I harbour a lot of hostility towards this film and am sick of hearing nice things about it. I feel the need to vent. 18 subs down and counting, new record!
I think you forgot the icing on the cake. The movie starts with Bale’s character reading Julius Caesar’s Commentary on the Gallic Wars in Latin, perhaps as way to make him seem cultured or something. The book is pretty much Caesar’s account of invading Gaul and killing and enslaving a large fraction of the population. If I remember correctly, this movie then has Bale’s character give the book to the kid at the end saying it was written by a great man. Bale’s character gives an indigenous kid a book about the genocide of an indigenous people right after the kid’s entire family got killed. I thought it was a sick joke. I don’t know if it’s an accident or not, but it fits with the theme of this video.
Sounds like it's an intentional parallel drawing the link between the slaughter going on at the present and the one from the past. It also shows the characters' perspective that he sees the ones doing the genocide as being righteous in someway
I went to school for film and broadcast writing. The thing that always sticks with me about bad movies is how easy it would’ve been to improve the writing if only someone cared just a little more and got actual feedback. Media is collaborative in a lot of ways, but it seems to prioritize a single creators vision over perspective.
I think its good you left comments open on this video. I would like to see more movies with native peoples in pre contact times. I would like to see mesoamerica for example without the Spanish turning up at the end. I feel we are only getting one time ,one setting and the same theme. But that's just a mad Scot talking.
The hodenoushoune formstion story could be awsome honestly , Idk how much you wanna make it mythologized tho , in an ideal world you'd get two versions : a grounded one showing the peacemaker as a woman who saw war all her life and choose to help pepole trough grief and loss , until her words eventually make the foundation of the federation And maybe a more mythological version with the heads full of snakes , the water rising and revealing wumpun shells and soo on and so forth ... Both could honestly be soo valuable : One would show how the proto iroqoi would have done stuff , like the three sisters , longhouses , wumpun belt making ... The other would be a really original fantasy with some striking imagery and a nice message about it ... It may be that you could get both if you have maybe two storytellers tell the story and cut each other off : Maybe one insists that the sorcerer (i don't remember his name sorry) really did have snake on his head and could controll the animals , While the other goes "nah it's to mean that his mind was twisted and filled with lies and pepole followed him like a dog follows his master" To show how oral storytelling would have been more of an engaged activity than an history lesson ... Sorry if i miswrote most of the names , and didn't know most of the names , I really wish the peacemaker entered in the common lexicon as an important spiritual figure like buddah and jesus did , Sooo many histories deserve a better showing
On the comments, it is good to keep giving people chances. This time I have thus far been pleasantly surprised. Most of the disagreement has been polite and reasonable. Only had to remove two comments, about the same as average. On a potential movie. Yes indeed. It wouldn't even need to be that ambitious or original. Here's a generic rom-com set in a precontact Mayan village.
I also I want my own culture history to not be taught through a pro Swedish propaganda lens. We had rich history in the Iron Age, and the history being considered to start from Swedish rule is pretty offensive. I guess it is sort of similar in that sense, but not at all as extreme.
@@AbsoluuttinenTotuus I'm not sure if you mean Norway or a number of other Scandinavian nations. If it makes you feel better you could probably invade modern Sweden today single handed and they'd be okay with it.
You're right about every bit of it. Trying to make sense of the timeline only confused me more as it went on. Studi's character was aged and sick, yet a powerful warrior as was the kid. A gratuitous scene with a dying Buffalo Soldier added nothing to the story. You hit the nail on the head with the Comanche being singled out.
Did you watch the film Dances with Wolves, and if so, what did you think of it? I felt it kind of over-demonized the Pawnee, but I still kind of liked it. I thought it kind of fell into the white savior trope, but not the same way because the guy didn’t really save anyone. I watched it with my dad, and he said the book was written about the Comanche instead of the Lakota, and this is a bit interesting to me because you were talking about how the Comanche are still commonly demonized. Just figured I’d ask your thoughts. Thanks for preventing me from mistakenly watching that movie!
I like it. There is a little bit of dumbness, some historical issues and some stuff that doesn't work well but my complaints with it are pretty minor. The typical white saviour complaints against this film aren't baseless but are a little petty, there are so many more egregious examples of the trope to be found. The biggest issue with it is the villainization of the Pawnee, which is another tired film cliche. Hollywood dealt them a rotten hand, they sort of arbitrarily became cinema's go to for treachery. On historical grounds it's not wrong for this movie per-say, as they were frequent enemies of the Sioux, but their portrayal here is far less than charitable and they were often the underdogs in the real conflicts. While annoying, it's not enough for me to condemn the film wholesale. Apart from that bit of laziness, the filmmakers did a fine job.
The National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) lauded Hostiles for its "authentic representation of Native Peoples" and accurate rendition of Native American languages.~ Wikipedia. WTH? I'm with you Malcolm. I wouldn't have supported this film in any capacity. My gut has always told me to skip it when cruising the streaming services. My common sense follows my gut.
@@Water_is_Sacred777 For another couple examples, people like to mock and criticize the film Pocahontas for it's many glaring issues, but when it came out Russel Means declared it the second finest example of native representation after North of Sixty. Another film often listed as a contender for best representation is Little Bigman, and in that one half of the named Indians are played by Italians. Outside of Indigenous produced indie films the bar is set really really low.
@@MalcolmPL I agree. Since the inception of Hollywood native representation has been severely lacking, beginning with the ludicrous manner in which Indians were depicted from the silent film era to today. Dances With Wolves seemed to get it right and the cast is legendary but even that highly lauded and awarded film failed in several capacities. I have often thought it's fantastic indigenous cinema has become an important genre in film and TV however I can't help but wonder why Indian talent can't be cast as doctors, lawyers, government officials, stock brokers, romantic leads etc. in indigenous film and set in urban settings, produced entirely by indigenous artists. By avoiding this it creates stereotyping and leads to the recycling of the actors. It can get redundant and the story lines become cliché. An actor's career can stall quite easily when they only have one role to play. I loved rez life as a young one but now as a well lived person, my life is very urban. As is many native individuals. I don't know if that will ever happen but looking at the past we can guess it may take a century or so.
finally, someone else who hated this movie. The ending is vomit inducing. So glad the war criminal got to have self actualization and also steal a child in the bargain!
Thank you for this video, and every video you make, i really enjoy them and wish more much more channels were like this one. No flashy graphics or nonsense, no self-promotion or ads. Just raw and straightforward information and perspective. Since many people have asked similar questions, i was wondering what you thought of the recent movie Killers of the Flower Moon, if you've seen it. It seems like a good representation of indigenous people, as well as presenting an honest depiction of white Americans' diabolical interactions with them. However, I'm unsure if you have any criticisms about it.
Extremely interesting video. I’m really glad you made this. It was very cathartic to watch. Hollywood does this shit all the time. I haven’t seen many native voices talk out about it. Would love to hear your opinions on other movies about American Indians as well. Like Pocahontas, prey, and last of the Mohicans. As well as your thoughts on what can be done to improve representation of natives in cinema. Hope you keep it up!
One thing Hollywood still knows how to do is make films that look good. Everything else in a movie may be garbage, but it all looks great, and the music sounds great, and so the executives can't understand why it still flops.
Haven't seen this flick, but this immediately sends me back to Crash (the unsexy American one). Unbelievable what producers greenlight then hands awards to.
I've not seen the movie, but from the moment you mentioned a child is the only survivor, I saw that ending coming and was desperately hoping to be wrong. It's infuriating the amount of time and money put into producing this trash, and how apparently most "critics" are racist enough to give it positive reviews. Good video.
The problem isn't racism among critics, it's a problem of mainstream ideological lenses and the nature of subtext. Issues like this are comparatively easy to miss or to overlook if one isn't equipped with a specific lens. The narrative of this film clearly functions very differently from my exposition when viewed through the lens of the status quo. Before workshopping this video I went on IMDB to see what people were saying about it, a lot of the negative reviews are from conservative people calling this film woke pc sjw, revisionist propaganda, a lot of the positive reviews are people praising it for it's positive messaging. Clearly they all had a very different viewing experience from me.
@@MalcolmPL Totally agree that racism among critics specifically isn't the problem, I just think it really highlights how hegemonic liberal "anti-racist" racism really is, given that "critics" are nominally the ones who ought to be the fastest to criticize this nonsense.
@@MalcolmPLfrom what you're describing, the idea that conservatives see the movie as woke somehow or sjw whatever, means that they don't know how to watch a movie, let alone read into anything. They just have this knee-jerk reaction to showing non-whites being killed by white people as being anti-white somehow.
When you brought up how indigenous characters on screen appear as props, with almost no dialogue, only to be killed off nearly every time, it reminds me of queerbaiting. A studio throwing in a character in the background for brownie points, or if they're lucky enough to have lines, they boil down to "I would like to remind the audience that I am gay. Goodbye." Before they promptly resume their position of irrelevance, or become the next character killed off. There's a whole bunch of examples in somewhat recent TV, like when two established female characters began a lesbian relationship only to be almost immediately killed off in the same scene. Similar things happen to black characters, to the point of having an established horror movie trope where "The Black Guy Always Dies First" I hope someday real soon we can break out of these old colonial mindsets in media so we can finally get some well written characters that fall into these groups for once!
If you where to do a film on a famous first nations figures who would be? Little turtle, sitting bull, the peace maker, etc? Also what is your thoughts on the films wind talkers and killers of the flower moon?
I would pick someone who is little known and who people don't care too much about, so that you have a bit of flexibility and so that you won't be crucified if you get it wrong. Someone like Le Rat or Flemish Bastard, or maybe Iron Jacket. Peacemaker and Hiawatha could make for a really good movie, but it would have to be one of the finest films ever made or you would make a lot of people mad. Maybe something like the Ben Hur approach would work better, where it's about some ordinary person's story while Peacemaker is operating unseen in the background. I haven't seen wind talkers or flower moon.
@@MalcolmPL that would be a interesting idea with maybe a focus on the cultural differences between the nations and the personal perspective on each other before the confederation was formed maybe.
Halfway through your video, and I really appreciate your perspective here. This movie was garbage. You are absolutely right about why the Comanche were chosen to be the bad guys. The Outlaw Josey Wales, and even Jeremiah Johnson, have better portrayals of Native peoples, imo.
As someone who did consider this one of my favourite films, I thank you for highlighting some of the tropes I overlooked (probably by me not being an Indian myself). Personally I thought the violence was necessary for the story especially as the two (White American) characters end up changing / succumbing to their ways. Perhaps Christian should have survived only because they killed his depressed (and remorseful) companion and having those both two die might not work narratively. Definitely should have given a larger role to an Indian however. And thanks to your video I look on the ending as horrible compared to how I felt about it before.
I haven't seen this film, but I appreciate your opinion on it. I have a large portion of Scandinavian heritage, and I also don't appreciate how "vikings" are often portrayed in the media, although it is a very different issue compared to Native Americans.
It's very complicated and many of the differences are legal stuff that I don't really understand, but to simplify, they arise out of a different governmental process, a different history and have different rules. To give a bit of detail, I'll go over some of the differences that I think are significant. A U.S. reservation is a piece of land held by a federally recognized Indigenous group. A Canadian reserve is a piece of land held by the Crown that is set apart for the benefit of a specific group in perpetuity. Significant areas of Indigenous held land in Canada are not reserves. Nunavut being the prime example, while In the U.S. all significant parcels of indigenous land are reservations. U.S. reservations were usually imposed as a condition of peace following a war, sometimes in the beginning acting like a concentration camp for PoWs. Canadian reserves did not involve wars, but were established through the treaty process and shady/illegal dealing, usually with some sort of ongoing compensation offered for the surrendered land. U.S. reservations allow non native people to own property, as such they often have a majority white population. Canadian reserves do not allow non natives to own land. U.S. reservations have the casino loopholes. Canadian reserves do not. This leads to very different social issues. There are several hundred reservations in the U.S. these tend to be large and out west with large sections of the eastern U.S. devoid of native people, this was due to forced relocation. This relocation did not occur in Canada and as such there are more than ten times as many reserves in Canada, these tend to be quite small and are peppered fairly evenly across the whole of the provinces.
@@MalcolmPL I ask because it's a Canadian movie that also tries some kind of equivalency, but it was written by a mi'kmaq author and the main characters are all indigenous Canadians. So I was wondering if that movie does it well in your eyes.
My wife watched this film as part of an, "Indians on Film," course for her undergrad. Among ugly films, this one was so ugly I felt nauseous after fifteen minutes. You'd think a course where you watched movies for credit would have been a welcome change, but the other films were, 'The Searchers,' Disney's 'Pocahontas,' 'Little Big Man,' and Disney's animated classic, 'Peter Pan.' A film I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on is the Predator-franchise flick, 'Prey.' French Canadians I've heard hate this movie for the French trappers, but given where it's set, the time period, and the indecipherable French I'd assumed it was a racist depiction of the Metis -- maybe on one of their Buffalo hunts making pemican for the HBC?
Thank you for sharing these insights. Crazy hearing you talk about the US east west divide like that....as an Englishman I've always felt that same filter applied to everyone who "settled" the Eastern states in the first place i.e the worst and most entitled people from over here wanting to go take something better off other people elsewhere. You've gotta allow some nuance, (with anything), not everyone was aware of what the colonies truly meant and conditions over here were atrocious for the poor, but damn.... the slavery conversation in England shows that people knew exactly what the situation with that was i.e evil, period. It wasn't "old timey" people who didn't know what murdering folk for their land or possessions meant. My roots are Cornish - a region that was preyed on by slavers for a long time before England pulled itself out of the dark ages and the abused became the abusers and industrialised the process - people love bringing that up as a 'whaddabout" ....but IMHO it's just another reason we should have known better. Did know better.
A film like that wouldn't do well. His story ends anticlimactically and badly. People don't want nihilism, they want stories that either have a happy ending or at least a meaningful bad end or satisfying conclusion. They aren't interested in the version of star wars where luke is randomly hit by a stray shot and the rebellion fizzles out.
@@MalcolmPL true. Nobody wants a meaningless story. But I counter with Braveheart. It’s not like Scotland really won their absolute freedom after and because of William Wallace (who imo is a more controversial figure than Tecumseh). I think good writing could breathe a sense of hope into that story, or give people a different look at a real heroic figure who pretty much everyone respected. I know being more historically accurate than Braveheart is important, and portraying the real struggle is important, but I still think the general story of Tecumseh (while somewhat brief) is a good one to inspire audiences and filmmakers. Tecumseh inspired resistance but he also brought people together and uplifted them. Worthy of being considered a great man.
That example sort of illustrates my point, Wallace gets a martyrdom. He becomes a symbol which carries his allies forward. His war counts for something, Scotland temporarily regains it's independence, and in the long term persists as a country. Wallace doesn't get a happy ending, but he gets a meaningful one. We compare. Tecumseh is struck by a stray bullet. His confederacy falls apart and is defeated. The Brits make a halfhearted attempt to have his goals honored in the treaty of Ghent, the Yanks reject those terms and they amount to nothing. The Shawnee lose their land and their political significance. For the next fifty years they are forcibly relocated multiple times as settlers push them further and further west. It is not a hopeful story, there is no meaningful ending. I have heard Tecumseh's story summarized as "all that hope, wasted." The only way to make his story meaningful is to turn it into a Canadian patriotic story, which means ignoring a great deal of what Tecumseh actually stood for. Let's get into the real issue, people are already turned off of "indian movies" because of their downer subject matter. The historical stories end in defeat and the modern stories are all about alcoholism. People hear "indian movie" and put it in the pigeon hole of "hurting movies that I don't want to see." Consider "Killers of the Flower Moon." This movie was produced by the most prestigious living director and by all accounts turned out pretty good. It lost tens of millions of dollars. People didn't want to see it, I didn't want to see it, I've heard that story before with different instrumentation. A movie like that is a risk, nobody but Scorsese would have been given a chance to make something like that, and now that it is a confirmed financial flop it is likely that no one will be given that chance again for a long long time.
@@MalcolmPL yeah def don’t give the Canadians credit for Tecumseh. Keep them in their place. You have me fairly convinced of your point, but I still want to make what little counter argument I have left. I get your point about Wallace, even if Scotland never managed to remain proud and independent. Although, I have some major gripes about giving any of the credit to Wallace and not Robert I. I often hear pedants of the highest order opining over old Stonewall Jackson. If it is possible to romanticize that idiot, who got shot by his own men in formation, then it should be possible to romanticize one of the greatest leaders of men this continent has ever known. Stonewall doesn’t have his own movie (thank goodness), but I would direct you to: Saving Private Ryan, We Were Soldiers, Platoon, Black Hawk Down, Fury - all movies where a main protagonist is killed by indirect fire. I think the most powerful thing a movie can do is to get the audience to consider the what ifs. What if Lincoln hadn’t been shot. What if Hitler had been assassinated. What if Commodus had been killed by a gladiator. What if the Spartacus slave revolt had succeeded? What if the US never invaded Iraq? - none of these alternate realities need to really be shown to make the audience envision them. I understand how you yourself can be down on the idea of a successful and historically justifiable “indian movie”. I really do. However, to compare “Killers of the Flower Moon” to the movie I am proposing doesn’t seem quite right. People were incredibly confused about what “Killers of the Flower Moon” was about before it was even out. I think the subject material really didn’t give it a chance in box offices here, and it wasn’t flashy enough for our modern attention spans. I would never want to halfa** a movie about Tecumseh, and so I would not back down on the large budget. I think it would just have to be something that gets built up through word of mouth and through various algorithms before dropping the epic trailer. I am surprised at the amount of content concerning Tecumseh online, and most of it is recent. Tecumseh is used as a name for both places and organizations in the US. Tecumseh has an exciting story, which is entirely redeemable because his downfall was entirely not his own doing. I agree that it probably won’t get made. If only because I feel that other issues are weighing down the headspace in Hollywood. However, I still feel that it could be fairly controversial, thought provoking, flashy, inspiring, and popular if it could be made. What’s more, I see a need for such a movie, even if other people do not.
@@toniwilson6210 Just a small point, but when you say this: "I get your point about Wallace, even if Scotland never managed to remain proud and independent." I think you very much underestimate the massive discrepancy between the Scottish and the Native american cases which Malcolm PL pointed to. This "never managed to remain" makes it sound as if the English won permanently when Wallace died. But of course in reality within a few years of his death Scotland was an independent Kingdom again and then remained that for another 400 years before it fusioned into one of the greatest powers in world history, with Scots an integral part of conquering something like a third of the entire planet. And while it is absolutely true that the '45 and the clearances brutally destroyed a part of traditional Scottish culture and society, not only did that happen 450 to 500 years after William Wallace's death, but it was also done by a combination of the English and lowland Scots; the latter's culture remained, with Scotland retaining its own legal and educational system even after the union of 1707 and up to this very day. If you compare that to the history of pretty much any native American group I think you can see why MalcolmPL is right to emphasize the significance of these differences.
would love to see an epic biopic of Kancamagus especially during king williams war - or Madockawando during the same era - one that shows the numerous victories of the Wabanaki Confederacy at the time, and how for many native people the end result was favorable to them for generations - a movie about native people post-contact that doesn't end with: "and they all died except for a few who are on reservations and sad etc." On a side note: I think many people now tend to view the history of Native people as a sudden collapse. especially on the east coast that history tends to be glossed over, as they all died of smallpox in a generation - the end. But I feel as that couldn't be further from the truth. the entire 17th and 18th centuries were filled with active conflicts and movements involving numerous peoples resulting in significant effects to the standard model of history taught in schools today (at least in America circa 2010 lol) - which is 1620 english come, 1640 basically everyone gets smallpox and dies... I just wish schools would teach this history - it's important even to people with no Native ancestry, as it effects the settlement of New England to this day in where different early populations of colonists settled.
oof yeah that sounds insufferable. I saw you respond to comment that people are so starved of represantation that they gave it positive attention. I certainly agree that there is not enough content covering the lifes of native americans in a faithful way. To the point that for a homework project for game design I came up with a setting trying my best to include a fair representation just so the idea is put out there. I by no way can calim authenticity as I am german. But your channel and my girlfriend who is algonquin made me very interested in the history of native people. Know that I look forward to the day I can lead a project where I get to involve people to get their stories out there. Cause all culture cann be beautiful. There is so much humans have to share. Anyways a little ramble, nothing much. Just wanted to spread good vibes.
Infuriating to hear the way it goes on with these portrayals. They are reinforced attempts to solidify the same-old. You keep saying "...but it gets worse!" Which I love, because, of course it does. Ending with scoop-babies (again!) hits raw nerves w me. Commentary appreciated, insightful on the craft as well. I think all your points are especially needed, as I happen across more PBS-style fare presenting a "both-sided" narrative where the same justification system is really the pitch, and invariably the indigenous perspective (often curated, to be sure) is focused on "taking one for the team" or having genuinely internalized traumas so that colonizer reasons can be borne by the current settler generation onward. I just can't. Thankyou.
I disagree with like 70% of what you've said here but it's interesting to see this perspective on the movie. I for one enjoyed it, I do enjoy it, and I will continue to enjoy it. It sort of seems like you expected this movie to give the proper due diligence of historical and moral context, when that was never the objective. If you come into this movie not knowing any history of western expansion, yes! It easily comes across as a very racist message! But I think this film was made for people who already know at least a little about the truths of western expansion. It seems to me like they tried to go for a morally gray and bleak approach to what really was a morally gray and bleak era, and I suppose it just didn't land. Some points(in random, nonspecific order) addressing some of your points: - Battle of Wounded Knee is what mainstream Americans mostly called it. That's what it was reported as, that's what it was called by many(especially unapologetic, like the protagonist) racists wanting to defend their actions and dehumanize their prey, and that's how the white American public eye saw it. It's a historically accurate representation that's *SUPPOSED* to contradict reality. Most of the viewers of this film will know about the Wounded Knee Massacre and they'll know the absurdity of calling it a battle. - I very much agree with your points about the setting of the film in the 1890s and using the Comanche as the only Native Americans that mainstream Western culture is still okay with demonizing. I think they set it in the 1890s *explicitly* to have the shadow of Wounded Knee over the premise. But there were plenty of other Native massacres in the era you mentioned- the 1840s. It would be interesting to see the film set then, and also in a region where the Comanche actually were. Or, better yet, not use the Comanche, and explicitly use some other group that mainstream Western society *isn't* okay with demonizing. To make things REALLY morally conflicting for a viewer. I think it'd improve the accuracy and overall quality a lot. - I agree with most of what you brought up about the "all the indians die at the end" trope, but I think the pointless deaths were meant to be more of the heavy-hitting gritty deaths that are just there to make you sad and remember that the stakes are high. It's a very valid bit of writing but the fact that it's, once again, done with the native characters is pretty obnoxious. Although I do like how most(all, I believe? Haven't watched it in a year or so) of the army soldiers tagging along also die. - I don't think the ending gunfight was meant to be his redemptive moment. His redemptive moment is at the end when he hops onto the train. It's not an "I'm going to fight alongside the Indians" moment, it's just "I'm going to get into a gunfight". At least that's how I interpreted it. interesting points though!
Do you like the movie dancing with wolves? Fwiw I think Adam Beech is a star and is very charismatic on screen. He might have been too good looking for Hollywood even. I wish we had more original content made by people the content is about and not by movie producers angle shooting algorithms and avoiding any risk.
Middle aged white guy, I can't imagine how frustrating it is to have your story told badly, so I won't try. Keep doing what you can, I learn a bit from your efforts. I love how you put on your best clothes and find a nice location to film😊, seriously the presentation is both honest and refreshing. Thanks for the content.
Pine trees are dropping pollen like crazy this year, it was only about 50 feet from the house to the shed and I arrived looking like I'd been digging around in the attic all morning.
Should note before saying this I haven't watched the movie. On the ending, I've always had some dislike for the idea of someone "redeeming" themselves through a self-sacrificing act, especially of violence. Well, on the one hand, selflessness and self-sacrifice are good things more often than not, and usually are they not bad things. On the other hand, there's an element of vanity in this sort of trope, isn't there? As in, by just this one dramatic selfless act (as opposed to living your entire life trying to do as much good as possible), the character with a dark past can consider himself redeemed, and forgive himself. When you described the ending, I thought to myself that if I made the movie, and were senseless enough to make everything the same way except the ending, I would have Christian Bale end the movie as a complete emotional wreck for his attempt at redemption backfiring in the worst possible way. That would be a pretty bleak and nihilistic ending, but then again I did like No Country for Old Men.
" Well, on the one hand, selflessness and self-sacrifice are good things more often than not" That's what people who want to manipulate others and use them as tools like to teach. In the real world, there is no "good" and no "evil". There is no "redemption", nor does it's opposite, damnation, exist. Morality is fake BS, and everyone can do anything they want.
my personal thoughts are this: I think the modern american sense of morality is unequipped to grapple with the concept of “X group of people are under active occupation and genocide, and they are rightfully fighting back in any way they can”. this is an issue that extends to the characterization of enslaved people in the Americas. to be fair, most people in the US learn about history when they’re around 15 years old, when they’re rather unequipped to deal with nuance, or the idea that their home country was founded and funded through genocide. still, the characterization of “slave rebellions” in US history textbooks tends to simplify down to “violence bad”. like you said, the violence of colonization is presented as equivalent to the actions of colonization’s victims. as somebody with only a basic knowledge of the many relevant subjects (history, philosophy, modern discourse regarding historical analysis, etc.), i’m sure my analysis of this is incomplete, and poorly formulated. anybody’s thoughts on the issue would be appreciated.
I don't have much to counter it with, but I struggle to accept the statement "the modern american sense of morality is unequipped to grapple with...". I kind of think about it this way, while I agree that there clearly isn't a moral equivalency between colonisation/slavery and the violent resistances to them. But that logically leads to the conclusion that, morally, it would have been far preferable if these resistances had succeeded, i.e that indigenous peoples retained their full original independence, sovereignty and territory from the colonisers, and that the entire slave population successfully emancipated themselves much earlier than the actual occurrence of emancipation. I think we can agree that if these things happened, America today in that reality would not even begin to resemble the America today in our reality, not to mention the European/white population of America would be much smaller if not negligible. Most white Americans alive today would not have been born, nor their parents or grandparents, and we are saying this would be the morally preferable reality. All this to say, I just find it really hard to believe that anybody, anywhere would simply accept such a premise without strong pushback, even if they morally ought to. It's a real shock to one's ego/identity to accept something like this, isn't it? Those are my thoughts for whatever they are worth. I believe most people intuitively think this, though it's not something people would express often due to cognitive dissonance. Should also mention I am Anglo Australian and therefore in exactly the same boat as Anglo Americans on this subject, so probably biased in one way or another.
@@cf-yg4bd we’re all biased; as long as you acknowledge it, your perspective is still a valuable piece of the puzzle. i’m white-passing, but my education and the subcultures i have participated in have certainly shaped my bias as well. its difficult for me to suggest that i know what is “morally preferable/superior”. it feels rather naive to claim that my sense of morals won’t seem archaic after a few years of discourse. so, i don’t think i can argue that the “parallel timeline” in which the Americas were never colonized would be the “morally preferable outcome”. (however, if pressed that’s the position i would take. i personally think that’s not incredibly radical by modern standards; its along the lines of “the industrial revolution was a disaster for the human race.”). i can say, though, that the prospect of nonexistence doesn’t scare me as much as it seems to scare others. maybe it should scare me? but there are so many permutations of reality, and i really only exist in one of them. this is certainly based on my (unique?) perspectives on metaphysics. what strikes me immediately is: 1. we feel anguish about us “losing” our existence, but not about those who have already lost it. this is the nature of our reality “existing” and other realities “not existing”. i don’t think we should throw our sense of ethics out the window, simply because of metaphysics (the people who DO exist should not make sacrifices for the lives of people who COULD exist - they *should* make sacrifices for *others who DO exist*). but, i’m not offended by the idea that “global carbon emissions would be lower if colonialism (and therefore my reality) never existed”. i don’t think the two ideas are mutually exclusive: i am simultaneously fighting for my own existence, and admitting that, had i never existed, things would probably be better. i’ve been given an opportunity i don’t necessarily deserve, but i’m willing to make the most of it. furthermore, anguishing over my privilege isn’t helpful for anybody. so, i find it a good idea to mull over this dichotomy, keep it in present in my mind, but don’t let it hold me back. 2. colonization (and to a larger extent, capitalism) is a huge can of worms. its hard to “undo” any of it without (at least temporarily) causing an even bigger mess. this is part of the design, part of why capitalists were able to take power. but throwing my hands up, and saying “it would all be too much work” would be admitting defeat, and i refuse to do that. tl;dr: as much as i agree with its conclusion, i think the argument of “colonialism should have never existed” is not the best use of time. we’re in this mess, whether we like it or not. i would argue that colonialism, as it exists in our reality, should be dismantled (not implying you’re disagreeing with that). i’m arguing “it’s a shame reality is the way it is; as the benefactors of that reality, we should make sacrifices to shape our reality to be more egalitarian, and to support the most vulnerable (especially if those sacrifices only amount to an “ego check”); this is because humans work best when they support each other: by making up for each others’ weakness, we together are stronger”.
@@yourhighschoolenglishteach8405 I think I pretty much agree with everything you said and I wasn't actually trying to comment on speculative "would it be better if x had happened" kind of stuff, sorry if that wasnt clear. I was basically trying to comment on why I think a person not only could, but would be likely to simultaneously hold contradictory moral opinions. Specifically, to believe that genocide, stealing people's land by force, and slavery are evil enough that any violent resistance to them is justified, and at the same time not really feel the same way when it applies to violent resistance to American slavery and colonisation, etc. Or at least, that was more or less my stance on Australian/American colonialism at one point, and I think that cognitive dissonance is the main reason for me having taken that stance.
Embarrassing that they gave Wes Studi nothing to do a full 18 years after Mystery Men nailed it perfectly: "What's his power?" "Well, he's terribly mysterious!"
Surely you know that many white immigrants in the 1800s were told that there were not many "Indians" left and the ones that left were mostly peaceable. I'm not saying this was always the case but often it was the whites'sheer ignorance that got them killed..... And theft. Would you be willing to share your thoughts on the movie "Black Robe" ? I love this dark movie and every time I watch it I wonder what the Cool Mohawk guy (you) thinks of it.
Your rant forced me to watch this film again. As I listened to you I knew I watched it before but couldn't recall much of it... and now I know why: it actually doesn't make much sense. Starting from first scene, are you telling me that that family was alone on native land long enough to build such a large house, but now is the first time they face natives and immediately start shooting, knowing they are f*cked? Was the dude really thinking he can defend his property with a single gun? It didn't have to be Comanches, any white bandits could have taken them with ease and country was full of such bandits. Yes, I believe film was meant to present the view where everyone is equal, that there are savages in every group of people, but what they show is that at the end the "whites" are the only real civilized. Heck, the boy should have stayed with his own people at the end, that would be the correct move, possibly change the tone of the film. Hope you agree. I wish we could talk directly.....
No country might be the most nihilistic film I've ever seen. If memory serves all the destruction is caused by offering a wounded man a drink of water.
@@MalcolmPL (Spoilers for No Country for Old Men) Yes and no, I think you could also argue that it's caused by him taking the money in the first place, especially given that the briefcase turned out to have a GPS tracker in it. That's not to say of course that it still isn't one of the bleaker films out there, and probably one of the more nihilistic films too though I'm not 100% sure about that.
Funny to see it come up in this video since my initial impression just from the non native perspective was that it was racist drivel that made me uncomfortable from the trailer footage alone. The only other film that invoked such a sensation me from the trailer alone was that even more racist film with the 'cave men' native americans that were cannibals, whatever it was called. Everything I've read and heard of Hostiles just reinforces the opinion my gut reaction formed. In addition from the trailer footage my immediate thoughts were just it's part of this 'neo western' wave where the violence is dialed up to 11 to the point where it becomes a grotesque revelry of gut spilling for gut spilling's sake, where all other elements are phoned in as all revolves around the spectacle produced.
I think the film you're thinking of was "bone tomahawk." That movie sucks, but at least it knows that it's dumb exploitative schlock and is a little bit satirical with it.
@@MalcolmPL Yeah that was it, name rings a bell. I'm kinda surprised though something like that could even get greenlit these days, feels like it'd be drek you'd see produced in the 80's rather than now. Besides what you already featured in the december playlist, what were good native focused period dramas you'd recommend anyway?
@@wyattw9727 I don't really have any recommendations. I'm not a connoisseur. I haven't seen most of what's out there, and most of what I have seen I haven't watched since I was a kid, and so remember nothing.
Interesting. I have not seen the film in its entirety, just a few short clips and yes, it does look cinematically great. Amazing how we are able to skim over the deep meaning of films. It had some very big names in acting too. Ah, what a little perspective can do.
You’re right. It is pretty crazy that people try to find equivalence in the acts of the invaded defending their home and the invaders. If I go into someone’s house and decide their living room is mine, that does not make the homeowner a villain for trying to get me out or give us both equal right to the room.
Since the American Indian holocaust was actually a model for the creator of the holocaust of WW2 it is not a wrong comparison to just ask the question if the same cinmatic treatment would also be regarded acceptable in a movie about that part of history. Imagine a "tragically good Germans got caught up in the mistakes commited against innocent while fulfiling their destiny to save Europe from Stalin but their time was over anyway" narrative
@@MalcolmPL The propaganda defaming Sinti & Roma, "gypsies", was probably closer to that against indigenous people, typical "savages" stereotypes, "primitive people with romantic aspects but incapable to adapt to civilization and dangerous criminals by nature". In my early childhood there was sometimes a mouth-to-mouth alarm "gypsies are in the area" which meant to lock everything and to keep small children in the house... They are still treated as second class victims to this day
The reality is. This is what your average American thinks on the topic. They have the same paternalistic view that lead to the 60’s scoop. Thats the happy ending, the residential school. The happy integration. If we are going to be fair though. It’s typically ignorance not hate.
I find it interesting how people will say of the Indian Wars that both sides committed terrible atrocities and so the whole situation is just morally grey. But then when looking at WW2, people will admit that both sides did terror bombing (which is a terrible atrocity), but they'll say Germany and Japan started it, so that makes massacring loads of civilians okay. If "they started it" is a sufficient justification, then the First Nations were justified in massacring white settlers in most of the Indian Wars. Of course, I don't think that's a sufficient justification, but I also realise I wasn't alive during those times, I didn't have to go through the things those people went through or face the kinds of choices they had to make, so my opinion on the matter doesn't count for much.
The mainstream American perspective (speaking as a Ukrainian) looks a lot like the Russian perspective on Eastern Europe. It's how the Russians in my city will talk about past conflicts. Yes, both sides, in ww1, WW2, and guerilla movements here, in the Baltics, Hungarian and Czech uprisings etc. all committed what can be considered atrocities, but the Russians will take the attitude of, well, they're humble honest people just compelled by circumstances, innocent of any moral responsibility even when it was them invading and conquering the whole of their neighbors, plus several countries beyond. Then, if any of those countries dares side with the Germans in the war (who often treated the locals much better and gave them guns, yes, for self interested reasons but especially pre-internet, in crises, people lived in their own situations), oh they're suddenly evil incarnate, how dare they fought against the progress of history, etc, and they never stop using it as a justification, even today, for anything and everything they want to do. Two 'frontier' societies, I suppose.
You make some good points, but completely cast doubt on your sincerity in making them when it is revealed that you have no problem with the film doing the same thing that they did to Indians to poor American whites. Hypocrisy like this makes me so angry.
If I have made you angry, then I apologize. I should have spoken more tactfully and deliberately. It is difficult to speak both clearly and succinctly at once on emotionally charged topics.
I watched it years back because I saw it had a good cast and I had heard it was an anti-racist take on the Western genre. I was really disappointed. I'm not nearly knowledgeable enough about the history it represents to have picked up on how deep its nonsense ran, but it was blatantly obvious that it completely sidelined every single indigenous character and wasted its cast's talents. The only characters that get any depth or development are the white people. That would be bad in any film, but in one that seemed so masturbatorily pleased with itself for 'both sidesing' the issues of colonialism and genocide, it was just gross.
hello o.p your halitosis is visible. pls stop watching onion link porn and fix your pelvic tilt o.p. you are forgetting your wellbeing and your body is becoming rank and a biohazard. please get off your computer and turn yourself in to the authorities. thank you o.p.
![Eminem - The Death of Slim Shady [Graveyard Album Trailer]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/vOJD-6vQpXU/mqdefault.jpg)
I think you forgot the icing on the cake. The movie starts with Bale’s character reading Julius Caesar’s Commentary on the Gallic Wars in Latin, perhaps as way to make him seem cultured or something. The book is pretty much Caesar’s account of invading Gaul and killing and enslaving a large fraction of the population. If I remember correctly, this movie then has Bale’s character give the book to the kid at the end saying it was written by a great man.
Bale’s character gives an indigenous kid a book about the genocide of an indigenous people right after the kid’s entire family got killed.
I thought it was a sick joke. I don’t know if it’s an accident or not, but it fits with the theme of this video.
Jeez, I completely missed that. I wonder what the filmmaker's intention was by that.
This is too on point
@@MalcolmPL yeah, good question...
Sounds like it's an intentional parallel drawing the link between the slaughter going on at the present and the one from the past. It also shows the characters' perspective that he sees the ones doing the genocide as being righteous in someway
How incredibly tone deaf lol could’ve gone with most any ancient book and it would’ve come off better
I went to school for film and broadcast writing. The thing that always sticks with me about bad movies is how easy it would’ve been to improve the writing if only someone cared just a little more and got actual feedback. Media is collaborative in a lot of ways, but it seems to prioritize a single creators vision over perspective.
I'm always surprised how often I encounter a movie which could have been way the heck better with only a few minor changes.
I think its good you left comments open on this video.
I would like to see more movies with native peoples in pre contact times. I would like to see mesoamerica for example without the Spanish turning up at the end.
I feel we are only getting one time ,one setting and the same theme. But that's just a mad Scot talking.
The hodenoushoune formstion story could be awsome honestly ,
Idk how much you wanna make it mythologized tho , in an ideal world you'd get two versions : a grounded one showing the peacemaker as a woman who saw war all her life and choose to help pepole trough grief and loss , until her words eventually make the foundation of the federation
And maybe a more mythological version with the heads full of snakes , the water rising and revealing wumpun shells and soo on and so forth ...
Both could honestly be soo valuable :
One would show how the proto iroqoi would have done stuff , like the three sisters , longhouses , wumpun belt making ...
The other would be a really original fantasy with some striking imagery and a nice message about it ...
It may be that you could get both if you have maybe two storytellers tell the story and cut each other off :
Maybe one insists that the sorcerer (i don't remember his name sorry) really did have snake on his head and could controll the animals ,
While the other goes "nah it's to mean that his mind was twisted and filled with lies and pepole followed him like a dog follows his master"
To show how oral storytelling would have been more of an engaged activity than an history lesson ...
Sorry if i miswrote most of the names , and didn't know most of the names ,
I really wish the peacemaker entered in the common lexicon as an important spiritual figure like buddah and jesus did ,
Sooo many histories deserve a better showing
Keeps a positive energy if we can bounce ideas back and forth, share stories etc.
On the comments, it is good to keep giving people chances. This time I have thus far been pleasantly surprised. Most of the disagreement has been polite and reasonable. Only had to remove two comments, about the same as average.
On a potential movie. Yes indeed. It wouldn't even need to be that ambitious or original. Here's a generic rom-com set in a precontact Mayan village.
I also I want my own culture history to not be taught through a pro Swedish propaganda lens. We had rich history in the Iron Age, and the history being considered to start from Swedish rule is pretty offensive. I guess it is sort of similar in that sense, but not at all as extreme.
@@AbsoluuttinenTotuus I'm not sure if you mean Norway or a number of other Scandinavian nations. If it makes you feel better you could probably invade modern Sweden today single handed and they'd be okay with it.
You're right about every bit of it. Trying to make sense of the timeline
only confused me more as it went on. Studi's character was aged and
sick, yet a powerful warrior as was the kid. A gratuitous scene with a dying
Buffalo Soldier added nothing to the story.
You hit the nail on the head with the Comanche being singled out.
Did you watch the film Dances with Wolves, and if so, what did you think of it? I felt it kind of over-demonized the Pawnee, but I still kind of liked it. I thought it kind of fell into the white savior trope, but not the same way because the guy didn’t really save anyone. I watched it with my dad, and he said the book was written about the Comanche instead of the Lakota, and this is a bit interesting to me because you were talking about how the Comanche are still commonly demonized. Just figured I’d ask your thoughts. Thanks for preventing me from mistakenly watching that movie!
I like it. There is a little bit of dumbness, some historical issues and some stuff that doesn't work well but my complaints with it are pretty minor.
The typical white saviour complaints against this film aren't baseless but are a little petty, there are so many more egregious examples of the trope to be found.
The biggest issue with it is the villainization of the Pawnee, which is another tired film cliche. Hollywood dealt them a rotten hand, they sort of arbitrarily became cinema's go to for treachery.
On historical grounds it's not wrong for this movie per-say, as they were frequent enemies of the Sioux, but their portrayal here is far less than charitable and they were often the underdogs in the real conflicts.
While annoying, it's not enough for me to condemn the film wholesale. Apart from that bit of laziness, the filmmakers did a fine job.
So when people mention Hostiles you get... hostile?
Your puns makes me hostile
On a side note, the Wes Studi and Adam Beach scowls were so accurate
My favourite Wes Studi role is The Sphinx in Mystery Men.
Loved seeing him in Reservation Dogs as a weird “uncle” to the Dogs
@@samurguybriyongtan146 I haven't seen that one, I'll have to check it out.
@@chaos_omega Reservation Dogs on FX/Hulu. Indigenous creators, cast, crew. I think it's pretty brilliant.
The National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) lauded Hostiles for its "authentic representation of Native Peoples" and accurate rendition of Native American languages.~ Wikipedia. WTH? I'm with you Malcolm. I wouldn't have supported this film in any capacity. My gut has always told me to skip it when cruising the streaming services. My common sense follows my gut.
Many people are so badly starved for anything approaching positive representation that they are willing to overlook a lot of issues.
@@MalcolmPL Great point. Thank you.
@@Water_is_Sacred777 For another couple examples, people like to mock and criticize the film Pocahontas for it's many glaring issues, but when it came out Russel Means declared it the second finest example of native representation after North of Sixty.
Another film often listed as a contender for best representation is Little Bigman, and in that one half of the named Indians are played by Italians.
Outside of Indigenous produced indie films the bar is set really really low.
@@MalcolmPL I agree. Since the inception of Hollywood native representation has been severely lacking, beginning with the ludicrous manner in which Indians were depicted from the silent film era to today. Dances With Wolves seemed to get it right and the cast is legendary but even that highly lauded and awarded film failed in several capacities.
I have often thought it's fantastic indigenous cinema has become an important genre in film and TV however I can't help but wonder why Indian talent can't be cast as doctors, lawyers, government officials, stock brokers, romantic leads etc. in indigenous film and set in urban settings, produced entirely by indigenous artists. By avoiding this it creates stereotyping and leads to the recycling of the actors. It can get redundant and the story lines become cliché. An actor's career can stall quite easily when they only have one role to play.
I loved rez life as a young one but now as a well lived person, my life is very urban. As is many native individuals. I don't know if that will ever happen but looking at the past we can guess it may take a century or so.
You do occasionally get native actors as things like cops, Graham Greene in Die Hard 3, Wes Studi in Heat. Typically background roles though.
It's incredible how someome can make a movie about people they didn't bother to learn about or talk to. Thank you for sharing your thoughts.
finally, someone else who hated this movie. The ending is vomit inducing. So glad the war criminal got to have self actualization and also steal a child in the bargain!
i was fine with this film until the final shootout but having watched this review i think i need to rewatch.
Thank you for this video, and every video you make, i really enjoy them and wish more much more channels were like this one. No flashy graphics or nonsense, no self-promotion or ads. Just raw and straightforward information and perspective.
Since many people have asked similar questions, i was wondering what you thought of the recent movie Killers of the Flower Moon, if you've seen it. It seems like a good representation of indigenous people, as well as presenting an honest depiction of white Americans' diabolical interactions with them. However, I'm unsure if you have any criticisms about it.
Haven't seen it. A friend said it's really good but that an Indigenous audience would get nothing out of it but depression.
Extremely interesting video. I’m really glad you made this. It was very cathartic to watch. Hollywood does this shit all the time. I haven’t seen many native voices talk out about it. Would love to hear your opinions on other movies about American Indians as well. Like Pocahontas, prey, and last of the Mohicans. As well as your thoughts on what can be done to improve representation of natives in cinema. Hope you keep it up!
One thing Hollywood still knows how to do is make films that look good. Everything else in a movie may be garbage, but it all looks great, and the music sounds great, and so the executives can't understand why it still flops.
Haven't seen this flick, but this immediately sends me back to Crash (the unsexy American one). Unbelievable what producers greenlight then hands awards to.
Glad I found your channel, great stuff.
This was a great watch and very informative to hear your perspective!
First video with clean fingernails?
Just messing around, love your content.
Too rainy to work in the garden today.
Thank you for this. Are there any movies set in the American West you might recommend?
Once upon a time in the west.
Absolutely agree. I'm completely baffled by how positively it seems to have generally been received. Ridiculous.
You're getting good at talking to the camera. Big fan of your insights on media.
You missed all the rehearsals and false takes.
@@MalcolmPLthat's to be expected. Hope you're not beating yourself up over it 🙂
I've not seen the movie, but from the moment you mentioned a child is the only survivor, I saw that ending coming and was desperately hoping to be wrong. It's infuriating the amount of time and money put into producing this trash, and how apparently most "critics" are racist enough to give it positive reviews. Good video.
The problem isn't racism among critics, it's a problem of mainstream ideological lenses and the nature of subtext. Issues like this are comparatively easy to miss or to overlook if one isn't equipped with a specific lens. The narrative of this film clearly functions very differently from my exposition when viewed through the lens of the status quo.
Before workshopping this video I went on IMDB to see what people were saying about it, a lot of the negative reviews are from conservative people calling this film woke pc sjw, revisionist propaganda, a lot of the positive reviews are people praising it for it's positive messaging. Clearly they all had a very different viewing experience from me.
@@MalcolmPL Totally agree that racism among critics specifically isn't the problem, I just think it really highlights how hegemonic liberal "anti-racist" racism really is, given that "critics" are nominally the ones who ought to be the fastest to criticize this nonsense.
@@MalcolmPLfrom what you're describing, the idea that conservatives see the movie as woke somehow or sjw whatever, means that they don't know how to watch a movie, let alone read into anything. They just have this knee-jerk reaction to showing non-whites being killed by white people as being anti-white somehow.
When you brought up how indigenous characters on screen appear as props, with almost no dialogue, only to be killed off nearly every time, it reminds me of queerbaiting.
A studio throwing in a character in the background for brownie points, or if they're lucky enough to have lines, they boil down to "I would like to remind the audience that I am gay. Goodbye." Before they promptly resume their position of irrelevance, or become the next character killed off. There's a whole bunch of examples in somewhat recent TV, like when two established female characters began a lesbian relationship only to be almost immediately killed off in the same scene.
Similar things happen to black characters, to the point of having an established horror movie trope where "The Black Guy Always Dies First"
I hope someday real soon we can break out of these old colonial mindsets in media so we can finally get some well written characters that fall into these groups for once!
This is the best rant I’ve heard in a while
Now I'm curious what you do think of Pocahontas (the film) since you mentioned it at the end there lol
It's a dumb, mildly racist kids movie and one of very few movies which centralizes the native perspective.
@@MalcolmPL My Dad usta get pissed off during the 'Redman red's bit in Peter Pan. Movies and media a full of this sorta BS.
Peter Pan is product of it's time in the worst way.
If you where to do a film on a famous first nations figures who would be? Little turtle, sitting bull, the peace maker, etc?
Also what is your thoughts on the films wind talkers and killers of the flower moon?
I would pick someone who is little known and who people don't care too much about, so that you have a bit of flexibility and so that you won't be crucified if you get it wrong. Someone like Le Rat or Flemish Bastard, or maybe Iron Jacket.
Peacemaker and Hiawatha could make for a really good movie, but it would have to be one of the finest films ever made or you would make a lot of people mad. Maybe something like the Ben Hur approach would work better, where it's about some ordinary person's story while Peacemaker is operating unseen in the background.
I haven't seen wind talkers or flower moon.
@@MalcolmPL that would be a interesting idea with maybe a focus on the cultural differences between the nations and the personal perspective on each other before the confederation was formed maybe.
@@MalcolmPLI would love to see a film about Iron Jacket!
Malcolm, Thanks for sharing your viewpoint...strongly supported with historical facts.
I enjoy your longer form content. Merci.
Halfway through your video, and I really appreciate your perspective here. This movie was garbage.
You are absolutely right about why the Comanche were chosen to be the bad guys.
The Outlaw Josey Wales, and even Jeremiah Johnson, have better portrayals of Native peoples, imo.
Thanks for saving me 133 minutes.
I only saved you 112 minutes.
@@MalcolmPL I don't count your presentation in the calculations，as it was interesting, like all your content.
Never saw this movie, and it sounds like I wasn't missing much.
Any thoughts on the Horizon?
Haven't seen it.
As someone who did consider this one of my favourite films, I thank you for highlighting some of the tropes I overlooked (probably by me not being an Indian myself).
Personally I thought the violence was necessary for the story especially as the two (White American) characters end up changing / succumbing to their ways.
Perhaps Christian should have survived only because they killed his depressed (and remorseful) companion and having those both two die might not work narratively.
Definitely should have given a larger role to an Indian however. And thanks to your video I look on the ending as horrible compared to how I felt about it before.
As a non native, thank you for this. I learned as I listened to you.
I would be really interested in how you see the role of white and native people in pop-cultural products such as red dead redemption 2?
I haven't played red dead 2. I don't have the free time these days for hundred hour plus games.
I haven't seen this film, but I appreciate your opinion on it. I have a large portion of Scandinavian heritage, and I also don't appreciate how "vikings" are often portrayed in the media, although it is a very different issue compared to Native Americans.
Maybe you cover this in another video, but what is the structural difference between U.S. reservations and Canadian reserves?
It's very complicated and many of the differences are legal stuff that I don't really understand, but to simplify, they arise out of a different governmental process, a different history and have different rules.
To give a bit of detail, I'll go over some of the differences that I think are significant.
A U.S. reservation is a piece of land held by a federally recognized Indigenous group. A Canadian reserve is a piece of land held by the Crown that is set apart for the benefit of a specific group in perpetuity.
Significant areas of Indigenous held land in Canada are not reserves. Nunavut being the prime example, while In the U.S. all significant parcels of indigenous land are reservations.
U.S. reservations were usually imposed as a condition of peace following a war, sometimes in the beginning acting like a concentration camp for PoWs. Canadian reserves did not involve wars, but were established through the treaty process and shady/illegal dealing, usually with some sort of ongoing compensation offered for the surrendered land.
U.S. reservations allow non native people to own property, as such they often have a majority white population. Canadian reserves do not allow non natives to own land.
U.S. reservations have the casino loopholes. Canadian reserves do not. This leads to very different social issues.
There are several hundred reservations in the U.S. these tend to be large and out west with large sections of the eastern U.S. devoid of native people, this was due to forced relocation. This relocation did not occur in Canada and as such there are more than ten times as many reserves in Canada, these tend to be quite small and are peppered fairly evenly across the whole of the provinces.
What do you think about the movie Blood Quantum?
Haven't seen it.
@@MalcolmPL I ask because it's a Canadian movie that also tries some kind of equivalency, but it was written by a mi'kmaq author and the main characters are all indigenous Canadians. So I was wondering if that movie does it well in your eyes.
@@ChrissieBear I heard it's good, but I am not really a fan of zombie movies, so I didn't watch it.
My wife watched this film as part of an, "Indians on Film," course for her undergrad. Among ugly films, this one was so ugly I felt nauseous after fifteen minutes. You'd think a course where you watched movies for credit would have been a welcome change, but the other films were, 'The Searchers,' Disney's 'Pocahontas,' 'Little Big Man,' and Disney's animated classic, 'Peter Pan.'
A film I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on is the Predator-franchise flick, 'Prey.' French Canadians I've heard hate this movie for the French trappers, but given where it's set, the time period, and the indecipherable French I'd assumed it was a racist depiction of the Metis -- maybe on one of their Buffalo hunts making pemican for the HBC?
Unfortunately I haven't seen it.
Thank you for sharing these insights.
Crazy hearing you talk about the US east west divide like that....as an Englishman I've always felt that same filter applied to everyone who "settled" the Eastern states in the first place i.e the worst and most entitled people from over here wanting to go take something better off other people elsewhere. You've gotta allow some nuance, (with anything), not everyone was aware of what the colonies truly meant and conditions over here were atrocious for the poor, but damn.... the slavery conversation in England shows that people knew exactly what the situation with that was i.e evil, period. It wasn't "old timey" people who didn't know what murdering folk for their land or possessions meant. My roots are Cornish - a region that was preyed on by slavers for a long time before England pulled itself out of the dark ages and the abused became the abusers and industrialised the process - people love bringing that up as a 'whaddabout" ....but IMHO it's just another reason we should have known better. Did know better.
I’d like a good approximation of Tecumseh’s story in Hollywood. A really big budget and well written version of the amazing things he accomplished.
A film like that wouldn't do well. His story ends anticlimactically and badly.
People don't want nihilism, they want stories that either have a happy ending or at least a meaningful bad end or satisfying conclusion. They aren't interested in the version of star wars where luke is randomly hit by a stray shot and the rebellion fizzles out.
@@MalcolmPL true. Nobody wants a meaningless story. But I counter with Braveheart. It’s not like Scotland really won their absolute freedom after and because of William Wallace (who imo is a more controversial figure than Tecumseh). I think good writing could breathe a sense of hope into that story, or give people a different look at a real heroic figure who pretty much everyone respected. I know being more historically accurate than Braveheart is important, and portraying the real struggle is important, but I still think the general story of Tecumseh (while somewhat brief) is a good one to inspire audiences and filmmakers. Tecumseh inspired resistance but he also brought people together and uplifted them. Worthy of being considered a great man.
That example sort of illustrates my point, Wallace gets a martyrdom. He becomes a symbol which carries his allies forward. His war counts for something, Scotland temporarily regains it's independence, and in the long term persists as a country. Wallace doesn't get a happy ending, but he gets a meaningful one.
We compare. Tecumseh is struck by a stray bullet. His confederacy falls apart and is defeated. The Brits make a halfhearted attempt to have his goals honored in the treaty of Ghent, the Yanks reject those terms and they amount to nothing. The Shawnee lose their land and their political significance. For the next fifty years they are forcibly relocated multiple times as settlers push them further and further west. It is not a hopeful story, there is no meaningful ending. I have heard Tecumseh's story summarized as "all that hope, wasted."
The only way to make his story meaningful is to turn it into a Canadian patriotic story, which means ignoring a great deal of what Tecumseh actually stood for.
Let's get into the real issue, people are already turned off of "indian movies" because of their downer subject matter. The historical stories end in defeat and the modern stories are all about alcoholism. People hear "indian movie" and put it in the pigeon hole of "hurting movies that I don't want to see."
Consider "Killers of the Flower Moon." This movie was produced by the most prestigious living director and by all accounts turned out pretty good. It lost tens of millions of dollars. People didn't want to see it, I didn't want to see it, I've heard that story before with different instrumentation.
A movie like that is a risk, nobody but Scorsese would have been given a chance to make something like that, and now that it is a confirmed financial flop it is likely that no one will be given that chance again for a long long time.
@@MalcolmPL yeah def don’t give the Canadians credit for Tecumseh. Keep them in their place. You have me fairly convinced of your point, but I still want to make what little counter argument I have left.
I get your point about Wallace, even if Scotland never managed to remain proud and independent. Although, I have some major gripes about giving any of the credit to Wallace and not Robert I.
I often hear pedants of the highest order opining over old Stonewall Jackson. If it is possible to romanticize that idiot, who got shot by his own men in formation, then it should be possible to romanticize one of the greatest leaders of men this continent has ever known. Stonewall doesn’t have his own movie (thank goodness), but I would direct you to: Saving Private Ryan, We Were Soldiers, Platoon, Black Hawk Down, Fury - all movies where a main protagonist is killed by indirect fire.
I think the most powerful thing a movie can do is to get the audience to consider the what ifs. What if Lincoln hadn’t been shot. What if Hitler had been assassinated. What if Commodus had been killed by a gladiator. What if the Spartacus slave revolt had succeeded? What if the US never invaded Iraq? - none of these alternate realities need to really be shown to make the audience envision them.
I understand how you yourself can be down on the idea of a successful and historically justifiable “indian movie”. I really do. However, to compare “Killers of the Flower Moon” to the movie I am proposing doesn’t seem quite right. People were incredibly confused about what “Killers of the Flower Moon” was about before it was even out. I think the subject material really didn’t give it a chance in box offices here, and it wasn’t flashy enough for our modern attention spans.
I would never want to halfa** a movie about Tecumseh, and so I would not back down on the large budget. I think it would just have to be something that gets built up through word of mouth and through various algorithms before dropping the epic trailer. I am surprised at the amount of content concerning Tecumseh online, and most of it is recent. Tecumseh is used as a name for both places and organizations in the US. Tecumseh has an exciting story, which is entirely redeemable because his downfall was entirely not his own doing.
I agree that it probably won’t get made. If only because I feel that other issues are weighing down the headspace in Hollywood. However, I still feel that it could be fairly controversial, thought provoking, flashy, inspiring, and popular if it could be made. What’s more, I see a need for such a movie, even if other people do not.
@@toniwilson6210 Just a small point, but when you say this:
"I get your point about Wallace, even if Scotland never managed to remain proud and independent."
I think you very much underestimate the massive discrepancy between the Scottish and the Native american cases which Malcolm PL pointed to. This "never managed to remain" makes it sound as if the English won permanently when Wallace died.
But of course in reality within a few years of his death Scotland was an independent Kingdom again and then remained that for another 400 years before it fusioned into one of the greatest powers in world history, with Scots an integral part of conquering something like a third of the entire planet. And while it is absolutely true that the '45 and the clearances brutally destroyed a part of traditional Scottish culture and society, not only did that happen 450 to 500 years after William Wallace's death, but it was also done by a combination of the English and lowland Scots; the latter's culture remained, with Scotland retaining its own legal and educational system even after the union of 1707 and up to this very day.
If you compare that to the history of pretty much any native American group I think you can see why MalcolmPL is right to emphasize the significance of these differences.
would love to see an epic biopic of Kancamagus especially during king williams war - or Madockawando during the same era - one that shows the numerous victories of the Wabanaki Confederacy at the time, and how for many native people the end result was favorable to them for generations - a movie about native people post-contact that doesn't end with: "and they all died except for a few who are on reservations and sad etc."
On a side note:
I think many people now tend to view the history of Native people as a sudden collapse. especially on the east coast that history tends to be glossed over, as they all died of smallpox in a generation - the end. But I feel as that couldn't be further from the truth. the entire 17th and 18th centuries were filled with active conflicts and movements involving numerous peoples resulting in significant effects to the standard model of history taught in schools today (at least in America circa 2010 lol) - which is 1620 english come, 1640 basically everyone gets smallpox and dies... I just wish schools would teach this history - it's important even to people with no Native ancestry, as it effects the settlement of New England to this day in where different early populations of colonists settled.
Malcolm says repeatedly "It gets worse" and then methodically shows how it does, in fact, get worse.
oof yeah that sounds insufferable. I saw you respond to comment that people are so starved of represantation that they gave it positive attention. I certainly agree that there is not enough content covering the lifes of native americans in a faithful way. To the point that for a homework project for game design I came up with a setting trying my best to include a fair representation just so the idea is put out there.
I by no way can calim authenticity as I am german. But your channel and my girlfriend who is algonquin made me very interested in the history of native people.
Know that I look forward to the day I can lead a project where I get to involve people to get their stories out there.
Cause all culture cann be beautiful. There is so much humans have to share.
Anyways a little ramble, nothing much. Just wanted to spread good vibes.
Infuriating to hear the way it goes on with these portrayals.
They are reinforced attempts to solidify the same-old.
You keep saying "...but it gets worse!"
Which I love, because, of course it does.
Ending with scoop-babies (again!) hits raw nerves w me.
Commentary appreciated, insightful on the craft as well.
I think all your points are especially needed, as I happen across more PBS-style fare presenting a "both-sided" narrative where the same justification system is really the pitch, and invariably the indigenous perspective (often curated, to be sure) is focused on "taking one for the team" or having genuinely internalized traumas so that colonizer reasons can be borne by the current settler generation onward.
I just can't.
Thankyou.
I disagree with like 70% of what you've said here but it's interesting to see this perspective on the movie. I for one enjoyed it, I do enjoy it, and I will continue to enjoy it. It sort of seems like you expected this movie to give the proper due diligence of historical and moral context, when that was never the objective. If you come into this movie not knowing any history of western expansion, yes! It easily comes across as a very racist message! But I think this film was made for people who already know at least a little about the truths of western expansion. It seems to me like they tried to go for a morally gray and bleak approach to what really was a morally gray and bleak era, and I suppose it just didn't land.
Some points(in random, nonspecific order) addressing some of your points:
- Battle of Wounded Knee is what mainstream Americans mostly called it. That's what it was reported as, that's what it was called by many(especially unapologetic, like the protagonist) racists wanting to defend their actions and dehumanize their prey, and that's how the white American public eye saw it. It's a historically accurate representation that's *SUPPOSED* to contradict reality. Most of the viewers of this film will know about the Wounded Knee Massacre and they'll know the absurdity of calling it a battle.
- I very much agree with your points about the setting of the film in the 1890s and using the Comanche as the only Native Americans that mainstream Western culture is still okay with demonizing. I think they set it in the 1890s *explicitly* to have the shadow of Wounded Knee over the premise. But there were plenty of other Native massacres in the era you mentioned- the 1840s. It would be interesting to see the film set then, and also in a region where the Comanche actually were. Or, better yet, not use the Comanche, and explicitly use some other group that mainstream Western society *isn't* okay with demonizing. To make things REALLY morally conflicting for a viewer. I think it'd improve the accuracy and overall quality a lot.
- I agree with most of what you brought up about the "all the indians die at the end" trope, but I think the pointless deaths were meant to be more of the heavy-hitting gritty deaths that are just there to make you sad and remember that the stakes are high. It's a very valid bit of writing but the fact that it's, once again, done with the native characters is pretty obnoxious. Although I do like how most(all, I believe? Haven't watched it in a year or so) of the army soldiers tagging along also die.
- I don't think the ending gunfight was meant to be his redemptive moment. His redemptive moment is at the end when he hops onto the train. It's not an "I'm going to fight alongside the Indians" moment, it's just "I'm going to get into a gunfight". At least that's how I interpreted it.
interesting points though!
i did find this interesting,
Never heard of this movie before, guess i won't see it.
would be cool to see more movie reviews.
Do you like the movie dancing with wolves?
Fwiw I think Adam Beech is a star and is very charismatic on screen. He might have been too good looking for Hollywood even.
I wish we had more original content made by people the content is about and not by movie producers angle shooting algorithms and avoiding any risk.
I like dances with wolves a lot. It's got some issues, but none of them are severe. It tried it's best and mostly succeeded.
@@MalcolmPL I agree. Ty for the reply
Middle aged white guy, I can't imagine how frustrating it is to have your story told badly, so I won't try. Keep doing what you can, I learn a bit from your efforts. I love how you put on your best clothes and find a nice location to film😊, seriously the presentation is both honest and refreshing. Thanks for the content.
Pine trees are dropping pollen like crazy this year, it was only about 50 feet from the house to the shed and I arrived looking like I'd been digging around in the attic all morning.
Should note before saying this I haven't watched the movie. On the ending, I've always had some dislike for the idea of someone "redeeming" themselves through a self-sacrificing act, especially of violence. Well, on the one hand, selflessness and self-sacrifice are good things more often than not, and usually are they not bad things. On the other hand, there's an element of vanity in this sort of trope, isn't there? As in, by just this one dramatic selfless act (as opposed to living your entire life trying to do as much good as possible), the character with a dark past can consider himself redeemed, and forgive himself. When you described the ending, I thought to myself that if I made the movie, and were senseless enough to make everything the same way except the ending, I would have Christian Bale end the movie as a complete emotional wreck for his attempt at redemption backfiring in the worst possible way. That would be a pretty bleak and nihilistic ending, but then again I did like No Country for Old Men.
" Well, on the one hand, selflessness and self-sacrifice are good things more often than not"
That's what people who want to manipulate others and use them as tools like to teach. In the real world, there is no "good" and no "evil". There is no "redemption", nor does it's opposite, damnation, exist. Morality is fake BS, and everyone can do anything they want.
Do you have an opinion if there should be a film about Mary Jemisen?
I don't care as long as they handle it tactfully.
my personal thoughts are this:
I think the modern american sense of morality is unequipped to grapple with the concept of “X group of people are under active occupation and genocide, and they are rightfully fighting back in any way they can”.
this is an issue that extends to the characterization of enslaved people in the Americas. to be fair, most people in the US learn about history when they’re around 15 years old, when they’re rather unequipped to deal with nuance, or the idea that their home country was founded and funded through genocide. still, the characterization of “slave rebellions” in US history textbooks tends to simplify down to “violence bad”. like you said, the violence of colonization is presented as equivalent to the actions of colonization’s victims.
as somebody with only a basic knowledge of the many relevant subjects (history, philosophy, modern discourse regarding historical analysis, etc.), i’m sure my analysis of this is incomplete, and poorly formulated. anybody’s thoughts on the issue would be appreciated.
I don't have much to counter it with, but I struggle to accept the statement "the modern american sense of morality is unequipped to grapple with...". I kind of think about it this way, while I agree that there clearly isn't a moral equivalency between colonisation/slavery and the violent resistances to them. But that logically leads to the conclusion that, morally, it would have been far preferable if these resistances had succeeded, i.e that indigenous peoples retained their full original independence, sovereignty and territory from the colonisers, and that the entire slave population successfully emancipated themselves much earlier than the actual occurrence of emancipation. I think we can agree that if these things happened, America today in that reality would not even begin to resemble the America today in our reality, not to mention the European/white population of America would be much smaller if not negligible. Most white Americans alive today would not have been born, nor their parents or grandparents, and we are saying this would be the morally preferable reality. All this to say, I just find it really hard to believe that anybody, anywhere would simply accept such a premise without strong pushback, even if they morally ought to. It's a real shock to one's ego/identity to accept something like this, isn't it?
Those are my thoughts for whatever they are worth. I believe most people intuitively think this, though it's not something people would express often due to cognitive dissonance. Should also mention I am Anglo Australian and therefore in exactly the same boat as Anglo Americans on this subject, so probably biased in one way or another.
@@cf-yg4bd we’re all biased; as long as you acknowledge it, your perspective is still a valuable piece of the puzzle.
i’m white-passing, but my education and the subcultures i have participated in have certainly shaped my bias as well.
its difficult for me to suggest that i know what is “morally preferable/superior”. it feels rather naive to claim that my sense of morals won’t seem archaic after a few years of discourse. so, i don’t think i can argue that the “parallel timeline” in which the Americas were never colonized would be the “morally preferable outcome”. (however, if pressed that’s the position i would take. i personally think that’s not incredibly radical by modern standards; its along the lines of “the industrial revolution was a disaster for the human race.”).
i can say, though, that the prospect of nonexistence doesn’t scare me as much as it seems to scare others. maybe it should scare me? but there are so many permutations of reality, and i really only exist in one of them.
this is certainly based on my (unique?) perspectives on metaphysics.
what strikes me immediately is:
1. we feel anguish about us “losing” our existence, but not about those who have already lost it. this is the nature of our reality “existing” and other realities “not existing”. i don’t think we should throw our sense of ethics out the window, simply because of metaphysics (the people who DO exist should not make sacrifices for the lives of people who COULD exist - they *should* make sacrifices for *others who DO exist*). but, i’m not offended by the idea that “global carbon emissions would be lower if colonialism (and therefore my reality) never existed”. i don’t think the two ideas are mutually exclusive: i am simultaneously fighting for my own existence, and admitting that, had i never existed, things would probably be better. i’ve been given an opportunity i don’t necessarily deserve, but i’m willing to make the most of it. furthermore, anguishing over my privilege isn’t helpful for anybody. so, i find it a good idea to mull over this dichotomy, keep it in present in my mind, but don’t let it hold me back.
2. colonization (and to a larger extent, capitalism) is a huge can of worms. its hard to “undo” any of it without (at least temporarily) causing an even bigger mess. this is part of the design, part of why capitalists were able to take power. but throwing my hands up, and saying “it would all be too much work” would be admitting defeat, and i refuse to do that.
tl;dr: as much as i agree with its conclusion, i think the argument of “colonialism should have never existed” is not the best use of time. we’re in this mess, whether we like it or not.
i would argue that colonialism, as it exists in our reality, should be dismantled (not implying you’re disagreeing with that).
i’m arguing “it’s a shame reality is the way it is; as the benefactors of that reality, we should make sacrifices to shape our reality to be more egalitarian, and to support the most vulnerable (especially if those sacrifices only amount to an “ego check”); this is because humans work best when they support each other: by making up for each others’ weakness, we together are stronger”.
@@yourhighschoolenglishteach8405 I think I pretty much agree with everything you said and I wasn't actually trying to comment on speculative "would it be better if x had happened" kind of stuff, sorry if that wasnt clear. I was basically trying to comment on why I think a person not only could, but would be likely to simultaneously hold contradictory moral opinions. Specifically, to believe that genocide, stealing people's land by force, and slavery are evil enough that any violent resistance to them is justified, and at the same time not really feel the same way when it applies to violent resistance to American slavery and colonisation, etc. Or at least, that was more or less my stance on Australian/American colonialism at one point, and I think that cognitive dissonance is the main reason for me having taken that stance.
Embarrassing that they gave Wes Studi nothing to do a full 18 years after Mystery Men nailed it perfectly: "What's his power?" "Well, he's terribly mysterious!"
yeah, I saw that film. in the end all I thought was "well that was a bunch of stuff".
Exactly!
Surely you know that many white immigrants in the 1800s were told that there were not many "Indians" left and the ones that left were mostly peaceable. I'm not saying this was always the case but often it was the whites'sheer ignorance that got them killed..... And theft. Would you be willing to share your thoughts on the movie "Black Robe" ? I love this dark movie and every time I watch it I wonder what the Cool Mohawk guy (you) thinks of it.
🎉
Your rant forced me to watch this film again. As I listened to you I knew I watched it before but couldn't recall much of it... and now I know why: it actually doesn't make much sense. Starting from first scene, are you telling me that that family was alone on native land long enough to build such a large house, but now is the first time they face natives and immediately start shooting, knowing they are f*cked? Was the dude really thinking he can defend his property with a single gun? It didn't have to be Comanches, any white bandits could have taken them with ease and country was full of such bandits.
Yes, I believe film was meant to present the view where everyone is equal, that there are savages in every group of people, but what they show is that at the end the "whites" are the only real civilized. Heck, the boy should have stayed with his own people at the end, that would be the correct move, possibly change the tone of the film.
Hope you agree. I wish we could talk directly.....
Good commentary, certainly wouldn't mind seeing more movie opinions on the channel.
(I do really like No Country though, bleak as it may be)
No country might be the most nihilistic film I've ever seen. If memory serves all the destruction is caused by offering a wounded man a drink of water.
@@MalcolmPL (Spoilers for No Country for Old Men)
Yes and no, I think you could also argue that it's caused by him taking the money in the first place, especially given that the briefcase turned out to have a GPS tracker in it. That's not to say of course that it still isn't one of the bleaker films out there, and probably one of the more nihilistic films too though I'm not 100% sure about that.
Funny to see it come up in this video since my initial impression just from the non native perspective was that it was racist drivel that made me uncomfortable from the trailer footage alone. The only other film that invoked such a sensation me from the trailer alone was that even more racist film with the 'cave men' native americans that were cannibals, whatever it was called. Everything I've read and heard of Hostiles just reinforces the opinion my gut reaction formed.
In addition from the trailer footage my immediate thoughts were just it's part of this 'neo western' wave where the violence is dialed up to 11 to the point where it becomes a grotesque revelry of gut spilling for gut spilling's sake, where all other elements are phoned in as all revolves around the spectacle produced.
I think the film you're thinking of was "bone tomahawk."
That movie sucks, but at least it knows that it's dumb exploitative schlock and is a little bit satirical with it.
@@MalcolmPL Yeah that was it, name rings a bell. I'm kinda surprised though something like that could even get greenlit these days, feels like it'd be drek you'd see produced in the 80's rather than now. Besides what you already featured in the december playlist, what were good native focused period dramas you'd recommend anyway?
@@wyattw9727 I don't really have any recommendations. I'm not a connoisseur.
I haven't seen most of what's out there, and most of what I have seen I haven't watched since I was a kid, and so remember nothing.
I saw it once, but now I have to see it again through your eyes. Click -> download....
Interesting. I have not seen the film in its entirety, just a few short clips and yes, it does look cinematically great. Amazing how we are able to skim over the deep meaning of films. It had some very big names in acting too. Ah, what a little perspective can do.
You’re right. It is pretty crazy that people try to find equivalence in the acts of the invaded defending their home and the invaders. If I go into someone’s house and decide their living room is mine, that does not make the homeowner a villain for trying to get me out or give us both equal right to the room.
There is no such thing as "villains", you infant. There is only the strong and the weak, and victors and losers. Morals are a farce.
@@accelerationquanta5816 Lol loser fascist. You're a caricature.
Since the American Indian holocaust was actually a model for the creator of the holocaust of WW2 it is not a wrong comparison to just ask the question if the same cinmatic treatment would also be regarded acceptable in a movie about that part of history.
Imagine a "tragically good Germans got caught up in the mistakes commited against innocent while fulfiling their destiny to save Europe from Stalin but their time was over anyway" narrative
There’s an alternate reality where Schindler’s List is that movie
You make me imagine a film set in 1950s Germany which opens with the Jews pillaging German farmsteads.
It was the Soviet film/literature/textbook depiction of the resistance movements in the various countries they occupied.
You mean “the boy In the stripped pyjamas” cause that movie basically exists.
@@MalcolmPL The propaganda defaming Sinti & Roma, "gypsies", was probably closer to that against indigenous people, typical "savages" stereotypes, "primitive people with romantic aspects but incapable to adapt to civilization and dangerous criminals by nature". In my early childhood there was sometimes a mouth-to-mouth alarm "gypsies are in the area" which meant to lock everything and to keep small children in the house... They are still treated as second class victims to this day
Thanks, I'll be sure to avoid it.
i disagree with you saying cowboys are always wrong ,but thats it
The reality is. This is what your average American thinks on the topic. They have the same paternalistic view that lead to the 60’s scoop. Thats the happy ending, the residential school. The happy integration.
If we are going to be fair though. It’s typically ignorance not hate.
Ok, I didn't even know this movie was a thing. I enjoyed your opinion, and I won't watch the film with what you had to say in mind!
Good video, excellent analysis.
I find it interesting how people will say of the Indian Wars that both sides committed terrible atrocities and so the whole situation is just morally grey. But then when looking at WW2, people will admit that both sides did terror bombing (which is a terrible atrocity), but they'll say Germany and Japan started it, so that makes massacring loads of civilians okay. If "they started it" is a sufficient justification, then the First Nations were justified in massacring white settlers in most of the Indian Wars. Of course, I don't think that's a sufficient justification, but I also realise I wasn't alive during those times, I didn't have to go through the things those people went through or face the kinds of choices they had to make, so my opinion on the matter doesn't count for much.
The mainstream American perspective (speaking as a Ukrainian) looks a lot like the Russian perspective on Eastern Europe. It's how the Russians in my city will talk about past conflicts. Yes, both sides, in ww1, WW2, and guerilla movements here, in the Baltics, Hungarian and Czech uprisings etc. all committed what can be considered atrocities, but the Russians will take the attitude of, well, they're humble honest people just compelled by circumstances, innocent of any moral responsibility even when it was them invading and conquering the whole of their neighbors, plus several countries beyond. Then, if any of those countries dares side with the Germans in the war (who often treated the locals much better and gave them guns, yes, for self interested reasons but especially pre-internet, in crises, people lived in their own situations), oh they're suddenly evil incarnate, how dare they fought against the progress of history, etc, and they never stop using it as a justification, even today, for anything and everything they want to do. Two 'frontier' societies, I suppose.
I actually never heard of this movie before today. Sounds like that's a good thing, better for it to not have gained any traction.
Yes, lest the movie help normalize such a propagandistic perspective.
You make some good points, but completely cast doubt on your sincerity in making them when it is revealed that you have no problem with the film doing the same thing that they did to Indians to poor American whites.
Hypocrisy like this makes me so angry.
If I have made you angry, then I apologize. I should have spoken more tactfully and deliberately. It is difficult to speak both clearly and succinctly at once on emotionally charged topics.
Also it wasn't very good.
Good rant.
Did I find this interesting? I found it fascinating. Thank you for your analysis of this 'film'.
i thought this was about the alsoawful, also racist film hostle 😂
this movie actually sounds worse somehow
Yea I agree, I watched the movie and it just seems stereotypical and boring
This movie sounds like a lot of revisionist garbage.
The title said what it said
killer soundtrack, love Max Richter
I watched it years back because I saw it had a good cast and I had heard it was an anti-racist take on the Western genre. I was really disappointed. I'm not nearly knowledgeable enough about the history it represents to have picked up on how deep its nonsense ran, but it was blatantly obvious that it completely sidelined every single indigenous character and wasted its cast's talents. The only characters that get any depth or development are the white people. That would be bad in any film, but in one that seemed so masturbatorily pleased with itself for 'both sidesing' the issues of colonialism and genocide, it was just gross.
I'm not usually attracted to these kinds of films but now I'll definitely avoid it. The ending in particular is a total turn-off.
Thx for the recommendation.
hello o.p your halitosis is visible. pls stop watching onion link porn and fix your pelvic tilt o.p. you are forgetting your wellbeing and your body is becoming rank and a biohazard. please get off your computer and turn yourself in to the authorities. thank you o.p.
Thanks for the warning.
XDDDDDD
@@candide1065 🐿💥💩⁉️