tieman64
In the early 1930s, Spain kicked out its monarchs and attempted to form a "democratic Republic". As is common in history, the leftist government which ousted the monarchy didn't last long. A coalition of centre right and far right parties, fascists, monarchists, the Catholic Church, European and Western powers and eventually dictator Francisco Franco, crushed the rag-tag assembly of leftists and took power themselves. Franco himself would rule from 1933 to 1973. He received tacit support from the French and British establishment, who preferred fascism over socialism. Deeply demented, Franco rallied people to his cause under the guise of removing a "threatening infestation" of "Jews", "Marxists" and "Masons". Anyone who violently opposed his rule was deemed a "terrorist" or "anarchist".Fred Zinnemann's "Behold a Pale Horse" deals with one such "terrorist". He is Manuel Artiguez (Gregory Peck). The Spanish Civil War has ended, but Artiguez is still in hiding. His arch nemesis is Vinolas (Anthony Quinn), a police captain whom Artiguez fought during the War. After decades of separation, the duo's feud is about to be reignited."Horse" opens with Artiguez learning that his mother has been hospitalised. Vinolas, knowing that Artiquez will visit his mother, erects a trap to catch his prey; the entire town of Saint Martin, where Artiquez's mother is housed, is now crawling with hidden solders, snipers and Vinolas himself. When Artiguez arrives, he will be killed. Artiguez knows this. He goes anyway.Ambitious political thrillers (Costa Gavras, Pontecorvo, Martin Ritt etc) were the norm in the 1960s. Zinnemann's film itself strives for both greatness and complexity. Unfortunately, it can't quite get there. "Horse" drags badly at times, Gregory Peck is as wooden as ever, and the film's climax lacks a few minutes of extra thrills. Still, there's much to admire. Zinnemann's procedural-like tone is gripping and the film climaxes with an impressive sequence. Zinnemann's location photography, cinematography and script are also fine, and the film's plot is intrinsically pregnant with tension.But it's on the level of allegory that "Behold a Pale Horse" works best. For most of the film, we're unsure whether Artiguez is driven by honour, revenge, sheer stubbornness, political ideals or a suicidal urge for death. It is only in "Horse's" last act that things become somewhat clearer. Here Artiguez spares Vinolas' life and instead kills a friend who has turned traitor. This traitor's breaking of his word, his pledge of honour, is mirrored to the actions of a young priest (Omar Sharif), who risks life and limb to abide by a promise made to a dying woman. Climaxing with Artiguez dead and his body riddled with bullets, "Horse" offers, not only Spanish Republicans as being forever tainted by the failure of defeat, but the Civil War itself as being compromised by betrayal and traitors; men who'd sell out their fellow-men for status and lucre. "In the most mean, cowardly, hypocritical way the British ruling class did all they could to hand Spain over to Franco!" George Orwell once wrote. But such a "selling out" applied to whole swathes of society – the ruling class and the ruled - even within Spain herself.Hollywood largely avoided films set during or immediately after the Spanish Civil War. Three of the more famous ones were "Blockade" (1938), "For Whom the Bell Tolls" (1943) and "Behold a Pale Horse". "For Whom the Bell Tolls", of course, was based on the 1940 novel by Ernest Hemingway. Hemingway would criticise the film for eschewing the political complexity of the war and ignoring the motivations and ideals of its participants. In an infamous rant about the film, which criticised it for containing not a single reference to "fascism", "falangism", "demoracy", "socialism", "communism" or "anarchism", Hemingway would say: "Why not use the word Fascists? We are at present engaged in fighting a war against the Fascists. Throughout the picture the enemy should be called the Fascists and the Republic should be called the Republic!" Released two decades after "For Whom the Bell Tolls", "Behold a Pale Horse" is similarly petrified of offending. Who and what its characters "really are" and "really represent" remains tactically vague, and history is carefully obfuscated. As a result, "Horse" could take place almost anywhere and anyplace. This allows the film to work well as a noirish, revenge thriller, but Zinnemann's aesthetic - slow and serious - clearly has other intentions, intentions which the film's actual content betrays.7.5/10 - See "The Spy Who Came In From The Cold" for this material handled better.
jstock426
Criticisms of the slow-pace of BEHOLD A PALE HORSE fall in line with complaints of the lack of twist-off caps on fine bottles of wine. If patience has no virtue, you won't enjoy this film. Zinnemann's nuanced layering of mood, theme, and character requires appreciation of things developed over time.A vintage rarely tasted these days (to further exploit the wine motif), Zinnemann shot this film in black-and-white, and it only enhances the shading of elements. The effect gives it a look concomitant with its complex characters who go through the angst of spiritual and emotional transformation. And the cast had to delight in Zinnermann's decision to let them exercise their art: Acting. Imagine Atticus Finch telling Jem to shut up and then slapping the lad "upside the head." Yet here's good-guy Peck abandoning type and stepping into the character of Artiguez, an angry man who delivers such a blow to a boy (about Jem's age), knocking him down onto the street.BEHOLD A PALE HORSE delivers so much more than most films in that it compliments the entire palate of the viewer's intellect. That makes for a very good film. That takes time.
Raghavendra Rao
I watched this movie, and like most of the people have already expressed it, must say that this is truly a classic. The acting crew is excellent with Peck, Shariff and Quinn giving some very intense performances. But the surprise package is the boy who crosses over to the French part where he goes in search of Manueal to ask him to avenge his father's death at the hands of Vinollas. I often read comments that Peck is stuff or wooden on occasions, but I find him one of the most intense actors because of his ability to convey through his eyes. Like most actors, he is gifted of conveying a lot more through his eyes than his body might suggest. He conveys the frailing Manuel artigez here very well. We know that Manuel is tired and wary of the struggle he has pursued so passionately. Full credit to Peck for portraying that very effectively. Omar Shariff is also brilliant as the confused priest. Quinn is natural and we feel a certain angst against him, I do not know why. The end is excellent which again, conveys the human side of Manuel very well. All in all, an excellent movie worth watching on a calm Sunday afternoon.
ewarn-1
This is a film which has almost faded into total obscurity, and that's tragic, because it's well worth seeing. It's sort of a thinking person's suspense movie, better appreciated if you know some details about the intricate historical background in which it is set. Even so, it can be appreciated for its dramatic settings and characterizations. It has a complicated plot, to be sure, but the story rolls right along...not a lot of action until the end, but the tension builds steadily. I'm no fan of Peck, but his role here really drew me in. He looks beaten down by a hard life and way too much unhealthy passion. Quinn doesn't have much screen time, but I liked some of the minor characters best...their faces were great. The credit sequence, meshed together perfectly with newsreels, shows a long line of defeated soldiers, their faces reflecting defeat and confusion... a great tracking scene.Here are some reasons I think the film is unknown: 1. The main character is an atheist communist anti-catholic guerilla bandit. Not a popular icon in American movies. 2. Complex historical background. 3. Knowledge of political situation in Spain a minimum requirement. Not a priority on many American's lists. 4. Black and white photography in 1964. (Hey, I liked the scenery...but you always wonder how it would look in color...and this was a late date for a black and white feature film.) 5. Civil War movies (even Spain's) always run a risk...you might alienate half the audience.
