Skip to main content

As I heard my Sioux name being called over and over, I knew for the first time who I really was.

Dances with Wolves
(1990)

(SPOILERS) Kevin Costner’s Oscar glory has become something of a punching bag for a certain brand of “white saviour” storytelling, so much so that it’s even crossed over seamlessly into the SF genre (Avatar). It’s also destined to be forever scorned for having the temerity to beat out Goodfellas for Best Picture at the 63rdAcademy Awards. I’m not going to buck the trend and suggest it was actually the right choice – I’d also have voted Ghost above Dances, maybe even The Godfather Part III – but it’s certainly the most “Oscar-friendly” one. The funny thing, on revisit, is that what stands out most isn’t its studiously earnest tone or frequent but well-intentioned clumsiness. No, it’s that its moments of greatest emotional weight – in what is, after all, intended to shine a light on the theft and destruction of Native American heritage – relate to its non-human characters.

Which isn’t to say these points were ignored at the time; one of the first things anyone seeing the film would comment on was how sad it was when White Socks is shot (punctuated heartbreakingly by John Barry’s score). And that coming after John Dunbar’s horse has been shot from under him. But it’s only at this point, as John is divested of his animal – as opposed to human – companions, that the picture feels as if it is really taking on emotional heft and stakes. Before that, as an audience member, it’s easy to be carried along rather ambivalently by this, as Pauline Kael put it in one of her last reviews, “middle-of-the-road epic”.

Did I like it more at the time? I’m sure I did. It’s a film that very much benefits from being appreciated on the big screen, where its open-plains vistas make up for what is otherwise a fairly rudimentary directorial style of the Eastwood mould (which isn’t to say Costner’s a bad director – Open Range is expertly put together – simply that he’s no auteur). Indeed, it’s those vistas combined with Barry’s magnificent score that explain much of how this pill of a white hero pointing the finger at his fellow genocidal countrymen went down so agreeably (behind the majority of middling Best Picture winners there’s a highly affecting score).

In an era where well-meaning patronisation from white (male) filmmakers is tantamount to being guilty of the very acts they’re seeking to atone for (Green Book), it’s easy to dismiss Dances with Wolves in the same manner that many at the time dismissed Driving Miss Daisy. Dances is no masterpiece, just an old-style western that happened to be elevated beyond its place by a rapturous Academy. Not really its fault. Costner, who seemed to be born middle-aged, was unsurprisingly Republican in leaning during the ‘80s, and his Dunbar is very much a right-of-centre protagonist, liberal where it counts yet keen on huntin’, shootin’ and fishin’, but almost painfully uncynical with it. What’s most noteworthy about Costner’s approach is the way that, in certain key areas, Dunbar is very much not the honed, can-do hero. He makes an arse of himself when introducing himself to his new neighbours, he isn’t a particularly effective fighter, and Costner’s narration of Dunbar’s journal entries is commendably unpolished, almost boyish in its sincerity as he blithely elevates the Sioux to the level of sainthood.

Of course, that’s not to let the director off his conceits. Dunbar’s suicide ride rewarded as bravery may be intentionally ironic, but it still involves a very silly Jesus Christ pose, one one suspects Costner cobbled together after seeing the death of Elias in Platoon. And if Dunbar’s low-key and reticent about revealing the dangers of his co-invaders to the Sioux, it is he who carries the burden – in terms of the denouement – of losing even more than they! He gets to pair with Mary McDonnell’s conveniently Sioux-raised squaw, but nobly chooses to exile himself from his adopted tribe, knowing his ex-army colleagues will be after him. He thus gives himself the ultimate hero’s ending, suffering in worthy silence and isolation. The character’s also furnished with an entirely non-regulation mullet, one that would follow Costner around through a couple of time periods, notably fifteenth century Nottingham, before he dispensed with it to save Whitney Houston’s life.

While Dances’ sentiments (and sentiment) may seem at best naïve now, Costner was notably made an honorary member of the Sioux Nation for his efforts. Although, that might have been partly due to his airbrushing Sioux history as peace-loving, when accounts of the period had the Pawnee as more frequently their victims. With Wes Studi as their leader, soon to be irrevocably associated with ruthless Native American villainy as Magua in Last of the Mohicans, it couldn’t be otherwise. The portrayal of the tribe is very much of the veneration-first disposition, replete with clichés of strong silent types, wise elders and bonding through common humorous touchstones. Graham Greene’s Kicking Bird – besides his deep and abiding kinship with Dunbar – is most singled out by mystification at his missus – unfathomable women, eh, the great cultural leveller! – while initially antagonistic Wind in His Hair (Rodney A Grant) becomes Dunbar’s staunchest defender. The Union Army are mostly cruel idiots or crazy (Maury Chaykin makes a strong impression early in the proceedings), such that it comes as a surprise when a sympathetic figure appears (Charles Rocker’s Lieutenant Elgin) and soon after meets a brutal end.

It can seem hard now to place just how and why Costner became the biggest movie star on the planet for a couple of years, but I think the key was probably the flavour of honour and dependability he brought to his most famous roles, a quality from a bygone era; he never fared quite as well when he tried to rough things up in contemporary or futuristic fare like Revenge or Waterworld. It’s why, whatever else you may want to say about Man of Steel, he was perfect casting as Pa Kent. If you look at the pictures he made when was riding high – The Untouchables, Field of Dreams, Dances with Wolves, Prince of Thieves, even The Bodyguard and JFK – and they suggest irreducible, straightforward values (there are a few wrinkles too, No Way Out and Bull Durham being two of his most interesting pictures of this period). That also means there isn’t a whole lot of depth to his iconography. It doesn’t matter too much when you’re dealing with the mythic or quasi-spiritual (De Palma/Mamet and Alden Robinson’s entries) but the seams begin to show when all you have between you and pure corn is Alan Rickman hamming or a diva hammering out an old favourite.

So the Oscar. Awakenings now stands out only as a “What were they thinking?” in its status as a strictly middling disability movie in the mode of Rain Man and My Left Foot, but lacking their slickness and punch respectively (but with De Niro doing some attention-grabbing gurning/drooling to secure it the necessary cachet, and Robin Williams in mawkish sincerity mode). The Godfather Part III is a case of everyone putting it forward really hoping they were wrong and that it was worthy of its predecessors (seven nominations, no wins); this was, after all, an awards season where everyone had been tipping Bonfire of the Vanities for honours before they got a whiff of the goods. And no, I don’t think it’s nearly as bad as its rep; it’s just far from great. And Ghost, the kind of unfettered, cheesily sincere romance that just plain works, but was never in serious contention of taking the top prize. None of them can hold a candle to Goodfellas, but it’s often easier to go for a quick fix of emotional uplift with a twinge of melancholy after a hard year making movies, combined with patting yourself on the back for your sensitivity towards injustices, rather than immersing yourself in a fetid bath sordid violence, avarice and criminality. That, and a western hadn’t won in a long while. Of course, a much, much better one would only then go and win again only two years later.



Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

No matter how innocent you are, or how hard you try, they’ll find you guilty.

The Wrong Man (1956) (SPOILERS) I hate to say it, but old Truffaut called it right on this one. More often than not showing obeisance to the might of Hitchcock during his career-spanning interview, the French critic turned director was surprisingly blunt when it came to The Wrong Man . He told Hitch “ your style, which has found its perfection in the fiction area, happens to be in total conflict with the aesthetics of the documentary and that contradiction is apparent throughout the picture ”. There’s also another, connected issue with this, one Hitch acknowledged: too much fidelity to the true story upon which the film is based.

He’s so persistent! He always gets his man.

Speed (1994) (SPOILERS) It must have been a couple of decades since I last viewed Speed all the way through, so it’s pleasing to confirm that it holds up. Sure, Jan de Bont’s debut as a director can’t compete with the work of John McTiernan, for whom he acted as cinematographer and who recommended de Bont when he passed on the picture, but he nevertheless does a more than competent work. Which makes his later turkeys all the more tragic. And Keanu and Sandra Bullock display the kind of effortless chemistry you can’t put a price tag on. And then there’s Dennis Hopper, having a great old sober-but-still-looning time.

How would Horatio Alger have handled this situation?

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) (SPOILERS) Gilliam’s last great movie – The Zero Theorem (2013) is definitely underrated, but I don’t think it’s that underrated – Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas could easily have been too much. At times it is, but in such instances, intentionally so. The combination of a visual stylist and Hunter S Thompson’s embellished, propulsive turn of phrase turns out, for the most part, to be a cosmically aligned affair, embracing the anarchic abandon of Raoul Duke and Doctor Gonzo’s Las Vegas debauch while contriving to pull back at crucial junctures in order to engender a perspective on all this hedonism. Would Alex Cox, who exited stage left, making way for the Python, have produced something interesting? I suspect, ironically, he would have diluted Thompson in favour of whatever commentary preoccupied him at the time (indeed, Johnny Depp said as much: “ Cox had this great material to work with and he took it and he added his own stuff to it ”). Plus

But everything is wonderful. We are in Paris.

Cold War (2018) (SPOILERS) Pawel Pawlikowski’s elliptical tale – you can’t discuss Cold War without saying “elliptical” at least once – of frustrated love charts a course that almost seems to be a caricature of a certain brand of self-congratulatorily tragic European cinema. It was, it seems “ loosely inspired ” by his parents (I suspect I see where the looseness comes in), but there’s a sense of calculation to the progression of this love story against an inescapable political backdrop that rather diminishes it.

To survive a war, you gotta become war.

Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985) (SPOILERS?) I’d like to say it’s mystifying that a film so bereft of merit as Rambo: First Blood Part II could have finished up the second biggest hit of 1985. It wouldn’t be as bad if it was, at minimum, a solid action movie, rather than an interminable bore. But the movie struck a chord somewhere, somehow. As much as the most successful picture of that year, Back to the Future , could be seen to suggest moviegoers do actually have really good taste, Rambo rather sends a message about how extensively regressive themes were embedding themselves in Reaganite, conservative ‘80s cinema (to be fair, this is something one can also read into Back to the Future ), be those ones of ill-conceived nostalgia or simple-minded jingoism, notional superiority and might. The difference between Stallone and Arnie movies starts right here; self-awareness. Audiences may have watched R ambo in the same way they would a Schwarzenegger picture, but I’m

What do they do, sing madrigals?

The Singing Detective (2003) Icon’s remake of the 1986 BBC serial, from a screenplay by Dennis Potter himself. The Singing Detective fares less well than Icon’s later adaptation of Edge of Darkness , even though it’s probably more faithful to Potter’s original. Perhaps the fault lies in the compression of six episodes into a feature running a quarter of that time, but the noir fantasy and childhood flashbacks fail to engage, and if the hospital reality scans better, it too suffers eventually.

One final thing I have to do, and then I’ll be free of the past.

Vertigo (1958) (SPOILERS) I’ll readily admit my Hitchcock tastes broadly tend to reflect the “consensus”, but Vertigo is one where I break ranks. To a degree. Not that I think it’s in any way a bad film, but I respect it rather than truly rate it. Certainly, I can’t get on board with Sight & Sound enthroning it as the best film ever made (in its 2012’s critics poll). That said, from a technical point of view, it is probably Hitch’s peak moment. And in that regard, certainly counts as one of his few colour pictures that can be placed alongside his black and white ones. It’s also clearly a personal undertaking, a medley of his voyeuristic obsessions (based on D’entre les morts by Pierre Boileau and Thomas Narcejac).

The game is rigged, and it does not reward people who play by the rules.

Hustlers (2019) (SPOILERS) Sold as a female Goodfellas – to the extent that the producers had Scorsese in mind – this strippers-and-crime tale is actually a big, glossy puff piece, closer to Todd Phillips as fashioned by Lorene Scarfia. There are some attractive performances in Hustlers, notably from Constance Wu, but for all its “progressive” women work male objectification to their advantage posturing, it’s incredibly traditional and conservative deep down.

You were a few blocks away? What’d you see it with, a telescope?

The Eyes of Laura Mars (1978) (SPOILERS) John Carpenter’s first serial-killer screenplay to get made, The Eyes of Laura Mars came out nearly three months before Halloween. You know, the movie that made the director’s name. And then some. He wasn’t best pleased with the results of The Eyes of Laura Mars, which ended up co-credited to David Zelag Goodman ( Straw Dogs , Logan’s Run ) as part of an attempt by producer Jon Peters to manufacture a star vehicle for then-belle Barbra Streisand: “ The original script was very good, I thought. But it got shat upon ”. Which isn’t sour grapes on Carpenter’s part. The finished movie bears ready evidence of such tampering, not least in the reveal of the killer (different in Carpenter’s conception). Its best features are the so-uncleanly-you-can-taste-it 70s New York milieu and the guest cast, but even as an early example of the sub-genre, it’s burdened by all the failings inherit with this kind of fare.

He is a brigand and a lout. Pay him no serious mention.

The Wind and the Lion (1975) (SPOILERS) John Milius called his second feature a boy’s-own adventure, on the basis of the not-so-terrified responses of one of those kidnapped by Sean Connery’s Arab Raisuli. Really, he could have been referring to himself, in all his cigar-chomping, gun-toting reactionary glory, dreaming of the days of real heroes. The Wind and the Lion rather had its thunder stolen by Jaws on release, and it’s easy to see why. As polished as the picture is, and simultaneously broad-stroke and self-aware in its politics, it’s very definitely a throwback to the pictures of yesteryear. Only without the finger-on-the-pulse contemporaneity of execution that would make Spielberg and Lucas’ genre dives so memorable in a few short years’ time.