(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 19th
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 18th 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment