Review of Dances With Wolves

I don't know what else I can say that hasn't already been said about Dances With Wolves. Roger Ebert reviewed the film in 1990 as did Vincent Canby for the New York Times. Ebert's review was glowing. Canby's was less than fantastic. Some of the criticism Canby leveled against the film is that it was like a "boy's life" story. I can't deny that what he says has some validity. The film is like a child's dream. Cowboys and Indians on the grandest scale. But, I don't think Canby gives enough credit to Costner and the re-interpretation that the film makes about the Western as a genre and the way it challenges our pre-conceived notions about Native Americans and the settlement of the West. It is for this reason that I like Ebert's review better and agree with it more than Canby's review.

Both reviews celebrate the film's cinematography. The shots of the frontier are amazing. The buffalo hunt is incredible. I was wondering the whole time how they pulled it off. Where did they shoot it? How did they get so many buffalo? Were any buffalo hurt during shooting? Perhaps I should watch the extras. It truly is the bringing to life a boy's, or anyone's, imagined conception of the West. Vast, expansive, unsettled. The acting is understated in the Costner way. As Roger Ebert wrote he has an understated coolness to him. I think he handles the evolution of Dunbar's character well. The direction is admirable, I think Costner won an academy award. Shot selection, performances all hit the mark. I must also say something about the editing. There were a number of scenes where the editor could have crosscut between rising action, but didn't. Specifically when the Pawnee are attacking the village there is plenty of build up to the battle, but there is no showing of the Souixe tribe preparing for battel. We are left unknowing whether the tribe is prepared for battle, whether they will be annihilated. There is a subtle spacing between reactions of different characters. The cuts are delayed to some degree which makes it a more enticing cinematic experience. Yet it does retain qualities of traditional film editing. There is the 180 degree rule. There are plenty of shot, reverse shots. And, of course, the buffalo hunt sequence is edited well. Plenty of action footage cut together, with some great detail shots.

What makes this film so great, and Ebert makes mention of this in his review, is that it goes against the history of the Western genre. At one point in the film I compared Dances With Wolves to John's Ford's The Searchers; a film that depicts Native Americans as blood thirsty savages that have no redeemable values whatsoever. Dances With Wolves presents Native Americans in a nuanced light, yet not totally civilized. There are some brutal scenes against white settlers. It is not a totally naive depiction. However, the film, unlike any film I can remeber, brings the audience into the Teepees of the souixe. The film humanizes Native Americans and shows the dark side of White settlement. The American military is seen as brutal killers who had no sympathy for Native Americans. I found myself, as I'm sure many viewers did, cheering for the Native Americans when they free Costner from bondage. After all those years of seeing John Wayne films and arguing with my American history teacher in High School about the appalling treatment of Native Americans by the American government along comes Dances With Wolves and shows it through film in the grandest way. Dance With Wolves is cinema at it's grandest.