MovieChat Forums > The Black Stallion (1979) Discussion > Ethical problem with film

Ethical problem with film

posted 14 years ago by lubin-freddy
23 replies | jump to latest

I like the film very much, especially the first act, which is more interesting than anything that comes later. But I've always been bothered by the end.

The film is supposed to be about freedom, the freedom the boy and the horse felt on the island, but lost when they came back to civilization. How can we enjoy a "happy ending" when the horse is subjugated to the selfish whims of humans, to entertain them with their speed.

More specifically, why are we supposed to feel good when the boy flashes back to the days of freedom when they're running the race?

Has anyone else had the same thoughts?

"Let there be songs, to fill the air" ("Ripple")

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] gallifreyent 14 years ago

Not unless they've sold their souls to PeTA, as you appear to have done.

Horses run. They strive to run faster than other horses. It's the reality of survival of the fittest. They don't ponder whether you are subjugating them, exploiting them, enslaving them, or feeding Sea Kittens to them. A horse couldn't care less whether you are entertained or disgusted by its running. A horse doesn't judge whether you are selfish, clueless, or an animal rights shill.

~If you go through enough doors, sooner or later you're gonna find a dog on the other side.~

[–] artistathome 12 years ago

To the OP. . .

NO!! this is a wonderful movie, and the horse was a thoroughbred meant to run run run. They love this/

My gosh why do people have to ruin a beautiful story between the horse and the boy>
What did you want the horse to do? Stand in his stall all day? Eat grass all day gazing at the daisies?

Sheesh.

[–] odarden 14 years ago

@lubin-freddy - I AGREE 100%

[–] SimplyClassic 14 years ago

Step away from the computer.

Read the book.

Realize the book and movie are both fiction.

[–] SataiDelen 14 years ago

OMG! SimplyClassic, you cracked me up! You are right. I mean, when I saw the title of this thread, I thought it was referring to the boat sinking scene when the horse is in the water and suddenly he's being dragged under and his legs are flailing in the air. I was concerned in that aspect as to the ethics of filming the scene, but to see what the thread is actually about had me rolling my eyes.

[–] BlondeVixen 14 years ago

It has a happier ending than most animal movies. And the horse's life turned out better being owned by people that cared about him, than the bad guy on the ship that probably wasn't very nice to the horse anymore than he was to the boy.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] buyorsell888 12 years ago

The young boy is considerably older in the books and goes on to become a professional jockey....

The Black goes on to become king of a state of the art breeding farm...

[–] ash_biam 13 years ago

I totally agree with what the others have said.

But if you need to know in your flesh how not-wrong it is, go and learn to ride, then befriend a horse. Horses love to run and to race (yup, they race each other when in a wild state too), and they love to share that thrill!

Horses are really inteligent creatures, and they're generally sweet if you're nice to them. Personaly, I find horses and dogs to be the best friends and most empathic beings in this world.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] lwi101 12 years ago

Snoe makes the comment that the Black is wild in his soul, or words to that effect. During the race Alex throws off his helmet and goggles, and races wild like on the island, complete with flash backs. There is a scene where Alex removes the bridle and other tack, and then the nice closing scenes of the wild island. I took this to imply that Alex realized that Black's souls was wild and respected that. Of course that doesn't account for the sequel.
L

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] lubin-freddy 12 years ago

I haven't checked the thread in years, and am glad to see it's caused a discussion.

Some of the posters thought I was referring to the film's production, that the horse was somehow damaged. That's not at all my problem, and assume that not everyone understood what I was writing. My problem was with the film itself, and just thought that the third act conflicts with the first, within the ethical universe of the film itself.

But I get bluesdoctor's point, but still, the feeling of the film changes, once Black becomes an object of human desires, and not the free creature we see him as, earlier in the film.

I want to shake every limb in the Garden of Eden
and make every lover the love of my life

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] peeptoad13 12 years ago

It might help to understand the place horse racing had in 1940s America, when the film (and book) is supposed to have taken place. Horse racing was huge... and I mean HUGE. A "day at the races" was a reality for a large demographic in this country, and coming off the heels of the war made it an even bigger draw in some ways. Also, there was a plethora of phenomenal horses running in that era: Whirlaway, Count Fleet, and Assault were all Triple Crown winers during the first half of the decade and Citation was about to get rolling to provide the 4th TC of the 40s. Today, that's unheard of...

[–] buyorsell888 12 years ago

Walter Farley wrote the book in 1941.

The Black would have died on the island, there wasn't enough forage and alone, he would have been miserable. Horses are herd animals and they will bond with a human if not another horse or both.

He was not a wild horse in the first place, he came from a breeder in Arabia. He was spirited and mad about being stolen but not wild.

Horses don't sit around their stalls being depressed that they aren't free or that we are exploiting them. Mine gets all excited to go for a ride, to run all I do is loosen the reins. Running is her preferred gait.