February 3rd in Chesterfield, MO.
Webster's defines the word revenant as "one that returns after death or a long absence." Yeah, I didn't know what the word meant either. The film is based on a
fictional book about the very real
Hugh Glass. Let's get this out of the way early, large portions of the narrative
are completely false. There is also a lot of portions that are
right on the money. Normally, I don't like to go after the "based on true events" portions of film because I know that motion pictures are not the best source for historical accuracy
(kind of like the history books used in schools).
Set in the harsh wilderness of South Dakota and Montana in1823 (when Mother Nature still held the upper hand over man). A group of fur traders led by Hugh Glass (
Leonardo DiCaprio), are going about their business when they come under attack from a group of Arikara Native Americans. They abandon their camp and flee downriver on their boat. Captain Henry (
Domhnall Gleeson) sides with Glass on the idea of abandoning the boat and take a land route to Fort Kiowa because the Arikara will be expecting them to use the boat and set a trap (which of course they do) much to the chagrin of Fitzgerald (
Tom Hardy) who doesn't really like Glass too much and likes Glass' half native son even less.
While on point, Glass is badly mauled by a bear. Fitzgerald, Bridger and Hawk (Glass' son) stay behind to care for Glass while the other go on ahead. Fitzgerald is the quintessential complainer who feels things would be good if people just listened to him. He's not happy about the prospect of waiting to get killed by the Arikara while tending to a "one foot in the grave and another on a banana peel" Glass. He decides to kill Glass but is discovered by Hawk. Fitzgerald kills Hawk, kills Glass, buries him in a shallow grave and makes up some ruse to cover his tracks and convince Bridger that the Arikara are nearby. Fitzgerald and Bridger set off for Fort Kiowa (Bridger eventually realizes that Fitzgerald is lying but reluctantly goes along with him despite being racked with guilt). Henry questions them when they reach the base and seems satisfied of their story but you kind of feel that he doesn't believe Fitzgerald but, what are you going to do?
As it turns out, Glass was only
mostly dead and manages to crawl out of the grave and get to safety. Along the way he eludes the Arikara, gets aided by a lone Pawnee, steals a horse from some French trappers (more on those guys later), eludes the Arikara again, rides his stolen horse off a cliff, sleeps in the body of the dead horse to protect him from a storm and makes it back to the fort. When Captain Henry finds Glass, he throws Bridger in jail and is set on hanging Fitzgerald but finds that Fitzgerald has fled the fort. Glass more or less exonerates Bridger and vows to go after Fitzgerald. Glass heals up and leaves the fort to exact his revenge upon Fitzgerald. For some reason Henry tags along and that decision comes back to bite him. Glass and Fitzgerald have it out but Glass does not succumb to revenge and leaves the mostly dead Fitzgerald to be finished off by the Arikara, who leave Glass alone by the way.
This film received
an 83% rating from Rotten Tomatoes and given DiCaprio
a lot of Oscar buzz. The performances by the
cast are nothing short of excellent. Director
Alejandro González Iñárritu tells a cohesive story and the cinematography is unbelievable. As I watched the film, one of the reoccurring thoughts i had was, "thank god I live in this century, ugh!" Iñárritu made me believe that I was back in 1823 in the untamed wilderness and he captures the ugly, harsh, brutal, often bloody reality (or what I believe to be the reality back then) of life on the frontier.
The thing is, there's a lot of other films mashed up into
The Revenant. Glass being let for dead and hell bent on revenge reminded me of
Maximus Decimus Meridius from
Gladiator. There were a lot of similarities with 1972's
Jeremiah Johnson (at least to me anyway). There's also some flashback sequences that are similar to those from
Edward Zwick's The Last Samurai from 2003. Then there's the almost constant imagery from Glass about his dead wife that reminded me of
Terrence Malik for some reason. It seemed to me that Iñárritu was using the imagery to tell Glass' back story; Glass was married to a Pawnee woman and lived with them when soldiers burned their village, Glass shot an officer(?) and escaped with his son (who was burned in the attack). If I'm not mistaken, Fitzgerald may have been involved as well perhaps, as there's imagery of Fitzgerald in uniform, he mentions himself that he once served in the Army and briefly discusses re-enlistment. If got confusing and seemed to go to that well once too often.
There was also an article I read about plot holes in the film that I cannot for the life of me remember what site it was from despite my half-ass Google searches to find it. I read the article prior to seeing the film and I think I agree with a lot of what the wrote about. Anyway, there's a subplot here where the Arikara are looking for the the chief's daughter Powaqa, who believes to have been kidnapped by the fur trappers. This is the reason behind the initial raid on the Americans and why they doggedly pursue them throughout the film. The Arikara trade with the French in order to keep on pursuing the Americans but it's the French that have Powaqa all along (in a very
Casualties of War similarity). It wasn't clear to me why the French were made to be the villains (because they're French I guess) but they needed that narrative to make the plot work.
The film clocks in at 156 minutes and it doesn't need to be that long. I think that 135 minutes would have been more on the money. There's a lot of unnecessary imagery that's repeated when once was enough. The back story about Glass' wife could've been handled in one scene where exposition is given instead of imagery throughout the film that leaves you guessing as to what happened (that's more reference to
Gladiator, Glass' wife's imagery relates to the imagery of Maximus and his wife). This is a really, really good picture and is deserving of all the credit it's getting. But it's also deserving of the criticisms as well. I can also see that this film may not be for everyone, it's a guy film for sure. Lots of testosterone, bloody and gruesome (as it should be in my opinion, these were harsh times). Iñárritu attempt at a visionary masterpiece (if that was what he was going for) is close but it falls short. But that's ok because this is a film worth watching.
