The story is inspired by a key 1823 event in the life of fur trader Hugh Glass (Leonardo DiCaprio), namely a battle with a mama bear that he just, eheh, barely won. Since his party just lost many men to an Arikara tribal raid, they are reluctant to stick around, but Glass is in no shape to be moved along the terrain. The captain (Domnhall Gleeson) pays two men to stay with him, along with his adolescent half-Pawnee son, Hawk. Alas, in the temporary absence of junior Jim Bridger, John S. Fitzgerald (Tom Hardy) tries to suffocate Glass and kills Hawk for interfering. He then talks Bridger into leaving Glass for dead lest they all die. But Fitzgerald underestimates how much a father's vengeance facilitates recovery....
From my sources, the movie takes quite a few liberties, from the mountains to the time of year to the very existence of Hawk. The real Fitzgerald probably wasn't half so selfish and hateful. (He was also 23, in contrast with 38-year-old Hardy.) The worst part is that some of the changes leave gaping plot holes. Why wouldn't Fitzgerald finish what he started with Glass after taking Hawk out of the equation? Why didn't the curious Bridger notice the dead Hawk nearby? Leave it to Hollywood to employ a historical villain upgrade at the expense of coherency.
Not for the first time in an Alejandro G. Iñárritu film, there are some nice tracking shots. The pace is pretty deliberate as well, trying my dad's patience more than mine; I took it as part of the attempt at realism. Unfortunately, I have trouble liking the cinematography overall, because it keeps calling attention to the camera with frequent flares, drops of blood on the lens, and even fog-ups from breath in close shots. I don't care whether these things happened on purpose; they pull us out of the picture and therefore counteract the realism of a gritty drama.
And you'd better believe it's gritty. The opening Arikara battle pretty well set the tone. Glass may have the most on-screen suffering, but he's hardly alone in it. My dad found the disemboweling of a dead horse for warmth to be especially hard to watch, but by that point, I was shrugging it off.
Might I mention my disinclination toward revenge flicks. Too often, they serve as little more than an excuse for a "hero" to do something nasty. I suppose it's a mercy that Glass spends more of his time surviving than taking revenge, or even planning it, as far as we can tell.
Is DiCaprio likely to win an Oscar at last? I'd say so, tho it's not a lock. Much of his acting herein consists of barely moving, but that didn't stop Eddie Redmayne. Between throat injuries and solo scenes, he doesn't say much, and most of his speech is raspy. (Frequent cuts to Fitzgerald and/or Bridger stave off monotony.)
Given the Academy success of Braveheart and Gladiator -- both more violent than faithful to reality -- The Revenant stands a chance. But if it wins, it will be my least favorite "Best Picture" of the decade so far. In my book, its flaws bring it down to merely average for cinema in general.
No comments:
Post a Comment