Never Cry Wolf (1983)

Director:

Carroll Ballard

Writers:

Farley Mowat (book)
Curtis Hanson (screenplay) ...

Release Date:

7 October 1983 (USA)

Genre:

Adventure | Drama

Tagline:

A True Story.

Plot:

A government researcher, sent to research the "menace" of wolves in the north, learns about the true beneficial and positive nature of the species.

Plot Keywords:

Wolf | Nature | Wilderness | Narration | Biologist

Awards:

Nominated for Oscar. Another 5 wins

Cast

Charles Martin Smith	...	Farley Mowat / Tyler
Brian Dennehy	...	Rosie
Zachary Ittimangnaq	...	Ootek
Samson Jorah	...	Mike
Hugh Webster	...	Drunk
Martha Ittimangnaq	...	Woman
Tom Dahlgren	...	Hunter #1
Walker Stuart	...	Hunter #2

Runtime:

105 min

Country:

USA

Language:

English | Inuktitut

Color:

Color (Technicolor)

Aspect Ratio:

1.85 : 1

Sound Mix:

Dolby

Certification:

Canada:A (Nova Scotia) | Iceland:12 | Australia:G | Canada:F (Ontario) | Canada:G (Quebec) | Canada:PG (Manitoba) | Finland:K-8 | Sweden:7 | UK:PG | USA:PG

Filming Locations:

Alaska, USA

Company:

Walt Disney Pictures

Trivia:

Although all the wolves used in the movie were tamed, at times the cameraman had to hold a chicken above their head to draw their attention to him. When needed, he gave the poultry a good jolt, which had the effect of having the chicken violently shaking it wings and getting the wolves to stare in perplexity at this behavior.

Goofs:

Factual errors: According to Tyler's background narrations, it is early April when the snow melts and the lake is completely unfrozen by early May. In reality, snow in the Arctic doesn't melt until June.

Quotes:

Mike: To me a wolf means money. It's a way of making a living. One wolf pelt is about $350 dollars. And I've got to feed my family; my children. Buy a snowmobile; food, rifle, bullets whatever.
Tyler: You wouldn't ah... you wouldn't kill these wolves?
Mike: These ones... no. No I don't think so. Besides you would get mad if I killed one of them... and your gun is bigger than mine.
Tyler: Yeah.
Mike: I'd like to though.

Movie Connections:

Featured in "Disneyland: Disney Goes to the Oscars (#30.8)" (1986)

Fine fictionalized documentary ahead of its time

This fictionalization of the Farley Mowat book about his Arctic adventures studying wolves is amazingly enough perhaps the most controversial film Disney studios ever made. How sad is that? The reasons for the controversy would seem minor: first, the movie is not entirely true to Mowat's book; two, it's lightly plotted; and three, a man is seen running around naked in the tundra. To which I say, so what? so what? and gee, how offensive. (Maybe they should have clothed the wolves.)

The latter complaint is the major reason for all the ranting by some "reviewers." To them a Disney film showing human nakedness seems a sacrilege and they want their bowdlerized world returned to them, and they want Disney censured and made to promise never to do anything like that again! The complaint that there wasn't enough tension in the film is also off base since this is a contemplative, even spiritual film, not a slick thriller. People with sound-bite attention spans who need to mainline exploding cars and ripped flesh to keep them interested need not apply.

The criticism that Director Carroll Ballard's film is not entirely true to the book is legitimate, but I would point out that movies are seldom if ever entirely true to their source material. A film is one kind of media with its particular demands while a book is another. It is impossible to completely translate a book into a movie. Something is always inevitably lost, but something is often gained. Here the cinematography and the beautiful musical score by Mark Isham are fine compensations.

The acting by Charles Martin Smith as "Tyler" (Farley Mowat) and Brian Dennehy as Rosie, the exploitive redneck bushpilot, and Samason Jorah as Mike the compromised Inuit (who sells wolf skins for dentures) and especially Zachary Ittimangnaq as Ootek, the quiet, wise man of the north are also pluses. Note how compactly the main issues of the film are exemplified in these four characters. Indeed, what this film is about is the dying of a way of life, not just that of the wolves, but of the Inuit people themselves who are losing their land and their resources while their young people are being seduced away from what is real and true and time-honored for the glittering trinkets of the postmodern world. This is a story of impending loss and it is as melancholy as the cold autumn wind that blows across the tundra.

What I think elevates this above most nature films is first the intense sense of what it would be like for a lower forty-eight kind of guy to survive in a most inhospitable wilderness, and second the witty presentation of some of the scenes. Ballard works hard to make sure we understand that it is cold, very cold and desolate and that there are dangers of exposure and weather and just plain loss of perspective that have killed many a would-be adventurer and might very well kill Tyler. I think it was entirely right that near the end of the film we get the sense that Tyler is going off the deep end emotionally, that the majestic and profoundly melancholy experience has been too much for him.

Tyler begins as a greenhorn biologist dropped alone onto a frozen lake amid snow covered mountains rising in the distance so that we can see immediately how puny he is within this incredibly harsh vastness. The following scene when Ootek finds him and leaves him and he chases Ootek until he drops, and then Ootek saves him, gives him shelter, and leaves again without a word, was just beautiful. And the scenes with the "mice" and running naked among the caribou and teaching Ootek to juggle were delightful. The territorial marking scene was apt and witty and tastefully done. (At least, I don't think the wolves were offended.)

This movie was not perfect, however. For one thing, those were not "mice" that Tyler found his tent infested with. I suspect they were lemmings posing for the cameras. Those who have seen the film about the making of this movie undoubtedly know what they were; please advise me if you do. Also the "interior" of Tyler's tent was way too big to fit into the tent as displayed. Also it would be important from a nutritional point of view for Tyler to eat the "mice" raw as the wolves did! (The actual creatures that Mowat ate I assume were mice.) If Tyler had to exist purely on roasted and boiled rodent for many months, he would encounter some nutritional deficiencies. Still, eating a diet of the whole, uncooked mouse would be sustaining whereas a diet of lean meat only would not. (Add blubber and internal organs for an all-meat diet to work.) Incidentally, the Inuit people get their vitamin C from blubber and the contents of the stomachs of the animals they kill.

Where were the mosquitos and the biting flies that the tundra is infamous for?

Since this movie appeared almost twenty years ago, the public image of the wolf has greatly improved and wolves have been reintroduced to Yellowstone Park. I think everybody in this fine production can take some credit for that.