Author Topic: The Revenant  (Read 6718 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Ravi

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 4858
  • Respect: +79
Re: The Revenant
« Reply #15 on: December 28, 2015, 09:54:08 PM »
+2
http://birthmoviesdeath.com/2015/12/28/i-dont-care-how-hard-it-was-to-make-the-revenant

I Don’t Care How Hard It Was To Make THE REVENANT
Movies should be more than prestige episodes of JACKASS.
By Devin Faraci Dec. 28, 2015

If you follow entertainment news at all you know one thing for sure about The Revenant: it was very hard to make. It was apparently a major torture session and Leonardo DiCaprio ate a bison liver for real. It was also super duper cold out there. Talking to Yahoo, Leonardo DiCaprio said:

“I can name 30 or 40 sequences that were some of the most difficult things I’ve ever had to do. Whether it’s going in and out of frozen rivers, or sleeping in animal carcasses, or what I ate on set. [I was] enduring freezing cold and possible hypothermia constantly.”

He says that shooting the bear attack scene was 'agonizing.' One crewmember told the Hollywood Reporter that shooting the movie was 'a living hell.' Every day I look at the internet and I see similar stories about how much Leo suffered for this role, about how hard it was to make the film, about the difficult locations and bitter cold and the maniacal vision of director Alejandro González Iñárritu that took the movie over budget and over schedule. And every day I look at these articles and tweets and I think to myself, 'Who gives a shit?'

Honestly, who gives a shit? This is all very interesting from a trivia point of view, and I would love to see a documentary about the making of this movie (apparently Iñárritu's desire to shoot with purely natural light meant that some days they could only shoot for 90 minutes, which is a totally fucking insane way to make a movie) but the constant harping on how hard it was to make The Revenant has really overshadowed the movie that is The Revenant. Is there even a movie here, or is the film just the byproduct of a particularly masochistic film crew spending some time in the woods?

Movies have always been hard to make. Directors have always gone out to weird places to shoot and have gone over budget and been crazily extreme in their attempts to get their vision on film. Cecil B DeMille built a whole city in the desert to shoot The Ten Commandments way back in 1923, and conditions there were not great. Over the years many filmmakers have gone out to difficult and desolate places to make their films, and while these tales of hardship are fascinating they don't overshadow the movies themselves. Fitzcarraldo and Apocalypse Now were insane, dangerous movies to make ("My movie isn't about Vietnam," Francis Ford Coppola said. "It is Vietnam.") but the films themselves stand apart from the bonkers behind-the-scenes tales. Yes, I love watching The Burden of Dreams and Hearts of Darkness, but they're complementary to the films, not the main reason for the films.

Hollywood has always wanted you to know that they've gone to a great effort to make the latest blockbuster. These days we tend to hear about huge FX budgets and difficult schedules pinned to release dates, but way back when it was all about casts of thousands and dangerous stunts. Tom Cruise still dines out on that one, making a really big deal about how he's actually hanging from a plane or the Burj Khalifa or Wiz Khalifa or whatever they come up with for Mission: Impossible 6. "We worked really hard to put on this show," is what we're being told whenever PR trots this stuff out. And that's certainly part of why we're hearing over and over and over again that The Revenant was tough to make. But there are other reasons.

The emphasis on how hard The Revenant was to make is partially about a departure from the digital. It's the same reason The Hateful Eight's 70mm run is such a discussion point - it's about tactile reality returning to our movie screens. The promise of The Revenant is that the crew went there and did those things, and that Leo is having those experiences. It's intended as a shortcut to truth - "He actually was in the freezing water so you're truly seeing what a guy who grew up in the bubble of Hollywood looks like when he gets very, very cold!" - and it's intended as a counter to all of the CGI fakery that infects our theaters this days... although the whole movie is color graded and post-production fiddled with to within an inch of its life, so any idea that this movie is somehow more analog than Star Wars: The Force Awakens is a farce. And as anyone who has ever watched a profound movie shot on a soundstage, really doing the things doesn't make their depiction any more truthful. I will always support films that shoot real things, but let's not get that confused with emotional honesty, which is the true mission of all cinema.

The difficulty narrative is also part of Leonardo DiCaprio's Oscar campaign. Going the martyr route is a good choice when it comes to end-of-the-year awards, as actors who gain or lose weight or ugly themselves up or walk in a limp get taken way more seriously than actors who come in, do great and emotionally truthful work and then go home for the night. But I'm not interested in Leo's Oscar chances. I don't care about them. I care about the movie The Revenant, and what it's about, and how, if at all, the arduous process of making this movie informed the film, how it in any way impacts me as an audience member.

The reality is that it doesn't. If anything it kind of sinks the movie for me; when you watch Apocalypse Now the absolute swirling madness of that production is there onscreen, in the performances, in the atmosphere. But it's a movie about madness, so it all works. When you watch The Revenant you're very aware that you're watching a stunt show, that you're watching a high-profile, highly-paid actor putting himself through some dares. When DiCaprio eats a raw bison liver he vomits, which the actor says was his true reaction to biting into the actual steaming organ. But here's the thing: would that have been mountain man Hugh Glass' reaction? Watching The Revenant is like watching Leonardo DiCaprio's Very Bad Vacation, not like watching the survival saga of a man born to the wild. There is certainly physical reality onscreen but I'm not sure there's emotional truth. Weirdly enough Tom Cruise's high profile M:I stunts feel like they have more truth to them if only because the character of Ethan Hunt is just Tom Cruise with a nom du spy, as far as we can tell. It's bizarre, but Cruise hanging off a plane in Mission: Impossible Rogue Nation has more honesty and meaning to it than every single discomfort suffered by DiCaprio in The Revenant.

I keep thinking about our great dueling Jesus pictures, The Last Temptation of Christ and The Passion of The Christ. Both look to the suffering of Jesus for meaning, but the two films approach that suffering from totally different ways. For Scorsese the suffering of Christ wasn't being nailed to the cross (although that did suck for him), it was being shown the life he could have if he just gave up the mantle of Messiah. The suffering of Willem DaFoe's Christ is an emotional one, and it's a suffering that makes Christ all the more human, as we can truly relate to the idea of giving up our dreams for something bigger or more important. We've all known what it's like to put duty before happiness. In The Passion of the Christ Jim Caviezel's Christly suffering is almost purely physical; while I can get that on a gut level (just as I can recoil at all slasher and splatter pictures) I can't truly relate to being relentlessly flogged. Emotional torture I get. Physical torture is distant.

The Revenant is The Passion of the Christ of wilderness survival movies. Yeah, it all looks cold and tough and man Leo really puked but I want the emotional truth. And there is emotional truth on display in The Revenant, it just isn't in Leo's performance. It's in the performance of Will Poulter, playing a kid who is forced to do the wrong thing and who suffers the tortures not of cold and discomfort but of guilt. There's more emotional agony in any of Poulter's scenes that in anything DiCaprio does while dunked, beaten or vomiting. It's too bad that Poulter is being ignored while everybody is spending so much time talking about how Leonardo DiCaprio couldn't even find a single gluten-free option way out there in the woods.

Alexandro

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 1731
  • Respect: +455
Re: The Revenant
« Reply #16 on: December 29, 2015, 09:19:24 AM »
+1
Wow. That paragraph about Mission Impossible and Tom Cruise is like The Revenant of hyperbole or whatever.

Haven't seen The Revenant, it looks pretty great. But I recently saw "Letter never sent", the russian film from the guy who made I Am Cuba, which has to be one of The Revenant's major influences. Catch it and see for yourselves.

Tictacbk

  • The Magic Flight
  • ****
  • Posts: 655
  • Respect: +171
Re: The Revenant
« Reply #17 on: December 29, 2015, 11:40:51 AM »
+1
Is there any response to have to this article besides "uh... okay?" Somebody should probably tell the author that this is what twitter is for, not 1000 word articles.

TL;DR: dude didn't like DiCaprio's performance. And while he claims to not care about how hard it was to make, he might care more than anyone else in the world.

diggler

  • The Return Threshold
  • ****
  • Posts: 903
  • Respect: +63
Re: The Revenant
« Reply #18 on: December 29, 2015, 02:44:09 PM »
0
Devin really really really didn't like The Revenant and he will use all the hyperbole it takes to elaborate on it, okay? He did the same with Birdman. I think Inarritu took his lunch money.

This article could've been summed up in one paragraph with a different title: "Studios will embrace any marketing hook that wins them Oscars."
I'm not racist, I'm just slutty

Jeremy Blackman

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 10487
  • Respect: +1098
Re: The Revenant
« Reply #19 on: December 29, 2015, 03:03:33 PM »
0
Devin Faraci has been a guest on The X-Files Files a lot. He always has interesting things to say, but something about him rubs me the wrong way. He likes to pick fights with Gamergate people, so I guess he can't be all bad. There's definitely an immaturity about him, though.
"Hunger is the purest sin"

cronopio2

  • The Road of Trials
  • **
  • Posts: 83
  • Respect: +35
Re: The Revenant
« Reply #20 on: December 29, 2015, 03:23:02 PM »
0
i liked that piece.

to me, this is more a problem of so few quality mainstream movies being released this year.
i can't believe there's so few movies to talk about with the year basically over.

Lottery

  • The Return Threshold
  • ****
  • Posts: 905
  • You're Dead!
  • Respect: +412
Re: The Revenant
« Reply #21 on: December 29, 2015, 07:51:38 PM »
0

Haven't seen The Revenant, it looks pretty great. But I recently saw "Letter never sent", the russian film from the guy who made I Am Cuba, which has to be one of The Revenant's major influences. Catch it and see for yourselves.

Full upload on youtube. Goddamn, it's a very pretty film.

Gold Trumpet

  • The Master of Three Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 5755
  • Respect: +133
Re: The Revenant
« Reply #22 on: December 29, 2015, 09:18:36 PM »
0
Mikhail Kalatozov is extremely influential for today's filmmakers. I Am Cuba is recognizable because of the specific tracking shots that have been referenced in other famous films, but Letter Never Sent is a perfect embodiment of I think what The Revenant will try to be - a film naturalistic to the movement of characters in wilderness and how a horror situation overwhelms all the characters and how the filmmaking perfectly adapts to the madness of their psyche. How Kalatozov pulled off some shots in Letter Never Sent, I don't know, because technology aids filmmakers so much more today, but still, the modern imagination was there in his films.

03

  • SBD
  • ***
  • Posts: 1700
  • positive energy;
  • Respect: +452
Re: The Revenant
« Reply #23 on: January 01, 2016, 02:45:17 AM »
0
spoilers


the bear nest will go down in history as one of those scenes that you hold onto regardless of the way you feel about the film overall. its horrifying. and the way it is executed baffles me.

the rest of the film was ridiculous.
his injuries were not equal to what happened to him nor the way he was acting.
in real life, hugh glass was basically skinned and ridden with maggots and they had to sew bear skin onto him, which was an amazing ironic thing they left out. leo's back looked like a briar patch accident considering bears basically have machetes for claws. irl hugh glass' guts were hanging out. also, he didn't have a son, the only reason he went to get that guy was because they left him for dead. that was it. he was just pissed. anyway, i appreciate the effort they put into it, they pulled off something truly phenomenal that i just had personal disagreements with.

RegularKarate

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 5977
  • Respect: +168
    • http://www.livejournal.com/users/regularkarate/
Re: The Revenant
« Reply #24 on: January 13, 2016, 12:58:53 PM »
+2
I have to come back to this message board sometimes just for a sanity check.
I had been avoiding this movie because I knew my opinion would divide my friends and I. I hated Birdman so much and as a result got literally screamed at by friends.
I didn't HATE this movie, but holy fucking shit is it being undeservedly praised. If this had been an hour and a half, I would have said "oh, what a pretty movie, cool bear fight, what else is showing?"
But 2 1/2 hours felt like four.

Also, I really like Devin Faraci. Now that The Dissolve is gone, Devin is my only link to reviews that almost always line up with my taste. I know he sometimes goes for the throat when unnecessary, but when he's not doing that or kind of over-praising Marvel movies, he has insight and passion.


Lottery

  • The Return Threshold
  • ****
  • Posts: 905
  • You're Dead!
  • Respect: +412
Re: The Revenant
« Reply #25 on: January 13, 2016, 05:17:32 PM »
0
I quite liked the film. Strangely enough, my liking of the film is primarily based on the craft and each scene moment-to-moment. The actual plot and thematic content (while weaved into the film from the start) almost seemed a little perfunctory rather than anything meaningful. Sometimes it felt like the craft/Lubezki's work was the substance- to some degree I didn't mind, because Lubezki did it so damn well and at other times it did feel a bit hollow.

I'm not gonna remember this film as the harrowing story about a man's survival, the loss of his family and his subsequent vengeance- the way it was intended to be seen. I'll remember it as that incredibly pretty, ambitious, visceral and intense film. Because that's what registered with me. And despite its failings, I guess I really did enjoy the experience. Experience films are very important.

Also, while this hit some very sweet spots with the whole violent Western thing, Inarritu doesn't deserve Blood Meridian.

BB

  • The Vision Quest
  • **
  • Posts: 196
  • Respect: +88
Re: The Revenant
« Reply #26 on: January 14, 2016, 11:04:01 PM »
0
Y'all are the best.

Spoilers.

i appreciate the effort they put into it, they pulled off something truly phenomenal that i just had personal disagreements with.

Yup. And here are my disagreements: less dialogue, better dialogue, less music, better music, no Domhnall (a talented comic actor though), no eyebrows kid (Leo already has a kid, why do we need this other kid? why is this character in the film? do we need this canteen with the swirly on it? why can't Leo just stumble all the way back to the fort? wouldn't this be better? frenchman said it was only 13 miles, I digress), less runtime. Also, the frightening scale, the vastness of nature, kinda undermined by his constantly running into people. Imagine Leo's just alone for most of the post-bear times and we cut all the Tom Hardy and eyebrows heading back to camp stuff. I know I shouldn't judge the movie for what it's not, but you dig?

Magic Mike XXL still my #1 of the year. Got a few to catch up on.


Jeremy Blackman

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 10487
  • Respect: +1098
Re: The Revenant
« Reply #27 on: January 19, 2016, 01:36:01 PM »
+1
I liked this way more than I expected to. Kinda loved it, actually.

SPOILERS

There's a simplicity about it that I appreciated. I think revenge stories are best done that way.

The interpersonal interaction was limited enough, and the general human conflict was pervasive enough, that the gestures of compassion were quite powerful. The conditions and circumstances are so harsh that you're just aching for people to get along, and when it actually happens in those brief moments, it's so moving. This (and less the revenge itself) was my takeaway.

The bear attack was absolutely mindblowing. Yes, I was surprised that his skin wasn't completely shredded off, but I think they did focus more on the pummeling and the bone-breaking. I would certainly say he seemed to be suffering enough after the attack.

I have trouble understanding complaints about the film's length. Perhaps it's because I was in for a punishing experience, but I could have easily taken another 30 minutes. While The Hateful Eight felt even longer than its actual running time, I wasn't particularly aware of the passage of time watching this. There's so much beauty constantly; how could you not want more?

Trying to think of things that actually bothered me, and I have to be honest, I'm mostly coming up empty.

Some of Tom Hardy's lines were a bit on-the-nose. But that makes sense for his character.

It did puzzle me how crowded the vast wilderness seemed to be. I suppose that can be explained, though; this is a high-traffic trade route, and there are a lot of people looking for other people at the moment.

Side note: I think either Leo's complaints have been blown out of proportion, or he's done some clarification, because this is what he's said recently:

"I think certainly the conditions that we had to shoot in were the main thing, the freezing cold temperatures. But everyone that was a part of this movie – including myself – knew from the very onset that we were getting involved in something that was going to be incredibly challenging." (source)
"Hunger is the purest sin"

Jeremy Blackman

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 10487
  • Respect: +1098
Re: The Revenant
« Reply #28 on: January 19, 2016, 03:28:51 PM »
0
SPOILERS

One more thing. Was just exchanging emails with my dad about this. He was mixed on the movie and wasn't able to get excited about the revenge. My response:

The Revenant undercuts the idea of revenge pretty strongly, doesn't it? His Indian friend tells him that revenge is best left to the creator, which he recalls and repeats before he pushes the still-alive Fitzgerald down the river. The movie even allows Fitzgerald to make the point that revenge won't bring his boy back. I think the title of the movie is a clue — the fact that he "returned" is more important than who died and when.
"Hunger is the purest sin"

RegularKarate

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 5977
  • Respect: +168
    • http://www.livejournal.com/users/regularkarate/
Re: The Revenant
« Reply #29 on: January 19, 2016, 03:50:37 PM »
0
Honestly, if this had been a straightforward revenge movie, I would have been super into it, but it felt like it was trying to be so goddamn more when it was so goddamn nuthin.
Obviously, this is just a matter of what you like because you were entertained the whole time and I wasn't.

There's so much beauty constantly; how could you not want more?
It's like a beautiful person approaching you at a party and at first you're like "fuck, they're so beautiful, I can't believe they're talking to me!" and then all they do is talk about how beautiful they are and won't fucking shut up about it and then you just want to find a way out.

 

DMCA & Copyright | Terms & Conditions | Privacy Policy