Skip to main content

You have done well to keep so much hair, when so many’s after it.

Jeremiah Johnson
(1972)

(SPOILERS) Hitherto, I was most familiar with Jeremiah Johnson in the form of a popular animated gif of beardy Robert Redford smiling and nodding in slow zoom close up (a moment that is every bit as cheesy in the film as it is in the gif). For whatever reason, I hadn’t mustered the enthusiasm to check out the 1970s’ The Revenant until now (well, beard-wise, at any rate). It’s easy to distinguish the different personalities at work in the movie. The John Milius one – the (mythic) man against the mythic landscape; the likeably accentuated, semi-poetic dialogue – versus the more naturalistic approach favoured by director Sydney Pollack and star Redford. The fusion of the two makes for a very watchable, if undeniably languorous picture. It was evidently an influence on Dances with Wolves in some respects, although that Best Picture Oscar winner is at greater pains to summon a more sensitive portrayal of Native Americans (and thus, perversely, at times a more patronising one).

Bear Claw: You sure are cocky, for a starvin’ pilgrim.

The picture was originally envisaged for Sam Peckinpah and Clint Eastwood but fell apart when they didn’t get on (I’m unsurprised Clint didn’t want to work with a temperamental old soak, however talented). Redford, whose biggest hit by far up to that point was a western – and represented his real breakout as a bona fide star, despite a decade of prior work – was doubtless on the lookout for more of the same and signed on (I think he’s actually a more interesting choice than Clint, where it would have been him playing that loner character again). He brought Pollack aboard, who was also in need of a hit (They Shoot Horses, Don’t They being his most successful thus far, and definitely on the eclectic side). Unsurprisingly, they didn’t get on with Milius, then at his fable-spinning zenith, and he was fired. Edward Anhalt was brought in (who earned a co-credit), and then David Rayfiel (who didn’t). And then Milius was rehired.

A sanitised account of the life of trapper John Johnston, Jeremiah Johnson is not, you’ll be pleased to learn, a cannibal (which doubtless distinguishes him from the predominance of the Hollywood elite). The real Johnston was not nearly as reluctant as Jeremiah to kill Crow Indians, and much less peaceable in disposition towards them; he’d cut out and eat their livers (yeah, they killed his wife, but I’m not sure a proportionate response to said action is eating the murderers). There are various other inventions that come with the Redford-ising of the character – Johnson’s reluctant transgressing of the Crow burial grounds, and the actual man being less of a loner since he actively recruited other mountain men to his cause – but the part about assassins being sent after him appears to be true. Jeremiah Johnson isn’t a revisionist western exactly, then, but it’s definitely a post-Wayne one.

Perhaps where the picture scores most highly is in early scenes of Johnson surviving it alone and making all manner of novice errors (amusingly lighting a fire beneath a snow-laden tree). It’s a quirky testament to just how difficult the romantic vision of getting back to nature, off the grid, would be in practice; the various waifs and strays and loonies encountered along his way evidence that such a lifestyle – particularly solo – is for the dedicated few, unless they’re willing to carry others’ weight. Johnson’s distinctive survival skills eventually make him somewhat legendary, helped by a case of mistaken scalping identity (this is important, because in fairness to the movie’s critics, Redford doesn’t exude mythmaking; essentially, he wants to be liked too much). In that sense, voices suggesting Dances with Wolves would have been perfect for Redford are probably right, and conversely too that Costner (who is nevertheless fine in Dances, if over sincere at times) would have been a better fit for the loner Johnson, since Costner’s happy not to be.

Dances with Wolves is painstakingly conscientious towards portraying the Native Americans positively. Jeremiah Jonson not so much. Pollack offers our hero initial affability, complete with wife Swan (Delle Bolton), given to him by the Crows who eventually become his enemy. Things take a turn when he leads a rescue party through their burial ground – and then, in his hurry to get home, returns through it solo – and he discovers that, in revenge for his sacrilege, his wife and “adopted” son have been slaughtered. He attacks and kills a Crow hunting party – barring one who spreads the word – and must then deal with assassins, whom he repeatedly bests.

Del Gue: Lucky they were Crow. Apaches would have sent fifty at once.

Some reviews have made out – notably Pauline Kael’s – that this is an overt mission on Johnson’s part, but the film doesn’t really present it that way. True, he’s not in any hurry to make himself scarce, but following that initial revenge attack, he doesn’t expressly appear to be looking for trouble. This contrasts with Kael’s characterisation of his “going on a revenge rampage, killing Crows for the rest of the movie”. I wouldn’t argue with her appraisal of the general thrust of such romantic loner fare, however, whereby “In the guise of gritty realism, action films have become far more primitive, celebrating tooth-and-claw revenge in a manner that would have been unthinkable in early westerns, or even ten years ago”. I mean, that is what Milius is all about. Nevertheless, it’s notable that the trials by combat following the first – very messy and “uncool” – encounter, are presented as a montage sequence, one that seems to me to be directly challenging Kael’s position. This sequence should be the movie, according her charge, but Pollack shuns any such embrace.

Of course, Kael notably entirely misconstrued the final scene on first viewing – apparently because she hadn’t worn her glasses to the screening, although she doesn’t admit as much in the postscript to her published Reeling collection – as having Johnson give Paints-His-Shirt-Red (Joaquin Martinez) the finger in response to the latter’s peace gesture (Johnson actually returns Paints-His-Shirt-Red’s gesture). Kael’s also not completely fair to Redford’s performance (“The cool silence of the Coop [Gary Cooper] archetype implied depths. There are no depths in Redford that he’s willing to reveal; his cool is just modern existential chic…”)

Donnell Stoneman’s contemporary review of Dances with Wolves compared Costner’s performance with Redford’s here, and I think he’s closer to the problem that arises with Jeremiah Johnson, that “Redford, with his movie star good looks, has difficulty fitting into the natural environment”. For the most part, I don’t think that’s the issue; in fact, I think the negative star aura Donnell refers to works well in tandem with Bob’s massive beard. No, it’s when the Hollywood elements intrude – perhaps a consequence of the glib, tragi-comic previous Redford western, where it was germane as a commentary on those old Hollywood westerns – that Jeremiah Johnson feels like it’s drifting off course. The soundtrack from Tim McIntire and John Rubinstein is often just too jaunty for proceedings that should be more sombre or meditative (likewise, while Pollack may have called it his silent movie, such terms are relative, since he rarely simply allows the man in the environment to breathe long enough to inhabit that space; we’re quickly on to the next encounter or incident).

Most glaring in this regard is the signature star moment. On the pretext of Swan getting beard rash, sensitive Jeremiah proceeds to shave off the face fungus, so allowing a vision of the full unvarnished heartthrob audiences flocked to see (it’s akin to Brad flaunting his rooftop abs). It’s a shameless moment, and it’s one that comes in tandem with an often-schematic structure. It has been noted that Jeremiah Johnson goes down the mountain only to come up again, but that could be thematically resonant (I don’t think it is particularly, but it could be). Instead, what we get are a succession of grizzly-but-cosy companions for his journey, from old-hand eccentric Bear Claw (Will Geer), to temperamental Del Gue (Stefan Gierasch), to our loner reluctantly gathering a surrogate family in his wake (effectively-orphaned Caleb, played by Josh Albee, and Swan). The latter element comes on like a template for The Outlaw Josey Wales, so it’s a relief – in classical narrative terms – when they are dispensed with.

Del Gue: Keep your nose in the wind, and your eye along the skyline.

Many of Jeremiah Johnson’s scenes were apparently shot on Redford’s own Utah property (nice, if you can get it). He won’t enjoy being relocated to a megacity. The movie was a bit hit for the star, and it’s easy to see why. It straddles the territory of classic Hollywood storytelling but with a trendily, rougher-hewn, less overly romantic streak – despite also being overly romantic in its own way – common to the New Hollywood. As a consequence, Jeremiah Johnson hasn’t remained evergreen in the manner of many of its era, but it’s still an appealing picture. Mainstream but not too mainstream. I’d like to have seen the undiluted Milius version, though.




Popular posts from this blog

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a Thousand Enemies.

Watership Down (1978) (SPOILERS) I only read Watership Down recently, despite having loved the film from the first, and I was immediately impressed with how faithful, albeit inevitably compacted, Martin Rosen’s adaptation is. It manages to translate the lyrical, mythic and metaphysical qualities of Richard Adams’ novel without succumbing to dumbing down or the urge to cater for a broader or younger audience. It may be true that parents are the ones who get most concerned over the more disturbing elements of the picture but, given the maturity of the content, it remains a surprise that, as with 2001: A Space Odyssey (which may on the face of it seem like an odd bedfellow), this doesn’t garner a PG certificate. As the makers noted, Watership Down is at least in part an Exodus story, but the biblical implications extend beyond Hazel merely leading his fluffle to the titular promised land. There is a prevalent spiritual dimension to this rabbit universe, one very much

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

Other monks will meet their deaths here. And they too will have blackened fingers. And blackened tongues.

The Name of the Rose (1986) (SPOILERS) Umberto Eco wasn’t awfully impressed by Jean Jacques-Annaud’s adaptation of his novel – or “ palimpsest of Umberto Eco’s novel ” as the opening titles announce – to the extent that he nixed further movie versions of his work. Later, he amended that view, calling it “ a nice movie ”. He also, for balance, labelled The Name of the Rose his worst novel – “ I hate this book and I hope you hate it too ”. Essentially, he was begrudging its renown at the expense of his later “ superior ” novels. I didn’t hate the novel, although I do prefer the movie, probably because I saw it first and it was everything I wanted from a medieval Sherlock Holmes movie set in a monastery and devoted to forbidden books, knowledge and opinions.

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982) (SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek , but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan . That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013) (SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight ; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.

Maybe the dingo ate your baby.

Seinfeld 2.9: The Stranded The Premise George and Elaine are stranded at a party in Long Island, with a disgruntled hostess.