Dances with Wolves.

Review #1497: Dances with Wolves.

Cast:
Kevin Costner (Lt. John J. Dunbar/Dances with Wolves), Mary McDonnell (Stands with a Fist), Graham Greene (Kicking Bird), Rodney A. Grant (Wind In His Hair), Floyd Red Crow Westerman (Chief Ten Bears), Tantoo Cardinal (Black Shawl), Jimmy Herman (Stone Calf), Nathan Lee Chasing His Horse (Smiles A Lot), Michael Spears (Otter), Jason R. Lone Hill (Worm), Charles Rocket (Lt. Elgin), Robert Pastorelli (Timmons), Tony Pierce (Spivey), and Larry Joshua (Bauer) Directed by Kevin Costner.

Review:
"Real heroes are men who fall and fail and are flawed, but win out in the end because they've stayed true to their ideals and beliefs and commitments."

There have been plenty of great Westerns, both epic and not-quite-as-epic in scope over the past few decades, with a significant amount dealing in some way with Native Americans. When the time is right, it can come from any source, whether that means from an actor trying his hand at directing or somewhere else. Costner has stated that a screening of How the West Was Won (1962) helped formed his childhood, but he became interested in acting before he graduated from college. Costner had met screenwriter Michael Blake while starring in the film Stacy's Knights (1983), which was directed by Jim Wilson. Costner encouraged Blake to turn a spec script of his into a novel, and Dances with Wolves was published in 1988 after a few rejections from publishers. Costner (an established star with films such as Silverado and The Untouchables) soon lobbied for the screen rights after its publication (with Blake writing the screenplay and Costner co-producing with Wilson), although he would have to do it apart from the major studios, which did not find the long script and significant subtitling (as well as being a Western) to their liking, with a key difference being in the portrayal of the Sioux rather than the Commanche tribe. The film is noted for its usage of the Lakota language in several scenes, one of a certain group of features to utilize Native dialogue.

Of course, some movies are born to be epics and then some just don't quite turn out the way one expects. Part of me was interested in how the Western would turn out in another decade removed from it being the norm in conventional filmmaking, while the other side hoped it would not drag at three hours while wondering if it really deserved to rank highly for its era (or even its particular year). In the end, it turned out to be a bit of both, a film firmly in the "good, not great" department that is nice at times to sit through but ultimately not quite enough in strong centering depth to really pull all of its punches successfully. Credit must given to Costner however for his drive to make a film in South Dakota with a fine selection of actors of indigenous origin with plenty to look upon in the landscape and subtitles that do in some way drive a useful story. After all, he does deliver a fairly sensitive performance that draws upon curiosity and care (along with an occasional voiceover), so him operating a camera alongside being in front of it works out fine. McDonnell proves okay in following along in both worlds in care and frenzy, and Greene carries along with solemn interest that carries his part of the film handily with stature. John Barry does well with his musical score in setting a sweeping tone of emotion. The sequences involving a buffalo hunt and the battles are handled well as the highlights for the film as a whole.

I can see its ambition in bonding when it comes to trying to break the mold of the traditional Western, but it seems to nearly choke itself in sentiment that somehow seems lacking a certain kind of quality needed to really drive home a poignant epic. It has a decent heart behind it, but it is really a great Western? I can think of at least five Westerns that reach higher levels of interest and depth before this (Stagecoach, The Searchers, Shane, Hud, Once Upon a Time in the West), and none of them garnered as much high awards praise like this did three decades ago. It has the production value and some of the right notes behind it, but it just seems a bit flatfooted in driving its conflict and message of identity to full realization, where it seems like a slightly more sophisticated version of Broken Arrow (1950). There exists a four hour Special Edition of the film, which Wilson supervised to expand upon the relationship between Costner and McDonnell in addition to more parts with the wolf and the tribe. I did have the choice to pick either the regular or Special Edition, but I didn't really feel interested in having to spend even longer amounts of time (equivalent to Gettysburg (1993), basically) that could make me feel like I really am watching grass grow in the Dakotas. On the whole, this is a fairly good movie with its cast and ambition, but it ultimately is a test of how much one desires of a three-hour Western with an imperfect core and execution to make a curious effort of the modern Western.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.