The Revenant (2015) ****½/5: I liked this film as a brutal examination of the American frontier but was less enamoured with the tale of revenge.

(courtesy of youtube.com)

The Revenant is a harsh and brutal examination of the American frontier but this harshness and brutality does work against it to some extent. A film like this is necessary to counter those that are too unrealistic in their too sympathetic and harmonious picture where the nature of conflict is too simplistic. With that said it is a good film but there is not too much cathartic feeling or moments of genuine emotional release for the viewer who should be sympathetic towards the protagonist.  The film devolves into a typical revenge scenario while initially trying to say a great deal, in mystical terms, about the nature of American society in the early 19^th century. 

The film is about the true  story of Hugh Glass’s (Leonardo Dicaprio) survival in the brutal cold terrain of North West America after being left for dead by fellow hunters John Fitzgerald  (Tom Hardy) and Jim Bridger (Will Poulter). Glass’s revenge is directed primarily at Fitzgerald who is the villainous figure in the film.

Positives

While the tale of Hugh Glass is interesting from a dramatic point of view I was more interested in the big picture description of the American frontier.  The interaction between the white settlers and exploiters  and the Native American Indians. The white settlers and exploiters don’t just include white Americans but also vestiges of a French population that would have been around since the 18^th century.  The interaction between these groups is also reflected in Glass’s story. In the film his son is half Indian and he is aided in his journey back from the dead and for revenge by some Indians. There is even a smaller story where some Indians are on the hunt for the daughter of one of their kinsmen. The paths of Glass and these Indians do cross in interesting ways.  It goes to show how important the historical record of these Native American  Indians are for American civilization. There is even a twist that I thought was humorous. An isolated Indian who meets Glass has his own tale of survival where he claims that the Sioux Indians killed his family and he was seeking to join up with the Pawnee tribe. In Dances With Wolves the Sioux are portrayed as the more humane group whereas the Pawnee are portrayed as the aggressors. The tale of the isolated Indian in this current  film seems to balance out this kind of portrayal in Dances With Wolves. It also goes to show that Glass’s tale of survival would not be as unique to the many Indians who had to deal with isolation and warfare between the tribes on a frequent basis. The Indians also have to deal with aggression from white military forces that regularly burn out their villages in the name of conquest and settlement of the American frontier. Glass’s story only seems remarkable to white settlers who were accustomed to a form of civilization divorced from a serious interaction with their natural surroundings. The Indians had a more symbiotic relationship with the natural environment whereas the whites were primarily exploiters of the surroundings and played a great role in disturbing the natural balance between man and nature. A character like Fitzgerald is typical of the irate and brutal white exploiter.  This is not to say the Indians were saints because that important tale in the film  about  the isolated Indian, whose world was shattered by the Sioux tribe, is testament to the harsh environment of Indian tribal warfare.

When one looks at the film from the point of view where it’s an examination of the American frontier then it’s a very good film. Glass’s story of survival basically involves his full immersion into life on the frontier from the point of view of the Indians and this would explain why they are so important in his tale of survival. His own life story suggests that his interaction with the Indians went beyond the superficial. This is why he has a half Indian son.

His tale of survival is a very interesting one. The attack by the mother bear on Glass is well filmed and it’s harsh and brutal. His recovery is not as profound however but it’s important when one accounts for his improvisation. Like I said it’s not so profound because it’s clear that the Indians had to deal with these tales of survival on a regular basis. So I think the director, Alejandro Inarritu, went a bit overboard, from a dramatic point of view, in attempting to enhance Glass’s tale of survival. This would reinforce the bias that as a white man’s tale of survival in the wild it gives the story more of a flair for melodrama and mystical teachings. The tale of the Indian who was displaced by Sioux Indians was just as harsh as  Glass’s tale. The only difference is that Glass was previously mauled by a mother bear.  The aid provided by the Indians is minimal in this film when compared to the real account.

The tale of revenge may be melodramatic  particularly when you consider the villainous Fitzgerald but it keeps the film going. This film reminded me a lot of Ben-Hur (1959) which was a similar tale of revenge and redemption. In that film when  the Roman Consul Quintus Arrius  says ‘Hate keeps a man alive, gives him strength’ (not exact quote) it  captures  Glass’s tale to some extent.  Inarritu does give Fitzgerald some weight. For instance some people might have sided with Fitzgerald’s stance to leave Glass behind because if  he and Bridges stayed it’s possible that they would have been killed by the Indians on the trail for the daughter of one of their kinsmen. Fitzgerald does have a hard sense of reality. Obviously the melodramatic element comes when Fitzgerald kills Hawk (Forrest Goodluck). A completely false scene that lacks substance. Without that scene Fitzgerald would have been a more sympathetic character.  For instance it is clear in the film that he, and the other mountaineers,  are being exploited by General Ashley in their expedition for furs.

Negatives

The primary negative I had with this film is that its harshness and brutality  does work against it in some way.  There are scenes where the harshness is clearly exaggerated for maximum effect. For instance the scene when Fitzgerald kills Glass’s son Hawk is clearly exaggerated even if you didn't know that Glass never had a son named Hawk according to real historical accounts. It just seems to give more motivation for Glass to seek revenge against Fitzgerald.  The final fight between Fitzgerald and Glass was also greatly exaggerated despite its brutal nature.  The revenge scenario in this film becomes anti-climactic. If Inarritu stuck to some of the original stories about Glass’s hunt for Bridges and Fitzgerald then more meaning would have come from this tale of revenge and it wouldn't have been as simple as it’s told here.  In this film Glass arrives at peace by some strange mysticism associated with his dead wife. I was not moved at all.

The film didn't need to have an outright villain in the form of Fitzgerald. It actually tarnishes his  record as an actual historical character. In the original stories he was still fairly young but in this film he is a seasoned brute. His villainy clearly adds to the melodramatic  or overly dramatic effect in the film. The film would have benefitted if Glass’s tale of revenge was more realistic.

I liked this film as a brutal examination of the American frontier but was less enamored with the tale of revenge.

Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens (2015) ***½/5: This is not a great film and is a bit underwhelming but it will do and is probably enough to jump start the franchise for the current generation

I deliberately waited awhile for the excessive hype of the new Star Wars film to die down a bit before I wrote a review.  I wanted to give a more reasonable assessment without too much backlash from some fans. It’s not a negative review by any means. The Force Awakens is not a great film and is a bit underwhelming but it will do and is probably enough to jump start the franchise for the current generation. It has jumpstarted the franchise in terms of dollars earned at the box office and has broken Avatar’s record in the US but what about its quality as a film. There is the introduction of a new generation of characters but it does seem that  it’s more of the same especially when seen through the eyes of a character that’s about 1000 yrs old.

This film is primarily about the resurgent First Order, representatives of the dark side,  that has emerged from the remnants of the defeated Galactic Empire. They are in conflict with the resistance, representative of good, supported by the New Republic. Thrown in the mix are a set of new characters such as Rey, Finn, Poe, BB-8 and Kylo Ren that will be eventual leaders of the new conflicting forces. Rey (Daisy Ridley), Finn (John Boyega)  and Poe Dameron (Oscar Isaac) are on the side of good whereas Kylo Ren (Adam Driver) has been turned to the dark side by his mentor, Supreme Leader Snoke (Andy Serkis). There is the return of familiar characters such as Han Solo, Chewbacca, C-3PO and R2-D2 and, more importantly, Luke Skywalker who is crucial to the story because he is the last Jedi but is now in exile.

Positives

The primary positive is that the Star Wars franchise has now been updated for the current generation of 21^st century audiences.  Visually it is certainly the most appealing Star Wars film ever released. It seamlessly blends  CGI and real live models with the real environment. Some locations, such as the one at the planet Jakku, are given a sense of epic scale by fallen star destroyers of the former galactic empire that are now left to gather dust in the desert. The visuals are certainly upgraded when compared with Episodes 1-3 that had a lot of plastic CGI  environments. 

The introduction of new characters is also crucial for the progression of the new series of Star Wars films and some will certainly sit well with modern day audiences. It will be interesting to see how this new generation of characters mature into their roles. It is clearly established that some of the new characters   are raw talents. Even Kylo Ren who aspires to be the next Darth Vader has some way to go when you consider his petulance and temper tantrums.  If he can assume the stature of a Darth Vader in the coming installments then that will be truly impressive because Vader is a legendary figure in filmdom. Rey also represents a new generation of Jedi knights and it will be interesting to see her mature into her role.  Finn and Po will also be key figures for the resistance in upcoming installments. Of all the new characters Finn seems to be the most original. The next couple of films will be interesting because these new characters will clearly be the new leaders of the Resistance and the First Order. The extent that they mature into their roles will be crucial for the series going forward especially as the previous generation of Luke, Han and Leia are clearly being phased out. Luke Skywalker is like the new Yoda for instance.  

Much emphasis has been placed on the First Order and what is clear is that the scale of their firepower dwarfs the former Galactic Empire. It seems that they are certainly more powerful in terms of technology but not necessarily in the ways of the force.  It will be interesting to see what kind of challenge they pose because in the original films Episodes 4-6 it was clear that the Galactic Empire was in control and that there was a rebellion against its tyrannical rule. I am not so sure what the First Order represents here apart from being merely aggressors. In terms of scale they seem to match the former empire but do not seem very intrinsic or built in. The scale of their firepower though should make for an interesting contest.  They may not seem intrinsic but it seems like they are fighting to take over the galaxy by force but what good is that if you keep blowing up so many planets especially if you’re trying to rule through consensus even if it’s a consensus imposed by dictatorial rule.

The final scene in the film was somewhat rewarding and it goes to show how important some of these older characters are. It is the one scene that demonstrates in a very profound way the old vs. the new and a potential changing of the guard for the films to follow.  It’s the most impressive moment in the  film because there is a new hope.

Negatives

The primary negative is that this film is a rip off of Episode 4: A New Hope. The only difference is that the scale is made more epic. The death star  in A New Hope is dwarfed by a similar weapon created by the First Order. Even how they defeat this ‘technological monstrosity’ is similar to how the death star was destroyed in A New Hope. The planet jakku in this current release is similar to Tatooine except there is no binary sunset. The concept where some obscure figure rises up to be a new hope for the Jedi force is also a rip off. Other episodes are also ripped off shamelessly.  Kylo Ren’s conflict is similar to Anakin’s in Episodes 2&3.  There are just too many rip offs and if I have the time I will discuss them in another post. I see where they could have told a more original story particularly if they placed some emphasis on the new republic and by emphasizing the structure of the galaxy that emerged following the defeat of the empire. Why is there the need for a resistance? They should have explained the origins of the First Order in more detail in order to make it seem like a distinctive enterprise as opposed to just following in the footsteps of the former Galactic  Empire because that just sidesteps the issue. Not even George Lucas would have simplified it so.   I see no reason why Luke Skywalker could not be placed at the centre of the story or at least be featured more. The dark side did not have to come back in such a big way so suddenly in the form of the First Order especially as the Galactic Empire was defeated with the Jedi holding the advantage. 

The new characters are given more exposure but they still don’t hold the same weight and the actors are trying very hard to impress upon the audience their importance as characters. The supreme leader, Snake or Snoke for example does not have the same gravitas as the emperor apart from his very tall frame and reptilian features.  Who is he? Where did he come from? yes he represents the dark side but did he just spring from the ground? The original villains in the first 6 episodes of Star Wars had human qualities, including their features, that made them just as menacing. This is in keeping with the difference between The Force Awakens and previous instalments where the scale has been increased tremendously to the point of incredulity or just plain ridiculousness.  A weapon that can absorb an entire sun in a couple of minutes sounds like we are entering the realm of the absurd. The original Star Wars films did also have the absurd but the characters were all grounded in a reality that we could identify with especially the political aspects. The political element is missing completely here and all we have  here is good vs. evil without much intricacy.

Qualitatively The Force Awakens does not have the same impact as A New Hope. It might build on the foundations of A New Hope but it has not created its own distinctive niche. The primary difference is that  the scale of the action has been ratcheted up x 10 and there are some new characters. The Force Awakens won’t be featured much in top ten lists for 2015 but in terms of quantity it is sure to pull in the dollars. What the history of film has shown is that in order to pull in the dollars a lot has to be diluted in terms of quality.  The Force Awakens relies a bit too much on the strength of the Star Wars  franchise that began in 1977. This makes for a very underwhelming experience. I will be looking forward to see how the new characters mature into their roles and become distinctive.