A week of ongoing PoYB features brought back from the dead, but let's not forget about Never Seen It, currently the only non-music feature still ongoing, here in the Year of Our Puke 2021. In this feature, we're moving slowly and methodically through an arbitrary list of movies I had never seen before, and discussing each. Enjoy this and all the other nonsense throughout the week, dear reader.
Dances with Wolves
1990
Such a film could be intimidating. Three solid hours. Looks to be a serious subject matter. Such a lock for Best Picture that (according to Stephan) The Silence of the Lambs was content to delay its own opening so it didn't have to compete at the same Oscars. One of those serious producer-director-lead-actor combo roles for its main auteur.
The best part about Dances with Wolves, then, is that it ended up being not all that intimidating at all. I found this film to be smart but supremely honest. It was long, but it made every correct decision it needed to to maintain my interests and my attention. The story was laser-focused, but against the backdrop of the grand majesty of wide-open nature. It both taught you all about a way of life you know nothing about, and told you about basic human truths that you've always known.
This is what makes a great film, isn't it? I love when a movie immediately captures you and then manages to keep you invested in its world for as long as possible. I had no idea what Dances with Wolves was actually about (I had visions of Kevin Costner literally dancing with a wolf), but had you told me that it was about a Civil War general who becomes assimilated into the Sioux Nation, I would've immediately passed. Just doesn't sound interesting to me. But, yo, it was so interesting.
I think it managed to stay interesting throughout because Dances with Wolves handled a number of key storytelling decisions in exactly the correct fashion. These are decisions that other, lesser movies would've made differently, which makes Dances with Wolves an unmitigated success and other movies... well, not. And because I'm so used to films being less-than, I assumed at certain points that Dances with Wolves was gonna fuck it up. And it never did!
I can pinpoint a few examples, and we can go from specific to general. One is the casting of Mary McDonnell as a member of the Sioux Nation. Mary McDonnell is white, and it was definitely a "wait a minute" moment when she first showed up on screen. I'm not going to lie, I assumed the worst of this 30-year-old film (being especially sensitive to racial miscasting after Breakfast at Tiffany's practically imploded over the issue). Nope! There was a backstory! She's meant to play a white character! Whew!
There was also the beginning of the final act, when John Dunbar (that's Costner) rushes back to his old campsite, only to be captured by the army and held until the Sioux could come rescue him. My assumption was that this would lead to some misunderstanding and manufactured conflict, i.e. that the Sioux tribe members would think that Dunbar had betrayed them and gone back to the army, and Dunbar would have to prove himself loyal in some way. Nope! The Sioux leaders immediately knew that Dunbar was in trouble, and went off to help their friend and ally! Dances with Wolves was smart enough to know where the main source of conflict was, and didn't need any other bullshit cluttering it up.
In general, I'd say that the best decision that this film made was to make the two sides of the central "conflict"—namely, John Dunbar and the Sioux, most prominently Kicking Bird, but also Wind in His Hair and Smiles a Lot—good, honest, and sincere people. The only initial conflict between the two was born out of what each respective side had assumed about the other. But Dunbar and Kicking Bird could see almost immediately that each had found a good heart in their counterpart.
I'm trying to picture what a Dances with Wolves without this key element would look like. Perhaps Dunbar—who narrates the film via his field journaling—could come off as more suspicious, maybe holding onto his cruel assumptions about the Sioux for any length of time. Thankfully, he is instead thoughtful and considerate and respectful and sincerely interested in their way of life. And the realization that the Sioux are kinder and more compassionate than many or most white men from the communities he came from is a realization only possible because of Dunbar's qualities. Likewise on the other side—one might assume when you first meet Wind in His Hair that he is a warrior savage, lusting for blood or whatever. But then note how he comes across when discussing matters around the tribal campfire—passionate and loud, but respectful of elders and of others' opinions, and with everyone's best interests in mind.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that I assumed that Dances with Wolves would be three hours of these two sides growing to trust each other, with plenty of obstacles in the way, before everyone ultimately came to an understanding. There was a little bit of that, but really, the trust came almost immediately. After that, a large chunk of the movie is content to sit back and observe what else each can learn from the other—not "how to get along," because that was already there, but more like, this is how we dress, this is how we fight, and so on. It was fascinating! And all that shit could only happen because the film dared to make all the main characters good and decent human beings.
Of course, there hangs over everything the threat of the "white man" coming to invade and destroy this way of life, and sure enough, they do eventually come. But this is a secondary conflict, if only because we are so goddamn familiar with that story already. Human beings—in this case and in many cases, specifically white Americans—are cruel, violent, unempathetic, everything that we fear the "others" to be in the tragic, never-ending act of projection. There is an epilogue in this movie regarding the fate of the Sioux, and you don't need me to spoil it here to know what happens.
I am thankful, then, that we get to spend the vast majority of Dances with Wolves with the good ones, with Dunbar and Kicking Bird and all the rest, as they share victories, intertwine their lives, and grow to appreciate each other. There is value in a film focusing on the good, even if we all know that the bad is right there, waiting, just off stage.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Some of the Other Stuff We Usually Talk About in This Column, Shuffled Together
The main attraction here is Kevin Costner, so let's start there. Obviously, it's pretty impressive to star in a film that you are also directing, especially when both the acting and the directing are as good as they are here. Like, one of John Dunbar's characteristics is that he is introspective. One, that's not an easy trait to portray on screen, and he does it with aplomb; two, that's not an easy role to come out of in between shots, but he was able to do so and slip into a necessarily extroverted director's role as needed. Impressive.
We've seen a dual-performance in this column before, with Braveheart, which was directed by and starring Mel Gibson. All respect to Braveheart, which was a mighty fine movie, but it doesn't approach Dances with Wolves. Braveheart is all bravado, whereas Dances with Wolves managers to find nuance. One is a lot harder than the other.
I wasn't too familiar with any of the other actors in the film, who all did a fantastic job, honestly. It has to be especially challenging to evoke such intense empathy while speaking a foreign language, but everyone portraying a Sioux character did that and then some. I'm trying to see if I've seen anyone in anything before though? Let's see...
Mary McDonnell apparently played the First Lady in Independence Day, and had a small role in the TV series Fargo (I do not remember her in either); we'll see her again in Donnie Darko. Graham Greene (Kicking Bird)—I wish I knew him from other stuff, because he was so good here, but it doesn't look like I've ever seen him act before; he'll be in The Green Mile. Rodney A. Grant (Wind in His Hair)—nothing that I even recognize, unfortunately. Also unfortunate that so many of these actors' credits include generic-sounding Native American names. It's gotta be tough being stuck in stereotypical roles based on your heritage, no?
I dunno, I don't see too many other actors that I could even hope to recognize or see again (though I will point out that apparently one of the U.S. Army generals was named Sergeant Pepper? I wonder if that was intentional). I dunno. What else should we talk about? How about IMDB Trivia? Haven't done that in a while.
BEST: "During the scene where the buffalo is charging at Smiles a Lot, the buffalo is actually charging at a pile of its favorite treat: Oreo cookies." Something about the phrasing of this piece of trivia makes it more amusing to me than it would be otherwise. If it said "trainers used Oreos to get the buffaloes to charge" or something, it wouldn't be in the "BEST" section.
WORST: "Lt. John Dunbar carries two guns in the film—a Henry 1860 rifle made specially by Uberti, and a Colt 1851 Navy cap-and-ball revolver." Fuck guns, give me more Oreo trivia.
ALMOST CASTED (WHO THE FUCK CARES): "Viggo Mortensen was originally cast to play John Dunbar." Who the fuck cares?!?
Actually, there's another piece to that last one—"Mortensen will, however, be playing John Dunbar in the sequel to this movie, The Holy Road." Sequel?! Yes, apparently this is a thing! Maybe. Okay, so Dances with Wolves is based on a book with the same name, written by author Michael Blake. Blake wrote it with the intention of it being adapted, and sure enough, when it was picked up, he wrote the screenplay too.
That book was published in 1988. In 2001, he published The Holy Road, a sequel in book form. Again, this was with the intention of getting it adapted into a movie. The plot, by the way, sounds pretty fucking terrible. It takes place eleven years after the events of the first story, and involves one of Dunbar's children being kidnapped...?
Who knows, maybe it would end up being a better film than it sounds. The only thing is that Kevin Costner wants nothing to do with it. Costner has traditionally refused to have anything to do with any sequel for any movie he has ever been in, and that includes Dances with Wolves. Hence the claim that Mortensen (a.k.a. Aragorn) would be taking over the role. A cursory web search reveals no details, however, including cast list or release date. And The Holy Road was written twenty years ago now. Michael Blake died in 2015. I think we can safely put the idea of a Dances with Wolves sequel to bed at this point.
I guess you can't blame anyone for wanting to milk the golden Oscar calf a little more. Blake won Best Adapted Screenplay, and no one was telling him he couldn't do it again. Maybe some of the actors might want another shot at an Oscar—Kicking Bird and Stands with a Fist both lost their respective Supporting Role Oscars (to Pesci in Goodfellas and Whoopi in Ghost, the latter which we can talk about when Ghost comes around on the Never Seen It list).
Dances with Wolves ended up going 7 for 12, with Picture, Director, Screenplay, and some of the lesser ones (Sound, Editing, etc.). Notably, it beat Home Alone for Best Original Score... but don't worry, Home Alone exacted its revenge when it beat Dances with Wolves at the NICKELODEON KIDS' CHOICE AWARDS!!!!!!!!!!
I think that's about all I usually do. Maybe embed a song from the soundtrack or something?
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Cultural Appropriation
Can we talk about this for a second before wrapping up? It's a little bit unrelated, but are you even still reading at this point anyway? Okay, so Pam and I have been watching Drag Race, and as of this writing, Utica Queen has been eliminated. But a couple weeks ago, she was a part of the challenge where the girls had to "embody their teammate's essence" or whatever. Each pair had to do each other's makeup and costuming in their own style, and that queen had to "act" like their partner.
Anyway, Utica was paired up with Symone. Utica is white, and Simone is black. When Symone tried coming up with some ideas for what Utica could wear to "embody the essence of Symone," Utica tried claiming that she was "uncomfortable" with doing anything, because it would constitute "appropriation."
I guess you can't really blame Utica for attempting to come at this issue with good intentions (though whether it was actually good intentions and not some bipolar bullshit from this fat-shaming asshole is a subject that would take us much too far away from Dances with Wolves even for the digressive Puke on Your Birthday) but the fact of the matter is that she was not correct in her usage of the term. (RuPaul did eventually correct her.)
Definition for cultural appropriation: "refers to the use of objects or elements of a non-dominant culture in a way that doesn't respect their original meaning, give credit to their source, or reinforces stereotypes or contributes to oppression." I think the key word in this definition is "respect." If Utica is trying to "embody the essence of Symone," then wearing Symone's clothes and Symone's makeup and walking down the runway like Symone would be the exact way you would respect that. It comes out of love, not of derision or ugly humor.
It took me a bit of reflection to understand why Utica's stupid ignorance burned me so much. I think it's because she is—purposefully or accidentally—feeding into conservatives' intolerance of the so-called "cancel culture" when she says bullshit like that. "What, we can't even dress up like our friends now?!" a MAGAt might be heard to say. And they would be right (he says with clenched teeth)—it is stupid to say you can't dress up like your friends at all. No one who has one fucking inkling what cultural appropriation actually is would say such a stupid thing. But Utica is a moron, so her misunderstanding can be really detrimental to those who are actually trying to be respectful of others (instead of just throwing buzzwords around like a fake bitch).
I don't even remember where I was going with this originally... maybe I'm creating a strawman argument, that anyone who says that Kevin Costner is culturally appropriating from Native Americans in this movie is wrong (even though I have no idea if anyone has ever actually made that argument)? I mean, Costner was made an honorary member of the Sioux Nations after this movie came out, by actual tribe members, so I think we can safely assume that the movie and the motivations and the costuming and all of it was coming from a deep sense of respect and compassion. Just please don't let Utica Queen watch Dances with Wolves. Please.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
GRADE: 4.5 pukes out of 5
NEXT TIME: We're gonna watch The Deer Hunter, which is a war movie I believe, and which I'm just thinking now was involved in a subplot in another war movie—Jarhead, maybe—in which a soldier's wife tapes over a copy of The Deer Hunter with a video of her cheating on him at home? Anyways, that's the only other thing I know about The Deer Hunter.
No comments:
Post a Comment