THE REVENANT and CORMAC MCCARTHY

This topic contains 14 replies, has 8 voices, and was last updated by  Birne 1 year, 10 months ago.

Viewing 5 posts - 11 through 15 (of 15 total)
  • Author
    Posts Mark Topic Read  | 
  • 23 Jan 2016 at 7:06 am #8048

    Richard L.
    Member

    Re: Fitzgerald

    Yes, Fitzgerald is the epitome of the capitalist psychopath, always going for expediency at the price of morals, always interested in his own benefit. It was written and played exceedingly well.

    Re: Symbolism again

    I saw it again and it lost much of its grandeur on the smaller screen. Still it is a great movie, doing what has seldom been done, telling a bleak story of naturalism with beautiful frames.


      Quote
    23 Jan 2016 at 12:48 pm #8051

    Greg S.
    Member

    Thanks Cantona. Yes, Fitzgerald is the most interesting character in the film, and the economic angle comes out loud and clear from the start: the pelts, the exploitation, the destruction of habitat. I liked your description of Fitzgerald. I thought Inarritu did a good job of showing his crimes as growing directly out of his situation. It doesn’t relieve him of responsibility, but you understand what is happening.

    The rest of the characters are not fleshed out. Symbolism, mysticism, spirituality or not, I consider this a weakness. I may lack the training to watch an allegorical film, and maybe this film is allegorical. The father? The son? Similar to the Road. Very difficult to portray such deep and positive emotions in art. Henry? Man of honor? Useful tool of the pelt industry? I couldn’t tell whether he believed what he was saying when he left Glass with Fitzgerald, and I couldn’t tell if the cost of the supplies issue was just another employer rip-off or a serious reflection on the risks of the venture. I had trouble taking Henry seriously even though he seemed to be portrayed as a serious man. Maybe I misread it. The rest were cameo appearances hardly worthy of mention.

    What impressed me about the film was the — naturalistic? — portrayal of violence. Instead of the rococo violence that I am used to in Hollywood films, Inarritu, a man whose home country is being destroyed by violence, approaches the violence in his film with great respect. He is not trying to seduce the audience. This same understated distance also makes Fitzgerald less frightening and, therefore, more human. If that’s naturalism, I’m all for it.

    I also like the film more as a snapshot of the pre-settlement phase of US history. A pre-western.

    Revenant is not a great film, but it is beautiful, and Inarritu’s voice and vision are compelling.


      Quote
    • This reply was modified 2 years ago by  Greg S..
    • This reply was modified 2 years ago by  Greg S..
    27 Feb 2016 at 2:50 pm #8192

    Glass
    Member

    Re: The spiral.

    I thought of the spiral thread we had going here at the Forum a couple of years ago when I saw that image in Leo’s movie. I also thought of the spiral tendency in The Wizard of Oz, most prominently with the tornado and the spinning house, but there is also this amazing image to single out one other:
    https://iamoceansroar.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/wizard-of-oz.jpg

    When Leo/Glass cauterized his wound, it recalled McCarthy, and when he slept inside the carcass of his dead horse to protect himself from the life-threatening cold, I was reminded of the kid and Tobin in the desert using a carcass to protect themselves from the judge.


      Quote
    27 Feb 2016 at 11:12 pm #8193

    Will
    Member

    I was just reminded of Star Wars.

    I know when the historical events The Revenant are based on took place, but what time of the year does the film cover? It would be unusual to hear Elk grunting and calling like that until the rut (fall), but those grizzly cubs are too small to be anything but spring cubs. Then the film appears to get colder/snowier as things go on. Perhaps someone who paid more attention can help me out.


      Quote
    28 Feb 2016 at 12:23 am #8194

    Birne
    Member

    What strikes me most about the movie, which I found pretty good, is the cinematography. Emmanuel Lubezki is a magician, one of the best alive and at work anywhere in the world. His work with Terrence Malick, Alfonso Cuaron, Alejandro Inarritu, etc., is full of wonder. I could watch the Revenant again and again just to marvel at some of the shots. If you ask me, the cinematography could be the aspect of the movie that will stay… Emmanuel Lubezki is a genius, keep an eye on him…


      Quote
    • This reply was modified 1 year, 10 months ago by  Birne.
Viewing 5 posts - 11 through 15 (of 15 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Comments are closed.