Review: ‘Dances With Wolves’
You never know when magic will happen. You tell a friend to go write a story. He goes and does his research, getting very excited by the prospects and writes. He reads to you the finished novel and it moves you in unexpected ways. Since you’re a film producer, you decide you want to adapt this to the screen. Somehow, you convince someone to publish the book while you go out and raise the $132 million you know in your heart it will take to make the film. Along the way, a third friend, equally moved by the book, convinces everyone that he not only wants to star in the film, but make his directorial debut. Everyone agrees and suddenly, you’re shooting in South Dakota. A year or so later, the movie tests through the roof. Audiences have responded with enthusiasm. Your peers honor you with twelve Academy Award nominations and you win seven. When you weren’t looking, you not only conjured up magic but you made an important film.
And that is what happened with [[[Dances With Wolves]]], the three-hour long story of John Jay Dunbar, a wounded Civil War veteran who asks for a remote assignment out in the frontier, noting he wants to see it before it’s all gone. While out in the wild, he slowly recognizes the beauty of America and the nobility of the Native Americans, many (including Wind in his Hair [Rodney A. Grant] and Kicking Bird [Graham Greene]) who cautiously befriends him. Dunbar also discovers a white woman, who was raised by the Lakota and renamed Stands with a Fist (Mary McDonnell). She serves as his guide to a world he falls in love with, making him unique among his fellow man.
Kevin Costner did a marvelous job taking his friend Michael Blake’s novel and turning it into a movie that reminded Americans of those who dwelt here first and still linger on their reservations. He let the story unfold slowly, with marvelous cinematography, making American the Beautiful once more. He filled the cast with many Native Americans, many who needed to relearn their native tongue. Coupled with John Barry’s stirring score, the movie transports you to another time and another way of life. When it was released 20 years ago, it also sparked a new dialogue over the plight of the Native Americans and just how cruel the settlers were. The Library of Congress thought it significant enough to add it in 2007 as one of the culturally significant films to be preserved.
In case you missed this excellent movie, 20th Century Fox Home Entertainment has released it as a 20th Anniversary two-disc Blu-ray event. The first disc is an extended version of the film, now running 3:54 and frankly the extra 55 minutes Costner tucked back in doesn’t necessarily make it a better story. Instead, we are treated to lots of extended views of the land and the people moving across the land. It’s all beautiful but doesn’t necessarily add to our enjoyment of the story. The film is brilliantly transferred to high-definition with rich colors. The new DTS-HD Master Audio 7.1 is also most welcome.
You also are treated to two audio commentaries (Kevin Costner and
Producer Jim Wilson on one, Director of Photography Dean Semler and
Editor Neil Travis on the other), both holdovers from the standard DVD
release. There’s also a Military Rank and Social Hierarchy Guide, a
variation on the trivia tracks that can be found on many films these
days. This is good mainly for the history buff. Similarly, as you
prepare for your social studies test, you can practice with the Real
History or Movie Make-Believe?, a true-or-false quiz that does not grade
on a curve.
The second disc is all bonus material, much of which is carried over
from previous releases. You do get a brand new A Day in the Life on the
Western Frontier, a 20 minute look at how settlers really lived during
the period covered by the film. It’s a welcome addition since it helps
ground the narrative. Then there’s the immersive one hour-plus
seven-part The Creation of an Epic – A Retrospective Documentary. Under
the Vignettes menu, you also get Original Music Video Featuring Music by
John Barry, Second Wind, a look at the editing process, Confederate
March and Music, spotlighting the Civil War re-enactors, Getting the
Point, demonstrating how a bow and arrow attack was filmed; Burying the
Hatchet, a similar sequence but using a different weapon; Animatronic
Buffalo , demonstrating how no animal was harmed during the making of
this film.
The disc is rounded out with TV advertisements, the Theatrical Trailer, a
Poster Gallery, and a Dances Photo Montage with introduction by still
photographer Ben Glass. All of the above is a mix of standard and
high-definition footage.
A stirring, well-told tale, with wonderful photography and gripping
performances, you don’t want to miss seeing this. In an ideal world, we
would have been given a choice between the theatrical release and the
bloated director’s cut, but it’s worthy of your time and attention.
Okay – to start with, any review of anything (or article about anything) that uses the term “Native American” like it’s the Only True And Proper Term is automatically behind the 8-ball with me.
I am a Native American. My ancestors came from England/Scotland (in the very early days of the settling of Georgia) and from Bohemia (two great-grandfathers). No one is more “native” than i. Period.
Their ancestors arrived on foot earlier than my ancestors, who came by boat … but there are no “native” Americans in the sense implied by that little bit of PC cant – because humanity did not evolve here. Take it back far enough, we’re all immigrants.
(Not even Obama – but that’s for another rant about birthers.)
I have never known anyone of American Indian descent who insisted on being called “Native American” or used the term to apply to him/her self.
(Come to think, one guy i used to run into at SF cons who was a member of an activist organisation with “Native American” in its name called himself and others like him Indians.)
In fact, one of the few American Indians i have ever heard use the term “Native American” to describe himself was an activist ranting about Indian sports mascots on an Atlanta radio station, who, when asked what he thought about the Atlanta Braves’ then-mascot, Chief Nockahoma, who was a full-blooded Georgia-born Indian, said “Oh – him. He’s a {i don’t recall the tribe}; all they ever did was hang around the trading posts.” (I think he may have used the term “Uncle Tomahawk”, too.)
Take a trip up to Cherokee NC, or out to Oklahoma, or up to the Rez in Arizona; see how many self-identified “Native Americans” you meet.
Canada refers to Indians as “First Nations” or “First Tribes”- i like that; it’s descriptive, dignified … and correct.
As to “Dances with Wolves” itself – never saw it, likely never will; at the time it was in theatres, i couldn’t afford to go to movies … and Kevin Costner sets my teeth on edge.
And i haven’t seen a review yet – either one that loved it or one that hated it – that doesn’t make it sound like a typical piece of going-too-far-the-other-way revisionism.
Wow. What an ignorant comment. And the fact that he balks at the term “Native American” yet uses the far more derrogatory term “American Indian” (which implies that Europeans wrongly dubed the Natives here as being from the country of India because that is what they thought they would find by sailing west) is both ironic and tragic in and of itself.
He says he never saw the movie and never will, so why bother reading about it or commenting on the review of it, which was spot on in my opinion.
This movie was perhaps the most honorable look at the Native American plight at the hands of white Euro-conquerers, yet this man, is bashing it.
Just because he was born here and his ancestors were, does not give him grounds to make mildy racist comments protesting that he deserves the same level of respect that those who are depicted in the film do for their suffering. The film is not about multi-generation Euro descendents who call themselves “natives.”
Only his epic ignorance of what the terms are meant to indicate shows through in his attempt to decry an honest portrayl of the Lakota tribe.
Please note that i said – and i say it from personal knowledge, as well as the statements of others – that many, if not the the majority, of the persons in question refer to themselves as Indians. If you’re not aware of that, the rest of your remarks are worthless.
However, my point is that the term “Native American” is just as wrong as you claim “American Indian” to be. They are no more (and no less) “native” than i, or any other person born here.
You seem to have missed the point i made that i made that i don’t know of any “man-on-the-street” Indians who are offended by the term “Indian” – including my one friend, an Indian-rights activist, who was personally rather amused by “Native American”. Let’s face it – “Native American” is as much a iece of PC terminology as “African American” – which my white friends who were born in Capetown found mildly amusing, too.
Also, of course, in your zeal to anathematise me, you apparently missed the point that i fully approve of the Canadian alternative to “American Indian”, “First Nations/Tribes”, which, in addition to not being “offensive” (in the minds of those who want to be offended), is also a lot more accurate than “Native American”.
Are you, perhaps, or do you have personal knowledge of, the Sioux? (Or any other Amerind tribe?) Can you, on that basis, attest that the film is “an honest portrayl of the Lakota tribe”?
I didn’t say that the portrayal of the Indians in the film was specifically inaccurate, just that (like Doctor Quinn, Medicine Woman, which i did see occasional episodes of, and which was an obvious attempt to ride the coattails of this film) it is probably “a typical piece of going-too-far-the-other-way revisionism.” I also said, note well, that it’s not the movie itself, but Kevin Costner in particular, that is why i will never see it.
Incidentally – the term “American Indian” does not “imply” “… that Europeans wrongly dubed the Natives here as being from the country of India because that is what they thought they would find by sailing west…”; It is precisely what happened, no “imply” about it. If you’re going to quibble about definitions of words, at least learn the meaning of the words you use to quibble with.
Okay – to start with, any review of anything (or article about anything) that uses the term "Native American" like it's the Only True And Proper Term is automatically behind the 8-ball with me.I am a Native American. My ancestors came from England/Scotland (in the very early days of the settling of Georgia) and from Bohemia (two great-grandfathers). No one is more "native" than i. Period.Their ancestors arrived on foot earlier than my ancestors, who came by boat … but there are no "native" Americans in the sense implied by that little bit of PC cant – because humanity did not evolve here. Take it back far enough, we're all immigrants.(Not even Obama – but that's for another rant about birthers.)I have never known anyone of American Indian descent who insisted on being called "Native American" or used the term to apply to him/her self.(Come to think, one guy i used to run into at SF cons who was a member of an activist organisation with "Native American" in its name called himself and others like him Indians.)In fact, one of the few American Indians i have ever heard use the term "Native American" to describe himself was an activist ranting about Indian sports mascots on an Atlanta radio station, who, when asked what he thought about the Atlanta Braves' then-mascot, Chief Nockahoma, who was a full-blooded Georgia-born Indian, said "Oh – him. He's a {i don't recall the tribe}; all they ever did was hang around the trading posts." (I think he may have used the term "Uncle Tomahawk", too.)Take a trip up to Cherokee NC, or out to Oklahoma, or up to the Rez in Arizona; see how many self-identified "Native Americans" you meet.Canada refers to Indians as "First Nations" or "First Tribes"- i like that; it's descriptive, dignified … and correct.As to "Dances with Wolves" itself – never saw it, likely never will; at the time it was in theatres, i couldn't afford to go to movies … and Kevin Costner sets my teeth on edge.And i haven't seen a review yet – either one that loved it or one that hated it – that doesn't make it sound like a typical piece of going-too-far-the-other-way revisionism.
Wow. What an ignorant comment. And the fact that he balks at the term "Native American" yet uses the far more derrogatory term "American Indian" (which implies that Europeans wrongly dubed the Natives here as being from the country of India because that is what they thought they would find by sailing west) is both ironic and tragic in and of itself.He says he never saw the movie and never will, so why bother reading about it or commenting on the review of it, which was spot on in my opinion.This movie was perhaps the most honorable look at the Native American plight at the hands of white Euro-conquerers, yet this man, is bashing it.Just because he was born here and his ancestors were, does not give him grounds to make mildy racist comments protesting that he deserves the same level of respect that those who are depicted in the film do for their suffering. The film is not about multi-generation Euro descendents who call themselves "natives."Only his epic ignorance of what the terms are meant to indicate shows through in his attempt to decry an honest portrayl of the Lakota tribe.
Please note that i said – and i say it from personal knowledge, as well as the statements of others – that many, if not the the majority, of the persons in question refer to themselves as Indians. If you're not aware of that, the rest of your remarks are worthless.However, my point is that the term "Native American" is just as wrong as you claim "American Indian" to be. They are no more (and no less) "native" than i, or any other person born here.You seem to have missed the point i made that i made that i don't know of any "man-on-the-street" Indians who are offended by the term "Indian" – including my one friend, an Indian-rights activist, who was personally rather amused by "Native American". Let's face it – "Native American" is as much a iece of PC terminology as "African American" – which my white friends who were born in Capetown found mildly amusing, too.Also, of course, in your zeal to anathematise me, you apparently missed the point that i fully approve of the Canadian alternative to "American Indian", "First Nations/Tribes", which, in addition to not being "offensive" (in the minds of those who want to be offended), is also a lot more accurate than "Native American".Are you, perhaps, or do you have personal knowledge of, the Sioux? (Or any other Amerind tribe?) Can you, on that basis, attest that the film is "an honest portrayl of the Lakota tribe"?I didn't say that the portrayal of the Indians in the film was specifically inaccurate, just that (like Doctor Quinn, Medicine Woman, which i did see occasional episodes of, and which was an obvious attempt to ride the coattails of this film) it is probably "a typical piece of going-too-far-the-other-way revisionism." I also said, note well, that it's not the movie itself, but Kevin Costner in particular, that is why i will never see it.Incidentally – the term "American Indian" does not "imply" "… that Europeans wrongly dubed the Natives here as being from the country of India because that is what they thought they would find by sailing west…"; It is precisely what happened, no "imply" about it. If you're going to quibble about definitions of words, at least learn the meaning of the words you use to quibble with.