‘The Revenant’ captures old America reality in all its horror and beauty

For a movie that went through production hell for over a decade, the final product is breathtaking. In fact, it’s not so much a movie as it is a film, as in the art of filmmaking. You could call it an event, or even an experience.

But this isn’t the type of movie experience or event along the lines of “Star Wars” in 1977 or “Titanic” in 1997. It’s more like “2001: A Space Odyssey,” where, after watching it, you have to just sit down and take a breather in order to collect your thoughts. It’s a perfect example of how visual storytelling celebrates movies as an art form.

“The Revenant,” a period drama directed by Oscar-winner Alejandro G. Iñárritu, is a partially true story that’s just as much about the unexplored wilderness of America and all the beauty it holds as the man the story follows.

While exploring the uncharted Missouri Territory wilderness—the Missouri River in modern day Montana and the Dakotas—in 1823, legendary frontiersman and fur trapper Hugh Glass (played Leonardo DiCaprio) sustains injuries from a brutal bear attack shortly after his team is ambushed by Native Americans.

When his hunting team leaves him for dead, Glass must utilize his survival skills to find a way back to civilization to avenge his family. Grief-stricken and fueled by vengeance, Glass treks through the wintry terrain to track down John Fitzgerald (played Tom Hardy), the former confidant who betrayed and abandoned him.

The phenomenal, hard-working and so-committed-it’s-scary cast and the unfiltered, unmatched and unbelievably huge environment are the components that rocket what could have been just another historical drama film into historical filmmaking itself.

First and foremost: Leonardo DiCaprio. This guy is one of the hardest working artists in Hollywood. Not only is he an actor who dives headfirst into every film, going above and beyond to deliver the best performance possible, but a dedicated activist for environmentalism, education, animal rights and child welfare organizations.

But the glamour of the mega star and influential philanthropist is nowhere here. For 90-percent of the 2 hour, 36 minute runtime, he’s dirty, grungy and gritty from head to toe. He dines on raw fish and bison, crawls on all fours and barely manages to utter a complete sentence.

DiCaprio’s performance is one of his best and one of the best of the year, not only because of the dedication and commitment for the role, but because everything the role entails.

If someone spent months in the wilderness, half dead with a sprained ankle, tore-up throat and infection coming at him from every angle, he’d deserve a lot more than an acting trophy. But to spend several months in the middle of nowhere and convincingly act as if you’re dying while riding down river rapids with brute force and chilling silence is certainly worth mentioning as one of the great performances of the decade so far.

The whole cast is amazing, though. Tom Hardy has had an incredible year with just the success of “Mad Max: Fury Road,” but his performance here is so diabolical and so unredeemable that it’s easily the actor’s best in years. In the context of the story, Hardy is obviously the villain because he’s the one who kept trying to kill DiCaprio and eventually left him for dead.

But in the wild with no law but nature’s, his character can be thought of as just looking out for his own survival. In an “it’s you or me” environment, Hardy’s character becomes even more complex. Of course, today we know he did the wrong thing, but as the character develops throughout the film, the audience understands why he became someone who is willing to leave someone behind in the middle of nowhere. He’s the villain, but he’s human. They’re always the best kind.

I don’t think I can get across in words how beautiful and well shot this film is, but I’m going to try my best using some random facts I learned about the production.

• The film was primarily shot in British Columbia with some scenes shot in the U.S. near the Canadian border and others shot in Argentina because the snow didn’t stick around long enough in Canada.
• The film went over budget by millions and overschedule by weeks because it was filmed with natural light. Yes, they could only see and shoot with the sun, moon or fire.
• Anytime the director wanted to shoot at a certain time of day they had about two hours to work with. If it didn’t work, they were done for the day and had to come back 22 hours later to try it again. For the nighttime scenes, they had torches, fire pits or the moon and stars. That’s it.
• Nearly every scene has a shot or two that lasts about a minute without cutting. The longest single shot takes place within the first 15 minutes and lasts about five minutes.
• About half of the transitional shots are landscape shots from a helicopter showing the American/Canadian wilderness for dozens of miles without panning or zooming. Just nature as seen by the naked eye.

It’s brutal, it’s unforgiving and it’s honest. It’s beautiful, it’s mesmerizing and it’s awesome. It’s a difficult watch that will leave you exhausted, but it’s worth every minute.

Don’t Let Go: A Review of “Gravity”

 

After the release of “2001: A Space Odyssey” in 1968, they said the game had changed. They said the game changed again in 1977 with “Star Wars,” and again in 1993 with “Jurassic Park.” That said, there are no words that can accurately describe the beauty, the spectacle and the intensity of “Gravity.” In 2013, the game has changed once more.

From writer and director Alfonso Cuarón (“Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban,”), “Gravity” follows Dr. Ryan Stone in a desperate attempt to return home after a disaster in space. While working on the Hubble Telescope with mission commander Matt Kowalsky, a veteran astronaut, a shower of debris from a destroyed satellite bombards the telescope and space shuttle.

With everyone on the space shuttle dead and communications with Mission Control cut, Ryan and Matt attempt to reach the International Space Station alone. And this is in only the first twenty minutes. The next hour in events contains more than just a mere survival story in space, although that would have been plenty enough.

It’s difficult to describe the opening shot of the movie. Partially because the first shot is 14 minutes long and conveys a large amount of information that the audience needs to know. It’s also difficult because the portrayal of weightlessness in space is better than any film I’ve seen. That first 14-minute shot sucks you into the world of our hero and the feeling of weightlessness fills the body until you feel like you’re floating with them.

The first twenty minutes of “Gravity” is the best technical filmmaking in at least a decade. The entire film is the best technical filmmaking in several years.

With most films primarily built on showcasing the computer-generated effects, the characters and story often get pushed to the backburner. But this film would be nothing without the protagonist and her foil.

Sandra Bullock’s portrayal of Ryan Stone is phenomenal, in part because of the physical acting with only a green screen to work off. Bullock brings heart, soul and humanity up to the space station with her. This is an underdog story unlike any other and Bullock portrays an everyday American woman outstandingly. It is by far the best performance of her career.

Opposite of Bullock, George Clooney plays up the role of Matt Kowalsky in true Clooney fashion. He’s not only easy going and charming, but gives off the vibe of being the most intelligent person on the mission. Because Matt has more experience than anyone else (he’s only 70 minutes away from breaking the longest space-walk record), Ryan trusts his leadership completely.

Along with holding full authority over the mission and possessing a commanding demeanor, Matt also holds the role of all-around jokester. His cracking of one-liners and telling stories of Mardi Gras 1988 keep everyone at ease, just as a commander should. Although some have considered Clooney’s character too charming and too calm, especially after the shuttle and telescope’s destruction, he has no other choice.

If Matt shows any signs of worry, Ryan will lose it. He’s a hotshot, but he’s a professional, first and foremost. Ryan is not a space professional. She’s a doctor fixing the telescope: all the more reason to root for the underdog.

Though playing homage several times to “2001: A Space Odyssey” and “Solaris,” the philosophical themes in the movie do not overwhelm and take over the story, but they are present. Religion, life stages and man’s role in the universe show up regularly enough, driving forward the story and develop Ryan’s character in almost effortless ways.

The score, like everything else, is astounding. The combination of a traditional film orchestra and electronically generated sounds, beats and rhythms provides a haunting soundtrack for space. Many of the most intense and emotional scenes have and equally intense and emotional score accompanying every frame.

However, there is neither distraction nor over usage of the music. When the score is absent several times, the silence is powerful, demonstrating the true terrors of a silent space. As with every other element in the movie, the balance is perfect.

As writer, director, producer and editor, this is Cuarón’s baby and masterpiece. His mission of making audience members believe the film takes place in actual outer space makes the payoff that much more rewarding.

We believe Bullock and Clooney are in space. We believe they could die. We want them to make it home alive.

With no complaints in any aspect of the film, this is the best film of the year. “Gravity” is intense, mature and all science, no fiction. And it’s deserving of every bit of admiration and praise possible.

4 Stars (out of 4)

~Kellen M. Quigley

(This review appeared in the Oct. 17, 2013 edition of The Salamanca Press.)