This
past weekend, I went to see The Revenant, just hours before it won the
Golden Globe for Best Motion Picture -- Drama. That made for a one-two
punch of disappointment.
Inspired
by a real frontiersman, The Revenant dramatizes the story of Hugh
Glass, brutally mauled by a bear and left for dead by his fellow fur
trappers. He fights for survival against impossible odds, fueled by the
need for vengeance.
The
movie is directed by Alejandro G. Iñárritu, who helmed last year's
Oscar winning Best Picture, Birdman.nThough the subject matter of
the two films couldn't be more different, there is a similarity to how
each movie is staged and filmed. Birdman was famously made to look like a
single two-hour camera take without cuts. The Revenant doesn't go
nearly so far, but does utilize a lot or noticeably long shots with slow
and methodical camera moves. Here, that decision feels like less of a
gimmick; it often serves to make the viewer the island of stillness in a
swirl of activity. Add in the stunning location photography in three
different countries (Canada, the U.S., and Argentina), and The Revenant
is breathtakingly beautiful to look at. It's a precise ballet, pulled
off in environments truly inhospitable for making movies, and accented
with mostly seamless CG (adding wild animals into shots).
Beautiful
it may be, but engaging it's not. The Revenant lumbers along in
desperate need of an editor. It's not just that the movie's
two-and-a-half-plus hours are far too long for a dirt-simple revenge
story, it's that the film is painfully repetitive. The bear mauling
sequence seems to end only to start again. Hugh Glass has multiple
yearning dream sequences. We watch him escape from Native American
hunters again and again. Twice in just five or ten minutes, he eats raw
food. (Both times, with a perfectly good fire just a few feet away.) I
lost track of how many lingering shots of a crescent moon were inflicted
upon us. I suspect a full hour of needless repetition could have been
excised from the film -- a Tarantino-esque amount of bloat (but without
the sharp dialogue -- or often, any dialogue -- to keep you engaged).
Then
there's the much-lauded performance of Leonardo DiCaprio, thought to be
a shoo-in for the Best Actor Oscar. If he wins, I believe it will be
primarily for two things. First, the ever popular "apology award for not
giving him an award sooner" -- something I really dislike. Second, an
acknowledgement of the difficulty of making the film -- something I'm
conflicted about. Iñárritu was reportedly a rather merciless taskmaster
on this film (and that must be true, to have gotten so many perfect,
painterly shots). DiCaprio is said to have gone through hell. But I'd
personally rather give an Oscar for a performance that ends up on the
screen rather than for struggles behind the scenes. And I found
DiCaprio's performance here to be rather one-note, thanks to a one-note
script. We get it, he's in pain. Except when he's mad, I guess -- so
call it a two note performance? You don't have to look far for a more
layered performance of a man in a survival struggle; Matt Damon did it
in the very same year, in The Martian. I was less convinced by
DiCaprio's performance than the work of his amazing make-up artist. (Now there's someone who unquestionably deserves an Oscar. At one point, the
audience gasped at a simple closeup of the protagonist's brutalized
hand.)
1 comment:
I agree. I realized that I had seen this movie before - Man in the Wilderness with Richard Harris 1971. Not much different, except the camera lens was always getting in the way when it got too close to the action. The bear fogged the lens, the blood splattered on it, and the rain/snow made drops on it. I suppose that is an artistic effect but I found it annoying to be constantly reminded that this is all staged and it's a movie, rather than feeling like I was there.
Post a Comment