The Call of the Wild

February 22, 2020 9:31pm

I saw "The Call of the Wild" tonight.

As is so typical, the movie version was not as good as the book.

Probably because it was a Disney film, the violence that Buck (the lead character dog) experienced after his kidnapping was much milder than what Jack London wrote. The harsh reality of life in the Yukon was minimized, the horrors of the Klondike Gold Rush were romanticized, and many critical scenes from the book never made it to the screen. Remember that Jack London got the idea for the book during his time searching for gold in the Klondike - a journey that took him through Skagway in 1897.

The film's fabricated character of the rich villain was added to the storyline so viewers could be spoon-fed conflict without exerting the energy of a single neuron to contemplate the philosophical battles of man and beast.

In the book, Buck adopts an attitude of kill-or-be-killed as he evolved from the pampered life of a ranch dog to the Alpha Male of a wolfpack. Buck's metamorphosis in the film failed to capture the intensity of that experience. Wile E. Coyote & Road Runner cartoons portrayed better conflict.

Others in the theater laughed at the unnecessary and simple comedic moments, but I found them to be distracting and pointless.

I'm glad I saw it. It wasn't a terrible movie. The bond between man and dog can certainly be appreciated. So if you want the Disneyfied "Call of the Wild," then see the film. But if you want the original - and better - Jack London version, read the book.