In the Heart of the Sea

“Aha! ” I thought to myself when I first saw a trailer for “In The Heart of the Sea”; “Finally! A clever way to bring ‘Moby-Dick’ to the theatre without having immature audience members endlessly chuckle at the name of the white whale! ” Well, that’s not really the case. If you’re seeing this film because it “inspired the story”, it definitely did, but “inspired” is the key word. This is a totally different adventure from the one that Herman Melville brought us in 1851.

Based on true events, “In the Heart of the Sea” tells of the Essex whaling ship. After several months without any “harvest”, the ship’s captain (Benjamin Walker as George Pollard, Jr.) decides against the advice of his First Mate Owen Chase (Chris Hemsworth) and ventures far into the Pacific where they encounter a vengeful white whale.

I can’t emphasize enough that this is not an adaptation of “Moby-Dick”. There is no Captain Ahab, no Queequeg and no sub-plots where characters examine the futility of vengeance. This is a story about whaling, what it was like and what could go wrong when a crew with an inexperienced captain sailed further than anyone else because of desperation. Seeing the film it made me think of two things. The first is that I’d really REALLY love to see a big budget big-screen adaptation of the novel. In the theatre and in 3-D you’d get to see that great white demon crashing through ships while water sprays everywhere, harpoons flying at the screen and dramatic shots like Ahab nailing a dubloon to the ship’s mast made even more awesome. The second thought is that I hope someone is paying attention to what works best in this film and puts together a giant monster movie set on the seas of the 1800’s. This movie isn’t all about the whale, but if it was, and our heroes had to stop some kind of Godzilla-like creature from reaching the shores of New York? Whoa.

What this film does well is immerse you in the world of whaling. I’d never really thought of it, but it’s a disgusting part of human history. I don’t even mean the fact that we went out into the ocean and killed animals for fuel. That’s what they had to do at the time and it was a dangerous endeavor so you can’t judge that practice under current environmental sensibilities. I mean that the methods used to kill whales, and then the harvesting of the oil in their heads, the dissecting of their bodies for the blubber and meat are stomach churning. It’s also very exciting to watch. The hours spent with an eye out for blowhole emissions, the chase, the tossing of the harpoons, the struggle to stay afloat while the animals fight back, it makes for many terrific cinematic moments, particularly because this film makes excellent use of the 3-D technology. We have many shots where objects are flying through the air or through the water, stormy weather that generates layered shots and even a scene where ashes are floating up to give increased dimensions to the action. A film like this one demands to be seen in 3-D. You’re missing out if you don’t because it’s like seeing a picture where there are flying sequences where you could swear you could reach out and touch the bodies in front of you… it just happens that these characters are flying through the water. When this movie gets into the crews struggling against these massive animals, it’s great.

I’d estimate that roughly half of the film is dedicated to a story that’s pure survival, and this element is familiar, but also well done. We’ve seen several films explore the idea that alone at sea, it’s a desperate and overwhelming experience. With the added X factors of the vengeful whale, the tension between the two leads who didn’t get along when things were going well, never mind when things take a turn for the worse and the fact that back in 1821 there were very few chances of being rescued if marooned at sea, it makes for compelling material. It helps that the lead characters are well drawn so they do not feel like cartoonish heroes or squeaky-clean knights whose valor will always remain unshaken.

The criticism I have for the film is that despite being well made, being interesting throughout and featuring not only terrific sets but also convincing special effects and performances, it feels like it could be more engrossing. Even with the events that take place here, the fictional story that does not include some of the more harrowing ordeals is better. It’s been years since I read “Moby-Dick” but I’ll never forget the characters or the more iconic scenes from the novel. This movie? It feels like a prequel to Melville’s story, something to warm you up while you wait for the main event. Even the most dramatic moments were not as poignant as they could have been, perhaps because the movie is rated PG-13. I enjoyed this film a lot; I don’t want that to be lost in the shuffle. Nevertheless I haven’t been able to shake the feeling that if this ever ended up on my DVD shelf, it would eventually get replaced.

If you like period pieces, stories about survival, nature getting in the ring to face off against man, I recommend “In the Heart of the Sea”. It’s not the masterpiece I was hoping to see in December and pales in comparison to the classic that has been the focus of the advertisements, but that’s ok. As a story of survival, with the moments that I would dare call “educational” and with the cinematic experience you’ll get out of seeing it on the big screen, it’s worth your money. (3-D Theatrical version on the big screen, December 17, 2015)