My review of The Revenant, shot on the Alexa 65mm in only natural light

[M Carter]

Man. To me, this was the most Kubrick film since Kubrick. Not as far as lighting or shot design, but a film where subtext and symbolism seemed far more important than the story - almost at if the story was an afterthought, a face to stick over a very different skeleton. I spent most of the movie marveling that europeans were able to eventually conquer north America, and found the juxtaposition of nature vs. human nature to be the real story; from nature itself and its power (storms, rivers, bears), to the native people who seem one step removed from nature and can be as viscous as nature, to the trappers who are almost proto-humans by today's standards, up to the guy at the fort trying to enforce notions of honor and law when surrounded by people reduced to a near-animal status. And how this played out against human desires - the trapper and the chief both on journeys based on the breaking of familial bonds (recall a bear and her cubs put the story in motion), how tenuous the more evolved ideas of morality and character become in the face of greed, vengeance, and self-preservation, the size of the stakes (from starvation to freezing to a pretty awful death at the hands of the natives) and how different people respond to those fears.

I don't go into movies seeking this stuff (I usually just wanna see shit get blowed up, and some boobies) but was very surprised that those thoughts kept me more rapt than the plot. Not trying to sound all intellectual and I don't have the vocabulary to express some of this - but in novels and films "tone" and language, rhythm, symbolism - they hold my attention much more than plot does. For me, one of the absolutely best films I've seen in years. (But as you can tell, I'm weird).

[hmcindie]

Great character but a very two dimensional one with a lot of overly expository lines lacking in wit, almost all of them saying "I don't need the help of a man".

Those scenes were really dumb ass tv-quality writing from JJ. "I don't need your help!"- she lets it known while she clearly needs assistance. Also the scene where: Finn runs to Rey to help and then she kicks everyones asses - has a stupid ass look from Finn in the style of:"Wow, she can take care of herself!" which really makes the writing stuck out as shitty. Really? In a universe of Star Wars, where even green little hobgoblins like Yoda can swing a lightsabre (which looked horrible) a Stormtrooper is shocked because a woman used a stick to kick some grunts around? Those kind off scenes would actually fit classic 80's Male Action hero tropes better.

 

[Brian Caldwell]

this is quite ridiculous.  You make the assumption that pessimism is a mental state we all share.  It's the same as suggesting that if you fail at something the first, second and third time you should just give up and never try again!   

I like your attitude!

[DanC1]

I really liked the symbolism, like what did that silent bell ringing suggest? Also I thought the Tarkovsky like cinematography; camera movement, use of light / fire etc was great. I'm sure I said this in the 'Revenant' let's talk about it post.

As a side issue, I always worry about not being funny enough on a Saturday night, so have given up going out altogether.

[DevonChris]

(I usually just wanna see shit get blowed up, and some boobies)

Great comment. That really cracked me up :-) 

[Andrew Reid]

If someone let you down several times then you shouldn't fully trust that person ever again. That's a simple lesson life teaches you.

The same is true for filmmakers.

The only way Inarritu can 'let you down' is if he owes you something you're entitled to.

He doesn't!

[Andrew Reid]

He delivered it alright.

With incredible skill.

You not liking it is not the same as him failing. Get it?

[richg101]

 

 And you suggested from now on he should pre program his brain with a negative attitude from the start. -  tainting the experience before it's even happened!

To me that's the flaw with your argument.  Have you even watched the film we're discussing?

 

 

[Jimbo]

I don't go into movies seeking this stuff (I usually just wanna see shit get blowed up, and some boobies) but was very surprised that those thoughts kept me more rapt than the plot. Not trying to sound all intellectual and I don't have the vocabulary to express some of this - but in novels and films "tone" and language, rhythm, symbolism - they hold my attention much more than plot does. For me, one of the absolutely best films I've seen in years. (But as you can tell, I'm weird).

You definitely have the vocabulary to express yourself - nice post =)

[DanC1]

The bear looked like it got the better deal to me....

[Policar]

Yes. I've watched the film. You are right. It's good to go see a movie with an open mind. However I was disappointed by "Babel" and ever since I'm very sceptic when it comes to Inarritu.

I think it was a decent film. Nothing mind-blowing. I prefer Lubezki's work in "The Tree of Life".

I was a bit disappointed that the bear lost the fight against Leo.

You aren't the only one who feels this way. Others have just give up on posting dissenting opinions because of how exhausting it can be defending them when, ultimately, they're just opinions, not critiques of others' taste. But no one likes rain on their parade.

Birdman was fun. But generally Inarritu isn't my taste, either.

[M Carter]

You definitely have the vocabulary to express yourself - nice post =)

Thanks - still, there were no boobies or 'splosions.

Here's a poster I made, now someone write the damn script please??
 

 

Or I'll settle for a treatment for this one. And a cast list??

[austinchimp]

Saw it last night and was blown away by the scale and brutality, although I have to say it left me a little cold emotionally. Did remind me in that sense of a Kubrick movie as one of the posters has already mentioned.

One thing that I did find distracting was the rather obvious use of power windows all over the place to highlight faces in particular. It sometimes seemed a little over done and un-natural in the natural light aesthetic.

I know that it's widespread practice but in the otherwise beautifully naturalistic visual style it broke the immersion for me. It's probably just a case of me being too aware of it though. I haven't heard anyone else mentioning it.

I don't mind peoples faces being in shadow someone if it fits the scene and the style.

[AaronChicago]

Man. To me, this was the most Kubrick film since Kubrick. Not as far as lighting or shot design, but a film where subtext and symbolism seemed far more important than the story - almost at if the story was an afterthought, a face to stick over a very different skeleton. I spent most of the movie marveling that europeans were able to eventually conquer north America, and found the juxtaposition of nature vs. human nature to be the real story; from nature itself and its power (storms, rivers, bears), to the native people who seem one step removed from nature and can be as viscous as nature, to the trappers who are almost proto-humans by today's standards, up to the guy at the fort trying to enforce notions of honor and law when surrounded by people reduced to a near-animal status. And how this played out against human desires - the trapper and the chief both on journeys based on the breaking of familial bonds (recall a bear and her cubs put the story in motion), how tenuous the more evolved ideas of morality and character become in the face of greed, vengeance, and self-preservation, the size of the stakes (from starvation to freezing to a pretty awful death at the hands of the natives) and how different people respond to those fears.

I don't go into movies seeking this stuff (I usually just wanna see shit get blowed up, and some boobies) but was very surprised that those thoughts kept me more rapt than the plot. Not trying to sound all intellectual and I don't have the vocabulary to express some of this - but in novels and films "tone" and language, rhythm, symbolism - they hold my attention much more than plot does. For me, one of the absolutely best films I've seen in years. (But as you can tell, I'm weird).

Yes. The bear is something I thought about for a long time. Protecting her young. Also Hugh Glass wearing the bear for the rest of the journey.

[HelsinkiZim]

Does anyone see correlations with Gravity? Technically beautiful, loads of awards... forgotten.

I liked the film, but it wasn't a real film experience, given the heavy subtext I viewed it with. I felt obliged to love it because, you know, I'm just suppose ta. I actually loved it before I saw it. Like a Tarantino movie, and I love his films. But I sometimes feel pressured to be able to quote stuff or talk in detail about shots and scenes. His films, to me, aren't that kind of inspiring.

I like Star Wars. It was fun, and I was entertained. I did also have a hollow feeling, but I get that from Abams films. They are kind of satisfyingly revisionist and twisty, but leave you feeling like you have eaten too much candy. Hard to explain...

Maybe its just taste, I like thrillers, twists and turns. I just watched Results and I had more fun laughing at Guy Pearce than I did being reflective about the Revenant.

Its a movie, I never intended to be a cinematographer, so I kind of just wanted a good story. But I find that I prefer a lot of other revenge movies more (Old Boy, True Grit, Bone Tomahawk, Unforgiven....). For nature survival stuff I watch Bear Grylls. Shoot me. (Edit: The Edge with Hopkins and Baldwin was awsomeness!)

For bear attacks I get my fix with Grizzly Man by Herzog, or Youtube. CGI stuff doesn't feel real to me, ever.

I watched all the vlogs for the Hobbit movies and I find it strange that the director is in control of absolutely everything, until they hand the film over to CGI. Then a bunch of folks (young dudes) seem to make all the decisions about what seems real or gross or scary, and Jackson just kinda signs off on it if he likes it. But no one was pushing them to push themselves. It was like they sent the movie to compositing like they send an actor to make up. To me everything CGI has looked the same since forever... but better than the Matrix trilogies. I digress...

Just my 2c.

... and I actually worked with a director who has recently worked with DiCaprio, so I am bias towards his movies because I feel some kind of 15 degrees of separation. AND my boss at BBC Storyville went to dinner with him to discuss his environmental work. I asked him what he was like and he said he was 'simply charming!'. Even given this... The Revenant was nice, but forgettable. To me.

[HelsinkiZim]

Trying to get rid of this post. Twas a typo.

Ok, ill use the space.

I was thinking about what it would have looked like if they had a robotic human made out of, lets say, pig, that had the tracking globes on. So they had a real bear attacking and then tracked Leo to the robotic Andy Serkis being mauled. That's the idea I would have bought to the table... before I got fired.

[fuzzynormal]

Revenant was nice, but forgettable. To me.

Subjectivity in the context of life, wisdom, etc.  As you get older you just look at thing different.  Pop culture aims at younger people, so most gray hair folks develop a disconnect.  You might no be there yet, but it does happen gradually.

[HelsinkiZim]

Subjectivity in the context of life, wisdom, etc.  As you get older you just look at thing different.  Pop culture aims at younger people, so most gray hair folks develop a disconnect.  You might no be there yet, but it does happen gradually.

I am sure there may be a day when I look at The Tree of Life and it speaks to me in ways I could not imagine right now. But right now I preferred Badlands. I was at the School of the Art Institute Chicago and it was the first Hollywood film I was asked to truly 'look at' by our screenwriting teacher. I think it is considerable to, er, consider context when viewing a film. If that film had been Tree of Life, it probably would have been my Mallick fave.

The argument I am throwing out there is this:

Is there a trend in Hollywood towards auteurism, whereby substance is being sidelined for technique?

I don't know, I am just noticing a few Oscar voted films that were nominated for spectacle. Thats not neccisarilly a bad thing, but is this Hollywoods response to the digital age? Its like an anti-CGI. All technique. Like the DOP is saying, 'ok, imitate this bitch!'.

In this regard I am generalising, because I am only thinking of the Revenant and Gravity, but to me they feel similar in how they got the publics opinion.

[Nikkor]

Subjectivity in the context of life, wisdom, etc.  As you get older you just look at thing different.  Pop culture aims at younger people, so most gray hair folks develop a disconnect.  You might no be there yet, but it does happen gradually.

Revenan is not exactly pop culture.,..

[fuzzynormal]

I am just noticing a few Oscar voted films that were nominated for spectacle.

Well, awards are awards.  Oscars, Grammys, whatever.

Yes, the Oscars trend to auteurism because these are industry craft people deciding what "matters" and they can see that skill set.  Hollywood is an industry town.  People that do the craft well and with a commercial sheen are indeed cherished.

The Oscars represent a certain sensibility, just as the awards from the FilmOut San Diego film festival have a sensibility. 

Sometimes great movies and the Academy Awards line up, but most of the time what really wins is industry politics, so I wouldn't put too much import on owning a gold trophy.

The reality is that a majority of films that stand the test of time were originally overlooked by the Academy.  Best Picture winners are almost always decent watchable films, (okay, maybe not "Crash," that sucked) but you could review the entire list from the past and realize there's stuff that's been rightfully dismissed by the passage of time. (and the opposite)

It is what it is.  And there's plenty of nuance in all of this.  Nothing is absolute.  I just don't trust the Oscars to be some sort of upper echelon quality barometer and really never have.

As for Tree of Life, it resonated with me on a deep level, but it directly reminded my of my relationship with my brother, so I was "all in" after the first 20 minutes.  Other's mileage will vary.   Also, I like impressionistic films.  Heavy plot is nice for some things, but these days I'd rather be confused and curious than hand-held and explained to.