Skip to main content

Indian Horse Boldly Lays Bare Canada's Dark Secret


The residential schools system will always be one of the most shameful blights on Canada’s history. An attempt at cultural genocide and assimilation that cost thousands of lives, it’s a dark part of our heritage that needs to be atoned for. One way to do this is through media, and it’s not something that’s ever been addressed on film, certainly not to the extent it is in Indian Horse. Based on the acclaimed novel by Richard Wagamese, directed by Stephen S. Campanelli, and executive produced by Clint Eastwood, Indian Horse is a deeper, more brutal dive into the reality of the residential schools and the impact they left on those who survived, than many Canadians ever anticipated. Because of that, it’s an incredibly important movie, as well as an affecting story.
After losing his family at the age of six, Ojibwe Saul Indian Horse is forced into St. Jerome’s Indian Residential School in northern Ontario where he and many other First Nations children are physically and emotionally abused as they’re indoctrinated into Christian tradition at the expense of their own. Discovering a refuge in the form of a gift for hockey, Saul manages to do well on the school team until he’s able to leave as a teenager to pursue the sport elsewhere. However the scars of St. Jerome’s stay with him; and they alongside the racism prevalent in society have a drastic impact on his life and career.
There’s no sugar-coating in this movie, which makes a number of scenes uncomfortable and aggravating. Saul’s parents were successfully assimilated, and as such gave him a Christian name to the disgust of his grandmother. But this meant he didn’t have to go through the torment of his classmate Lonnie, renamed Aaron by the headmaster priest, and beaten every time he speaks his native language. The cruelty by some of the nuns at St. Jerome’s at times rivals Nurse Ratched, particularly their behaviour towards two sisters. They reprimand children with a lashing if they miss even a minor word in the Lord’s Prayer, it’s pretty reprehensible. There’s a lot of misery in the film even after Saul leaves the school, but it all feels justified both for the purposes of the story and Saul’s character journey, as well as educating audiences to the truth of what happened at these institutions.
Much like Moonlight, the film is divided into multiple periods in Saul’s life with three actors playing the lead character. And also like in Moonlight, they’re all terrific. Sladen Peltier is wonderful as the innocent kid thrust into a confusing and hostile world. As his are the scenes set at St. Jerome’s he arguably has the most weight performance-wise, but he handles it really well. Even in his joyful times playing hockey, there’s still a lingering sadness. And in those sad and traumatic moments, he’s absolutely remarkable. Forrest Goodluck from The Revenant plays him as a teenager integrating into his new Indigenous foster family on a reserve but still trying to move past his childhood experiences, something made difficult by his interactions with racism. Goodluck conveys both the relative freedom and the slow dissolution of his aspirations really well -a natural visual actor. And Ajuwak Kapashesit plays the adult Saul over a period of about a decade, who finds more success at hockey but at more of a price. This is the Saul who has to come to terms with his experiences, re-evaluate what he suffered through and witnessed, including some darkness he repressed, and in so doing endures quite a lot, both physically and psychologically. But Kapashesit really understands this conflict. The racism this Saul encounters a lot of the time is more socially ingrained. Even a newspaper article praising his prowess on the ice compares his defeating of a white team to scalping. He encounters a lot of those small offences that tie into his childhood trauma and inform the choices he makes. The supporting cast is very good too, most notably Michael Lawrenchuk as Saul’s foster father, Edna Manitowabi as his grandmother, and especially Michael Huisman as the only priest at St. Jerome’s to show him kindness and encourage his passion.
There’s some great visual directing to this movie too, like one harsh scene that’s edited against notes in a Christmas pageant, or another where toy Indians obnoxious hecklers throw on the ice are envisioned with a completely different meaning for Saul. There are also a handful of moments where Saul’s expression is all that’s needed to infer his feelings on a reminder of his past or a particular discriminatory slight.
One of my favourite moments of this is a subtle one when Saul is first leaving the school and says goodbye to Lonnie, who responds in Ojibwe, only for the look on Saul’s face to show he’s now forgotten his own language after nine years of conditioned English. It’s a really powerful and affecting shot that conveys perfectly the tragedy of his situation, and by representation the tragedy of so many others who have gone through the residential schools. This specific story may be fictional, but Wagamese drew from a lot of real sources when he wrote his book, and the film (screenplay by Dennis Foon) feels just as genuine. It’s an indictment on a history of systematic abuse that can’t be ignored. There are way too many people like Saul in Canada.

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....

A Stylish and Charmingly Reinvented David Copperfield

The Personal History, Adventures, Experience and Observation of David Copperfield the Younger of Blunderstone Rookery (Which He Never Meant to Publish on Any Account)  is the most important book Charles Dickens ever wrote. It is not the most famous or influential by any means (that would of course be A Christmas Carol ), but it is the book that is the purest expression of the authors’ style, identity, and worldview. It is his most personal work, semi-autobiographical in its story of the chronology from infancy to adulthood of a character who overcomes great loss and hardships to find a fulfilling life as a writer. To read David Copperfield  is to understand Dickens himself. Armando Iannucci knew this when he decided to make a new adaptation of the novel for a twenty-first century audience. He also knew that Dickens adaptations are ubiquitous at this point. Films are a bit rarer, but every few years a new television adaptation rears its head to keep the authors’ unique world an...