Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews
Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!att!cbnewsj!ecl
From: sandyg@sail.LABS.TEK.COM (Sandy Grossmann)
Subject: REVIEW: DANCES WITH WOLVES
Reply-To: sandyg@sail.LABS.TEK.COM (Sandy Grossmann)
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 90 22:06:09 GMT
Approved: ecl@cbnewsj.att.com
Message-ID: <1990Nov28.220609.8879@cbnewsj.att.com>
Followup-To: rec.arts.movies
Summary: r.a.m.r. #00852
Keywords: author=Grossmann
Sender: ecl@cbnewsj.att.com (Evelyn C. Leeper)
Lines: 102

				DANCES WITH WOLVES
		       A film review by Sandra J. Grossman
			Copyright 1990 Sandra J. Grossman

Cast:         Kevin Costner, Mary McDonnell, Floyd Red Crow Westerman 
                   (and Cisco, the buckskin)
Director:     Kevin Costner
Screenwriter: Michael Blake, based on his novel

Synopsis:  Visually rich story of a landscape and its inhabitants.  The
           familiar Western themes of honor and responsibility are
           merely adequate, and the characters paleface--I mean pale--
           in comparison with the visual splendor.

     Lieutenant John Dunbar (Kevin Costner) secures a position as head
of a garrison on the remote edge of the frontier, smack in the middle of
Sioux territory.  (He got this post--and his buckskin Cisco--through an
impulsive act of suicide that was interpreted as heroism.)  The garrison
is deserted, but rather than turn back, Dunbar unloads the provisions,
begins cleaning the debris, drifts into a daily routine, and starts
keeping a journal.

     For roughly one-third of the film, the journal serves as the device
that justifies Dunbar's narrative.  We hear his written words, we see
the pictures he draws.  Through the narrative, we begin to "see" the
man.  He is quiet, he is unperturbed by isolation, he is content.  He is
unaware that his movements are watched by the neighboring Sioux; he's
also unaware that other whites have been murdered by Indians.

     In a break from the narrative pattern, we switch point of view and
sit in on a Sioux pow wow held to discuss Dunbar's invasion into their
territory.  Soon we switch point of view again, this time riding on a
children's raid.  Object: Cisco.  This vignette is a wonderful set of
scenes that does much to further character development and entertain us
at the same time.  Looking back, it's one of the most satisfying parts
of the film.  It works well because it's on a human scale and it
portrays human foibles.

     Gradually, and I mean gradually, Dunbar meets and interacts with
the Sioux.  In parallel, Dunbar befriends a lone wolf.  Those of us who
yearn for multiple levels in a film gladly recognize this wolf as
symbolic of Dunbar's developing relationship with the tribe.  And the
tribe sees Dunbar's antics with the wolf as proving that Dunbar is
"more" than a white man, since wolves are revered in Sioux culture.  (My
limited understanding is that wolves are spiritual, and honoring a man
with a name that includes "wolf" is a great honor indeed.)  Dunbar
becomes Dances with Wolves.

     A key event in the film is the buffalo hunt.  What a scene!  I'd
read earlier that the cast actually rode in a stampeding herd of 3,500
buffalo, but that didn't clue me in on the primal nature of the hunt
that shows so clearly in this scene.  The theatre I saw this in had a
THX sound system, which provides an immediacy that can't be described
easily.  Dunbar plays a pivotal role in the hunt, and the tribe adopts
him unreservedly.  (Incidentally, Costner had a spectacular fall during
this scene, yet refused to let a stuntman ride for him and even took the
stuntman's horse in order to get back in the scene.)   

     Up to this point, the film develops in a leisurely fashion,
mirroring the slow way that Dunbar becomes integrated into the tribe.
Although some critics felt the movie was slooooow, the pace seemed
appropriate and even comfortable to me.  What's lacking is much deeper
than a pacing problem.

     The idea of a white man adopted into a tribe is alluring but
insufficient material for real drama.  Another layer is required:
conflict.  Not just a battle-scene-type of conflict, but the gut-type
conflict: take a half-white, half-Indian and pull on both sides.  Make
him want both, make him see flaws in both, put him in conflict.  If you
don't have conflict, you don't have drama.  That's what's wrong with
this film.

     The whites are portrayed as such barbarians and the Sioux as such
noble humans that Dunbar never has moments of doubt.  Why should he?
Instead of Dunbar being pulled in two directions, the medicine man is
the one who has to weigh both sides and make the telling decision in the
film.  That is so very very wrong.

     Oh, the movie is beautiful and worth seeing, but it's a soft film
that ultimately falters and fades.  There are at least three ways that
this film violates good filmmaking: shifting points of view, the
central character's lack of conflict, and an ending that happens before
the characters see the results of their actions.

     To his credit, Costner stuck by his guns, getting Lakotah and
Pawnee dialects into the film with English subtitles.  It was an
important decision that worked well.  (The Sioux communities are
delighted with Costner--they've accepted him into their tribe.)  Also to
Costner's credit is the length of the movie that he insisted on, which
befits the nature of the material.  Another plus is the cinematography,
which is often breathtaking.  The acting is acceptable and occasionally
is much better than that.  

     It's a good Western, in summary, but it's not a great or important
film.  Go see it in a good theatre with a good sound system so you can
enjoy the things it does well.  Its flaws will be too apparent, and the
grandeur lost, if you wait to see it on a VCR.

     Comments?

Sandra J. Grossmann           sandyg@sail.labs.tek.com

