Skip to main content

The Revenant: Man vs. the Unforgiving Frontier


                 The Revenant is directed by Alejandro Gonzalez Iñárritu and though you don’t remember his name, you might remember his movie Birdman which swept the Oscars last year. His next film based on the novel by Michael Punke but more specifically the real experience of fur trapper Hugh Glass, isn’t as good but certainly has some remarkable qualities.
                The true story is about Glass played by Leonardo DiCaprio who is hunting with a party in 1823 in the uncompromising unsettled wilderness of Louisiana. He gets separated after they’re attacked by the Arikara, is mauled by a grizzly bear, found by his party but left to die by one of them. So he attempts to survive in the barren wild injured and without resources.
                If I had a nickel for every survival movie I’ve seen, I might have a dollar –a nickel’s not worth much. And while this film does play out a number beats we’ve seen in Castaway and The Edge, it does feel a lot more bitter and raw. This film is based on a true story after all and pulls no punches in its depiction of what Glass has to do to survive. That scene in The Empire Strikes Back becomes less funny after this film’s treated us to the reality of sleeping naked in the body of a dead animal for warmth. The bear attack is also really intense. But despite some of these sequences, the film does drag, going on too long at two and a half hours. Once we get to the climax, which is very exciting if probably not historically accurate (but does feature a really great vengeance fueled fight), it feels a little too late. And though some of the scenes are more gripping you know where the story’s going which dispels some of the investment.
                But the film does showcase some great performances. DiCaprio is fantastic as Glass in a performance that requires little dialogue. He doesn’t have a volleyball to talk to, he’s on his own and the power of the situation is evident through his expressions and physical behaviour alone. It’s a powerhouse performance that really deserves an Oscar nomination, being one of the first times for me, that I didn’t see DiCaprio, but rather a character. Tom Hardy too is exceptional as trapper John Fitzgerald who plays a very big part even if some of his scenes could have been cut. Will Poulter is great, and Domhnall Gleeson after Ex Machina and Star Wars, turns out another terrific performance here as Captain Andrew Henry, really becoming a breakout star of the year.
                But maybe the film’s biggest strength is its cinematography. Emmanuel Lubezki may be the best in the business today and after two back-to-back Oscars he may be destined for a third. The shots in this movie are incredible. It’s not as impressive as Birdman’s single take technique, but the clarity and variance of the shots and captivating angles make it stand out. Even little details like the propensity of flies in Captain Henry’s cabin are really effective. There are long tracking shots that allow you to feel the scope of the environment and action, and they’re amazing. Even more so when you realize they’re all accomplished using natural lighting which lends all the more to the realism. Apart from the camera there’s no artificiality involved. It’s all filmed in the middle of nowhere (a.k.a. Alberta and B.C.) against the real elements.
                And so The Revenant does accomplish much with some of the best performances and cinematography of the year even if the story is slowly paced and conventional. It captures with more authenticity and brutality a man’s survival and though not an epic, it’s not a movie you’ll soon forget.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Strange History of the American Spoof Movie

Parody movies have been around for a lot longer than we tend to think of them. Even from the earliest days of Hollywood there were movies meant to satirize a particular subject or genre. In the silent era, Buster Keaton was responsible for a few. And in the early sound era, almost as soon as the monster pictures took off did you see comic versions of them -Abbott and Costello hosting a few. But parody movies tended to be subtle for most of cinema history, or parody came in conjunction with another goal of the comedy. It really wasn’t until the 1980s and 90s that it took off and became popularly understood. And there is perhaps a line to be drawn to the counterculture comedy explosion that began in the 1970s through avenues like  Saturday Night Live , which frequently parodied from even its earliest years popular movies and cultural properties of the time. But that is still a way’s back. To my generation though, ‘parody movie’ is perhaps a less known term than the more blunt ‘s...
Post a Comment
Read more

Notes on the Title Cards of The Lord of the Rings

It might be sacrilege for one who both considers The Lord of the Rings  trilogy to be one of the greatest triumphs of cinema and has been an avid lover of the films since adolescence, to declare that the original theatrical cuts of the films are better than the much beloved extended editions. Easily it’s my most controversial opinion regarding these movies. Don’t get me wrong, I do like the extended editions quite a lot, especially as someone who just enjoys spending time in that universe. They flesh it out more, add extra flavour, and in increasing the length by about an hour really emphasize the epic quality of these films. But I find that the original cuts are generally more cleanly paced, more seamlessly edited, and much more accessible to audiences. All the stuff there is to love about The Lord of the Rings  is there in the original versions, the plethora of new and extended scenes merely add to that for fans. And of those, they fall into three camps for me: 1....
1 comment
Read more

Back to the Feature: New York, New York (1977)

New York, New York  is a two hour forty minute musical movie largely about a toxic relationship and I understand why it was Martin Scorsese’s first big flop. Some have blamed its poor reception on the kind of movie it was, of a style and tone Scorsese wasn’t known for, but I find that hard to believe. Even after only five films, he’d proven himself an extremely versatile director, and Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore  found an audience. Sure this jazz musical love letter to New York City was following up Taxi Driver and its’ far more cynical take on the city, but then it’s also ‘from the director of Taxi Driver ’ which itself was a big hit. Was it a matter of public appetite for musicals, or mere word of mouth and early critical reception that dissuaded viewers? Irrespective of that, I was stunned to discover this movie was the origin of the titular song, which I’d assumed was much older (it’s definitely got the sound of something that might have come out of the Jazz sce...
Post a Comment
Read more