![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
in conversations with others while talking about film, invariably the subject of Dances with Wolves seems to come up and my first response is almost always: "what a stupid movie". "you didn't like it?" comes the horrified reply.
then i have to explain the long, sad history.
i'm going to try to do this without spoiling the movie for those of you who actually have never seen it.
when Dances with Wolves came out in 1990, i was on a high from the release of Glory the year before. in anticipation of the movie's release and without really knowing what it was about (just having impressions from the preview), i started writing a "western" about an army officer who, after a massacre, is taken in by the Cheyenne and lives with them through the winter (indelibly altering his perspective on native american policies, etc.). i was almost finished with the book when the movie was released. seeing the similarities between the movie story and mine, i threw my 700 page novel in the trash (this wasn't the only reason ~ suffice it to say, it belonged in the trash). the point is, during that period i had done nothing but immerse myself in researching the history and culture of the plains indians of that particular period. i was very excited about the movie, but disappointed at its shortcomings.
Dances with Wolves is a melodrama with a pc message, beautiful cinematography, a charmingly inept hero, noble savages, and enough pathos packed into the animals in the cast that you seriously want to hurt dumb white military men by the time you leave the theatre. evoking that sort of reaction is movie-going gold.
but Dances with Wolves is also deeply flawed. adapted from Michael Blake's original book, Blake seems to have forgotten that he traded the Comanches of the text for the flashier Sioux of the film. he did this without bothering to change the behavior and customs of the native americans themselves ~ nor the stories they tell about their history with white men. most people won't notice this, but anyone who knows anything about the plains wars will be stabbing forks into their thighs at the inaccuracies (for example, i couldn't tell you when the conquistadors and the texans invaded kansas, but Ten Bears seems to recall it quite vividly).
interestingly enough, the director's cut version, though still flawed, is a much better story ~ it's more fairly presented (with the Sioux not always being the perfect nature-loving "good guys") and some of the inconsistencies a little more clearly explained. i recommend it to everyone who's seen the release version already and those who have never seen it at all ~ it's almost an entirely different film as far as tone is concerned.
i saw Dances with Wolves more times in the theatre than any other film to date (Glory was a distant second at 8 viewings). so perhaps i watched it to death and have dissected it more than most films, but it's the kind of movie (unlike Glory) that can't hold up under too much scrutiny. it's also full of prop and costume continuity errors, which make me personally batty.
what kills this movie (especially in the non-director's cut version) is the one-sided hypocrisy of the representation of the native american culture (Sioux=good, Pawnee=bad, white people=especially bad!). it also undoes itself at the end by going way overkill on the man vs. nature ugliness in an unecessary and infuriating way (why try to hammer a "message" when you've been dabbling in total fantasy up to this point?). the inconsistency is annoying.
if you watch this movie just once, none of the things i've nitpicked here will bother you. it's an entertaining film with gorgeous imagery, a silly but fun romance, great action sequences, and beautiful native american costumes.
I give the director's cut version of this film an A- for effort, for the sheer joy of it, for the risks it took then, for Cisco (the horse), and for a really cool Civil War opening sequence. it loses points for being silly, inconsistent, heavy-handed, one-sided, and for Stands with a Fist's hair (which is just ridiculous).
so when i say Dances with Wolves is stupid (or silly), it means i'm disappointed that it fell so short of so many things. it could have been a truly "great" film ~ instead it's just pretty good.
again, watch the director's cut.
: D
Lieutenant John Dunbar and Cisco
then i have to explain the long, sad history.
i'm going to try to do this without spoiling the movie for those of you who actually have never seen it.
when Dances with Wolves came out in 1990, i was on a high from the release of Glory the year before. in anticipation of the movie's release and without really knowing what it was about (just having impressions from the preview), i started writing a "western" about an army officer who, after a massacre, is taken in by the Cheyenne and lives with them through the winter (indelibly altering his perspective on native american policies, etc.). i was almost finished with the book when the movie was released. seeing the similarities between the movie story and mine, i threw my 700 page novel in the trash (this wasn't the only reason ~ suffice it to say, it belonged in the trash). the point is, during that period i had done nothing but immerse myself in researching the history and culture of the plains indians of that particular period. i was very excited about the movie, but disappointed at its shortcomings.
Dances with Wolves is a melodrama with a pc message, beautiful cinematography, a charmingly inept hero, noble savages, and enough pathos packed into the animals in the cast that you seriously want to hurt dumb white military men by the time you leave the theatre. evoking that sort of reaction is movie-going gold.
but Dances with Wolves is also deeply flawed. adapted from Michael Blake's original book, Blake seems to have forgotten that he traded the Comanches of the text for the flashier Sioux of the film. he did this without bothering to change the behavior and customs of the native americans themselves ~ nor the stories they tell about their history with white men. most people won't notice this, but anyone who knows anything about the plains wars will be stabbing forks into their thighs at the inaccuracies (for example, i couldn't tell you when the conquistadors and the texans invaded kansas, but Ten Bears seems to recall it quite vividly).
interestingly enough, the director's cut version, though still flawed, is a much better story ~ it's more fairly presented (with the Sioux not always being the perfect nature-loving "good guys") and some of the inconsistencies a little more clearly explained. i recommend it to everyone who's seen the release version already and those who have never seen it at all ~ it's almost an entirely different film as far as tone is concerned.
i saw Dances with Wolves more times in the theatre than any other film to date (Glory was a distant second at 8 viewings). so perhaps i watched it to death and have dissected it more than most films, but it's the kind of movie (unlike Glory) that can't hold up under too much scrutiny. it's also full of prop and costume continuity errors, which make me personally batty.
what kills this movie (especially in the non-director's cut version) is the one-sided hypocrisy of the representation of the native american culture (Sioux=good, Pawnee=bad, white people=especially bad!). it also undoes itself at the end by going way overkill on the man vs. nature ugliness in an unecessary and infuriating way (why try to hammer a "message" when you've been dabbling in total fantasy up to this point?). the inconsistency is annoying.
if you watch this movie just once, none of the things i've nitpicked here will bother you. it's an entertaining film with gorgeous imagery, a silly but fun romance, great action sequences, and beautiful native american costumes.
I give the director's cut version of this film an A- for effort, for the sheer joy of it, for the risks it took then, for Cisco (the horse), and for a really cool Civil War opening sequence. it loses points for being silly, inconsistent, heavy-handed, one-sided, and for Stands with a Fist's hair (which is just ridiculous).
so when i say Dances with Wolves is stupid (or silly), it means i'm disappointed that it fell so short of so many things. it could have been a truly "great" film ~ instead it's just pretty good.
again, watch the director's cut.
: D
Lieutenant John Dunbar and Cisco
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
i don't have anything whatsoever against costner. he's sort of a geek, but he doesn't bother me. i could take him or leave him.
and i don't hate the movie. it just don't think it's a great film. i'm glad it won all of its awards on vague artistic principals that i won't go into, but it's just simply not well-made. all of what works in it visually is really attributable to kevin reynolds, not costner.
From:
Well, if you were underwhelmed by Dances With Wolves...
It's about all these outlaw gunfighters, right? And Richie Valens plays an Indian of some sort. And he has this great monologue about how when his father drank he couldn't tell if he was drinking out of the bottle, or if the bottle was drinking out of him. Indians drink!
And the Sioux/Pawnee/white people thing made me snort soda out my nose, it was so funny.
From:
Re: Well, if you were underwhelmed by Dances With Wolves...
even worse, the sequel ~ and chavez y chavez has got to be the worst stereotype in recent cinema history.
blarg ~ !
: o p
From:
Re: Well, if you were underwhelmed by Dances With Wolves...
From:
no subject
~ Laura.