MovieChat Forums > Hostiles (2018) Discussion > What caused the change in Joe's characte...

What caused the change in Joe's character?

posted 6 years ago by MR392781 (6)
10 replies | jump to latest

I just watched Hostiles (yes, they released it in Germany last week).

In general I think it is a great movie but I am not really convinced. The thing that is nagging at the back of my head is why did Joe learn to appreciate Yellow Hawk and the Indians to the extent where he would finally actually fight for them?

He had been in service for 20 to 25 years and done nothing but hunting and killing native Americans and loosing lots of friends along the way. That_s why he has a deeply rooted hatred for them.

The journey is terrible, lots of things happen. But I don't see any of this being enough to change his heart? He must have seen things like this dozens if not hundreds of times. His total 180 degree change of perspective seems unwarranted to me.

Am I missing something?

Thx

MR392781

[–] Renovatio (2990) 6 years ago

It's an interesting question... I think there are two factors...

A - He realised that the times were changing and his brand of warrior lifestyle would have less and less of a role to play in an increasingly civilised world... The claassic Werstern movie, The Searchers has this as one of it's themes...

B - The woman.

[–] MR392781 (6) 6 years ago

A) Just because a person realizes that the times have changed does not necessarily imply that this person will move away from its core values and beliefs.
I am missing a strong enough catalyst for this develepment.

B) Well, may be. But I am not convinced - which does not mean I disagree.

That's my problem, I just don't quite see the why.

[–] Renovatio (2990) 6 years ago

I don't think it's one event...

I think with A, it might help to recognise that he saw that his loyalty to his government and to some of his past comrades was not valued... His boss threatened to take away his pension, the president wanted to ease relations with the natives and he saw the ugliness in the former soldier that they meet along the way (the guy they tie up to trees), the one who reminds Joe of his own past misdeeds...

The change happens gradually throughout the movie and it takes it's toll on him... You can probably recognise that in the first scenes of the movie he is already a troubled man but still in a stoic mode, having not come to terms with the trauma of war, by the middle he is in anguish as he confronts his personal deamons (he has a bearded colleague who sacrifices himself as a way out) and by the end he sees a hope, a chance if not at redemption, at least a chance to become part of something wholesome again... A family...

I hope this helps... If not, it's ok... People view each movie differently...

[–] MR392781 (6) 6 years ago

Yes, it helps.

I didn't view the prisoner as a means for Joe to revisit/re-evaluate his past deeds. But that makes sense.
And you are right, in the first scene he is stoic but not participating. The Joe of a few years ago would have probably laughed and whipped the group.

Good points.

I guess the movie was just moving along at such a suicidal pace that I couldn't keep track? :)

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

I wondered at that too. The movie starts off with him pretty angry and bitter with Indians.

And, then, suddenly he was conferring with them, defending them...

I missed a few minutes of the movie here and there and wondered if I had missed some critical scene.

[–] db20db (17235) 6 years ago

I watched it this morning and was confused about what happened to the remainder of the Comanches that had attacked them. One was lynched, which I thought was very odd and then there was the cryptic dialogue between Blocker and Wentz ( Blocker was livid about supposedly having been humiliated ) when they came upon the scene. I haven't seen anyone address this anywhere on this board. Any insights ?

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

Yeah, my wife and I talked this over. Our best hypothesis was that Yellow Hawk made an offer to Blocker to hunt down and kill the Comanches. Blocker refused or otherwise wouldn't allow it... most likely not wanting to give Yellow Hawk a chance to escape or otherwise bring trouble down upon them. (Yes, he was ordered to deliver Yellow Hawk to his ancestral lands, but there was still an animosity between them... Yellow Hawk was in chains at this point.)

At any rate, it seemed to us that Metz released him/them to do the job which pissed off Blocker. Metz tells him something along the lines that 'everyone has a right to kill/right to revenge even them' as he nodded toward Yellow Hawk and Black Hawk.

Our best guess...

[–] db20db (17235) 6 years ago

Thanks for the response.

That was also what I concluded although I wasn't sure I was right with my interpretation. Metz had a satisfied smirk on his face when making that comment to Blocker and appeared completely indifferent to his threat about falling asleep while on guard duty. However, I still think it was odd that they would go to the trouble of lynching one of the Comanches. It just seemed uncharacteristic of their style. That was a white man's justice. I don't recall ever seeing that in a western before.

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

"That was a white man's justice."

Total conjecture here...

i. Hanging someone doesn't kill them immediately. Maybe it was meant as final insult... to look into the eyes of the person who has hung you and see their satisfaction at your struggles as the life ebbs from your body.

ii. Maybe visiting white man's justice upon them could be viewed as the ultimate diss, i.e. they weren't worthy of a warrior's death, but instead were hung as the lowest of low life the way their mutual enemy viewed them.

[–] db20db (17235) 6 years ago

ii. This seems to make the most sense. Didn't Yellow Hawk refer to the Comanche as "snake people" or something to that effect when pleading with Blocker to remove the chains? He said they didn't discriminate with their cruelty. The Cheyenne on the other hand were basically pacifists until pushed too far. And historically, this would be accurate since it was 1892, basically the end of the Old West and the approach of the 20th century and there was a merging of the cultures going on. It also explains your initial question about Blocker's change in attitude toward the Indians. It was a time of lamentation, remorse and seeking forgiveness. We clearly saw him very emotionally conflicted throughout the film.