# Dances with Wolves (1990)

### reviewed by
Sandra J. Grossmann

                                    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

    .

The review above was posted to the rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup (de.rec.film.kritiken for German reviews).
The Internet Movie Database accepts no responsibility for the contents of the review and has no editorial control. Unless stated otherwise, the copyright belongs to the author.
Please direct comments/criticisms of the review to relevant newsgroups.
Broken URLs inthe reviews are the responsibility of the author.
The formatting of the review is likely to differ from the original due to ASCII to HTML conversion.

Related links: index of all rec.arts.movies.reviews reviews