I know Redford is heavily involved in the Native American community, directing many films to reveal their plight and even founding sundance largely to aid them in making movies.
So why did he make such a seemingly Anti-Native American movie in Jeremiah Johnson?
How is this movie anti native american?? It shows the culture and how one naive white guy learns to live within it's rules. Lesson: he set out to escape rules and found a whole new set. Everything has rules. Nature has rules. Other cultures have rules. When Del and Bear Claw both make disparaging remarks about squaws, Jeremiah then learns with Swan the worth a woman-- he doesn't see her as "goods". He grows to love her. As for the Crows attacking his family, he learns the consequences of going into their sacred burial grounds, he knows he shouldn't have done it but dang, if his loyalty to humanity isn't put to the test with the stranded settlers.
He understands his mistake. BIG TIME. There is no "anti-Native American" here. Bob worked to perserve the culture and show life for those times. That whites encroached on their territory in the guise of soldiers and settlers-- and mountain men.
I don't see how this is anti-Native American either. It's about one man trying to find his place. He's not perfect, neither are the people around him. Some of the Native Americans are friendlier than others. Same with the white folks. In fact, if you had to pick a character as the least likeable it would definitely be the preacher. The Blackfeet (I think that's the tribe they were) who killed the Crazy Woman's family are probably the worst of the Native Americans in the movie. Most everyone else just does the best they can according to their own customs. I'd say it's pretty even-handed and the Native American are neither demonized or romanticized.
shareI agree with joanne-150. I've watched this movie a zillion times (I own the DVD) and it never occurred to me that this movie would be considered anti-Native American. On the contrary, when I first saw this film, many, many years ago, I was struck by how the Indians were portrayed as individuals and distinct tribes, unlike most prior Hollywood westerns. To me, this film seemed authentic....neither demonizing or romanticizing the Native Americans...just showing them as they were. This was made in 1972, nearly two decades before Costner's Dances with Wolves, Mann's Last of the Mohicans and many others made in the 90's. While these later films used more Native American actors and invested more effort in technical accuracy (culture, customs, clothing, weapons, etc.), they are also much more romantic visions of Native American life (although they do show the darker side as well). Many tribes became warrior-cultures after the introduction of the horse.....that's the way they were. Other cultures have other rules. Many people recoil in horror when they view another culture through the filter of their own. Redford's character had to learn the Indian's cultural rules. He broke one by crossing Crow burial grounds and his family paid the price. He exacted his revenge on the war party (just as the Indians would have done). But Johnson did not, as others have said, continue to kill the entire tribe. He was attacked or confronted by individual Indians (he did not attack them) precisely because he was viewed as a great warrior after taking his revenge. As Del Gue said near the end of the film "most injun tribes greatness is figured on how mighty it's enemies be". By killing Johnson they would prove their greatness.....a warrior-culture belief.
It shows the culture and how one naive white guy learns to live within it's rules. Lesson: he set out to escape rules and found a whole new set. Everything has rules. Nature has rules. Other cultures have rules. When Del and Bear Claw both make disparaging remarks about squaws, Jeremiah then learns with Swan the worth a woman-- he doesn't see her as "goods". He grows to love her. As for the Crows attacking his family, he learns the consequences of going into their sacred burial grounds, he knows he shouldn't have done it but dang, if his loyalty to humanity isn't put to the test with the stranded settlers.
He understands his mistake. BIG TIME.
Interestingly, I read the following on the TCM website: "The director and star felt their script still needed work and weren't sure how to pull all the narrative threads together. The biggest problem was that in the original story, the Crow attack against Johnson's family was unmotivated. True to the spirit of the times and their own consciences, Redford and Pollack agonized over how to motivate Johnson's killing spree without having it seem as if the Indians were merely savages who asked for it. Finally, Anhalt (screenwriter) came up with the idea of having Johnson unwillingly violate the burial ground."
Cheers
Good explanation, joanne-150.
shareI could not agree more with the last two posts. Anti-Native American never crossed my mind.
shareAll of your comments are accurate and you all make valid points.
However, my interpretation is directed more towards the excessive violence and killing that Jeremiah (Redford) partakes in (He was killing the Crow before his family was killed). I believe he physically kills near 30 different Crow Indians in the movie. The violent revenge message in this movie is more pronounced than anything (my opinion). The fact that this revenge is directed towards the Crow Indians and justifiably so in Jeremiah's mind (and therefore in the audience's mind too) overshadows the other messages.
My issue is that for someone who is so adamantly Pro Native-American, why partake in an excessively violent film that centers around their being eliminated. Had movie's been around during these times this movie could almost be perceived as Indian killing propaganda.
Would Steven Speilberg make a movie about the holocaust from the Nazi's point of view?..One with excessive violence. I doubt it.
[deleted]
dunste,
I think the violence was justified and made the movie good, however, my only issue is that Redford played this role.
I believe that the character just snapped. He'd been living in the mountains for lord knows how long and his family, the only people he'd had daily contact with for a long time, were killed. He knew who did it, so he killed them. After that, it was survival of the fittest. Kill or be killed. I'd say that Redford didn't see it as white man vs. Native American as much as he did animal vs. animal.
Thats just my opinion.
I don't think you all realize the efforts Redford has gone to to help the Native-American Commmunity. He is the Lawrence of Arabia for their causes and probably the most recognized celebrity ambassador to them in the last 60 years.
It just boggles me then his choice of such a violent film towards Native-Americans regardless of how justified/necessary it is in the story.
My conclusion and I was hoping that someone after reading this would come to it, is that Redford became such a friend to the Native Americans because he felt guilty for doing this movie.
The film is BASED on the Actual Accounts of the Man he Portrayed in the film & the suppossed Excess violence that you believe there to be in this film, was What Liver Eating Johnson factually had to live by in order to Survive.
There are Good & Bad Tribal Americans portrayed in this film, just as there are Good & Bad European Americans portrayed in those same lights.
P.C. hadn't been invented yet & as I recollect from an interview of Redford @ the time, he believed it was a Fair Portrayal of both sides of the issues & conflicts.
No he did not become a Champion for Tribal American Rights because he felt Guilt for doing this film. As I recollect, Reford became so because he read about Charles Lummis, the 1st succesful Tribal American Rights Activist.
Lummis was an Advisor to Teddy Roosavelt on Tribal American Issues & got the So Called Indian Schools Shut-down because of the Pressures he was able to apply in the right places & @ Risk to his Own Life. And as I recollect, he wished to emulate Lummis & his past efforts.
I find myself in agreement with the poster. I am currently watching this movie for the first time on amc and found myself horrified by the brutality that the character inflicts on the "bad guys." I could understand killing the ones that killed his family but an ENTIRE TRIBE???? This movie was grotesques and in poor taste. It is a glorification of killing someone that is "different." And I do not understand how R.R. is affiliated with this film. I cannot see him toting this as a film he wants to be known for imho. But to each his own.
share[deleted]
"I could understand killing the ones that killed his family but an ENTIRE TRIBE????"
You are completely off the mark with this statement. In regard to the story line, it's BECAUSE he took revenge on the band that killed his family and let one live that the entire tribe was after him. They saw it as a point of honor to kill a powerful enemy. The murder of his family set this series of events in motion.
In regard to your statement,"This movie was grotesques and in poor taste. It is a glorification of killing someone that is "different." Never once in the movie does it glorify Johnson for any killing. In fact, if anything, the final scene of the chief and Johnson making peace shows the toll it has taken from both men. The scene where he refuses to kill the Blackfoot because he has no fight with them disproves your point.
As someone who spent 2 years living with the Blackfoot in northern Montana, the idea that white society sees them as some band of noble savages drives them to distraction. They were by no means a collection of rubes just waiting to be dominated. They were known for their prowess in war and at one point virtually eradicated the Shoshone from their land. Though what the European settlers inflicted on them is nothing short of a holocaust and genocide, they endure today with traditon and a way of life that would reject your condescention. I'm not sure if you see that you are doing that but you are.
Once again, you seem to be missing the very simple point.
Stop digressing about whether or not the CHARACTERs' (JEREMIAH JOHNSON)ACTIONS WERE JUSTIFIED.
I AM NOT DEFENDING OR SUPPORTING THE CHARACTER.
I AM SIMPLY TRYING TO COMPREHEND WHY ROBERT REDFORD WOULD PLAY THE ROLE!!!
AS STATED EARLIER, IT MAKES ABOUT AS MUCH SENSE TO ME AS STEVEN SPIELBERG MAKING A MOVIE ABOUT THE HOLOCAUST FROM A GERMAN CITIZEN'S PERSPECTIVE.
From now on it would make this post much more relevant if all future discussions stuck to why Robert Redford would play this role.
Becasue he believed that there are good and bad indians just as there are good and bad whites, and the fact that a character would be driven to that kind of vendetta madness makes for an intersting and complex character, and that unlike many people he can see that a chracters hatred for the Crow does not equal hatred fro all Indians as each Indian teribe is as unique and diffeernt as any of the different European nations (I should know as a Blackfoot), a movie that would shows a chracter seeking vengence agisnt Nazis would not mean the charcter was anti-European just as this movie is not anti-Indian (just anti-Crow, but they deserve it, sorry, old rivalry)
shareI was commenting on the post left by spiritualliberal that's why I quoted him/her in my response. I wasn't exactly speaking to your point.
I saw that you grew up in Kalispel? I taught school in Browning. I would drive into Moose's for a few.
Not to go to far off topic, Zagovich, but how long ago did you teach in Browning? Did you get a chance to meet Fr. Mike?
shareGet off your soapbox Gettn and realize your opinion isn't shared by anyone else on this thread.
"That rug really tied the room together." -The Dude-
The movie is actually tame compared to what was described in the book.
shareThe book I read was 'Crow Killer: The Saga of Liver-Eating Johnson'. Is there another? Someone mentioned that this movie was about Liver-Eating Johnson so I watched it (after reading the book), and it seemed very sanitized and whitewashed. Liver-Eating Johnson came off like a serial killer/cannibal in the book.
shareI'm a huge fan of Bob's but let me say that he is not the greatest supporter of the American Indian in the last sixty years...Marlon Brando was. He stood by them even though it was looked down upon by the mighty Hollywood big wigs..He stood along side them and helped fight for their rights not caring about his career and put his money where his mouth was.
shareRedford is first and foremost an actor. He took the role knowing the basic story line and how it would probably be filmed. I think you are assuming too much cause & effect into this. Consider these points:
1) Maybe Redford thought the role was a good challenge for him.
2) Maybe he needed the money. (Remember, except for Butch Cassidy/Sundance Kid, not many of his prior roles were memorable.)
3) In 1972, the whole Native American rights movement certainly wasn't as big, as public, or as 'in' as it was in later years.
4) The movie was based on a novel/true story. While movies always use some artistic license and change things around, many times the director does try to stay as true as possible to the original novel.
5) The vast majority of the general public doesn't go into a movie looking for political statements or agenda. Many people posting here have stated that they didn't consider this movie Anti-Indian. I certainly didn't. Perhaps you are subconciously looking for something that isn't there.
This is still an excellent film, with outstanding scenery and great character performances! I hope I can find in on cable again soon.
You're reading into this too much. A movie doesn't have to have an agenda--this is the story of one man who was out for revenge. There is no moral. Let it go and read some Tolstoy if that's what you're looking for.
share[deleted]
you are out of you mind. you should probablby stop thinking for yourself and just rely on other peoples ideas from now on. i dont even want to read any further. people have tried to explain to you this is not anti native american. your conclusion is redicoulous, and that is probably why no one came to it for you.
shareI've seen him in an interview say that it is his personal favorite film.
shareYou're free to reach that conclusion; I just think that you're plain wrongheaded in reaching it. Is it revenge or survival that is portrayed? And the final point of the movie is an accomodation, rooted in mutual respect, between Johnson and Paints His Shirt Red.
shareGuilt over a film role?
You have got to be joking - he's a better man than that.
The fact is, it's based on a true story, for one.
And you may notice that it's not a native American doing the slaughtering, but the white man who has immersed himself. Your assumption that he became a mad killer due to his immersion in native life is rather odd, given all we know about psychology today.
I think your understanding of the film is way off, and your conclusion as to why Redford is engaged in helping native causes, seems downright insulting to Redford. To his intelligence, and to his moral character.
Guilt over a film role?
Yeah that's much more powerful a motivator than experiencing the culture and coming to understand the multiple crimes perpetrated against the majority of native Americans. Experiencing the clash of beauty, love and integrity with injustice, hate and catastrophe. Quite the motivator, especially if you're in a position to be able to help.
But no: mustn't been guilt over the film role that wasn't anti-Native American whatsoever.
Apologies for being so facetious, but it's the only way I can try to get across just how wrong-headed I think your argument is.
Gettn,
Yours is the most myopic review of this movie and Redford I've ever seen. Your conclusion could only be shared by someone who was obviously interrupted with Twitter updates throughout the movie. Seriously guy. It is a great movie and the character's interaction with Native American's really demonstrates human fallibility and the desire to overcome terrible odds. Drop the annoying political correctness baggage for a couple hours and watch it again.
People die on both sides in a war. You are free to leave whenever you wish.
shareWhy wouldn't Speilberg do it? One of the most important things of historical research is figuring out the motivation and reasoning behind peoples' actions. Spielberg has made morally ambiguous films in the past...why not another?
shareHow can you fail to understand the movie so miserably?
He wasn't killing Crows *before*. There was one incident where his travelling mate started the killing and Jeremiah was just defending himself.
The only incident where Jeremiah attacks the Crow is after his family was murdered.
This movie is in no way anti-native. It's simply a tale about a man trying to find his place in the world.
You said:
"However, my interpretation is directed more towards the excessive violence and killing that Jeremiah (Redford) partakes in (He was killing the Crow before his family was killed). I believe he physically kills near 30 different Crow Indians in the movie. The violent revenge message in this movie is more pronounced than anything (my opinion). The fact that this revenge is directed towards the Crow Indians and justifiably so in Jeremiah's mind (and therefore in the audience's mind too) overshadows the other messages.
My issue is that for someone who is so adamantly Pro Native-American, why partake in an excessively violent film that centers around their being eliminated. Had movie's been around during these times this movie could almost be perceived as Indian killing propaganda."
Keep in mind, this is based on a true story. Redford is an actor, not the real John Johnson. I'm quite sure he has no problem separating the characters he plays, from his real self.
Besides, this coincides quite well with the reality of living in that time, in that place and in that way.
It could only be perceived as "Indian killing propaganda" by someone who's naive or just looking to argue for the sake of argument (Which I think is the case with regard to your question)
That was the way it was back then. It was a violent kill or be killed world. Sure he killed some Crow Indians, because they killed his wife and kid. What would any man do. If the men who killed his family were Flat Heads or whites he would have killed them too. His charachter isn't trying to eliminate them, he is simply trying to survive because later they are trying to kill him to prove they are great worriers. It's not like he could call 9-1-1. He had to take matters into his own hands and deal with it.
shareRobert Redford didn't make this movie, he acted in it. He didn't write the history on which it was based, or the historical novel that was based on the history.
This movie isn't anti-Native American. Not even the Blackfeet are portrayed badly - these are people increasingly shoved into a tiny pocket of the Great Plateau, white people encroaching from all sides, one bad winter and everyone is starving.
Mountain men, without women, weren't as much of a threat as whole families - who would reproduce and take over the land. There were no higher authorities to appeal to - and the whites had guns and cavalry on their side.
Etc., etc.
It's sad to see Jeremiah get so whacked out over his own tragedy, but that's human nature, too.
Because he made money!
Good enough? Probably not.
And I don't believe the "guilt" thing either. Granted, that everyone is entitled to their opinon, but here's mine:
This IS a great story fashioned around someone's life story, yes it's a little violent and yes it's a sort of revenge story...to a point, but I just don't get the obsession with "why Robert Redford would do a movie like this!?" Ask yourself why ANY actor would play ANY part, and there's your answer, in kind of an "Ockham's Razor" type of thing...can't the simplist answer be the correct one?
And the only thing that I really felt about this movie was how interesting it would be to actually live like that, and it left me thinking about the people that actually DID...
"Or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb"
In interviews I've heard Redford say more than once that of all the movies he made in his career that this movie is his personal favorite.
So if you believe that this movie is "anti-Native American," reconcile that.
--------------------------------------------------
Get the facts first - you can distort them later!
--------------------------------------------------
Apparently, he liked the role, so he took it. If he played George Custer in a movie that portrayed him realistically, would that automatically make him an american indian hater?
shareHey, that's an interesting subject. I think it would be great to see a movie about General Custer. I mean a real good quality realistic movie showing some true facts, from when he was in the civil war to the actual last stand. I wish one of the talented directors of today would take that up. BTW I have the JJ DVD and I love it. I watch it once or twice a year. I didn't read anything into the movie at all.This country is going PC overboard. I also really liked, and have "The Mountain Men". The soundtrack is very dated quality, and the movie runs kinda like a tv western but, I enjoy watching it. I would like to see more mountain men type movies.
shareI've seen this move at least a hundred times and never once saw an anti Indian slant to it.
If it makes You feel any better though Redford Stated that this was his favorite movie of his career not because he thought so highly of the character but because the character of Johnson was so completely opposite of everything he (Redford) is in real life and he considered it the best acting job he had ever done.
I agree with the pro-Redford faction. It is clearly obvious that Johnson "desecrated" that Crow burial ground with the utmost reluctance. And, even then, only for humanitarian reasons! Prior to that, it is shown--via montage--that he had been on pretty good terms with Paints-His-Shirt-Red and the rest of the Crows. At least, with regard to bartering.
Plus, at the end, it appears the two adversaries decide to call off their feud. Out of mutual respect for each other, if nothing else.
Last, but not least? If this had truly been intended as an anti-Native American flick, from the start, they would not have left out the part about the liver-eating.
So, with all due respect, me thinks thou dost protest too much.
I think those are great examples Carycomic, it also reminded me that there was an underlying feeling in the film that Johnson brought the attack on himself. While the murder of his wife and the boy were horrible the filmmaker did not make it totally random or unfounded. Johnson desecrated probably their most sacred site twice (and allowed a whole host of US soldiers to do so as well). If the film was meant to be anti-Native American, they would have made the attack unfounded or out of the blue. Thouhg I do feel that there was a certian flippant nature in the use of the death of the indians, especially the three Balckfoot killed.
The movie was a false representation of the rocky mountains native cultures in every way. It was inaccurate as hell, but still a rad movie.
share I have to disagree with you, rad. What the Blackfeet did to Dell Gue? From what I've read, it was quite typical of what they did to all trespassers in their lands. Red and white alike.
In fact, they were probably the _only_ tribe, in that part of the West, that the U.S. Cavalry _avoided_ getting into pitched battles with!
And, when Bear Claw describes the Crows as "an adulterous people?" He is referring to the polygamy they were known to practice, at that time.
"That's my story, and I'm stickin' to it."
Maverick, I assume you shoot a 38-55? Nice Cartridge!
shareYeah, My Grandfather left me an old Winchester in 38-55.
I also shoot a Sharp's in 45-70
And My M1 in 30-06
[deleted]
Very nice! I cast, reload, and shoot about two dozen different calibers, but nothing as nice as that. Mostly handguns, but I have a few rifles as well.
I've wound up with five muzzle-loading rifles from 45 to 58 caliber, a double-barrel muzzle-loading shotgun, and numerous handguns, and all this fever started with Jeremiah Johnson. You know you're infected when black powder smoke starts to smell good to you.
Your Winchester, I assume, might be a model '86?
And a Sharp's! Wow, sweet!
Do you load your own, or shoot store-bought?
I once found an old cartridge case on a deer hunt, a 40-82. Heaven knows how long it had been lying there. The girl I was dating at the time threw it away, thinking it was junk. That was many years ago, and I still haven't forgiven her...
So nice to find another "gun person" on the board!
Keep your powder dry...
Be of good cheer - Hawkeye
My winchester is a 94.
I have a few old Winchesters.
I have some Tennessee style flinters and a Brown Bess.
This movie single handedly got me involved in muzzleloaders.
I'm building a maple stocked Hawken right now.
I have a small website http://montana-campfire.20megsfree.com/
It just shows a few of my flinters.
Indians are no different than any other people. Some of them are/where violent assh*les and some are/were noble and friendly.
Just because you have some distorted, political correctness loving skewed view of the world, doesn't change the reality of the world.
People suck, no matter what race they are, and portraying Indians as all being some noble, crying at the sign of garbage bunch of humanitarians is as offensive and portraying them all as dumb savages that say 'how' and speak like Tonto.
The reality is that this movie really does soften the story and does both Johnson and the natives a lot of favours in their portrayal.
Enjoy the movie or watch something else.
The REAL, Original Tachyon.
Accept no substitutes!
amen to that im just completely dumbfounded by the ignorant hippies that preach of tolerance on here and are intolorant of one mans war with a tribe. all i gotta say to em is jus go read about the mountian men and the indians then watch the movie youll understand the movie a whole lot better
shareI don't believe this is an Anti-Native American movie. Yes, there are scenes of him getting back at the Indians that killed his Indian wife and adopted white son. The movie starts and ends with the mighty Native American standing tall on his horse watching this white man come full circle from his fumbling fishing to his long journey living and what seems to be the end of his war with the Indians. To me this movie shows how ignorant the white man is. Johnson did not want to go through the sacred Indian burial ground. He let the other white men talk him into it. This is my all time favorite movie. It's acurate in many ways. An awful lot of research went into the making of this movie. The language. Most everything is accurate for the time. The movie and book are not exact, but it is the most powerful movie ever made.
shareJust to clarify. A movie does not have to always portray a particular type of people in halo hovering perfection. That there factually were terrible, murdering natives is in no way a vindication of a lazy and dated stereotype.
And lets not forget that Johnson's partner was a native woman who he came to care for and he did bond with the native guy he waved to at the end of the movie.
No. Not Anti-American Native at all.
I bet the Native Americans weren't Anti-American at first, at least until they wizened up a bit. (<:
sharehave you even watched this movie?? no where in it is JJ antiNative American.his "family" was kill and he got mad and started killing a group Crow he got his anger out and let the last one go. The Crow stated trying to kill him after that. from then on he was protecting himself. Yes he did a few of there head in with the stock of his rifle but what elts was he to do when he was making quick decisions trying to save his life? Personaliy I would rither have my head quickly bashed in than to be left wonded and to freeze to death or be eat eaten by a griz or other animal!!!this movie was based in atime totally diffrent from to day and men white or Native American did what he had to do to protected his life aswell as his way of life i thought this movie did a great job depicting that,not picking sides, but showing that they both had resons for killing who were killed!!
shareUh, are you responding to me yohoo?? If so I guess my attempt at humor with the previous poster's thread title fell flat. There's kind of a difference I thought between an Anti-American native and an Anti-Native American. See? Oh well it wasn't that amusing anyway.
shareno i was respnding to the poster AND yea i get were you're comeing from haha
"So why did he make such a seemingly Anti-Native American movie in Jeremiah Johnson?"
This is a silly oh-so-very pc statement from one who apparently didn't really watch the movie.
Wow...been a while since I've been back. The crops are near harvest though I see!
I think if anyone watches the Robert Redford Biography on A&E, it will not soon be lost on them how almost 15 of the 90 minute program is dedicated to Redford's philanthropic accomplishments for Native-Americans.
Redford started a special program through Sundance to support Native American filmmakers and a Writers Fellowship. He spearheaded the congressional petition for the release of N-AActivist Leonard Peltier, and even dedicates his own money and time to the Red Feather Development Group.
He has produced/directed and acted in the controversial "Incident at Ogala," along with "Tell Them Willy Boy Is Here," "Skinwalkers," "The Dark Wind" and "The Milangro Beanfield War;" all films with benevolent plots toward the Native-American plight.
Why couldn't he have done something more sympathetic like "Dances With Wolves" or "Thunderheart?" I say it is Anti-Native American because the movie contains explicitly gruesome and thoughtless killing by Sioux Indians and the deserved retribution one man seeks on them. For one of the most outspoken supporters for Native-American rights and treatment in the 20th century, you can’t deny that Jeremiah Johnson seems like an incredibly odd movie choice!
I’m done after this but it has been entertaining reading everyone’s opinions.
-GMB
No I don't think J.J. was an incredible odd movie choice by Redford.
You ask why couldn't he have done something more sympathetic towards Native Americans like Dances With Wolves? That picture gets more and more PC and actually kind of insulting and untrue towards Native Americans each time I've seen it. Costner's overbearing theme of Native American NOBLENESS to the extreme just rings so hollow and misleading as to be almost laughable. Yes the Indians experienced many, many injustices at the hands of the White Man and others, but their history like any others had a fair share of give and take involving injustice and cruelty towards their fellow man. Like others have said yes lets acknowledge the wrongs but at the same time realize that the Native Americans weren't any more or less noble than other races of man. So let's stop trying to make them out to be something they truly were not. I'm trying to be careful as a white person asking this but I wonder how Native American's feel when a film like Dances with Wolves seems to treat them in what I've characterized as a PC manner, depicting them in a similar way that photographer Edward Curtis did in the early 20th century, as the noble savage/race?
Btw some of Costner and his brother's dealings with Native Americans following the film have been quite controversial I've heard. Something about land developing schemes in the Dakotas I think it was that rankled some local Native groups. Here he makes this landmark film about Native Americans seen in a good light and he and his brother wanted to build a resort or something either in or near the sacred Black Hills. I remember reading something about that at any rate.
As far as the Jeremiah Johnson film, Redford was as far as I know following the actual story of the real J.J. and his interactions with the natives and I thought it portrayed the Native Americans in a true sense as flesh and blood real people. Wow they could be nasty and vindictive. Okay. Then again they could allow a white man to marry into their tribe and treat him as a brother. You seem to have no understanding of what really happened in those days involving gruesome and thoughtless killings by both sides.
Redford has nothing to apologize for with Jeremiah Johnson. It was a fair and equitable look into a period of history with bad and good guys.
Glad we "entertained" you, right back at you.
Good post Turtletommy. I don't think this movie is anti-Indian at all. It shows them as human beings not mindless savages. They accept Jeremiah Johnson into their family when he marries one of their women. At the same time, like real people, when threatened or attacked they respond with what they feel is an appropriate response. Even though Jeremiah desecrates one of their gravesites and they battle against him they respect the fact that he is a skillful warrior and in the end they appear to end their feud in mutual respect. Compared to a lot of traditional westerns that portray Indians as mindless, bloodthirsty savages I think that it can be argued that Jeremiah Johnson is actually a pro-Indian movie.
shareThanks Bittybell-1.
share Well, GMB, I hope you realize by reading the other posts that almost no one agrees with your assessment, because, before I read it, the thought that this movie was somehow "anti-native american" never entered my mind.
Agree or not, you are certainly entitled to your opinion! However, I think you're a little "misguided" to say the least. How could you possibly read that into this movie?
I would welcome you to the real world, (this is a MOVIE, remember) but I don't think you're here yet.
"Watch yor'n"
i tried to come up with something more mature than this, but it's useless...GMB is clearly an idiot who's done more than redford to help with native american efforts. why would any german actor play a nazi in a movie? it portrays them in a bad light. dumba$$...
share"I AM SIMPLY TRYING TO COMPREHEND WHY ROBERT REDFORD WOULD PLAY THE ROLE!!!
AS STATED EARLIER, IT MAKES ABOUT AS MUCH SENSE TO ME AS STEVEN SPIELBERG MAKING A MOVIE ABOUT THE HOLOCAUST FROM A GERMAN CITIZEN'S PERSPECTIVE."
I don't claim to be the world's foremost expert, but as someone who has spent his fair share of time and effort studying Native histories and cultures and who is very much aware of the genocide comparisons and models that some very skillful historians have used to try to understand the experience of many Native peoples in their encounters with Europeans and the United States ... I have to say that I think your conclusion and analogy are off-base. And I do agree with what others have stated in this thread. This is not an Anti-Native American movie, by any means. If anything, it is a very pro-Native American movie.
[deleted]
I "LoLed" at Sarah Palin's backyard thing.
Whatever and ever, amen.