Sergio Leone Web Board

Films of Sergio Leone => Other Films => Topic started by: titoli on May 09, 2009, 10:53:36 PM



Title: Dances with Wolves (1990)
Post by: titoli on May 09, 2009, 10:53:36 PM
Not a topic on this yet. I've just seen it and can understand why. 5-6\10


Title: Re: Dances with Wolves (1990)
Post by: moviesceleton on May 10, 2009, 03:05:36 AM
You got the title wrong. :) And I can't believe there is not thread for this yet...

I quite like this despite the general dislike here.


Title: Re: Dances with Wolves (1990)
Post by: titoli on May 10, 2009, 03:36:20 AM
Yes. I typed the title wrong. That's because 4 h of this put me half to sleep.


Title: Re: Dances with Wolves (1990)
Post by: dave jenkins on May 10, 2009, 04:22:21 AM
You made it through all 4 hours? You deserve an award.


Title: Re: Dances with Wolves (1990)
Post by: cigar joe on May 10, 2009, 10:48:54 AM
I put it in a catagory with other touchy/feely Westerns it will look dated down the line much like most of the non-violent parts of Soldier Blue.


Title: Re: Dances with Wolves (1990)
Post by: uncknown on May 10, 2009, 04:01:48 PM
"touchy feely"?!

I guess any film that portrays the American Indian honestly,  as a human being with all that entails,  is going to be criticized.

Besides it is not really a western.
It is a drama.

Granted, the first section is weak, but from the time Dunbar  ??? first encounters the Lakota to the end it is a powerful, classic motion picture.


Title: Re: Dances with Wolves (1990)
Post by: dave jenkins on May 10, 2009, 05:25:10 PM
I guess any film that portrays the American Indian honestly,  as a human being with all that entails,  is going to be criticized.
Give. Me. A. Break.


Title: Re: Dances with Wolves (1990)
Post by: uncknown on May 10, 2009, 07:59:01 PM
Give. Me. A. Break.

no doubt you are a scholar on the subject ::)


Title: Re: Dances with Wolves (1990)
Post by: uncknown on May 10, 2009, 07:59:26 PM
I bet Dave is an Atlanta Braves fan :P


Title: Re: Dances with Wolves (1990)
Post by: dave jenkins on May 10, 2009, 08:49:11 PM
no doubt you are a scholar on the subject ::)
Nope. I do have sources I can cite, however:

Owen Gleiberman:
“The Indian actors are wonderful to look at, but couldn't some of them have played characters who were selfish, angry, egotistical? Couldn't they have had a few complications? Things seemed a lot more advanced during the late '70s, when Native American actors like Will Sampson and Chief Dan George played men with quirky depths. Essentially, Dances With Wolves is Robinson Crusoe with a tribeful of Fridays. The Indians come off as photogenic saints, which is almost as patronizing as the ''we smokum peace pipe'' clichés Costner is trying to undo.”

Dennis Schwartz:
“This is far from a satisfactory Western, even though Australian cinematographer Dean Semler does a fine job photographing the stupendous vistas (it was shot on location in South Dakota with over 700 cast members) and a few of the set-piece action scenes are watchable. It nobly wants to present the Lakota Sioux in a good light, yet for all its sentiments to wax poetic about them tells us precious little about their culture and their way of life. The liberal revisionist Western script by Michael Blake that is adapted from his novel is disjointed, too flowery in its trivial observation of the Sioux and too manipulative. Costner's mostly bumbling direction (too many lingering shots of meaningless things) fits more into a vanity project, as it overall lacks the dramatic fortitude needed to give it some gravitas and Costner's characterization of the hero is merely two-dimensional. The many emotional stirring scenarios seemed moving at times, but more often seemed more sappy than genuine.”


Title: Re: Dances with Wolves (1990)
Post by: uncknown on May 10, 2009, 09:13:50 PM
i AM DISAPPOINTED in Gleiberman who is probaby the best movie critic we have:(
If you watch the film CAREFULLY (esp. the longer version) you will that the Sioux have a wide variety of personalities.
Some are unlikable - they steal Dunbar's horse fer crissake! (and his hat, too) and some are likeable and loyal.

Sometimes I feel as though people who dis this film as "new age" or "romanticized" have not seen it. they probably read the review of that dried up snatch Pauline Kael and think they have.

Schwartz is an idiot. This was the first and maybe only film that showed the day to day life of an Indian society, and in their native toungue (another first).
Liberal revionism?
In the long version is a scene where the lakota celebrate the killing of a white man and Dunbar retreats in anger and shame. He says he is "not of them"

nuff said on this matter

ps who the hell is Denny Schwartz?!



Title: Re: Dances with Wolves (1990)
Post by: dave jenkins on May 10, 2009, 10:51:28 PM
Who the hell is uncknown?


Title: Re: Dances with Wolves (1990)
Post by: uncknown on May 11, 2009, 12:01:54 AM
Who the hell is uncknown?

the  grave where the gold is buried
next to Arch Stanton 8)


Title: Re: Dances with Wolves (1990)
Post by: titoli on May 11, 2009, 12:14:39 AM
You made it through all 4 hours?

I had to the moment I decided to watch it. That's why I postponed the effort 20 years.   But I didn't want any smart-aleck coming out with "you didn't watch the full-version so you can't talk about it".


Title: Re: Dances with Wolves (1990)
Post by: cigar joe on May 11, 2009, 05:19:08 AM
I think one of the best Native American/White Man films I've seen so far is "Blackrobe" I believe the natives also speak in their native tongue in that film.


Title: Re: Dances with Wolves (1990)
Post by: stanton on May 11, 2009, 05:30:10 AM
Surely not one of my favourites, but in any case a good western.
It's obviously one of these films which critics and intellectuals are very keen to hate. Funny, DwW got mainly good reviews before it became a commercial success by a wide audience, who viewed it only in second instance as a western.

The shorter version is the better one, the longer one is only longer and imo mainly of interest for the die hard fans.


Title: Re: Dances with Wolves (1990)
Post by: dave jenkins on May 11, 2009, 06:00:10 AM
I think one of the best Native American/White Man films I've seen so far is "Blackrobe" I believe the natives also speak in their native tongue in that film.
I like Blackrobe very much too. Well, it's a Bruce Beresford film, it should be good.


Title: Re: Dances with Wolves (1990)
Post by: Groggy on May 11, 2009, 06:51:26 AM
I remember liking this film a great deal but I haven't seen it in ages.

I wasn't crazy about Black Robe, but technically that wasn't a Western.


Title: Re: Dances with Wolves (1990)
Post by: cigar joe on May 11, 2009, 11:29:56 AM
I called it a Native American/Whiteman Film Grogs


Title: Re: Dances with Wolves (1990)
Post by: uncknown on May 11, 2009, 02:44:13 PM

It's obviously one of these films which critics and intellectuals are very keen to hate. Funny, DwW got mainly good reviews before it became a commercial success by a wide audience,...



I suspect part of the reaction by the intellectual (mostly east Coast) snobs was due to DWW winning the Oscar for best Picture.
The critic's darling Martin Scorcese was up that year for the odious GOODFELLAS, surely one the most repellent movies ever made.
After RAGING BULL lost also they went beserk (RB is a great film imho) and trashed DWW for 'stealing" the Oscar from Marty,


Title: Re: Dances with Wolves (1990)
Post by: stanton on May 11, 2009, 03:43:11 PM
Repellent?

No, Goodfellas is imo a great film, maybe not as great as Raging Bull, but it's one of those which are clearly superior to DwW (or Departed).


Title: Re: Dances with Wolves (1990)
Post by: T.H. on May 11, 2009, 03:57:17 PM
Not a topic on this yet. I've just seen it and can understand why. 5-6\10

Give. Me. A. Break.

lol

couldn't have said it any better myself


Title: Re: Dances with Wolves (1990)
Post by: uncknown on May 11, 2009, 06:40:58 PM
Repellent?

No, Goodfellas is imo a great film, maybe not as great as Raging Bull, but it's one of those which are clearly superior to DwW (or Departed).

 alot of people love it ???
to me it is just a third rate RAGING BULL - it even duplicated that great tracking shot.
to each his own.
I still believe critics harbor resentment over the Oscar issue which is really silly.


Title: Re: Dances with Wolves (1990)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on March 29, 2012, 08:45:00 AM
Just saw Dances With Wolves (1990) for the first time. The Director's Cut, all 3 hours 53 minutes, and wasn't bored for a moment.

9/10

I have to disagree with those here who made it seem like the Sioux are portrayed as angels: there is a lot about the barbaric nature of their customs (eg. dancing with scalps). I haven't seen the original theatrical version, so I don't know what was left in or out of that version.
When watching a Western, the topic of Whites vs. Indians totally bores me. I have zero interest in it. But somehow I was fascinated throughout this movie; perhaps, as some here have mentioned, it is really more of a drama than anything else.

While everyone is jumping on the issue of whether or not the Indians are portrayed as angels -- and again, they certainly are NOT, at least in the Director's Cut -- what bothered me more was the almost cartoonish portrayal of the Whites. I mean, yeah, I am sure that through all the Indian Wars, there were atrocities committed by both sides, but the Whites in this movie were portrayed in a similar cartoonish, one-sides, pure evil way, as the Indians of the old Westerns


Title: Re: Dances with Wolves (1990)
Post by: stanton on March 29, 2012, 12:05:43 PM
I prefer the theatrical cut. The longer version makes the film only longer without adding anything justifying the additional time.


Title: Re: Dances with Wolves (1990)
Post by: Cusser on March 30, 2012, 07:39:19 AM
I prefer the theatrical cut. The longer version makes the film only longer without adding anything justifying the additional time.

Thanks, Stanton for your insight.  I also liked the film, was wondering about the longer version.  "Longer" isn't always better. 

Case in point: most of the cuts for GBU were unnecessary.  But some of the cave scene could've been cut, but parts of it were worthwhile.  I liked the part about potatoes being for poor people, thought it was dumb for the three guys to come down on ropes.  I can't pass judgement on the Scirocco scene, I guess it depends on the style in which it was done.


Title: Re: Dances with Wolves (1990)
Post by: noodles_leone on March 30, 2012, 09:01:29 AM
I prefer the theatrical version too. The extended cut becomes boring with the mystical scenes in the forest and other pointless scenes.


Title: Re: Dances with Wolves (1990)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on March 30, 2012, 01:58:20 PM
Thanks, Stanton for your insight.  I also liked the film, was wondering about the longer version.  "Longer" isn't always better. 

Case in point: most of the cuts for GBU were unnecessary.  But some of the cave scene could've been cut, but parts of it were worthwhile.  I liked the part about potatoes being for poor people, thought it was dumb for the three guys to come down on ropes.  I can't pass judgement on the Scirocco scene, I guess it depends on the style in which it was done.

the cave scene in GBU is absolutely pointless


Title: Re: Dances with Wolves (1990)
Post by: stanton on March 30, 2012, 03:02:12 PM
The cave scene has one point though.
It makes Tuco more negative. Only a real asshole sends his friends into their certain death.
Without the cave scene I had assumed that Tuco used just some anonymous hired guns as bait. 



Title: Re: Dances with Wolves (1990)
Post by: Banjo on April 03, 2012, 06:47:11 PM
Just saw Dances With Wolves (1990) for the first time. The Director's Cut, all 3 hours 53 minutes, and wasn't bored for a moment.

9/10

I have to disagree with those here who made it seem like the Sioux are portrayed as angels: there is a lot about the barbaric nature of their customs (eg. dancing with scalps). I haven't seen the original theatrical version, so I don't know what was left in or out of that version.
When watching a Western, the topic of Whites vs. Indians totally bores me. I have zero interest in it. But somehow I was fascinated throughout this movie; perhaps, as some here have mentioned, it is really more of a drama than anything else.

While everyone is jumping on the issue of whether or not the Indians are portrayed as angels -- and again, they certainly are NOT, at least in the Director's Cut -- what bothered me more was the almost cartoonish portrayal of the Whites. I mean, yeah, I am sure that through all the Indian Wars, there were atrocities committed by both sides, but the Whites in this movie were portrayed in a similar cartoonish, one-sides, pure evil way, as the Indians of the old Westerns

It's a shame that the plight of the Native American bores you seeing that they were there long before the white colonialists .As always it was the priveledge  ol the vicors of war to by means of propaganda to dehumanise a race rightfully defending their lands  to ruthless invaders.I'm by no means an expert on the subject but my understanding is that the indigenous Americans were destroyed as a direct result of written and broken treaties, warfare, and of forced assimilation,a tactic readily employed by other nations throughout history and well into the following century.


Title: Re: Dances with Wolves (1990)
Post by: Groggy on April 03, 2012, 06:49:09 PM
It's a shame that the plight of the Native American bores you seeing that they were there long before the white colonialists.

Indeed. And they were quite preoccupied raping, killing and destroying each other millennia before the whites got there. O0


Title: Re: Dances with Wolves (1990)
Post by: Banjo on April 03, 2012, 06:57:01 PM
Indeed. And they were quite preoccupied raping, killing and destroying each other millennia before the whites got there. O0

Oh yes that old chestnut.Didn't Caesar say similar things about the illiterate Celts?Whatever delusional bullshit you wish to believe to quell your white guilt. 8)


Title: Re: Dances with Wolves (1990)
Post by: Groggy on April 03, 2012, 07:28:44 PM
No defense huh?

And "delusional bullshit" - you really want to go there? Frankly I'd rather rassle.


Title: Re: Dances with Wolves (1990)
Post by: Banjo on April 04, 2012, 03:24:18 AM
The last i want to say on the matter that as a Brit i am quite appalled at my country's dark past of colonialism,"Britannia rules the waves" and all that crap at the expense of the exploitation and suffering of other human beings.

If you have the chroniclers on your side it's very convenient way to paint a false reality in order to justify such attrocities.


Title: Re: Dances with Wolves (1990)
Post by: Groggy on April 04, 2012, 04:20:10 AM
Who's justifying anything? It's not "false reality" to say Native Americans killed each other and one need not endorse the Trail of Tears to note as much. Claiming as much bespeaks of historical ignorance or self-righteous posturing.

As for "white guilt," I have none for nothing I was complicit in. Sounds like you're projecting old chum.


Title: Re: Dances with Wolves (1990)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on April 04, 2012, 04:31:53 AM
It's a shame that the plight of the Native American bores you seeing that they were there long before the white colonialists .As always it was the priveledge  ol the vicors of war to by means of propaganda to dehumanise a race rightfully defending their lands  to ruthless invaders.I'm by no means an expert on the subject but my understanding is that the indigenous Americans were destroyed as a direct result of written and broken treaties, warfare, and of forced assimilation,a tactic readily employed by other nations throughout history and well into the following century.

I am not necessarily disagreeing (or agreeing) with your historical assertions about the Indians. All I am saying is that it is not a story that interests me in a movie. The words "bores me," when it comes to movies, means that I am not very interested in seeing the subject matter portrayed in a movie.

There are many other very important topics in the world, that don't interest me as movie subjects: One example is RELIGION. Another example is CHEMISTRY. And BIOLOGY. And the TRAINING OF ARMED FORCES TO GO TO WAR. The list could go on and on. The point is that there are certain issues in the world that interest me as a movie topic, and other issues in the world that do not interest me as a movie topic. By no means does that indicate that one issue is more important than another issue

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

and as for the spat between Groggy and Banjo: this uneducated 3rd generation Yank will say that it is probably safe to say that atrocities were committed by both sides: "The Indians" (ie. various individuals in various Indian tribes) had barbaric rituals of their own; attacked and slaughtered, and scalped each other, and were barbarians; and committed atrocities as well as suffered atrocities at the hands of  "The Whites" (ie. various individuals from European ancestry); who committed atrocities against Indians, both in terms of stealing land, killing, and violating treaties, and suffered atrocities at the hands of the Indians as well).

My very uneducated point here is the issue is much more complicated than the "White=Good, Indian=Evil" of the 1940's Western; but it's also much more complicated than the "White=Evil, Indian=Good" in any and all situations of the jackasses like Roger Ebert. There were many different actions, treaties, wars, dealings, discussions, attacks, killings, kidnappings, etc. across the numerous individual instances that have come to collectively be known as "The Indian Wars." And I am sure that each side had people who did things wrong and people who did things right.

But the way things went down, it's sort of the opposite of "victors write the history books." Rather, since the victors (ie. the whites) had so much more sophisticated weaponry and were able to (justified or unjustified) deliver such a resounding defeat, perhaps it appears as if the Whites are the bad guys cuz they were so successful in getting rid of Indians -- while the very same Indians would have done the same thing if they'd had the numbers and weapons to do so.....

My point is, it's a very, very complicated issue, and unless and until I get a PhD in History of the Indian Wars, I really can't say anything for sure; but I do feel comfortable saying that if you put all Indians to one side and all Whites to the other, there will be blood on both sides, atrocities on both sides, and no one side will be perfectly correct in all disputes related to land or anything else....
-------------------------


With that said, if I do come across a time that Americans did commit an atrocity, or whites did commit an atrocity in the Indian Wars, I have no dumbass "white guilt" about that. I was not there (nor were my parents or grandparents or great grandparents -- who either weren't alive  or were living elsewhere). Nor do I have any "white guilt" over what happened to the blacks in America: I never held any slaves or mistreated slaves, nor did anyone in my family, none of whom lived in America during slavery; nor did they live in the South during Jim Crow; nor did they ever discriminate against anyone.
White Guilt essentially means that because once upon a time, people who have nothing in common with me except my skin color, harmed people of another skin color; somehow now I, who had zero to do with this, should feel guilt and feel like I owe something to those who have the same skin color as the people who were discriminated against 100 years ago.
Yeah, this sort of lunacy is of the sort promulgated (in one way or another) by idiots like Ebert.

And if I lived in Britain, I'd never say I "feel embarrassed" for Being British or feel like I have to apologize for all their colonization: you had nothing to do with it. The country isn't you. The King, the Parliament, the Army, they are not you. You happen to live in the country in which they rule, but you should feel no more responsible to apologize for their actions than you'd feel responsible if a stray dog took a shit on your neighbor's yard :)


Title: Re: Dances with Wolves (1990)
Post by: Cusser on April 04, 2012, 07:46:08 AM
The cave scene has one point though.
It makes Tuco more negative. Only a real asshole sends his friends into their certain death.
Without the cave scene I had assumed that Tuco used just some anonymous hired guns as bait. 



I'm going to disagree with the "certain death" idea.  Had the military column not stopped - and Blondie not heard the guy's spurs - the plan would have very likely succeeded. 


Title: Re: Dances with Wolves (1990)
Post by: Groggy on April 04, 2012, 09:59:31 AM
Drink's on the right track here I think, but even so, why are we having this discussion?

Even going back to the post that set Banjo off, it seems drink was mostly complaining about the one-dimensional characterization of whites. This is an entirely different matter than the historical plight of the Native Americans. A movie's dramatic structure and effectiveness can exist separate from historical reality.

For that matter, how is drink not finding an aspect of the film interesting a cause for pompous chest-thumping?

I do not especially care to pursue an argument re: imperialism, least of all with Banjo. All I know is that my family were Germans who immigrated to Pennsylvania circa 1750, never owned slaves (some fought for the Union in fact) and probably didn't see anything like a frontier after the first or second generation. I'll grant it's possible that an ancestor used an ethnic slur at some point in the past 300 years. Ergo, I feel no "white guilt" and see no reason why I should.  If Banjo wishes to flagellate himself over what his countrymen did 100+ years ago, all power to him. 


Title: Re: Dances with Wolves (1990)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on April 04, 2012, 12:29:28 PM
Leone never had Indian conflicts in his films. (In fact, the three Indian targets at the gun shop in GBU are the only mention, I believe, aside from the name Cheyenne in OUATITW). Since I love Leone's Westerns more than anything and saw them first, maybe that affected me and it's why I don't care for that storyline. Or maybe it's cuz I sense that there are larger, deeper issues there that I am unwilling to think about when I want some mindless entertainment. All I know is that while the topic of the Indian Wars is an important one, it's not something that interests me to watch a movie about


Title: Re: Dances with Wolves (1990)
Post by: Dust Devil on April 04, 2012, 01:23:54 PM
(In fact, the three Indian targets at the gun shop in GBU are the only mention, I believe, aside from the name Cheyenne in OUATITW).

Also Woody Strode's wife at the station.


Title: Re: Dances with Wolves (1990)
Post by: titoli on April 04, 2012, 03:08:03 PM
Maybe this discussion is fitting:

http://www.fistful-of-leone.com/forums/index.php?topic=77.0


Title: Re: Dances with Wolves (1990)
Post by: Groggy on April 04, 2012, 03:27:55 PM
Also Woody Strode's wife at the station.

And the "redskin warriors" Jill runs into in Flagstone.


Title: Re: Dances with Wolves (1990)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on April 04, 2012, 03:48:53 PM
well maybe that'c cuz OUATITW is a reference to AW's (and has characters borrowed from AW's, etc.) Of the 3 Dollars films -- the "pure spaghetti westerns," I believe those Indian targets at the gun shop is the only mention of Indians (and El Indio, but he is a Mexican Indian, not an American Indian)


Title: Re: Dances with Wolves (1990)
Post by: Banjo on April 04, 2012, 06:07:45 PM
Who's justifying anything? It's not "false reality" to say Native Americans killed each other and one need not endorse the Trail of Tears to note as much. Claiming as much bespeaks of historical ignorance or self-righteous posturing.

As for "white guilt," I have none for nothing I was complicit in. Sounds like you're projecting old chum.

For the reasons that i've stated above it displays historical ignorance to accept everything that's been written down in history books at face value.From what sources are you drawing from  that the Native Americans " were quite preoccupied raping, killing and destroying each other millennia before the whites got there" and what evidence is there of this other than heavily biased hearsay?And if this really was the case what makes them any different to the North and South slaughtering each other during the civil war?Of course the Europeans were using this age old excuse as a justification  for their actions especially as unlike the "barbaric savages" they as ever "had god on their side"



Title: Re: Dances with Wolves (1990)
Post by: Banjo on April 04, 2012, 06:19:00 PM


and as for the spat between Groggy and Banjo,

I'm sorry that i misinterpreted you drinks.

I don't have a problem with Groggy either and of now and as in the past i enjoy the occasional run in with him as i'm sure he does.


Title: Re: Dances with Wolves (1990)
Post by: Banjo on April 04, 2012, 06:35:11 PM
I feel no "white guilt" and see no reason why I should.  If Banjo wishes to flagellate himself over what his countrymen did 100+ years ago, all power to him.  

I only mentioned "white guilt" once purely tongue in cheek but clearly from your response i may have touched a nerve with you Groggy!  ;D

No seriously like yourself and drinks i'd  never beat myself about things that happened well before my lifetime and out of my control.I said i was appalled at the whole idea of the British Empire and nothing more . But  the main point  i'm  trying to make here  is that everyone should be aware enough not to believe everything we are spoonfed about the past and present.


Title: Re: Dances with Wolves (1990)
Post by: Groggy on April 04, 2012, 07:27:37 PM
For the reasons that i've stated above it displays historical ignorance to accept everything that's been written down in history books at face value.

This is a pointless statement unless you can a) enumerate what you consider a valid source or b) explain why it's wrong. With my History background I like to think I can tell the difference between good and bad history.


Title: Re: Dances with Wolves (1990)
Post by: Groggy on April 04, 2012, 07:30:29 PM
I don't have a problem with Groggy either and of now and as in the past i enjoy the occasional run in with him as i'm sure he does.

No doubt Banjo, you know more about Spaghettis (and possibly Westerns in general) than I could hope to and you're a nice guy to chat with. O0

On the other hand, this exchange helps show why it's a good idea to steer clear of political discussions though. We've had a few in the past and they've never ended well.


Title: Re: Dances with Wolves (1990)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on April 04, 2012, 09:58:50 PM
Banjo: Somehow I misinterpreted your earlier statement that you are "appalled" by Britain's colonialism to mean that you felt guilty about it. Sorry for the misinterpretation. Yeah, you definitely should be appalled at those actions of Britain; but no more or less than you should be appalled at the actions of numerous other countries and/or individuals who committed atrocities. My point is that just because you happen to live in the same country and have the same skin color as a group of people who committed atrocities in the past, doesn't mean that you are in any way responsible. It's the same with the White Guilt here in America that so many liberals have. I feel zero personal guilt for any of the atrocities committed against blacks, because I (nor any of my ancestors, btw) had nothing to do with it whatsoever. Sure, I am appalled by the actions that some Americans did; but I do not have any guilt about it. Just as I am eg. appalled by the atrocities that some African tribes have committed (and are committing to this day, but feel no guilt about it).

And I don't know on what basis you can accuse me and/or Groggy of just accepting what "history" teaches us, and on what basis you presume to know what we believe/rely on. To be clear, the fact that many Indians were barbarians is NO justification for any atrocities committed by Whites against them; but that barbarism cannot be denied. (And no, I am not basing that on what I see in Westerns, and I am sure Groggy isn't either). And I in no way condoned the actions of the North-South of the Civil War. A while ago, in a post about the Betterville scene in GBU, I made a long post about how disturbed I am every time I think of Andersonville, and compared those in charge of these camps to Nazis. (I ultimately deleted that post, because it was actually irrelevant to the topic of that thread). But I respectfully think there is much that you wrongfully presume about my and Groggy's belief in American history. For the record, I believe that whites and Americans -- both individuals and government -- are as capable of evil as anyone else in the world.

And I agree with Groggy that political discussions are generally not beneficial; but often they will come up when discussing a movie which raises political issues (such as Dances With Wolves)





Title: Re: Dances with Wolves (1990)
Post by: cigar joe on April 04, 2012, 10:21:01 PM
Banjo: Somehow I misinterpreted your earlier statement that you are "appalled" by Britain's colonialism to mean that you felt guilty about it. Sorry for the misinterpretation. Yeah, you definitely should be appalled at those actions of Britain; but no more or less than you should be appalled at the actions of numerous other countries and/or individuals who committed atrocities. My point is that just because you happen to live in the same country and have the same skin color as a group of people who committed atrocities in the past, doesn't mean that you are in any way responsible. It's the same with the White Guilt here in America that so many liberals have. I feel zero personal guilt for any of the atrocities committed against blacks, because I (nor any of my ancestors, btw) had nothing to do with it whatsoever. Sure, I am appalled by the actions that some Americans did; but I do not have any guilt about it. Just as I am eg. appalled by the atrocities that some African tribes have committed (and are committing to this day, but feel no guilt about it).

And I don't know on what basis you can accuse me and/or Groggy of just accepting what "history" teaches us, and on what basis you presume to know what we believe/rely on. To be clear, the fact that many Indians were barbarians is NO justification for any atrocities committed by Whites against them; but that barbarism cannot be denied. (And no, I am not basing that on what I see in Westerns, and I am sure Groggy isn't either). And I in no way condoned the actions of the North-South of the Civil War. A while ago, in a post about the Betterville scene in GBU, I made a long post about how disturbed I am every time I think of Andersonville, and compared those in charge of these camps to Nazis. (I ultimately deleted that post, because it was actually irrelevant to the topic of that thread). But I respectfully think there is much that you wrongfully presume about my and Groggy's belief in American history. For the record, I believe that whites and Americans -- both individuals and government -- are as capable of evil as anyone else in the world.

And I agree with Groggy that political discussions are generally not beneficial; but often they will come up when discussing a movie which raises political issues (such as Dances With Wolves)

This is definitely getting old watch something new please!




Title: Re: Dances with Wolves (1990)
Post by: Banjo on April 05, 2012, 03:40:31 AM
Groggy,I also have a good grounding in (apart from perhaps USA :D)history and i wasn't  really thinking about any politics.The white guilt thing was a stupid dumbass statement about a subject i know little about and yes i'm wrong to jump to conclusions about what yourself and Drnks rely/believe  in.I also respect that both yourself and Drinks know an awful lot more about your own history than i do.

Anyway partly what i had in mind  is that with modern archaeology one can question what has been traditionally taught to us all in history books.For example  British archaeologists have still not uncovered any tangible support for the Anglo Saxon invasion and ethnic cleansing of the celts as stated in the annals of the time.They have not found any evidence of battlefields or mass burials.Also recent dna surveys would indicate that the English are as indigeneous as the Scots,Irish and Welsh.In conclusion the genetic pool has remained unaltered with the current thinking that the only "invasion" that took place was a cultural one.

Sorry CJ.I'll now shut up for good before i'm stripped of my moderatorship. :)


Title: Re: Dances with Wolves (1990)
Post by: Groggy on April 05, 2012, 06:53:15 AM
Quote
Anyway partly what i had in mind  is that with modern archaeology one can question what has been traditionally taught to us all in history books.For example  British archaeologists have still not uncovered any tangible support for the Anglo Saxon invasion and ethnic cleansing of the celts as stated in the annals of the time.They have not found any evidence of battlefields or mass burials.Also recent dna surveys would indicate that the English are as indigeneous as the Scots,Irish and Welsh.In conclusion the genetic pool has remained unaltered with the current thinking that the only "invasion" that took place was a cultural one.

Fair enough Banjo, and I'd certainly agree that one shouldn't uncritically accept "the standard account" account of anything. At the same time though, one needs a reason (evidence, research, what have you) to discount it rather than a vague cynicism. "Alternate" accounts generally have their own political or sociological axe to grind; I wouldn't commend anyone to, say, the Politically Incorrect Guides because their goal is obviously to promote a right-wing agenda.

The research on pre-Columbian Native Americans does not indicate a peaceful utopian society, is my point. The Sioux were a fairly war-like tribe by most accounts, though nothing on the level of, say, the Aztecs or Apaches. I was not (intentionally) advocating the superiority of American/European culture. It was a half-snarky comment anyway, and in retrospect probably an overreaction to your post.


Title: Re: Dances with Wolves (1990)
Post by: Cusser on April 05, 2012, 08:01:37 AM
In fact, the three Indian targets at the gun shop in GBU

Hey, those were two-dimensional !!!!   Couldn't resist the feeble joke.

Those of us who saw the film in theaters first, then saw the ABC network broadcasts in the mid-1970s, remember that the network cut out part of that scene (too racial, but perfect and appropriate for the time period).  They showed Tuco walking to the back of the shop, then cut out the first shots so it was not easy to even tell that the targets were Indians as they were shown in severe profile.



Title: Re: Dances with Wolves (1990)
Post by: Groggy on April 05, 2012, 08:11:38 AM
This is definitely getting old watch something new please!

You may think this line is getting old, but believe me son, I want me gold! :D


Title: Re: Dances with Wolves (1990)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on April 05, 2012, 09:18:29 AM
movies with political issues will necessary result in discussions on the issue the movie brings up, (and naturally, often lead to peripheral discussions as well). So no serious discussion of Dancing With Wolves can exclude a discussing of the Indian Wars, just like no serious discussion of The Green Berets can exclude discussing Vietnam, nor can a serious discussion of October Baby be possible if you exclude the subject of abortion. So unless you wanna say that "ALL MOVIES WITH ANY POLITICAL TOPIC WHATSOEVER ARE BANNED!" it is inevitable that these topics of conversation will come up from time to time.
Though politics are among my least favorite subjects, I don't mind it if it comes up as part of a discussion of a movie that brought up those very issues


Title: Re: Dances with Wolves (1990)
Post by: Groggy on April 05, 2012, 09:55:10 AM
Quote
politics are among my least favorite subjects

Could have fooled me.


Title: Re: Dances with Wolves (1990)
Post by: Spikeopath on March 08, 2017, 09:59:50 PM
An outstanding film and the D/C is one of my favourite Westerns of all time.

What a fascinating thread! I'm not interested in the historical debates within, but found many of the posts intriguing to say the least. I do think that the film's gargantuan success hurt some of you  >:D >:D >:D

Anyway, here's my gargantuan review, and it's not one for the haters to try and wade through.

It is the trail of a true human being. I think you are on this trail and it is good to see.

Dances With Wolves Is directed by Kevin Costner who also stars. It's adapted by Michael Blake from his own novel of the same name. Starring along side Costner are Graham Greene, Mary McDonnell & Rodney A. Grant. Dean Semler provides the cinematography & John Barry the musical score. Set during the American Civil War, the story tells how Lieutenant John Dunbar (Costner) goes to a military outpost on the American frontier, where confronted with alienation he befriends nature, the Lakota Indians and finds himself in the process.

"I had never known a people so eager to laugh, so devoted to family, so dedicated to each other. And the only word that came to mind was harmony"

The critics were rubbing their hands with glee, getting ready to tear Costner apart for what undoubtedly would be a failure. An epic Western movie made in 1990, had he not learnt from Heaven's Gate? It was long in production, and with only a $15/$22 million budget afforded it, word came that Costner had to put in $3 million of his own cash to aid production. It was beset with production delays as the problems mounted up with the weather, animal training and with action scenes taking up to three weeks to shoot, all contributing to the belief that it was doomed to failure. "Kevin's Gate" they cried, what's that? It's partially sub-titled too? Never work.

Dances With Wolves went on to make $424 million in Worldwide theatre tickets alone. Heaven knows what the total would be if we added the VHS & DVD returns as well! Come Academy Award time the film won 7 Oscars, including Best Picture (making it the first Western to win the prestigious award since Cimarron in 1931) & Best Director. It was also nominated in five other categories with Costner up for Best Actor, Graham Greene for Best Supporting Actor & Mary McDonnell for Best Supporting Actress. It was, all told, a personal, artistic and commercial triumph for Costner. One can see him post Oscar night sitting there on his porch sipping sour mash and flipping the finger at all those critics who willed him to fail.

Costner's movie is a simple tale, of that there is no arguing. But Dances With Wolves (the name given to Dunbar by the Sioux) is magnificently told, as enchanting a Western that has ever been made. It boasts everything needed to make a first class Oater. The story may be simple but it's rich on detail, the characters have real depth and it never sags, not even in its magnificent elongated directors cut that runs 236 minutes. The credit has to go to Costner, who in his debut as director lest we forget, has managed to blend everything together in the style of one of the old masters from the classic Western period. Every tonal avenue ventured down pays off handsome rewards, it all goes somewhere, awash with wistfulness, romanticism and elegiac poetry. The action sequences are expertly crafted, with a buffalo hunt particularly breath taking; no CGI here, the odd animatronic for a close encounter, but mainly the real deal, as are the wolves and the Lakota Sioux, too, who are played by Native Americans. Its humorous too, with its fun being intentional and aiding the flow of the friendships forming.

As most Western fans will tell you, a lyrical horse opera needs great location work and a score to match. Thankfully Dances With Wolves has both, as both Semler & Barry produce work that picked up the Golden Baldy on Oscar night. Lensed predominantly in South Dakota around the Black Hills & Badlands regions, Semler infuses the film with natural landscapes that send the frontier bursting thru the screen, his framing explains things better than words can in this environment. While Barry's score, lifting nicely from A View To A Kill at times, is suitably grand, deft in touch for the main theme and blood pumping for the buffalo hunt and the Pawnee attacks. Acting wise the award nominations received for Costner, Greene & McDonnell were richly deserved. The boys are quiet and undemonstrative, at one with the essence of the story and infusing it with a sincerity so lacking in many epics. Playing Stands With A Fist, a white woman raised by the Sioux after her family were slaughtered when she was a child, McDonnell has to reach different character levels as the story unfolds, and she delivers emotional depth on every level. No nomination for Grant, but his work is top dollar also, his latter scenes with Costner really nail the shift in tone.

There's some historical missteps that will no doubt annoy the purists, like I don't believe the Pawnee were the aggressors they are painted as here. While the central romance between Costner & McDonnell is delicate but not fully formed; tho it does improve in the directors cut. But it's hard to criticise little itches when such vision and ambition comes together as well as it does here. Structured with precision and showing respect for tradition, this is a movie about loving people for people lovers. And one can quite easily believe that some genre legends up in the sky were looking down and nodding approvingly. 10/10


Title: Re: Dances with Wolves (1990)
Post by: stanton on March 09, 2017, 02:17:11 AM
An outstanding film and the D/C is one of my favourite Westerns of all time.


I prefer the shorter version. The longer version adds a few nice details, but is problematic for the rhythm. It is a quite good western. 8/10


Title: Re: Dances with Wolves (1990)
Post by: noodles_leone on March 09, 2017, 03:28:23 AM
I prefer the shorter version. The longer version adds a few nice details, but is problematic for the rhythm. It is a quite good western. 8/10

What has 2017 changed for/in you? Almost all of your one-line reviews are spot on.


Title: Re: Dances with Wolves (1990)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on March 09, 2017, 03:40:24 AM
I saw the movie once (long version) 5 years ago, and gave it a 9/10. But since then, I never had the slightest desire to see it again. Is t just because of the length? Is it because emotionally heavy movies are not easy to watch frequently? Or is it because the movie has gone down in my estimation over the past few years even though I have not seen it again? I do not know the answer. Whatever it is, I don't feel  any interest whatsoever in seeing it again anytime soon.


Title: Re: Dances with Wolves (1990)
Post by: noodles_leone on March 09, 2017, 03:46:35 AM
Watch the short version. There may be a debate on which version is the best (hint: the short) but I don't think anybody will deny that the short version is much, much easier on the viewer.


Title: Re: Dances with Wolves (1990)
Post by: cigar joe on March 09, 2017, 03:58:49 AM
With so few Westerns being made the last 30 years, compared to the 150 Westerns produced in 1950 alone any new Western receives a lot of attention here.

Spike check out Blackrobe if you've never seen it, it's more of a Frontier Epic taking place in New France circa mid or late 1600's if I remember right.


Title: Re: Dances with Wolves (1990)
Post by: stanton on March 09, 2017, 04:49:55 AM
What has 2017 changed for/in you? Almost all of your one-line reviews are spot on.

They were always, what changed for/in you that you did not recognize this before 2017? ;)

All in all, I think we always had a similar taste.


Title: Re: Dances with Wolves (1990)
Post by: Dust Devil on March 09, 2017, 08:46:18 AM
All in all, I think we always had a similar taste.

''SLWB: connecting people together from all over the world. Sometimes in dancing, sometimes with wolves, sometimes in discussions - but always in love.''


Title: Re: Dances with Wolves (1990)
Post by: noodles_leone on March 09, 2017, 08:49:25 AM
''SLWB: connecting people together from all over the world. Sometimes in dancing, sometimes with wolves, sometimes in discussions - but always in love.''

I knew it. You love me.


Title: Re: Dances with Wolves (1990)
Post by: Dust Devil on March 09, 2017, 08:52:02 AM
I knew it. You love me.

 :-* :-* :-*

(though obviously not as much as stanton)


Title: Re: Dances with Wolves (1990)
Post by: Spikeopath on March 09, 2017, 12:55:02 PM
I prefer the shorter version. The longer version adds a few nice details, but is problematic for the rhythm. It is a quite good western. 8/10

I just don't see that, a problem with rhythm. least you liked "A" version  :o


Title: Re: Dances with Wolves (1990)
Post by: Spikeopath on March 09, 2017, 12:57:28 PM
I saw the movie once (long version) 5 years ago, and gave it a 9/10. But since then, I never had the slightest desire to see it again. Is t just because of the length? Is it because emotionally heavy movies are not easy to watch frequently? Or is it because the movie has gone down in my estimation over the past few years even though I have not seen it again? I do not know the answer. Whatever it is, I don't feel  any interest whatsoever in seeing it again anytime soon.

Length. Personally I would stand for another hour of it  8)


Title: Re: Dances with Wolves (1990)
Post by: Spikeopath on March 09, 2017, 12:59:49 PM
Watch the short version. There may be a debate on which version is the best (hint: the short) but I don't think anybody will deny that the short version is much, much easier on the viewer.

Nah! Though to be fair, I'm a lover of long epic films anyway, so I'm going to be pro the longer cut. I'm not even sure I could watch the shorter cut now, I'd rather have the full option every time.


Title: Re: Dances with Wolves (1990)
Post by: Spikeopath on March 09, 2017, 01:00:28 PM
With so few Westerns being made the last 30 years, compared to the 150 Westerns produced in 1950 alone any new Western receives a lot of attention here.

Spike check out Blackrobe if you've never seen it, it's more of a Frontier Epic taking place in New France circa mid or late 1600's if I remember right.

No not seen that, I'll look into it thanks.


Title: Re: Dances with Wolves (1990)
Post by: Spikeopath on March 09, 2017, 01:01:25 PM
''SLWB: connecting people together from all over the world. Sometimes in dancing, sometimes with wolves, sometimes in discussions - but always in love.''

It's a love in!


Title: Re: Dances with Wolves (1990)
Post by: noodles_leone on March 09, 2017, 03:16:24 PM
Nah! Though to be fair, I'm a lover of long epic films anyway, so I'm going to be pro the longer cut. I'm not even sure I could watch the shorter cut now, I'd rather have the full option every time.

The most significant change is that the short version doesn't have the whole paranormal/spiritual thing. Which is for the best. Terrific film anyway (both cuts).


Title: Re: Dances with Wolves (1990)
Post by: Novecento on March 10, 2017, 01:41:03 PM
I need to watch this again. Surprised no one has mentioned John Barry's excellent score.


Title: Re: Dances with Wolves (1990)
Post by: Spikeopath on March 10, 2017, 01:47:17 PM
I need to watch this again. Surprised no one has mentioned John Barry's excellent score.

I do laud it in my review up thread.

I own the CD :)


Title: Re: Dances with Wolves (1990)
Post by: Novecento on March 12, 2017, 10:54:50 AM
Ah good point - that's the second time I've been called out recently for not reading threads closely enough  ???

Fantastic score.

The "Kevin's Gate" comment is pretty funny - apparently it was also applied to "Waterworld" as well...