"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nA number of Richard Attenborough's films as director have been biographies of major historical figures- \"Young Winston\", \"Gandhi\", \"Chaplin\". \"Grey Owl\" is also a filmed biography of a historical individual, but in this case Attenborough's subject is a much more obscure character.
Grey Owl was a Canadian writer of the 1920s and 1930s who promoted the ideas of environmentalism and nature conservation at a time when these causes were less fashionable than they are today. He was widely believed to be an American Indian; the story he told about himself was that he had been born in Mexico to a Scottish father and Apache mother and had emigrated to Canada where he had been adopted as a member of the Ojibway tribe. He lived in a cabin by a lake in a remote part of the Canadian wilderness, where he earned a living as a trapper. He toured Britain twice, in 1935 and 1937, to promote his books and to give lectures on conservationism, and achieved great success, even being introduced to the Royal Family. (During one of these tours Attenborough, then a teenager, saw Grey Owl at the London Palladium theatre). After his death in 1938, however, it was revealed that he had not been who he claimed to be; his real name was Archibald Belaney, and he had been born in the English seaside town of Hastings.
The film departs somewhat from the facts of Grey Owl's life. In a scene set in 1934 he states that he is 41 years old; in reality, he was born in 1888 so would have been 46 in that year. (46 would have been Pierce Brosnan's age when the film was made, so I am not sure why this change was made). Numerous events are compressed into the last four years of Grey Owl's life (1934-1938). In the film it is during this period that he meets and marries Gertrude Bernard whom he called Anahareo; in reality, he met and married Gertrude as early as 1925. The film also omits the fact that they were divorced in 1936 and that Grey Owl remarried shortly before his death.
The revelation of Grey Owl's true identity adversely affected his posthumous reputation, and he was dismissed as a \"fraud\". His supposed deceit was even used to discredit the causes which he had championed. Richard Attenborough, however, takes a more sympathetic view of his achievements. One of the themes explored by the film is the question of ethnic identity. Although the erstwhile Archibald Belaney was not a Canadian Indian by birth, there is no doubt that he had a deep knowledge of Ojibway culture and lore and that he spoke their language fluently. He was accepted by the Ojibway as a member of their tribe. It therefore seems unfair to describe his claim to a Native North American identity as being a fraudulent one, merely because it was an identity he had chosen rather than one he had been born into.
According to the film, Grey Owl's wife Gertrude was herself of Indian descent, but came from a family which had been assimilated into white Canadian culture. Her marriage can therefore be seen as her reclamation of her family's original cultural heritage. She was clearly influenced by her husband, but she also had an influence on him, persuading him to give up his work as a fur trapper as she had moral objections to killing animals for their fur.
One criticism made of the film is that Pierce Brosnan is \"miscast\" as the hero, a criticism which seems to be rooted in the preconception that Brosnan can only play action heroes in the James Bond mould. It seems to me, however, that Brosnan may deliberately have taken this role in order to avoid being typecast, the taciturn backwoodsman Grey Owl being about as far from the suave, sophisticated agent Bond as one can get. The original Bond, Sean Connery, also seems to have deliberately opted for contrasting roles when he appeared in films like \"The Hill\" or \"The Molly Maguires\". Brosnan is in fact very good in this role, although I would agree with those who found Annie Galipeau weak as Gertrude.
Another frequently-voiced criticism with which I would not agree is that the film is \"boring\". Certainly, it is not an action film like the Bonds, nor is it a great epic biopic like \"Gandhi\", and it may indeed seem boring to those who were expecting it to be either the one or the other. It is however, likely to please anyone with an interest in the early days of the conservationist movement or the philosophical implications of national and ethnic identity. The scenes of the Canadian forests are also beautifully photographed. Richard Attenborough has done us a service by helping to revive interest in this half-forgotten but fascinating figure. 7/10
\n
assistant\n1
\n"