Review: The Revenant
If a teacher asked a group of eight-year-old boys to act out what they think it means to be a man, you’d probably get a lot of staged fighting, grunting and killing—little boys love to play war like cavemen. So does co-writer and director, Alejandro González Iñárritu, and his band of boys (Leonardo DiCaprio, Tom Hardy, Domhnall Gleeson and Will Poulter) in The Revenant. Iñárritu’s battlefront is the beardy world of frontiersmen (manly men, men) in the wild of the 1820s on a fur trading expedition that becomes an epic survival quest for explorer, Hugh Glass (DiCaprio), loosely based on the novel of the same name by Michael Punke.
The Revenant is a masculine endurance test for how much man-on-man savagery you can take in a film dedicated to putting a white-male movie star in peril (but you know he’s going to last because he’s a white-male movie star). It’s a prestige action film that’s shallow in its attempt at depth. Iñárritu shows men as a grotesque stain on nature—there’s the continual massacre of flora a fauna in this film that’s quite apt—but he wants it both ways with cuts to shots of men staring at trees and chasing ghost wives as if to evoke Terrence Malick in the worst possible way. The posturing toward nature feels like something film students try to get out of their system in the first year of their studies, which is a real shame because cinematographer, Emmanuel Lubezki, using only natural light, captures the snow-covered mountain region where the film is set so beautifully that you’ll wish there wasn’t a man around so it can remain untouched. Oddly, Iñárritu has horribly rendered digital animals pollute Lubezki’s frame and damage the naturally lit aesthetic to make it look like one of those Buck Hunt shooting videogames trucker-hat bros play in dive-bars.
A one-take shot of a siege on Glass’ group in the opening moments of The Revenant is an example of the technical proficiency of the film—with a budget in excess of $130 million—which is where it impresses the most and makes you think for a second that DiCaprio’s character may be in danger. There’s also a bear attack sequence that doubles as the craziest metaphor for DiCaprio and his relationship with the Oscars. The Revenant does represent DiCaprio’s quest for awards season justice—there’s even a moment where he stares directly down the barrel of the camera with eyes that say ‘for you consideration’. DiCaprio is excellent despite the reek of desperation, but with the run of performances he has been giving over the past decade, the awards denial may be more of a blessing than a curse. Hardy does his amazing disappearing into a role act and it’s sublime whenever you can hear what he’s saying—add Iñárritu to the list of filmmakers too scared to give Hardy an acting note to open his mouth. In general, the whole cast grunts and wears beards weaved from pure testosterone to overemphasise the male posturing of narrative that’s one ruler away from a dick-measuring contest.
A fellow film critic, Luke Buckmaster (read his review), wrote to me about my initial reaction to The Revenant on Twitter and said, “Do we see too many films about men? Absolutely. Should we stop sophisticated films exploring masculinity? No.” I partly agree with Mr Buckmaster, but The Revenant flounders between aspiring for sophistication but getting muddled in the same-same narrative beats associated with the darkness of mankind from the brutish male perspective. I’m not asking for an optimistic reprieve, the horrid nature of man is more than well documented, for as long as men keep making films, there will always be men in the wild flexing their masculinity: The Martian, The Grey, Alive, 127 Hours, The Edge, Cast Away, The Way Back, Into the Wild, The Road, All Is Lost and The Flight of the Phoenix. Sure, keep making these films, but aspire to transcend the ideals of playground machismo so prominent in The Revenant.
Cameron Williams
The Popcorn Junkie
This is what it sounds like when beta male feminists write movie reviews.
Yep. Pretty sad.
Thanks for reading the review, Charlie. I’ll file ‘beta male feminist’ in the archives next to Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster and Mens’ Rights Activism.
I think you may have hurt his feelings.
Your review is more revealing about you than it is the film. Sneering at masculinity and testosterone? Implying the writer and director have the maturity of 8 year old boys? Really? Even throwing in a bit of racism (white male movie star)? Sounds like the typical narrative from an emasculated, brown-nosing, feminist male.
Actually, from your description of extremes and struggles with nature and self… I’m really eager to see this film now! That’s good stuff for the soul of a man. In the meantime, I suggest you read a good book – try “Wild at Heart” by John Eldredge.
Thanks for reading the review. I’m glad you want to see the film now, you should, so you can make up your own mind about it before attacking someone on the Internet about their opinion sight-unseen. Also, thanks for the book recommendation. As for the racism against white people, they have been the privileged majority for centuries and this is the craziest accusation left as a comment on this website, congratulations.
Talentless, immature bigoted Buzzfeed-quality drivel. When the global economy collapses, useless blogging little p****s like Cameron Williams will wish there were ‘manly’ (white, OMG!) men to protect their pampered asses, but who would lift a finger to defend such a waste of oxygen? Condescending little Betas like this ‘reviewer’ will be the first to go, and when they do, I’ll laugh and laugh.
Thanks for reading the review. If the economy collapses the people who get hurt by a film review–a film review–and leave a comment like this probably won’t last. Man-up and respect that other people have opinions.
I respect respectable opinions; I liked the movie, but I can understand why some wouldn’t. However, your screed is just hacky, anti-white, anti-male bigotry masquerading as a film review. I am aware that all the cool kids like to bash anything remotely ‘whitemale’, but you shouldn’t be surprised when someone calls you on your bullshit moral posturing. The comfortable world we live in was created by men like DiCaprio’s character, and we will most likely be going back to that soon, so maybe have some perspective, huh? You get paid to write reviews, which you then post on the internet, which means I don’t have to respect your opinions, and can say whatever I please. I am not hurt by the review, but your mentality is indicative of a society in decline. That’s all.
I’m glad you liked the movie and living in a patriarchal society. If anything, society is in decline because men still buy into the “rah-rah” rhetoric. And, me, as a white male, can call bullshit on it the same way you can call bullshit on this review. If you want to bugger off to the 1800s, fine. As you’ll note in the review I listed a lot of films with men flexing their masculinity in the wild (and done much better). It has been done to death, if you’re going to make a film and tackle these issues, at least find the next level. That’s all.
I wasn’t aware that attempting to survive in a hostile environment was ‘flexing masculinity’, but I guess we can’t all be bloggers. Throughout 99% of human history, civilization was upheld by male sacrifice and strenuous physical effort, and Innaritu’s film is set in 1800s America, which was, unfortunately, infested with doubleplus ungood whitemales. You create false binaries, and assume I want to live in the 1800s simply because I call you out for shitting on masculinity, which isn’t even what the film was about, but your P.C. filter has to Identity Politick the hell out of everything. Your condescension and snarkiness is what I have a problem with, and not the review per se, some of which I actually agree with.
Hey, this is a great take on the film from the other side. I get it, but respectfully disagree on the points I stand by in my review.
You get into a time machine and go back to observe fur trappers in the early 1800s… How else do you seriously believe they’re going to act? I mean sure, maybe 300 should have included more of the homoeroticism and mutual hair combing of the Spartans, but I cant recall reading about such cultures among the fur trappers of that era.
From the wikipedia for that very expedition: “The caliber of men sought by Ashley and Henry would serve as the prototypical “mountain man”. The criteria for the position was simple enough – masculine, well-armed, and able to work (trap) for up to three years”
What kind of guys do you think that’s going to attract, willing to go into unexplored Arikara territory and hunt and skin beaver? There were no chai lattes back in those days. Even statesmen were duelling back then. This wasn’t holiday camping that they were doing. What did you want, a female lead? As much as I’m sure women were perfectly capable of working the wilderness in such a manner, the historical fact was they weren’t on that expedition, so what’s the problem?
I agree with you on the Leo Oscar shot at the end there, but this review reads like you entered that cinema with your mind long already made up, and didn’t once release the bias. That’s unfair to the film makers. Honestly, if you were going to make a movie about Hugh Glass’ story, what would you have done differently? I mean before living with the Pawnee, the guy was apparently forced to be a pirate for two years before he escaped. That was ‘before’ the bear attack and six week journey home with no weapons or equipment. That’s not a soft guy. That guy is not thinking the way we think today, no one did. That’s not how humans work. In fact the Revenant probably toned him down; there’s no mention of a wife and son for him to mourn over in the real story that I’ve read.
If you’re down rating this movie because there are too many others focusing upon men already available, then that’s not a review, that’s a culture statement, and you should write an opinion piece about that (and you’ll probably be right). Film reviews are about the film in isolation. Regardless of ‘what’ was made, ‘how’ they recreated the period and natural and human environment was great in my opinion, and that’s what a review should be about. And now, that fantastic effort they spent how many months in the Canadian wilderness to capture, and how much effort to post produce, with obvious care and consideration, with obvious skill, has a negative review simply because you wanted to make a statement about patriarchy.
Start writing opinion pieces; that’s your natural lean.
Thanks for reading the review. These are really great insights, especially about the film’s goal of realism and perceptions of life in the 1800s. I assure you I go into every film with an open mind, always have, I dug his last film ‘Birdman’ a lot. I know people love to perpetuate the myth of bias in film criticism but it’s exactly that: a myth. I only call it as I see it and with every review comes something new to learn. As you’ll see from the comments on this review, people aren’t happy, but I stand by my points.
Hi Cameron,
I’ve read your comments and I respect you for the way you’ve handled it for the most part. I’m planning to watch the film tomorrow so I’ve been careful to avoid spoilers, but your review is much better for explaining your thoughts on the film’s general aspects rather than reiterating content, and I think that’s valuable (I try to do the same thing in the few reviews I’ve written).
Anyway, I’d like to say that I agree with you on the point of “this message has been done; try something new”. I am sort of coming to the film with the worry that this will happen – but I after all haven’t seen it. Maybe *I* won’t be as ready to see the film’s good, but I believe you when you say you’re avoiding bias. As a reviewer myself, finding it difficult to score films many times, I can understand the commitment to be judicious. I understand the desire to find a film that truly is good, and to also be honest and rational in what you’re saying. Over time, one would expect a higher quality from films as one gains more experience, a greater repertoire in memory, and a finer sensitivity for measurement.
I feel like this is a somewhat shallow interpretation of the film…
Actually it doesn’t really relate much the the film at all. Perhaps it has more to do with how you feel in general about what is praised in masculinity (which I can agree with)
But this isn’t about manliness and the “machismo” on display is just one of the ways people survived. That’s what the film is about from beginning to end. What will you do to survive. What will you do to be a good leader? What will you do morally. What will you give up to protect your child.
Not to mention, the main character is s single parent trying to take care of a child that is hard to protect because of his race. Single parent, especially in this time period, is NOT a masculine touch. White men that did father children wth the First Nations people often left (as I suspect the real Glass may have)
There is a lot to these characters besides manliness. Cowardice, practicality, tenderness, fear and yes, strength.
In the end it isn’t about how tough each trapper is. Not at all. It’s about what they do to surive and what exists for them beyond survival. Being a good leader, a good Christian. Protecting your child. Making a better life for yourself. In some ways these are things men are expected to be. But the nature of their drives are far more complex then your really gets at.
Neat review anyways.
Thanks for reading the review. Your take on the film is very insightful and it’s the best I’ve read on the positive side of the film.
See, Cam? Sounds like these guys NEED movies like this. They like fantasies about supermen to help them cope with the fearsome threat of a single movie review. If a man’s value isn’t in his ability to survive a bear attack, claw his way across the country, and kill guys who kill his family, how will he measure his worth? Isn’t the process of growing up really about gaining the muscle you need to knock down your offenders? The only thing that can save the world from bad men with guns, after all, is good men with guns.
Even better if that tired, unimaginative narrative gets cloaked in some religious imagery without taking seriously the implications of that imagery, so that we can salve what sense of conscience we might faintly feel at the emptiness and endlessness of revenge quests. (I’m sure Jesus said all that “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you stuff” just to sound good; what he really wants is for us to build up physical strength so we can defend our own and beat the living tar out of our enemies.)
That this film boils down to a confrontation in which the turning point is for one character to call another character’s son a “girl” makes clear just what this film is about: a man’s ego, and his inability to weather even a juvenile taunt. After all, the boy is gone — he’s not suffering for the insult. It’s the father’s pride that gets hurt. These responses to your review may as well have come from DiCaprio’s Glass himself — “How dare you question my manhood? Look at these scars. Look at how I bare my teeth. You take all I have in the world? Prepare to die.”
Watching The Revenant, I couldn’t help but feel I was watching what would have happened if Malick had set everything up to film The New World and was then told by the studio that he’d misunderstood the contract, and now he, like Barton Fink, had to invest all of those resources in making “a wrestling picture.”
Considering the demographics of Oscar voters, and this film’s focus on a “survival of the fittest” narrative, this looks like a movie made to succeed during campaign season. Make America great again. Give this movie Best Picture.
Pingback: Can I Still Be A Feminist and Like Fight Club? – Putting Thoughts into Words
Thanks for the candid review!!!! I couldn’t agree more!