Skip to main content

Coming to Terms with Hostiles


For soldiers, it’s sometimes tough to put aside old grudges in peace-time. When many of one’s friends died fighting an enemy who’s no longer the enemy, it’s understandably an uneasy adjustment. This is one of the central theses of Scott Cooper’s Hostiles, which puts that theme in the context of the late nineteenth century American West and adds the tension of racism. It’s a generally well-received movie that’s notably been short-changed by the awards circuit -does it deserve more or less acclaim?
Joe Blocker (Christian Bale) is a Cavalry Captain notorious for his exploits fighting and killing Native Americans. At a prison fort in New Mexico, he’s ordered, much to his dismay, to escort the dying Cheyenne Chief Yellow Hawk (Wes Studi) and his family back to their ancestral home in Montana. Blocker has a particular grudge against Yellow Hawk, but reluctantly agrees under threat of court martial. Along the way, they pick up Rosalie Quaid (Rosamund Pike), traumatized by a recent Comanche attack.
Forgiveness and understanding are the main themes of Hostiles, as Blocker is forced by circumstance to put aside his prejudice and work together with Yellow Hawk’s family to overcome mutual antagonists. At various points their foes are Indigenous and white, adding to the break-down of barriers: both are disgusted by the barbarism of their people. Likewise, they’ve both experienced severe loss and regret, and Blocker particularly is set on the path to reconciling his violent actions of the past and moving on. This is a very fine if expected character arc, but it’s development where his attitude to Natives is concerned is too subtle; in that it’s not entirely believable ultimately. I think this owes to the fact that Blocker and Yellow Hawk don’t interact as much as they should. There aren’t the ethical conversations or major confrontations you’d expect out of a film like this, that may not be essential but they do help. Blocker begins the journey by insisting that the family be treated like captives, handcuffed as they ride, while at a later point he’s friendly with Yellow Hawk’s grandchild -and it’s easy to miss where his attitude shifts. There are moments where it is evident he’s re-evaluating his choices, and I understand that Blocker’s supposed to be reserved in his feelings, but it still doesn’t quite work. Quaid’s growth is much more palpable, and she had more reason to fear the Natives initially.
The problems with his character being firmly planted in the writing, Christian Bale is actually really decent in the leading role. He definitely feels like a wounded and wearied soldier, one who doesn’t talk much of what he’s witnessed and been through. Also, especially early on, he’s frightening, keeping the audience on their toes about his intentions for the Cheyenne. Rosamund Pike is good, showing again like in Gone Girl, her ability to play hysteria terrifically. And as usual, Wes Studi is pretty great as the ageing warrior with a formidable presence -though he and his family definitely deserved more screen-time. Rory Cochrane and Jesse Plemons from Cooper’s last film Black Mass play members of Blocker’s detail, Cochrane in particular standing out with his own fascinating character journey; the youngest member of their team is Timothée Chalamet from Call Me By Your Name, showing his ability to speak French as well as Italian. Adam Beach and Q’orianka Kilcher are good as Yellow Hawk’s son Black Hawk and his wife Elk Woman. The cast also includes Stephen Lang as Blocker’s commanding superior, a surprising Peter Mullan, and Ben Foster as a disgraced soldier, who in one subplot Blocker agrees to convey to the next town for his execution. Indeed another shortcoming of this movie, is how it sometimes meanders from the main focus -Foster’s character doesn’t contribute a lot to the ‘hostiles’ narrative.
This film is shot and scored really well, and the mood reminds me of John Huston films -particularly a movie called The Unforgiven which dealt with a similar theme on the tensions between whites and Native Americans; though obviously with some revisionist traits mixed in. This is a movie that has both great instances of silence allowing the audience to take in a moment, and scenes of heavy brutality. Make no mistake, this is a depressing and grisly movie. The opening scene is especially violent and sets the threatening atmosphere for the rest of the story.
Hostiles is a movie that I think will gauge very different reactions. It’s slow but purposeful, interesting and even provocative, and has a number of good performances and memorable sequences to boast. The compelling message is undone a little by Blocker’s subdued major character arc, and the story sometimes loses focus, but this is still a movie with significant things to say and a really capable team assembled to say them. 

Comments

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...

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....

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...