![]() |
|
monday, august 6th
Dances With WolvesThis movie seems to have been forgotten about. That could be due to Costner's string of failures since making this film, both critical and commercial failures. Dances With Wolves made large unexpected waves in Hollywood. I believe many a studio passed on the film. Costner finally got what he wanted and dare I say needed and made a beautiful, lyrical, heart-wrenching, inspirational film. Whatever happened to him since, I don't know. I suppose, though, that his ego took over. He might have felt he could do no wrong. If that's true he was mistaken. Where he'd be right, however, was on the set of Dances With Wolves. Costner made a film that builds upon itself. It grows more and more believable and more and more likable as it goes along. It never lags or goes on too sideways a tangent that makes it lose momentum or perspective. It stays simple and time-lined, but it has a lasting quality that affords the film a sense of timelessness. It is memorable and very well may effect a viewer's life. It was deeply emotive for me, bot sad and awe-inspiring. This is also the only film I've ever seen that was better than the book it was based on. This novel is fine, but it doesn't stand out at all. It's mediocre, really, while the film version is exceptionally powerful. The parts of the book that the film left out would have had no positive cinematic effect, either. What they left out, they should have left out. The parts were imageless details and uncritical departures from the plot line. I usually like backwards forwards and upside down time line plotlessnesses, but that would be choppy and totally uncalled for in Dances With Wolves. The film is straightforward and steady. This is part of why it is such a success, cinematically. The performances stand out as some of the most interesting and impelling of the decade. The Native Americans ha roles are varied and colorful. I especially like Kicking Bird, and of course Smiles A Lot brings joy to the muscles of my inner hull. The slimy white bad guy Union soldiers are probably fair depictions, as horrendous as they are. I'd like to believe the Union as full of upright heroes and diligent wise men, but I know that wasn't the case. I also know they weren't all like Spivey, but I imagine a great number of them were, if not most. The bloodiness is fair, not overly gruesome but still realistic, and I really like how the characters respond to trouble with passion and justified wrath. There are few scenes more satisfying than when Costner is rescued in the end. |
adam's stuff: supah stuff: |