Newsgroups: bit.listserv.cinema-l
Date:         Thu, 1 Oct 1992 13:23:11 BST
From:         "(John Smyth)" <eeijsh@EEIUC.ERICSSON.SE>
Subject:      GOOD [bad] MOVIES

Michael writes:
>In my ranting and raving about Oscar-winners of the past 20 years, I
>inadvertently skipped over DANCES WITH WOLVES (1990) and called SILENCE OF
>THE LAMBS the 1990 winner when it should have been designated as 1991.
>Probably a Freudian skip.  DANCES WITH WOLVES, in my opinion, is one of
>the most over-rated films in history.  It's another one of those films that
>purports to be about a non-white culture, and to show the brutality of the
>white man, while really being about a good white man.

Apart from being far too long, Dances with Wolves was far too simplistic.
 Costners'
solution to the continuing war between 'his' tribe and the Pawnee is to give
his tribe the latest in White-man weapon technology and let them massacre the
Pawnee. Of course, we'd already seen the Pawnee kill and scalp the wagon-driver
earlier, so they had to be the BAD guys. Way t'go, Kev. And as for Mary
McDonell, it takes more than a tan and a shaggy perm to be a Native American.
(To anyone who thinks she can act, watch Grand Canyon [if you can bear it]).

However, full marks to Costner for making a movie that attempted to depict
Native American culture accurately and succeed in attracting a large
audience in the process. The policy of having a white man (and a big star) in a
 movie
about non-white culture is purely economic. I reckon if the main star of
'Dances with Wolves' was Chief Running Bear (or whatever), we wouldn't be
talking about the film now.
                            If a movie-maker wants to preach to a large audience
he/she has to put at least one big star (which usually means WHITE) to attract
both backing and box-office receipts. Most cinema-goers just want fairly
 undemanding
enterainment -if the movie-maker can incorporate a serious message into
an entertaining movie, all the better.
                                        I remember Alan Parker being criticised
for racism in "Missisippi Burning'. The feeling was that no-one cared when
black people were killed, but when whites were killed, the FBI were called in.
Apart from being a more realistic (but sad) scenario, Gene Hackman and Willem
Dafoe were the reasons many people went to see the movie.
                                                        In a wider context, many
non-American movies include an American star to widen the appeal of the movie.
David Puttnam's original idea for 'Memphis Belle' was a British crew on a
bombing mission. However, it was felt that an American crew would seem
more attractive to U.S. audiences.

>I would have chosen GOODFELLAS -- no contest.
>(I will admit that one might reasonably argue that GOODFELLAS is sexist)


GOODFELLAS a sexist movie ? It's hard to imagine Joe Pesci's character
coming home after a hard night's murdering and volunteering to do the
washing up. Politically correct gangsters wouldn't be very realistic.
The real world that GOODFELLAS portrayed seems to be male-orientated,
very macho. As Bogart once said "I never met a dame yet that didn't
understand a slap in the mouth".

                                John Smyth
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU