Secretariat movie, a dissapointment - Sorry but thats the way I feel

No, I’m not telling you that you can’t have a horse for a hero or who it should be, but I am telling you that I think it makes you ridiculous…along with any person who has any type of animal as a “hero.”

Animals can perform heroic acts…but not because they are heroes per se.

BTW --animals often do things with no regard for their own safety. Unless your dogs knew what your intruder was armed with, had prior experience that they would associate the implement with pain to their being, they weren’t acting with no regard for their own safety…they were acting on instinct.

Don’t worry…I realize you’re one of those that anthropomorphizes. I just think it makes you more out there than most horse people.

I went to the theatre to see this because someone very kindly gave me movie passes. I brought my non horsey hubby (who had enjoyed Seabiscuit) and went in thinking, “its Disney.” My race loving mom had already said to not expect “accuracy” so I was not expecting it.

I think the writing and directing was the the thing most lacking. Overall I enjoyed it very much and can overlook the inaccuracies. Love Diane Lane but the dancing while washing with a rag was just sort of silly. Also they tried so hard to show how tough it was on her family and tie in the war protest, etc. but it fell flat. Overall fun movie, give it a solid B. By the way hubby enjoyed.

Let’s step back here and think. A movie about Secretariat only would be very short unless the owners had boxes of home movies of him as a foal, weanling, yearling, saddling, etc. Some what interesting for the fan, less so for everyone else.

Without the humans in his life, we would even know about him. So his story includes the people who bred his sire and dam, cared trained and rode him.

Smart as he was he could not send in papers to the JC or enter himself in races. So we had to know about the humans in his life which IMO made the story all the more interesting.

Yes protesting the war was part of the time. Women being expected to stay at home, take care of the kids and not speak up - was also part of the time. A major point in the movie to me was when her family watched the Preakness on TV in Colorado - THEY finally understood and respected what their wife/mother was doing because she was the one who believed in the horse and ‘let him run his race’. Hokey yes, but as someone who was older than you at the time and who did not really like Penny Tweety based on what little I knew, this movie put so much into perspective.

She bridged a time of old-time horse owners/breeders into the current racing world of multiple owners/investors. She also bridged the world of Women’s Lib. Something many young women don’t understand and fail to appreciate the gains made in the time period.

We all agree this movie is not completely factual which is par for the course of any movie ever made. Personally I enjoyed it more than I expected, even with the bathing scene. That had to be the cleanest horse ever :wink:

I saw it last weekend and thought it was better than expected.

The problem is, the number of people who really want to watch a movie about the horse himself, is pretty small.

There’s a good documentary that you can watch on YouTube that covers his career very well, including interviews with the real people. It was mentioned early on in this thread but you can also find all the pieces here:
[URL=“http://equineink.com/2010/10/05/secretariat-the-documentary/”]
Secretariat: The documentary

[QUOTE=RugBug;5155268]

Don’t worry…I realize you’re one of those that anthropomorphizes. I just think it makes you more out there than most horse people.[/QUOTE]

oh, good lord… you DONT know me AT ALL :lol: (roll-eyes) so stop pretending you do…

but, IMO (if you want to point fingers) - YOU are the one who is “out there”… and among the above mentioned people who are

flawed, self-serving, untrustworthy, controlling and with too many agendas

add “know-it-all, sheep-like, and one who likes to cut others down to try to make themselves look big” to the list

and hence why I would never put any value in labeling a human as a hero, when there are SO many animals I would trust.

PS, when shots are fired at my dogs and they continue to defend, I would say they worked heroically. deny that, and you are more foolish than I thought

How do you make a MOVIE (not a documentary, a MOVIE, with all the associated plot, conflict, rising action, climax, etc that goes with) about Secretariat the horse? Forget whether or not animals are capable of level of abstract thought the normal definition of “hero” (starting with an actual metaphysical grasp of the concept of self and the meaning or lack thereof of death, and if they ARE capable of it we are monsters for euthanizing them without their expilcit consent) requires, how do you make a 120+ minute dramatic film about Secretariat and make it interesting and accessible to not only non-racing fans, but non-HORSE people? How do you even begin to write that? Walter Farley even fictionalized aspects of Man o’ War’s life and the people around him so that he could write a novel about him because just writing it “Man o’ War was foaled out of Mahuba by Fair Play…” and going from there means he’s not writing a novel or a story any more, he’s writing a historical account. You CAN make historical accounts entertaining–cf Seabiscuit–but even there, a good deal is taken up with Pollard, Howard, and how Seabiscuit changed them. So how do you do that with Secretariat?

I dunno, I don’t think it’s all that weird to think of horses or animals as heros.

Or at least, have deep admiration for animals. There are some I admire as much as I admire some people, for their will, heart, or kindness. Whether it’s silly or anthropomorphic to someone else, I don’t really care.

As for the movie - it is about what I expected… a disney movie that attempts to build a more “sellable” story line around a horse. To horse people and people who know the story, it can definitely be annoying. And of course, there were several of the requisite “mystical bond between woman and horse” moments that made me snicker a bit, but that’s what you get with cheesy movies.

I’m choosing to like the movie because it entertained me and made me smile. And some of the racing photography is really beautiful. The music at the end, I thought was appropriate given how the movie started, and while it didn’t give me the same chills as the real thing does every time I watch it, did find the way they filmed the Belmont to be quite poignant.

The main expectation I have going to a horse movie is that it will make me feel good. And that I will leave wanting to swing up on my own horse and go for a mad gallop through the fields. In that regard, this delivered :slight_smile:

I think it depends on the definition of ‘hero’. If we’re using it as a synonym of ‘idol’ or ‘object of deep affection and admiration’ then almost anything up to and including a house plant can be a hero. If we’re going the more traditional vein of ‘puts own life at risk/gives life for others, achieves greatness at personal effort/cost, does not think about rewards’, we run into a problem with non-human beings as heroes because doing any of those things in a meaningful way requires a degree of consciousness it’s not clear animals posess. Especially when it comes to actions that require risk of death/result in death, we have a HUGE problem. A big, BIG part of the “better a week early than a day late”/euthanize 'em argument is very often that animals have no real concept of death. They don’t KNOW what the syringe the vet’s injecting them with contains or what it’s going to do to them. It’s debatable how much awareness of SELF they even have–obviously most higher-order life forms have some idea of themselves as a distinct entity, but we have no idea what kind of higher thought, if any, is going on. Animals, as far as we can tell, don’t have theoretical worries. They don’t think in the “What if…” vein. Can they act heroically when they don’t really have any awareness of what MIGHT happen, because they aren’t capable of understanding the concept of ‘might’? Are animals at all capable of thinking in the subjunctive, so to speak? (Statement of an unreal condition, for those who never had to learn grammar. “If I were a tree, I would not be typing.”)

It’s entirely possible to admire a horse for being fast and winning against long odds. It’s another thing to say the horse is aware of anything except he’s supposed to run as told–that he’s trying “for his owners”, or indeed he has any concept that he’s owned by someone and that the people around him have any interest in anything beyond feeding him and having him run. Is it courage when a Black Gold or Go For Wand gets up and tries to run on a broken leg, or is it instinct, training, and adrenaline? Or just panic? Is the horse at all aware winning the Kentucky Derby is different than winning an AOC at Suffolk? (Beyond being able to SEE the humans are reacting differently.)

Humans can debate degrees of heroism (was Oscar Schindler a hero for saving 1200 lives, or an opportunist with good PR because he made money off it? And there’s a true story just about humans that still got ‘dramatized’ for the movie.) But it’s predicated on a degree of self-awareness on the hero’s part there’s very little evidence animals possess.

Great Post!

Coming late to this thread, but this was posted on the local movie theater website about the movie - “Secretariat - The life story of Penny Chenery, owner of the racehorse Secretariat, who won the Triple Crown in 1973.” I think only horse people went to the movie expecting it to be all about the horse. I saw it Saturday afternoon with some friends. We all enjoyed it even though we were stuck in the first row (it was pretty much sold out). The audience ranged from very young children to senior citizens. It’s not an Oscar winner, but it was a good family film. I’ll stick to ESPN if I want a biography on the horse.

[QUOTE=Jumpin_Horses;5155431]
oh, good lord… you DONT know me AT ALL :lol: (roll-eyes) so stop pretending you do…

but, IMO (if you want to point fingers) - YOU are the one who is “out there”… and among the above mentioned people who are

add “know-it-all, sheep-like, and one who likes to cut others down to try to make themselves look big” to the list

and hence why I would never put any value in labeling a human as a hero, when there are SO many animals I would trust.

PS, when shots are fired at my dogs and they continue to defend, I would say they worked heroically. deny that, and you are more foolish than I thought[/QUOTE]

How old are you?? SIX??? You sound like a child having a tantrum! No one else has agreed with you that a movie could be made as you wish it were made. Everyone has explained to you WHY it wouldn’t work, or be marketable, yet you continue to RANT, yes rant, about how unjust the treatment of your hero was. Most everyone else enjoyed it for what it was and want it to succeed. Only you continue to go on and on about how awful it was. OK, you didn’t like it. We get it.

Great posts, danceronice. And Rugbug, too.

[QUOTE=Jumpin_Horses;5155147]
it doesnt HAVE to be a “documentary”, HOWEVER, it should at the very least, be about the horse that the movie was NAMED after… dont ya think? :confused:

for ME… the movie was NOT “feel good” it was very disappointing. and IMO it wasnt even about the “horse” or racing…

is having an “opinion” about a movie not allowed on this board?

IMO - the horse alone has a wonderful story. heck even the horse’s groom has a better story. and how they portrayed the Belmont race, blaring gospel music, the silly dancing / bathing outside the barn, leaving out Riva Ridge, and portraying Sham as a villain - should be a crime.

I still think, IMO - they should have named the movie “Penny Chenery and Daughter story, with a Cameo from Secretariat”… NOT “Secretariat”… but, that title wouldnt have made THEM any money, huh? Because no one would know who they were. (see my point?)

ETA - and who on earth said anything about “Boycotting”??? and what exactly is it that YOU do to “support racing?” and, who put YOU in charge of the things “we all need to support?”[/QUOTE]

Wow, over reacting much?!

It was indeed about as many aspects of Secretariat’s life that were possible to squeeze into 120 minutes. Creating another documentary about Secretariat, with a 40 MILLION dollar budget isn’t likely to appeal to America, let alone break even. Michael Oher wasn’t mad that “The Blind Side” portrayed him as a kid that didn’t know how to play football. He and everyone that knew him just laughed at what Disney played up. Were survivors of the Titanic irate about the love story the film portrayed? No. They generally appreciate the media attention. It’s a Disney movie! For the kids, the teens, the middle aged, and the blue hairs!

One would hope that if you are posting on an equine racing board, you DO support Thoroughbred racing… I encourage everyone (equine enthusiast or not) to see the film and see a story about the trials and tribulations of one of the greatest horses to burn up the track.

[QUOTE=Holyhorseshoes;5156602]
Were survivors of the Titanic irate about the love story the film portrayed? No. They generally appreciate the media attention. [/QUOTE]

Uh, wouldn’t use that example, actually. For starters only two or three were alive (all have since died) and were…not necessarily in a position to comment coherently. Second, the producers actually had to fly to William Murdoch (the ship’s first officer)'s home town and appologize in person to his descendants for his portrayal in the film (which, were he alive and therefore able to sue, could have been very accurately called slanderous, which went for a lot of the real historical personages portrayed.) And to say serious Titanic buffs were divided on the choice of “story” was putting it politely.

too many control freaks on this thread

jeesh, just because I dont agree with you, or have the same heros as you, IM in the wrong…

sorry, its a free country. I can not like a movie, disagree with others, and have my own hero.

I guess you ALL cant accept me NOT liking the movie, but, Im supposed ot accept your insults, and liking the movie, is that right?

this is pointless thread now,and Im going to try to shut it down.

HHS - YOU are the one who overeacted. and LP, YOU are the one who is acting like a little brat who is trying to control everyone around you.

I saw Secretariat last weekend and was disappointed. The movie was very little about Secretariat and very much about Penny Chenery.

I was an adult when Secretariat was racing. I read everything I could get my hands on, saw all his races, was around when Penny Tweedy (this was the only name she went by back then) decided to go by Penny Chenery and even have a scrapbook of all the articles from way back then.

Where was Riva Ridge? Riva won the Kentucky Derby and the Belmont in 1972 but was completely left out of the film. This horse helped pull the farm out of the red way before Secretariat became a household word. What is also funny is that Penny favored Riva all the way over Secretariat. And Ron Turcott was Riva’s jockey whereas in the movie, she met him just before he rode Big Red. Way too much history played around with and I think this made the movie completely fiction for any Big Red/Riva Ridge and horse racing fans in general.

The scene where Ron Turcott comes in the restaurant, where Penny is eating, waving a newspaper and announcing that Secretariat won horse of the year almost made me fall out of my seat. And we were supposed to be fooled into thinking that Keeneland (one of the smaller tracks in the country) was really Belmont Park (the biggest track in the country). And the soft spoken Laffit Pincay came off as being very arrogant.

I find it sad that the movie was so much Penny and so little Secretariat and this will probably be the only movie made about him and it really was not about him, it was all about Penny. I know that Mrs. Chenery was sent scripts and then would edit them which I think was really the work of her daughter Kate (who has a book out now) and her husband Jerry (who is a loose cannon). I know this because I’ve dealt with him before. With Lucien Laurin, Mrs. Hamm and Eddie Sweat all being dead, they had a lot of freedom to paint the story any way they liked.

Here is something I took off another forum but I think this poster summed it up very well:

"I can’t imagine that anyone who went into this movie with no background would come out with any understanding at all of why Secretariat was extraordinary, or any understanding that he became a “celebrity” in his day. We hear references to the TC not having been won in 25 years but there is nothing that makes us care about it; we hear that Sec is on the cover of two [sic] national magazines but we don’t see the covers, there is nothing to make us realize his popularity in the public eye. The cheering crowds and signs at the Belmont come out of nowhere - nothing earlier makes us understand that the horse had transcended the racing world.

Making Sham’s owner into a cartoon villian was cheap and trite. It would have been harder but far more effective to show Sham as a pretty extraordinary horse with a passionately believing owner - just like Penny, in fact, with his own emotional involvement in his “big horse” - it would have made the emotional stakes higher- hell, it might have injected some emotional stakes into a film that is otherwise absent any.

The racing scenes are exciting, but again, since there is absolutely nothing to make us understand that Sec’s performances are extraordinary in themselves, they lack any emotional content - it’s just big horse wins big race, Penny is happy."

I guess if you like a movie where a woman defeats all odds in a man’s world and saves the family farm (and can even talk to horses yet!), some exciting horse racing scenes and just a general all around feel good Disney movie than this is your film. If you wanted the story of Secretariat, you still didn’t see it.

You know I agree that I don’t think they captured how difficult the triple crown is to win let alone win in the fashion that he did. My guess is they didn’t really care about that since the horse was more the backdrop of the movie than the main character. I also don’t know how I would have done that differently. Its just really freaking hard.

I agree with Mighty mite in many ways. As I said decent movie, enjoyable but it is a shame that script could have been “edited” differently, still had commercial appeal and been dramatic but focused more on the racing side of it. The rivalry between Sham’s owner and Penny was cheesy and I agree would have been more interesting to see two caring owners with two great horses going to battle. Also it became so much about the money detracted from the heart it requires to be a triple crown winner. (why not include Riva Ridge, could still play up the financial issue, they played with timelines/events enough anyway. Just my two cents.

I still give it a B but I think with a more careful treatment, better script and directing it should have been an A plus!

Making Sham’s owner into a cartoon villian was cheap and trite. It would have been harder but far more effective to show Sham as a pretty extraordinary horse with a passionately believing owner - just like Penny, in fact, with his own emotional involvement in his “big horse” - it would have made the emotional stakes higher- hell, it might have injected some emotional stakes into a film that is otherwise absent any.

I remember reading an interview with Penny Chenery where she said that at one point when Sham was trying to go with Secretariat, she was actually rooting for him for a tiny bit because he was so game. I haven’t seen the movie yet, so can’t comment, but a moment like that would be nice to include if it is factual.

There’s a book out on Sham that I hadn’t known about:

http://www.amazon.com/SHAM-Superhorse-Revised-Mary-Walsh/dp/1593305060

Sham - In the Shadow of a Superhorse.

[QUOTE=mighty mite;5157261]
Here is something I took off another forum but I think this poster summed it up very well:

"I can’t imagine that anyone who went into this movie with no background would come out with any understanding at all of why Secretariat was extraordinary, or any understanding that he became a “celebrity” in his day. We hear references to the TC not having been won in 25 years but there is nothing that makes us care about it; we hear that Sec is on the cover of two [sic] national magazines but we don’t see the covers, there is nothing to make us realize his popularity in the public eye. The cheering crowds and signs at the Belmont come out of nowhere - nothing earlier makes us understand that the horse had transcended the racing world. [/QUOTE]

That was one thing that the Seabiscuit movie’s history lesson commentary did achieve that this movie did not. The Seabiscuit movie placed the importance of that horse in the public psyche.

I saw Secretariat a couple of days ago (with an open mind) and I came out of it feeling flat. There were some inspirational moments, but even they were not as well orchestrated as could have been. At least they did pretty well making the horse references and language seem natural.

But, I may have only been to one race track once in my life, and even I went “Hey Mom… that’s the Keeneland paddock”. Unlucky coincidence for me I guess so I can see how the racing afficianados had a hard time enjoying this movie with things so recogniseably OFF.

Even not ever having seen a photo of Penny Chenery or knowing for sure if she was still alive, I recognised her immediately in the stands when they panned over her during the Belmont. You could recognise her excitement and class at a level that can’t be acted. I thought that was kind of neat.

So I guess I went into it prepared to love it despite it’s flaws, and I was still disappointed. Maybe it will grow on me.

I had the same feeling when they showed the real Preakness footage with the real Secretariat. He just seemed to blaze right off the screen.