This becomes rather annoying but the real star here is the dog. The dog used in the film does a remarkable job and really makes his role a real character and not just an animal doing tricks. Heston gives a pretty good performance and his actions with the dog are a lot of fun to watch but there are moments when the actor goes over the top and brings a few laughs, which certainly wasn't intended. Michele Mercier is good as Heston's lover and George Eastman makes for a great villain. The film was shot in Finland, which leads to some terrific visuals and the movie remains entertaining all the way through. The love story between Heston and his dog is beautifully captured but some should be warned that there are a lot of scenes of animal abuse, which will certainly bother some.

For a dog-lover, it is a moving and heart-touching story. For any other viewer, it is an old movie that features a bunch of sled dogs and Alaska. You really must read the book by Jack London before seeing the film. It follows the plot but it does confuse matters.

The dog stunts do look very real and do tend do worry you. Fortunatly, you are assured before the movie begins that no animals were harmed in the making of the film. It was good quality for the time period with well-trained animals and nice camera shots. The soundtrack could have been improved but works for the general atmosphere. I was also disappointed by Buck's appearance. He was a German Shepherd mix as described in the book but was presented as a Newfoundland in the film. Curly was also the wrong breed. None of this honestly mattered once the film got started.

It is no match for Disney's White Fang but Call of the Wild does come as its infamous partner.

This is definitely a European-style film from the period, the 70s. Everything about it speaks loudly with the European influence, the music, the cinematography, the editing. It's much like what you'd see in countless Euro horror films from the time, but this time it's a dramatic and rather realistic take on the old American classic. When seen, it doesn't take much to imagine the shooting conditions, and how did they all, cast and crew, put up with the misery of the terrible cold and snow? Heston isn't miscast here like some say, he's just very much different from what might be expected, but he does an admirable job. Some of his best film work was during this time, not the studio blockbusters he was known for prior to this. It is good that the story doesn't opt for the Hollywood "happy ending" but, without spoiling it for those who haven't seen this, it is a much more realistic ending.

Well, this is a typical 1970's-era film, with lots of suspicious animal action which makes you feel glad that films today are shot under the auspices of the ASPCA and the Humane Society. Shot under horrifyingly rough conditions, with Norway standing in for the Yukon, the film takes few liberties with Jack London's classic novel, but the bizarre casting of Charlton Heston as John Thornton makes the viewer want to scratch their head. Jaggedly edited and with a greater budget for snow than special effects, the viewer is implored to suspend belief as animal after animal is torn apart and shown drenched with fake blood, looking bewildered. Obviously, as befitting a movie of this era, the hordes of unwashed gold prospectors are as grungy a bunch as ever filmed, but the few women who surface are as impeccably dressed and made up as any model in a Vanity Fair shoot. Lots of bad sound and snow on the lens, but a nice job at portraying one man and one dog who love one another fiercely. Peculiar film, lots of cute dogs, lots of atrocious acting, and lots and lots and lots of snow.