POSSIBLE SPOILERS After reading both of Jack London's novels CALL OF THE WILD and WHITE FANG in that order, I felt it necessary to see the film again since I hadn't seen it for years.
Expecting nothing but a regurgitated clone of lassie from the mouse house, I was pleasantly surprised to find that the film followed the storyline in its own right (though with some flaws).
We start it in the Klondike Gold rush in the Yukon in Canada with Jack Conroy (Ethan Hawke pre-beard) arriving in the Yukon. He joins with a couple of old friends of his father to join in heading for their claim. At the same time, a young wolf cub is being brought up in the wilderness by his mother who, in a sequence concerning Conroy (Hawke) is shot and injured when she tries to lure one of Conroy's friend's dogs away to attack (and undoubtedly eat).
And now comes the tarnishing part of the film that is the one part that I loathe and despise. She drags herself back to her cub before dying in front of him and leaving him to fend for himself in the wilderness. It's very frustrating to see Disney resort to the Bambi-esquire cliché of killing off the mummy to tug at the heartstrings, especially since there's no evidence of this in the book, his mother was actually an important character, and not to forget that most of us will have seen it all before! The sequence in the book that this campfire part is based on, was before White Fang was even born, and the gradual growing climax that it built in the Jack London novel is terrifying! (Though I suppose that has no place in a Disney film.) If you intend to read the book, I won't spoil it for you!
Afterwards, Conroy comes across the pup in certain circumstances where he has been taken in by the Indians and changes hands to take part in illegal dog-fighting before winding up in the hands of Conroy to rehabilitate him. These plot lines follow fairly accurately to the original London novel, albeit with some deviations, e.g: White Fang's mother was called Kiche and was taken in by the Indians, only to be separated from White Fang when she was sold to another Indian, Jack Conroy never appeared in the book, though he is similar to Weedon Scott's character in the novel.
The ending to White Fang was bugged with one or two clichés, in that with a gold claim freshly unearthed and ready to leave for California, he lets him "free" because "he'd be miserable in a city" though White Fang went TO a new urban home later. We're not too sure why Jack decides to stay in the wilderness either, especially when there's a new life as a rich man in California waiting, except for White Fang to return to him and for them to be reunited (as they are) and a possible instinct of this happening, but it's not very well explained.
It's also totally different to that of the ending of the book (that ends in California in the same way Call of the Wild starts there), but before I condemn it, I still have some praise for it being not so lassie-esquire to the effect of being nauseating, satisfying in its own right and closing the story nicely.
Perplexingly though, the end tacks on a concluding text from the Defenders of Wildlife that says that "JACK LONDON'S White Fang is a work of fiction. There has never been a documented case of a healthy wolf or pack of wolves attacking a human in North America. Because wolves were systematically eliminated throughout most of the United States during our early history and continue to be persecuted today, a nationwide effort is underway to reintroduce wolves into wilderness areas and insure their survival for generations to come." Firstly, White Fang is set in Canada (sorry to be picky but people may still think that wolves have attacked people elsewhere).
Secondly, I don't see why the film needs an epilogue like this - it isn't a nature documentary, it's a story! Maybe this is because the film is from 18 years ago when people were more prejudiced about wolves, and though I think wolves are great animals and it is important to protect them, it seems unnecessary to tack this information on at the end!
In general, I would recommend this film, whether you've read the book or not. Despite the faults I've listed and the Godawful Bambi-style rubbish, White Fang does have its saving graces. The relationship between Conroy and White Fang is excellently portrayed, and quite poignantly acted by Hawke and Jed the wolf (or wolf-dog, whichever one he falls into). The backdrops of Canada in both Spring and Winter are nothing short of breathtaking, and combined with the settings of the late 19th Century, put us in a real and harsh, but beautiful world that draws you in. If you've read the book, then remember it's Disney and they are liable to changing story material for film-making. Just don't take it too seriously.
I wouldn't touch MYTH OF THE WHITE WOLF with a 10 ft fishing pole, though!
Expecting nothing but a regurgitated clone of lassie from the mouse house, I was pleasantly surprised to find that the film followed the storyline in its own right (though with some flaws).
We start it in the Klondike Gold rush in the Yukon in Canada with Jack Conroy (Ethan Hawke pre-beard) arriving in the Yukon. He joins with a couple of old friends of his father to join in heading for their claim. At the same time, a young wolf cub is being brought up in the wilderness by his mother who, in a sequence concerning Conroy (Hawke) is shot and injured when she tries to lure one of Conroy's friend's dogs away to attack (and undoubtedly eat).
And now comes the tarnishing part of the film that is the one part that I loathe and despise. She drags herself back to her cub before dying in front of him and leaving him to fend for himself in the wilderness. It's very frustrating to see Disney resort to the Bambi-esquire cliché of killing off the mummy to tug at the heartstrings, especially since there's no evidence of this in the book, his mother was actually an important character, and not to forget that most of us will have seen it all before! The sequence in the book that this campfire part is based on, was before White Fang was even born, and the gradual growing climax that it built in the Jack London novel is terrifying! (Though I suppose that has no place in a Disney film.) If you intend to read the book, I won't spoil it for you!
Afterwards, Conroy comes across the pup in certain circumstances where he has been taken in by the Indians and changes hands to take part in illegal dog-fighting before winding up in the hands of Conroy to rehabilitate him. These plot lines follow fairly accurately to the original London novel, albeit with some deviations, e.g: White Fang's mother was called Kiche and was taken in by the Indians, only to be separated from White Fang when she was sold to another Indian, Jack Conroy never appeared in the book, though he is similar to Weedon Scott's character in the novel.
The ending to White Fang was bugged with one or two clichés, in that with a gold claim freshly unearthed and ready to leave for California, he lets him "free" because "he'd be miserable in a city" though White Fang went TO a new urban home later. We're not too sure why Jack decides to stay in the wilderness either, especially when there's a new life as a rich man in California waiting, except for White Fang to return to him and for them to be reunited (as they are) and a possible instinct of this happening, but it's not very well explained.
It's also totally different to that of the ending of the book (that ends in California in the same way Call of the Wild starts there), but before I condemn it, I still have some praise for it being not so lassie-esquire to the effect of being nauseating, satisfying in its own right and closing the story nicely.
Perplexingly though, the end tacks on a concluding text from the Defenders of Wildlife that says that "JACK LONDON'S White Fang is a work of fiction. There has never been a documented case of a healthy wolf or pack of wolves attacking a human in North America. Because wolves were systematically eliminated throughout most of the United States during our early history and continue to be persecuted today, a nationwide effort is underway to reintroduce wolves into wilderness areas and insure their survival for generations to come." Firstly, White Fang is set in Canada (sorry to be picky but people may still think that wolves have attacked people elsewhere).
Secondly, I don't see why the film needs an epilogue like this - it isn't a nature documentary, it's a story! Maybe this is because the film is from 18 years ago when people were more prejudiced about wolves, and though I think wolves are great animals and it is important to protect them, it seems unnecessary to tack this information on at the end!
In general, I would recommend this film, whether you've read the book or not. Despite the faults I've listed and the Godawful Bambi-style rubbish, White Fang does have its saving graces. The relationship between Conroy and White Fang is excellently portrayed, and quite poignantly acted by Hawke and Jed the wolf (or wolf-dog, whichever one he falls into). The backdrops of Canada in both Spring and Winter are nothing short of breathtaking, and combined with the settings of the late 19th Century, put us in a real and harsh, but beautiful world that draws you in. If you've read the book, then remember it's Disney and they are liable to changing story material for film-making. Just don't take it too seriously.
I wouldn't touch MYTH OF THE WHITE WOLF with a 10 ft fishing pole, though!