The plot
“Water for Elephants” is a 2011 US romantic drama directed by Francis Lawrence. The screenplay by Richard LaGravenese was based on the historical novel of the same name by Sara Gruen.
The plot revolves around Jacob Jankowski (Robert Pattinson), a student of veterinary science at Cornell University. He is on the cusp of completing his finals and embarking on a new and prosperous life when a tragic accident occurs, leading him to take to the road.
Not knowing what else to do, Jacob jumps onto a passing train that just happens to be that of a travelling circus, the Benzini Brothers. Circus owner August Rosenbluth (Christoph Waltz), while capable of exercising some compassion, has a vile temper and is a ruthless leader.
Nonetheless August hires Jacob as the circus vet and their relationship quickly seems to build into one of friendship – until Jacob falls for August’s beautiful young wife, Marlena (Reese Witherspoon) who clearly returns his feelings.
Tension rises when August perceives the chemistry between the two and an impassioned contest ensues in which Jacob and August fight for Marlena’s love. But who will she choose?
Reviewer’s rating
While it may not seem obvious, it happens that the film provides an interesting opportunity to compare employment rights and strategies in the depression-wrought US in 1931 to our current position in the 21st century.
Of course, this was what drew me to the movie in the first place – not the great cast, a heart-wrenching storyline and plethora of animals. As an employment lawyer, I couldn’t help noticing – and obviously we must allow for artistic license – the working conditions of the circus-folk.
They may have seemed to be fed and watered well enough, but one chap mentions that he has not seen his son for a number of years – if this is owing to his work commitments, then we can assume that he was failing to receive holiday and holiday pay too.
August keeps a tight ship, relying on the tactics of threat, fear and “red lighting” employees who fall out of line. In reality, this means throwing them off the train while it is moving. Apparently the chances of survival are 50/50 and so, as I previously mentioned, he does show a degree of compassion at times.
August also resorts to red-lighting when finances are low and he needs to make cuts. After all, he says, there was only so much food to go around – although this situation appears to be contradicted somewhat by the numerous bottles of champagne that he appears to quaff throughout the movie.
So let’s just say that August might be a good example of how not to act as an employer.
But failing to enter into legitimate contracts of employment with his staff would be very much the last of his worries if he were a modern day employer. No doubt criminal liability for homicide would trump such matters to top a lengthy list of concerns about his employment practices.
Suffice to say that working conditions have vastly improved since the film’s portrayal of the 1930’s labour market. But I think we can all agree that it would be advisable for employers to avoid throwing their staff from moving vehicles, no matter how financially difficult times may be.
All in all, the film is a great watch, with stunning sets and an engaging storyline – not to mention an adorable elephant. It is a must-see and is, in my opinion, worth 10 out of 10.
- Our reviewer this time was Gemma Brown, assistant solicitor at law firm, TPP Law Ltd.
- If you’d like to see a film, TV or book review of your own in print, please either send it to the editor at [email protected] or post it directly to our blogs section at www.hrzone.co.uk/blogs based on the format above.
- We also have a book club area, which provides a list of possible works for review too – all you have to do is email the editor as above, have the book of your choice sent out to you and we’ll publish the review for the rest of the community to read when you’re done.
