No, it has nothing to do with The Fall. Reportedly, the title refers to the biblical Fall, but I'd hardly know from the movie itself: The characters aren't particularly religious and never say anything about the events of Genesis. Maybe the relevance is clearer in the Jim Harrison novella from which this is adapted.
The Netflix description makes it sound primarily like a war movie, but that's only for the first act. In 1914, Montana rancher William Ludlow (Anthony Hopkins), despite having served as a colonel, is disillusioned with the government and doesn't want his three sons to fight in World War I, but Samuel (Henry Thomas) and Alfred (Aidan Quinn) insist. Tristan (Brad Pitt) feels obliged to come along to protect Samuel, not least for the sake of Samuel's intended, Susannah (Julia Ormond). Since Netflix hinted as much, I might as well tell you he fails. The rest of the story is shaped by this failure.
Oddly enough, all three brothers are in love with Susannah and vice versa. This leads Alfred to accuse Tristan of not trying hard enough to save his romantic rival. Tension spreads to their father as well, with unpleasant mental results.
We are told again and again that Tristan is the favorite son, and not just for William. I'm as stumped as Alfred regarding why that is. (Sure, Pitt was considered a hottie from early in his career, but I never liked when his hair was longer than his female costars'.) Tristan has poor manners, a bad temper, no respect for rules, few signs of loyalty, and a tendency to invite serious trouble without need, as when he prods a sleeping adult bear. I guess on some level, people envy his...unfetteredness. By contrast, Alfred is admirable but too straight-laced to excite much interest.
About the racial tag: William's disenchantment with the U.S. government stems largely from its treatment of American Indians. He shares his ranch with a Cree co-founder, One Stab (Gordon Tootoosis), and another worker's half-Cree daughter, Isabel II (Karina Lombard). One Stab understands English but never cares to speak it; any Ludlow can translate his words. He faces mild persecution exactly once on screen, without much effect on the overall plot. At some points, most notably the beginning and end, he narrates with a distracting, stilted overdub.
Leave it to Hollywood to work the purported wisdom if not magic of another race into the life of a focal White man. Tristan acts especially close to the Cree, which explains why he scalps enemy soldiers. This does not get quite the same depiction as in Inglourious Basterds, but it does call into question the nobility of the practice. I wouldn't have minded so much if the actual Cree got more attention, especially in Isabel II's romantic arc.
Perhaps the best word to sum up my perception of the film is "inorganic." I couldn't put my finger on any anachronisms or other errors, but IMDb assures me they exist. Many aspects seem unlikely or overdone, ironically reducing my ability to take tragic events as seriously as we're supposed to. Also, I find it hard to believe that the source material was only a novella, because the 133 minutes feel packed and I still get the impression of a lot being skipped. (Hey, "legends" is plural.)
If you dig historical romantic dramas with the overlap of a couple other genres, you may check LotF out. Just don't expect an utter classic.
No comments:
Post a Comment