"You should be a film critic!" That's what friends have implored for years. I'm happy to announce to them, my readers and followers, I've decided to include movie reviews on a regular basis in this blog. Will cover the gamut.
Urged by my man to attend a movie I'd normally avoid, I saw The Revenant. First reaction, too violent and filled with holes. Confession time: I had a sinus attack which hampered my objectivity and went to the movie ready to dislike it. I also abhor the reverence for violence many film critics and Academy voters often accept, as in The Departed or No Country for Old Men. In contrast, I admire directors who can realistically portray violence without resorting to blood baths and glorification. A good night's sleep produced a rested mind: yes, the film should be seen.
After a successful hunt,
The Revenant opens with hunters preparing their pelts for transport. Various stages from skinning to folding the furs in canvas and binding the prized bounty are depicted. Modern viewers, like me, may be repulsed by the process. Director, Alejandro González Iñárritu chooses, however, to allow the hunters momentary revelry before the predators become the prey. The ragged group are attacked by the Arikara Indians and experience heavy losses and injuries. Hugh Glass (DiCaprio) the hunter and scout for the group knows the territory and is the group's only reliable compass to finding their way back to camp. Glass's mixed-race son, Hawk (Forrest Goodluck), accompanies his father yet remains silent per his father's orders as not to incense the volatile hunter's irrational fears of the "Indian," particularly "half-breeds," Only the Captain truly understands Glass's value.The director introduces his viewers to an initial form of revenge: killing the white men who have taken the Native American's means of survival to sell for profit.
Iñárritu, helmed last year's Oscar winner for Best Picture: Birdman, another movie where I respected his choices more than the story. As a one-time theater goer and behind-the-scenes gopher, I'd have to favor Birdman, wondrous though the shots in The Revenant may be. As an ensemble film Birdman carries us away yet keeps the audience grounded, whereas Iñárritu's follow-up, The Revenant, has fantastic elements sprinkled amidst realistic drudgery.
This lone-wolf story is an intelligent examination of the old West and the killed-or-be-killed mentality to ensure survival. (In my mind, the foundation for our current American obsession with gun-violence.) No, I can't use the verb "loved" to describe my reaction to this film, better to write I respected most of the process, the production: acting, cinematography, directing (as described above) and screenwriting. I had problems with the editing. The movie, as is the norm these days, is too long. And scenes, particularly one involving a conifer left this benefit-of-the-doubt movie fan rolling her eyes and screaming in her head, "Cut!"
Okay, Leonardo, I'd endorse your getting an Oscar at last. I have watched for growth in this actor since his days in Titanic, and have finally accepted he has the chops. Another performer, Domnhall Gleeson plays the cavalry Captain who has a pivotal role in the movie. Cinephiles will recognize Gleeson from the brilliant film, Ex Machina, and the equally terrific, Star Wars: The Force Awakens. If any performer should be nominated for Best Supporting Actor, it's Domnhall Gleeson.
In The Revenant. cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki captures not only the breathtaking vistas of Alberta, Canada (where much of the movie was filmed) but the smallest creatures as well like carpenter ants climbing over one another to reach the summit. In a blink this scene ends yet serves as a perfect metaphor for the teamwork expected by the Captain of his remaining men to undertake their arduous journey to reach the fort.
Story-wise, historical accuracy comes and goes. In truth Glass didn't have a son, which leads to a peevish injection: why do movie marketers/producers insist on posting the words, e.g. "based on true events," on their posters? In the case of
The Revenant the contradictions are staggering (for a well-researched history of Hugh Glass, read Rebecca Onion's excellent article on the Glass myth in Slate Magazine:
Who was Hugh Glass? )
. The screenwriters do provide ethical lessons for audiences to ponder, and work hard to show a balanced perspective, from the in-fighting among various tribes to the cavalry captain and the complex "villain", Fitzgerald. I also admired the main theme, reinforced throughout the movie, of revenge and its consequences (
Gladiator references abound, intentional or not, I don't know.).
Moreover, the Native American women may be victims or need rescuing in this story, but their pride and self-empowerment, especially in one brutal scene, rise to the surface in unexpected places.
In the future, I hope to interview some Native Americans who have seen this movie to get their opinions. I know my boyfriend, part Blackfoot, felt emboldened by the screenwriter and director's choices. In my opinion, The Revenant boldly and reverently depicts the tribes as they try to maintain their culture and protect their lands. Forced to take sides, French vs. British/Colonials, these indigenous people have fateful choices.
Making decisions is the fundamental basis of a director. Iñárritu, and his cinematographer Lubezki, illuminate all that is beautiful and ugly in our natural landscape. Choosing to film in natural light, from a myriad of vantage points, these men show the land, nature as gifts to be savored not squandered.
In the end, the quest for vengeance left this audience member shaken, unsatisfied, a reaction I'd bet Iñárritu wanted. So, see a master craftsman and his artists at work. You will be affected. In its message, The Revenant shines a new light on the early days when men raped the land and left little except for the very few. An old lesson yet to be learned by mankind.
