I feel like your point here boils down to saying a inaccurate story is a bad one. I think that's a factor, but not the whole basis of judgement. The story was gripping, compelling, and lots of fun to watch. Even if it wasn't entirely historically accurate, it got a lot of atmosphere and culture that many westerns never even come close to.
I'm Native American from the Kiowa Tribe and thank you for pronouncing Kiowa the right way. The majority of people I meet pronounce it Key-O-wa and I tell them the right way and they still say it that way.
Wow, you weren't lying. You worked your butt off on this one. Fun fact: my uncle worked on this film. In fact, he won awards for helping create the iconic bear scene.
"If you want to show the U.S. Army being jackasses to Indians, There's plenty to do; you don't need to imagine new stuff." I really enjoyed this quote. As both a Native person and a student of history, I often find myself frustrated with people anachronistically adding or changing history RE: Native-White relations. Make no mistake, relations were often strained at the best of times. But I feel like there were enough actual bad things that happened that we can make our case for reparations without inserting "alternative facts" about history. All that overgeneralization, anachronism, and, in this case, made-up massacres do is undermine the legitimacy of our arguments and claims. And don't even get me started on the director's portrayal of Native peoples. Talk about the "White Man's Indian"! Also, you mentioned whitewashing. While I don't know too much about the demographics of the American frontier (my focus being predominantly Western Canadian), I can't help but suspect that it was not only African-American figures like Jim Beck worth who were whitewashed, but also a large contingent of mixed-blood trappers and traders.
yeah, there were definitely mixed race folks as well - I just have an affinity for Beckworth, and he's probably the most famous of the non-white folks. Plus all the Amerindian guides! BTW, I'm totally going to have to use that rephrasing of "alternative facts."
Could you elaborate a little more on what you mean by "White Man's Indian?" I'm not surprised that there are native people such as yourself who didn't like the portrayal of the tribes in The Revenant, but I've also heard very positive reviews from some Navajo high-schoolers, a Seminole film-maker, and a film scholar who focuses on portrayals of American Indians in Hollywood (I think she was Arapaho). My favorite them of the story from an intercultural standpoint is that all tribes and peoples have distinct interests and values that inform their relationships with other groups. Although some of the French and Americans are represented as scoundrels, other whites are honorable. Although a lot of the whites are antagonistic towards natives and talk about them as if they were one "savage" monolith, the relationship between the Ree and the Pawnee is shown as complex and antagonistic. Of course the placement and portrayal of the details of each group is problematic in The Revenant from a historical perspective, but I think that the makers of the film were always more interested in large themes than historical details.
@5:22 "He killed the bear but was left bear-ely living." I guess the bear lived up its reputation. @5:49 "Survived by eating on bear-ries..." REVENGE!! Anybody? Just me? Okay...
On the topic of the Bear trappers being racist towards Leo's fictional son. Although there were often racially mixed hunting parties in the Americas, the idea of Miscegenation was still a very prominent problem in the 19th century. So a half white/Indian breeded boy would not be treated well by 19th century white Americans. So the racism towards him makes complete sense. Great video by the way. I still love this movie.
I never interpreted the focus on the landscapes & nature as pushing an "environmental conservation" message but rather as a character in itself. It portrayed the natural realm that was undeveloped, brutal, and alien to the Americans. As well as not the fragility of nature but the utter inhospitality of it to a lone person. I personally think the movie was beautiful, well-made and I prefer my interpretation & experience of it to the Directors & CH
The Revenant deserved to win the Oscar for cinematography. Some of the shots are amazing. That's it. DiCaprio was excellent but he always is and many felt (myself included) that him winning the Oscar for best actor was somewhat of a make-up award for when he should have won it sooner (Gilbert Grape, Aviator, Blood Diamond, Gangs of New York) Kinda like how Scorsese won for The Departed but deserved it for Raging Bull, Goodfellas.
Exactly my thoughts. DiCaprio never wins an Oscar became already a Meme at some point^^ hes an good Actor giving the Award for "best Actor" in that specific role is laughable
Surreal history perhaps? I know your job is to pick things apart and you did it well here. But at the end of the day, movies like this are more art than pure logic. And as you said, at the heart of it is a tall tale as opposed to history. So you're right that the facts are wrong but maybe that's missing the point. Although, I agree the underlying premise is a little heavy handed though I think there is truth there worth considering.
I actually read the stark, vast scenery as more of an illustration as to just how hard Glass had to fight to accomplish his revenge. Additionally, not knowing where this took place, this setting felt like it was happening in the foot hills of the Rockies which is a kinda harsh place at times. I mean, after all, have you ever slept outside in the cold wet with not more than a fire. Even at fifty degrees, that sucks. I has getting more of a PVE type vibe there, and really little else. I don't feel any of the "nature" part of the movie really was a detractor.
I think this movie along with Saving Private Ryan are very immersive in the way they capture the tangible essence of war and hardships of being a voyager/fur trader.... in that sense there's no other movies that are even comparable...
I can enjoy this movie without obsessing over its historical accuracy or plot. Is the plot simple and has it been done before? Sure, but I can get past that. It's visually stunning, the action is great, the acting is fantastic, and sure they take some artistic liberties, but I don't watch history movies and then take them as gospel, and I don't believe the filmmakers want you to do that either. Only a fool does that.
@@wyleong4326 I didn’t take that from the movie at all. I think propaganda only works when the person watching it lets it work. There’s plenty of films that are blatant propaganda, both right wing and left wing, yet they can still be good films. Just don’t let yourself get suckered by the propaganda, be secure in your own beliefs, and enjoy the film.
I liked the movie, didn't expect a totally factual recreation of the subject. I understand "the cynical historian" has a job to do,which is to critique, but our opinions diverge in a few aspects regarding the politics& conclusions about the movie's faults&messaging. Still, I say good movie there, & good video here.
Good thing it was inspired by true event's and not based on them to be a close retelling of the story like you think it is. You're wasting your time dissecting a movie that was never meant to be even nearly 100% historically accurate. Whatever makes you happy I guess.
Slightly unrelated to the narrative, but I just wanted to add that the avalanche scene (which in my opinion was completely forgettable) was apparently neither CGI nor a natural avalanche and instead involved the production crew hiking up a mountain and setting off dynamite to induce an avalanche. soc.org/project/the-revenant-shooting-in-the-elements/ Personally, I don't think is such a big deal. I just thought this fact contrasted nicely with what the director says at 13:58. Hmm, what was that you were saying about using natural resources to make a profit and disrespecting nature?
I really like your channel Cypher: you do excellent historical work and you cite your sources (unlike, sadly, Nick Hodges). I feel obliged, however, to point out that French Canadian settlers were, on the whole, far from being horrible to the Natives. On the contrary, they befriended them, learned their languages and culture, intermarried and generally helped each other out (there were lasting alliances notably with the Algonquians, the Huron Wendat, the Montagnais and the Innu). The Revenant was to me quite frustrating, since one of the French Canadians portrayed in the film (Toussaint Charbonneau) was a well known "coureur des bois" who accompanied Lewis and Clark and had nothing to do with the events portrayed in the film. So yeah, that whole part of the movie was also highly inaccurate, both in facts and in spirit.
I can not put into words how right you are. Personaly, I would like to point out the HBC and the Nor'westers did a fairly good job in general as well. Though they, wiesly, hired as many voyageurs as possible.Pet peeve of mine actually is the erasure of French Canadians from the history of Western Canada.I should probably leave it there or this will become half-essay half-rant. Vive les Voyageurs, -Timon
Caesar Right. And whoever said all French Canadians were saints? I wouldn't say Americans were the worst. The Spaniards probably were. Yet both of them (as well as the Portuguese and the British) had eliminated 80 to 90% of the indigenous population within the first 100 years of contact with them. So once again, *in general*, the only colonists who treated the natives as equals were the French Canadians. Samuel de Champlain was a leading figure in this.
Pause on 20:00 and you can see clearly, the poster for "The Revenent" says, "Inspired by true events" and "Based in Part on the novel". they never claimed to be telling the story the way it actually happened.
The lesson of the story? "Never get off the boat." ;) Do _Apocalypse Now,_ maybe? Oh, also "capitalism makes baby koalas cry". Fur trading is definitely not thousands of years old...
This movie is inspired from true event. Inspiration means they took the freedom of interpretation and transformation. They never pretend to be based on true history. Also the aproach of nature as well as american history is definitly something that need to be heard and explain with a new eye today.
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind, so rather than addressing the real issues at hand, let's close both eyes (skipping the blinding bit) and start pointing fingers. That'll work!
Anyone ever notice that the ones that are anti-capitalist nature lovers have a very high net worth? Alejandro G. Iñárritu- 10 million, Leonardo Di Caprio-200 million.
Why ... ??? Everybody knows that it was a true event, as a matter of fact, a very decisive event in the future relations between France and Algiers and influence the entire Middle East.
I actually lived in South Dakota when this was in theaters and yeah it doesn't look like this, well maybe a little in the black hills. They might as well have not bothered to even tie it tie this to a historical figure.
The unrealistic thing about this movie is the pure fantasy of his survival as depicted. I live close to where most of this movie was shot, and have camped and hiked in the region in all seasons. The events that this character goes through are simply not survivable as shown. Bear attack, swept down a river in winter and then surviving without fire, shelter and dry clothes, let alone falling off a cliff. Complete fantasy.
Thank you thank you thank you thank you. THANK YOU for making this video!!!!!!!!!!!!! When I saw this movie it pissed me off to see all of the inaccuracies that they added!
Dude... IT'S ENTERTAINMENT. Of course they manipulated the original facts. It's a movies job to entertain. Not to educate. Im not taking away from your work. You did an impeccable job. Just saying, you need to remember it's a MOVIE. Not a historical documentary.
Saw this movie when it came out. Coincidently, the night before I watched an older movie on television called The Mountain Men, starring Charlton Heston and Brian Keith. Its plot was strangely similar.
Really late, but I just started watching your channel and I'm marathoning your videos. I was wondering if you have any intention to look at Jeremiah Johnson, which seems to hit a few of the same beats as this. Anyway, really like your content, and look forward to your future videos.
All those defending the inaccuracies because they said "inspired" and not based well there was real soldiers named Steve Rogers from WWII so should Marvel say the Captain America films are "Inspired" by real events? It'd be about as truthful.
I bought the first one about 16 years ago at Wal-Mart for $2.97 back then,but only because I had watch it when it first came out in the early 1970's at our local movie theater with my girlfriend and well my wife.i was 11 or 12 and she was 10 or 11 then,and we really liked it because the guy that played in it Richard Harris played in it.and played in the man called horse,and a couple more after words,and we have all most all of his movies that he came out with and made.i have not seen this one yet,but if we ever run across it and it is under 4 dollars we will probably buy it.we went to the drive in theater back then to see the first and main one with my brother in law now and his wife our sister in law as of almost 50 years ago.there about 6 to 7 years older than me and my wife.but I'd love to see our local town bring back and put in another drive in theater so we could take our now grandchildren to watch and see what we grew up and watched in our youth.we would go in the summer time back then and set in chairs in the back of our dads old pick up trucks and watch the movies that way.well just look how times have changed since then now right!!!!!
"I hope no one who watches this can take this movie seriously again." I could understand you not enjoying the film but as a "historical" channel I could barely find any of your criticism towards the inspired history in this movie valid.
I unsubbed this channel when this review came out. He totally missed the point of the movie by the statements he makes at some points. It made me think he was really stupid or he has an agenda that just doesn't align.
+joe kiva It seemed aggressively bias. The way he interpreted it as art didn't sit well which is fair, I guess it's called cynical history but calling this movie racist for example was just ridiculous. The way this judges historical authenticity mixed with art is just nit picky, if you cross referenced all historical movies with how inspiration from the period was fit into a 2 hour movie you could tear down every historical movie.
I think one of the big reasons Hollywood struggles with historical storytelling is this insistence that a film MUST have a “theme”. This film wants to send a message about racism, naturalism, spiritualism etc. but does so to the detriment of the real life story.
I get being upset from a historical standpoint, but the was one helluva movie. I don't even think they were going for historical accuracy, they were merely inspired by a time and place in history and loosely based it around a man who did exist while still being the stuff of legends.
OMG, I am so angry, "we are all savages" is the english translation of a slogan which was used by coureur de bois of the Quebec Fur Trade. It referers to 'Going Native' and abandoning New France for one of the First Nations groups, beyond this its also a pun, it can be translated as "We are all Free" which was a rejection of seigneurial system. It's literally about abandoning old European valluse that kept the concept of peasantry going. I already despised this movie for not just changing Glass' name and being a fiction officially, but this is beyond words for me. Assimilation and Empire: Uniformity in French and British Colonies, 1541-1954 by Saliha Belmessous is proably the easiest book to get at that makes referance to this because its on google books, Page 45, for those interested. -Timon
+Timon Ferguson Fascinating stuff. So that is based on something real, but perverted from its original meaning. Just another reason why this movie is insulting it's own audience. I didn't know that, since I've never really studied the French fur trade. I'll have to check out that book.
I can't speak for the book as I only ever read excerpts, but most of the articles I thought of are in relatively obscure Canadian Journals from a good few years ago, so I defaulted to it. Also to be fair I'm only informed on the Fur trade in what would become Canada with a smattering of the competition that came out of the United States after the Revolution and with a special focus on the West Coast. (Takes all my willpower to not launch into a thing on all the fascinating historical oddities that were involved) Found your stuff recently and going through the backlog, lots of fun. Keep up the good work, -Timon
ok i can see where youre coming from being a historian and all but movies are not ment to be depictions of history they are ment to be stories told through an enterpretation of history in this case
This is a pretty surreal movie at times too. While I appreciate he's approaching it in a Historical context, it clearly isn't meant to be taken as gospel like a movie like Dances with Wolves tries to.
In my opinion the story the movie tells Is not more fundamental than the execution of It,the way the story is told; with the use of music, suggestive photography, convincing acting, that's the art of filmmaking the plot is just a part of it. So i wouldn't say that it Is not a special movie because it ecxells in all of them (maybe the music was a little flat, but it fitted preety well with the tone of the immages).
I can't believe that you just brush Bridger off to the side. He was one of the greatest mountain men of all. Since I haven't seen the movie, I maybe off base. I purpusly didn't didn't see it because I could tell from the trailers that they didn't have a clue about Hugh Glass.
I was a big fan of Tom Hardy's performance, and really the whole character, in this film. I am also a sucker for long no-cut scenes. I really liked the bit with the Indian that was hanged with the sign around his neck saying something to the effect of "We are all Savages" in French. (Even if I felt the depiction of the French during this time seemed a little disingenuous.) That was a cheeky bit. Also, fuck that director. Fucking prick probably did more polluting in the production of this fucking movie than I've done in five years. Seriously, spare me the sanctimonious lecturing, Alejhandro, you love Capitalism.
I can only assume that embellishments such as the horse/cliff scene (action for the sake of action), the snow-flake eating scene (comic relief to relax viewers after the bombardment of tension filled scenes) and so many historically questionable sequences are injected as part of formula that both fulfill the requirements for executives (and check off all the financier's boxes needed for audience satisfaction and thus a healthy return on investment.) There's an obvious tight-rope walk that should balance historical accuracy vs. box office success, but I don't think there's any need to point criticism at the areas that producers demand since to them it's business first, and education later. Personally, I loved the immersive cinematography and soundscapes, regardless of it being "drawn out" compared to standard films. The action and human/relational elements gave it emotional weight and I better placed myself (father, husband) in Glass's shoes whereas the real Glass may have been less relatable and harder to route for. As a professional photographer, I appreciated the visual tone of this film. As a movie-goer, I was entertained with the story presented in this movie. I'm a little disappointed that the people and events have been misrepresented in some cases for worse, but have no problem forgiving the movie makers for fulfilling their cinematic quota for the sake of an excellent film.
Oh, and thank God this movie was not shot all in flat-lands. If throwing in mountains was historically inaccurate, I say fine. If visually exhilarating backdrops and impossible terrain enhance the story, the alternative is bleak backdrops that would grow quite tired in contrast.
The bear should have won the Oscar. Seriously. Look at how the talented beast played with Dicaprio (Or his stunt double)... Really, watching Leonardo getting prison love from a bear made the whole thing almost worth watching again. Almost.
I know quite a few indigenous rights activists and ecosocialists who HATED this movie for exactly the reasons you lay out here. The fur trade was an environmentally disasterous example of early capitalism, but this movie does not depict this AT ALL. Dances with wolves did a much better job of demonstrating that and the racism of the West than this movie ever could and that movie is also pretty racist itself, with the whole white savior bs.
Brendan Davison It's not required for this movie to depict that. The environmental effect that trapping had is not what this movie about. Watch a documentary on for trapping if that's what you want to see.
What a load of rubbish. Maybe it was a bit to subtle for you but it obviously paints the europeans in a worse light than the indians. And "white savior bs"? Hahaha get over yourself. The indian guy saved Glass, but when Glass saves the indian women it's suddenly white savior. You see things that you want to see.
Brendan Davison , that's because it's not about the environmental impact. it's not about racism in the West there are a few movies about that if that's what you want.
There is two kind of movies who deals with history. Historical movies and movies based on real events. This movie goes in the second group. That simply means that it is not a historical movie, so your critique in inaquaraccies is mostly problematic. You are saying that the destruction of the native's village never happened. Yes but as you alreasy said, other massacres did happen so this is a fiction movie that describes a GENERAL truth , and it did it write. Native Americans in north america really got vanished by the anglo saxon immigrants.
Something that really annoys me is when people try to paint the native/colonists relation ans a pure black and withe (All natives were peaceful, all colonists are demons) History is not a dualism
I enjoyed this movie up until the bear scene, and then after that I couldn't take it seriously and I was taken out of the movie entirely for the remainder. Absolutely no way in hell someone survives the way it was depicted.
You know, there's the interesting thing about movies "based on" or "inspired by" historical events. Directors and screenplay writers always try to come up with stories that they think are more interesting or compelling than the actual historical events themselves. They pretty much always fail. I often wonder if it's because the director/writer just doesn't do any real research so doesn't know the amazing story upon which they're basing their new work, or if the director/writer are just arrogant. If you dig into historical events, you often find that the most unbelievable thing is what actually happened.
It's inspired by a true event, it doesnt claim to be a documentary, people are generally knowledgeable of the fact that hollywood movies arent accurate, its just entertainment.
I hated this movie, but you, my friend, have turned the meager tea-light of my scorn into a glorious Roman candle of historically accurate contempt. *long take of me slow-clapping my approval as a vegan movie star gags on some nutritious buffalo liver......
Honestly I didn't know it based actual historical figures until your review. I enjoyed the movie just for the storey telling. But now I am a little more knowledgeable and less entertained.
Great video. I think you might have let your politics slant your rhetoric a bit on the use of the native poem. In the interest of accuracy: It's not anywhere near IP theft because 20th Century Fox secured the rights to the 27 year old documentary for the film and even after her story got picked up in the papers she couldn't produce any contracts with the documentary for rights, credits, or residuals regarding her appearance. She also didn't write the poem herself so she was basically just a voice actor for the documentary. The film didn't secure her permission because they legally didn't have to. I think they could have given her a credit to be nice. Ironically, this is some of that crude exploitive capitalism that the director likes to complain about.
I had always heard the two guys he wanted to kill were the ones carrying him on the litter and they left him to catch up with the rest of the group. Which explains why they were the only ones he wanted to kill.
This movie was "INSPIRED" by a true story, not "BASED" on a true story. They used elements of history to make a fictional movie. You are erroneously comparing this movie against a standard that it was never meant to fulfil.
+chriskill08 lol "erroneously" , now that is laughable, as if the whole movie is beyond reproach. It matters not what the director chose to label the movie whatsoever.
The Cynical Historian Inglorious Basterds was also inspired by a true story, but it's full of historical inaccuracies as it was never meant to be historically accurate. If you are going to judge this movie like the way you did, you should also make a video about inglorious Basterds. I mean, why not judge it From an historical perspective since "it matters not what the director" intended
Inglorious Bastards makes no such claim, and it is not based on anything. If you want a percepective on how to judge historical fiction, go watch my episode on that, but don't pretend that this movie is somehow beholden to the same level of veracity
I think the difference between this movie and other historical fiction movies is the while Inglorious Basterds or even Abraham Lincoln Vampire Slayer are a good representation of the historical reality while also adding fiction to the matter. This movie tries to represent the time period of the 1820s-1830s but fails to do it correctly because of what was pointed out on the video
I can only assume that movie makers use the whole "inspired/based on true events" to garner incentive for greater ticket sales. I know little if this is truth, but it seems like a probable bonus for marketing. I do understand that current movie makers are inspired by these lengendary stories and tweak the history to fit their own artistic interpretation while appealing to modern day audiences (ex. Braveheart). And they know they can get away with it since 99% of people aren't familiar with the actual events or are willing to research it for themselves. It's just a shame they aren't able to separate true history and create their own fully unique story with characters without contaminating the real events and facts about these individuals. I'm pretty sure Hugh Glass would have a lot to rant about if he could see how his life was falsely portrayed to modern society.
I'd love to see a really good film of this story. I'd also like to see a good film about cowboys that is not white washed to hell. But that's life i guess.
Movies are fabricated fiction by their very nature and over seen by the director's point of view and agenda. Smacking this movie around for being historically inaccurate when its based on a second hand account with holes in the story telling, and years of even more fabrication, is a lot of work for nothing. I do appreciate you going to the trouble to mention James Beckwourth. I'd enjoy a story about him even if it was fictionalized.
I saw this movie and didn't even pick up on Inarritu's environmentalist/we-should-all-get-along message. I thought it was just a semi-historical survival story about abusing Leonard DiCaprio.
I feel like your point here boils down to saying a inaccurate story is a bad one. I think that's a factor, but not the whole basis of judgement. The story was gripping, compelling, and lots of fun to watch. Even if it wasn't entirely historically accurate, it got a lot of atmosphere and culture that many westerns never even come close to.
Alex H I think he just wanted a more nuanced depiction of Native American and European/American relations.
I'm Native American from the Kiowa Tribe and thank you for pronouncing Kiowa the right way. The majority of people I meet pronounce it Key-O-wa and I tell them the right way and they still say it that way.
Wow, you weren't lying. You worked your butt off on this one. Fun fact: my uncle worked on this film. In fact, he won awards for helping create the iconic bear scene.
Here is my uncle at the Oscars. facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1261263683900428&set=pb.100000504265852.-2207520000.1474575676.&type=3&theater
Is it true that it was a bear costume or was it cgi?
UndeadSlayer5 I will ask him.
Mr. Beat's Social Studies Channel Thx
Mr. Beat ....put the pipe down.
"If you want to show the U.S. Army being jackasses to Indians, There's plenty to do; you don't need to imagine new stuff."
I really enjoyed this quote. As both a Native person and a student of history, I often find myself frustrated with people anachronistically adding or changing history RE: Native-White relations. Make no mistake, relations were often strained at the best of times. But I feel like there were enough actual bad things that happened that we can make our case for reparations without inserting "alternative facts" about history. All that overgeneralization, anachronism, and, in this case, made-up massacres do is undermine the legitimacy of our arguments and claims.
And don't even get me started on the director's portrayal of Native peoples. Talk about the "White Man's Indian"! Also, you mentioned whitewashing. While I don't know too much about the demographics of the American frontier (my focus being predominantly Western Canadian), I can't help but suspect that it was not only African-American figures like Jim Beck worth who were whitewashed, but also a large contingent of mixed-blood trappers and traders.
yeah, there were definitely mixed race folks as well - I just have an affinity for Beckworth, and he's probably the most famous of the non-white folks. Plus all the Amerindian guides! BTW, I'm totally going to have to use that rephrasing of "alternative facts."
Your elders stole your reparations.
@@fakeprofile9502 how about shut up?
Could you elaborate a little more on what you mean by "White Man's Indian?" I'm not surprised that there are native people such as yourself who didn't like the portrayal of the tribes in The Revenant, but I've also heard very positive reviews from some Navajo high-schoolers, a Seminole film-maker, and a film scholar who focuses on portrayals of American Indians in Hollywood (I think she was Arapaho). My favorite them of the story from an intercultural standpoint is that all tribes and peoples have distinct interests and values that inform their relationships with other groups. Although some of the French and Americans are represented as scoundrels, other whites are honorable. Although a lot of the whites are antagonistic towards natives and talk about them as if they were one "savage" monolith, the relationship between the Ree and the Pawnee is shown as complex and antagonistic. Of course the placement and portrayal of the details of each group is problematic in The Revenant from a historical perspective, but I think that the makers of the film were always more interested in large themes than historical details.
@5:22 "He killed the bear but was left bear-ely living." I guess the bear lived up its reputation. @5:49 "Survived by eating on bear-ries..." REVENGE!!
Anybody? Just me? Okay...
I'm overwhelmed by this puntastic post
On the topic of the Bear trappers being racist towards Leo's fictional son. Although there were often racially mixed hunting parties in the Americas, the idea of Miscegenation was still a very prominent problem in the 19th century. So a half white/Indian breeded boy would not be treated well by 19th century white Americans. So the racism towards him makes complete sense. Great video by the way. I still love this movie.
I never interpreted the focus on the landscapes & nature as pushing an "environmental conservation" message but rather as a character in itself. It portrayed the natural realm that was undeveloped, brutal, and alien to the Americans. As well as not the fragility of nature but the utter inhospitality of it to a lone person. I personally think the movie was beautiful, well-made and I prefer my interpretation & experience of it to the Directors & CH
The Revenant deserved to win the Oscar for cinematography. Some of the shots are amazing. That's it. DiCaprio was excellent but he always is and many felt (myself included) that him winning the Oscar for best actor was somewhat of a make-up award for when he should have won it sooner (Gilbert Grape, Aviator, Blood Diamond, Gangs of New York)
Kinda like how Scorsese won for The Departed but deserved it for Raging Bull, Goodfellas.
Exactly my thoughts. DiCaprio never wins an Oscar became already a Meme at some point^^ hes an good Actor giving the Award for "best Actor" in that specific role is laughable
Surreal history perhaps? I know your job is to pick things apart and you did it well here. But at the end of the day, movies like this are more art than pure logic. And as you said, at the heart of it is a tall tale as opposed to history. So you're right that the facts are wrong but maybe that's missing the point. Although, I agree the underlying premise is a little heavy handed though I think there is truth there worth considering.
I actually read the stark, vast scenery as more of an illustration as to just how hard Glass had to fight to accomplish his revenge. Additionally, not knowing where this took place, this setting felt like it was happening in the foot hills of the Rockies which is a kinda harsh place at times. I mean, after all, have you ever slept outside in the cold wet with not
more than a fire. Even at fifty degrees, that sucks. I has getting more
of a PVE type vibe there, and really little else. I don't feel any of the "nature" part of the movie really was a detractor.
Only the real Hugh Glass Event happened in August in the low rolling hills of North Dakota. Not in winter and nowhere near the Rockies.
I think this movie along with Saving Private Ryan are very immersive in the way they capture the tangible essence of war and hardships of being a voyager/fur trader.... in that sense there's no other movies that are even comparable...
"Rocky mountain fur company" sounds like a 70s porn studio
wow. came for history. got a roast on an amazing movie. thanks...
He killed the bear but left bearly living. Haha I see what you did there.
Fucking loved this movie and I like the fact that it says inspired by a true story instead of based
It says it at the end, it’s inspired on the novel
@16:42 The article said that it was her son that pointed out that the filmmakers used her voice
Jim Beckworth looks like Snoop Dogg's great great great grandaddy.
I can enjoy this movie without obsessing over its historical accuracy or plot. Is the plot simple and has it been done before? Sure, but I can get past that. It's visually stunning, the action is great, the acting is fantastic, and sure they take some artistic liberties, but I don't watch history movies and then take them as gospel, and I don't believe the filmmakers want you to do that either. Only a fool does that.
What ya said beforehand leaves no difference in the sand; its based on history, if not, still holds a defense against this video's criticism.
Paul M Propaganda films usually push a political message. What political message is this film pushing?
Caesar Down with capitalism and protect nature from man.
@@unopposedhaunting9262 that's the fault of the layman and not the filmmaker
@@wyleong4326 I didn’t take that from the movie at all. I think propaganda only works when the person watching it lets it work. There’s plenty of films that are blatant propaganda, both right wing and left wing, yet they can still be good films. Just don’t let yourself get suckered by the propaganda, be secure in your own beliefs, and enjoy the film.
I liked the movie, didn't expect a totally factual recreation of the subject. I understand "the cynical historian" has a job to do,which is to critique, but our opinions diverge in a few aspects regarding the politics& conclusions about the movie's faults&messaging. Still, I say good movie there, & good video here.
Good thing it was inspired by true event's and not based on them to be a close retelling of the story like you think it is. You're wasting your time dissecting a movie that was never meant to be even nearly 100% historically accurate. Whatever makes you happy I guess.
Absolutelly agree. Millions of people around the world enjoyed this movie very much, me including.
Slightly unrelated to the narrative, but I just wanted to add that the avalanche scene (which in my opinion was completely forgettable) was apparently neither CGI nor a natural avalanche and instead involved the production crew hiking up a mountain and setting off dynamite to induce an avalanche. soc.org/project/the-revenant-shooting-in-the-elements/
Personally, I don't think is such a big deal. I just thought this fact contrasted nicely with what the director says at 13:58. Hmm, what was that you were saying about using natural resources to make a profit and disrespecting nature?
I really like your channel Cypher: you do excellent historical work and you cite your sources (unlike, sadly, Nick Hodges). I feel obliged, however, to point out that French Canadian settlers were, on the whole, far from being horrible to the Natives. On the contrary, they befriended them, learned their languages and culture, intermarried and generally helped each other out (there were lasting alliances notably with the Algonquians, the Huron Wendat, the Montagnais and the Innu). The Revenant was to me quite frustrating, since one of the French Canadians portrayed in the film (Toussaint Charbonneau) was a well known "coureur des bois" who accompanied Lewis and Clark and had nothing to do with the events portrayed in the film. So yeah, that whole part of the movie was also highly inaccurate, both in facts and in spirit.
I can not put into words how right you are. Personaly, I would like to point out the HBC and the Nor'westers did a fairly good job in general as well.
Though they, wiesly, hired as many voyageurs as possible.Pet peeve of mine actually is the erasure of French Canadians from the history of Western Canada.I should probably leave it there or this will become half-essay half-rant.
Vive les Voyageurs,
-Timon
Toussaint was "given" away as was Etienne Brule.....the latter to be eaten by the Natives....The French Canadians were not so kind
What are you talking about?
Frédéric C. Laurin let's not pretend all French Canadians were saints. The Americans weren't the only ones who were cruel to the natives.
Caesar Right. And whoever said all French Canadians were saints?
I wouldn't say Americans were the worst. The Spaniards probably were. Yet both of them (as well as the Portuguese and the British) had eliminated 80 to 90% of the indigenous population within the first 100 years of contact with them. So once again, *in general*, the only colonists who treated the natives as equals were the French Canadians. Samuel de Champlain was a leading figure in this.
Pause on 20:00 and you can see clearly, the poster for "The Revenent" says, "Inspired by true events" and "Based in Part on the novel". they never claimed to be telling the story the way it actually happened.
Yeah but people don't notice that
The lesson of the story? "Never get off the boat." ;) Do _Apocalypse Now,_ maybe?
Oh, also "capitalism makes baby koalas cry". Fur trading is definitely not thousands of years old...
This movie is inspired from true event. Inspiration means they took the freedom of interpretation and transformation. They never pretend to be based on true history. Also the aproach of nature as well as american history is definitly something that need to be heard and explain with a new eye today.
not if that eye ignores facts
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind, so rather than addressing the real issues at hand, let's close both eyes (skipping the blinding bit) and start pointing fingers.
That'll work!
The movie is overbearing? You mean, over BEAR ing?
*eagle scream, shots of miami, the who starts playing*
*Based on a true story!*
(About a story about a story about a poem..)
Yep, thought so. I've seen Man in the Wilderness, but that was years and years ago. Thanks for putting that up.
Anyone ever notice that the ones that are anti-capitalist nature lovers have a very high net worth? Alejandro G. Iñárritu- 10 million, Leonardo Di Caprio-200 million.
It would be cool if this channel crossovered with History Buffs.
Nice video Cypher!
Can you make a " based on a true story" on The Battle of Algiers?
While I've watched the movie before, on this show, I try to stick with English language films.
Why ... ??? Everybody knows that it was a true event, as a matter of fact, a very decisive event in the future relations between France and Algiers and influence the entire Middle East.
+The Cynical Historian And why is that? Afraid of mistranslations into English?
I actually lived in South Dakota when this was in theaters and yeah it doesn't look like this, well maybe a little in the black hills. They might as well have not bothered to even tie it tie this to a historical figure.
The unrealistic thing about this movie is the pure fantasy of his survival as depicted. I live close to where most of this movie was shot, and have camped and hiked in the region in all seasons. The events that this character goes through are simply not survivable as shown. Bear attack, swept down a river in winter and then surviving without fire, shelter and dry clothes, let alone falling off a cliff. Complete fantasy.
Thank you thank you thank you thank you. THANK YOU for making this video!!!!!!!!!!!!! When I saw this movie it pissed me off to see all of the inaccuracies that they added!
i like this movie
Dude... IT'S ENTERTAINMENT. Of course they manipulated the original facts. It's a movies job to entertain. Not to educate. Im not taking away from your work. You did an impeccable job. Just saying, you need to remember it's a MOVIE. Not a historical documentary.
Saw this movie when it came out. Coincidently, the night before I watched an older movie on television called The Mountain Men, starring Charlton Heston and Brian Keith. Its plot was strangely similar.
One of my favorite movie!!!
Really late, but I just started watching your channel and I'm marathoning your videos.
I was wondering if you have any intention to look at Jeremiah Johnson, which seems to hit a few of the same beats as this.
Anyway, really like your content, and look forward to your future videos.
All those defending the inaccuracies because they said "inspired" and not based well there was real soldiers named Steve Rogers from WWII so should Marvel say the Captain America films are "Inspired" by real events? It'd be about as truthful.
I bought the first one about 16 years ago at Wal-Mart for $2.97 back then,but only because I had watch it when it first came out in the early 1970's at our local movie theater with my girlfriend and well my wife.i was 11 or 12 and she was 10 or 11 then,and we really liked it because the guy that played in it Richard Harris played in it.and played in the man called horse,and a couple more after words,and we have all most all of his movies that he came out with and made.i have not seen this one yet,but if we ever run across it and it is under 4 dollars we will probably buy it.we went to the drive in theater back then to see the first and main one with my brother in law now and his wife our sister in law as of almost 50 years ago.there about 6 to 7 years older than me and my wife.but I'd love to see our local town bring back and put in another drive in theater so we could take our now grandchildren to watch and see what we grew up and watched in our youth.we would go in the summer time back then and set in chairs in the back of our dads old pick up trucks and watch the movies that way.well just look how times have changed since then now right!!!!!
"I hope no one who watches this can take this movie seriously again." I could understand you not enjoying the film but as a "historical" channel I could barely find any of your criticism towards the inspired history in this movie valid.
I unsubbed this channel when this review came out. He totally missed the point of the movie by the statements he makes at some points. It made me think he was really stupid or he has an agenda that just doesn't align.
+joe kiva It seemed aggressively bias. The way he interpreted it as art didn't sit well which is fair, I guess it's called cynical history but calling this movie racist for example was just ridiculous. The way this judges historical authenticity mixed with art is just nit picky, if you cross referenced all historical movies with how inspiration from the period was fit into a 2 hour movie you could tear down every historical movie.
+joe kiva In saying that I will give another video a chance.
@@TheRocknRollfreak yeah, I will stick around a bit. His woodrow wilson work is worth the sub.
I think one of the big reasons Hollywood struggles with historical storytelling is this insistence that a film MUST have a “theme”. This film wants to send a message about racism, naturalism, spiritualism etc. but does so to the detriment of the real life story.
Yeah that is every story ever.
I get being upset from a historical standpoint, but the was one helluva movie. I don't even think they were going for historical accuracy, they were merely inspired by a time and place in history and loosely based it around a man who did exist while still being the stuff of legends.
OMG, I am so angry, "we are all savages" is the english translation of a slogan which was used by coureur de bois of the Quebec Fur Trade. It referers to 'Going Native' and abandoning New France for one of the First Nations groups, beyond this its also a pun, it can be translated as "We are all Free" which was a rejection of seigneurial system. It's literally about abandoning old European valluse that kept the concept of peasantry going. I already despised this movie for not just changing Glass' name and being a fiction officially, but this is beyond words for me.
Assimilation and Empire: Uniformity in French and British Colonies, 1541-1954 by Saliha Belmessous is proably the easiest book to get at that makes referance to this because its on google books, Page 45, for those interested.
-Timon
+Timon Ferguson Fascinating stuff. So that is based on something real, but perverted from its original meaning. Just another reason why this movie is insulting it's own audience.
I didn't know that, since I've never really studied the French fur trade. I'll have to check out that book.
I can't speak for the book as I only ever read excerpts, but most of the articles I thought of are in relatively obscure Canadian Journals from a good few years ago, so I defaulted to it. Also to be fair I'm only informed on the Fur trade in what would become Canada with a smattering of the competition that came out of the United States after the Revolution and with a special focus on the West Coast. (Takes all my willpower to not launch into a thing on all the fascinating historical oddities that were involved) Found your stuff recently and going through the backlog, lots of fun.
Keep up the good work,
-Timon
"Inspired by true events" and "Based in Part on the novel". That's it, it isn't trying to be a true story.
I mean, the movie is only okay, but still thought I'd point that little detail out.
ok i can see where youre coming from being a historian and all but movies are not ment to be depictions of history they are ment to be stories told through an enterpretation of history in this case
Exactly
Inspired
Not
Depicted
This is a pretty surreal movie at times too. While I appreciate he's approaching it in a Historical context, it clearly isn't meant to be taken as gospel like a movie like Dances with Wolves tries to.
You are awesome. Thank you for your hard work!!
In my opinion the story the movie tells Is not more fundamental than the execution of It,the way the story is told; with the use of music, suggestive photography, convincing acting, that's the art of filmmaking the plot is just a part of it. So i wouldn't say that it Is not a special movie because it ecxells in all of them (maybe the music was a little flat, but it fitted preety well with the tone of the immages).
I can't believe that you just brush Bridger off to the side. He was one of the greatest mountain men of all. Since I haven't seen the movie, I maybe off base. I purpusly didn't didn't see it because I could tell from the trailers that they didn't have a clue about Hugh Glass.
This is why I have not been to a movie theater since 99.
I was a big fan of Tom Hardy's performance, and really the whole character, in this film. I am also a sucker for long no-cut scenes. I really liked the bit with the Indian that was hanged with the sign around his neck saying something to the effect of "We are all Savages" in French. (Even if I felt the depiction of the French during this time seemed a little disingenuous.) That was a cheeky bit.
Also, fuck that director. Fucking prick probably did more polluting in the production of this fucking movie than I've done in five years. Seriously, spare me the sanctimonious lecturing, Alejhandro, you love Capitalism.
It occurs to me that this film is like a Northern, wintery, feature length version of “ An Incident at Owl Creek Bridge.”
I can only assume that embellishments such as the horse/cliff scene (action for the sake of action), the snow-flake eating scene (comic relief to relax viewers after the bombardment of tension filled scenes) and so many historically questionable sequences are injected as part of formula that both fulfill the requirements for executives (and check off all the financier's boxes needed for audience satisfaction and thus a healthy return on investment.) There's an obvious tight-rope walk that should balance historical accuracy vs. box office success, but I don't think there's any need to point criticism at the areas that producers demand since to them it's business first, and education later. Personally, I loved the immersive cinematography and soundscapes, regardless of it being "drawn out" compared to standard films. The action and human/relational elements gave it emotional weight and I better placed myself (father, husband) in Glass's shoes whereas the real Glass may have been less relatable and harder to route for. As a professional photographer, I appreciated the visual tone of this film. As a movie-goer, I was entertained with the story presented in this movie. I'm a little disappointed that the people and events have been misrepresented in some cases for worse, but have no problem forgiving the movie makers for fulfilling their cinematic quota for the sake of an excellent film.
Oh, and thank God this movie was not shot all in flat-lands. If throwing in mountains was historically inaccurate, I say fine. If visually exhilarating backdrops and impossible terrain enhance the story, the alternative is bleak backdrops that would grow quite tired in contrast.
The bear should have won the Oscar. Seriously. Look at how the talented beast played with Dicaprio (Or his stunt double)...
Really, watching Leonardo getting prison love from a bear made the whole thing almost worth watching again. Almost.
that crazy, 15:20 second from bottom. I live in Madison County Indiana that's wild
Yes, this movie was just astounding.
It’s funny to think the real Hugh was trying to get his gun back, not his kid ..
I know quite a few indigenous rights activists and ecosocialists who HATED this movie for exactly the reasons you lay out here. The fur trade was an environmentally disasterous example of early capitalism, but this movie does not depict this AT ALL. Dances with wolves did a much better job of demonstrating that and the racism of the West than this movie ever could and that movie is also pretty racist itself, with the whole white savior bs.
Brendan Davison It's not required for this movie to depict that. The environmental effect that trapping had is not what this movie about. Watch a documentary on for trapping if that's what you want to see.
wyyclef watch the video, that’s what Iñárritu was going for
What a load of rubbish. Maybe it was a bit to subtle for you but it obviously paints the europeans in a worse light than the indians.
And "white savior bs"? Hahaha get over yourself. The indian guy saved Glass, but when Glass saves the indian women it's suddenly white savior. You see things that you want to see.
I think the "white savior bs" was meant about dances with wolves.
Brendan Davison , that's because it's not about the environmental impact. it's not about racism in the West
there are a few movies about that if that's what you want.
Nice job. When a director rewrites history deliberately he needs to change names deliberately as well.
OH MY GOD PLEASE WHAT IS THE SONG IN THE INTRO YOU LIST EVERYTHING BUT THAT SONG PLEASE
There is two kind of movies who deals with history. Historical movies and movies based on real events. This movie goes in the second group. That simply means that it is not a historical movie, so your critique in inaquaraccies is mostly problematic. You are saying that the destruction of the native's village never happened. Yes but as you alreasy said, other massacres did happen so this is a fiction movie that describes a GENERAL truth , and it did it write. Native Americans in north america really got vanished by the anglo saxon immigrants.
If I were doing a historically inspired movie I'd hire you. This was a great watch.
Can u do the Last Samurai and 300?
already been done
Cynical Historian Oh ok what about hacksaw ridge or saving private ryan?
+UndeadSlayer5 need the Blu-ray to be out to do a review. Haven't done private Ryan because it isn't based on a true story, but History Buffs did it
Cynical Historian Oh ok.
I think this is the funniest video you have done so far.
21:40
My favourite Monty Python sketch lol
Mate. The pacing and length is part of the whole point. Agonizing travels
How did you not go with exit pursued by a bear in the jokes at the end? Not a Shakespeare fan?
i don't get the reference, so probably not
Something that really annoys me is when people try to paint the native/colonists relation ans a pure black and withe (All natives were peaceful, all colonists are demons)
History is not a dualism
Great video inspired by a great movie
I enjoyed this movie up until the bear scene, and then after that I couldn't take it seriously and I was taken out of the movie entirely for the remainder. Absolutely no way in hell someone survives the way it was depicted.
I liked the bear attack scene, camp attack scene and tom hardys performance
You know, there's the interesting thing about movies "based on" or "inspired by" historical events. Directors and screenplay writers always try to come up with stories that they think are more interesting or compelling than the actual historical events themselves. They pretty much always fail. I often wonder if it's because the director/writer just doesn't do any real research so doesn't know the amazing story upon which they're basing their new work, or if the director/writer are just arrogant. If you dig into historical events, you often find that the most unbelievable thing is what actually happened.
But if directors made films exactly the same as real life events it'd be more of a documentary or biography.
It's inspired by a true event, it doesnt claim to be a documentary, people are generally knowledgeable of the fact that hollywood movies arent accurate, its just entertainment.
"A Man in The Wilderness," seems like I remember that as "A Man Called Horse."
Wow that's crazy I never thought of it like that
I wonder how much carbon this movie making had contributed to our atmosphere. Great job making this video to unveil the hypocrisy in Hollywood.
I hated this movie, but you, my friend, have turned the meager tea-light of my scorn into a glorious Roman candle of historically accurate contempt. *long take of me slow-clapping my approval as a vegan movie star gags on some nutritious buffalo liver......
Honestly I didn't know it based actual historical figures until your review. I enjoyed the movie just for the storey telling. But now I am a little more knowledgeable and less entertained.
"Thanks for telling me whether or not I am allowed to enjoy this film"
Great video. I think you might have let your politics slant your rhetoric a bit on the use of the native poem.
In the interest of accuracy: It's not anywhere near IP theft because 20th Century Fox secured the rights to the 27 year old documentary for the film and even after her story got picked up in the papers she couldn't produce any contracts with the documentary for rights, credits, or residuals regarding her appearance. She also didn't write the poem herself so she was basically just a voice actor for the documentary.
The film didn't secure her permission because they legally didn't have to. I think they could have given her a credit to be nice. Ironically, this is some of that crude exploitive capitalism that the director likes to complain about.
Yeah, I think it was probably just an oversight. Wish Iñárritu would have done something about it though.
yea it was kind of a very outdated cliche storm. im glad DiCaprio finally got his oscar but the director done goofed.
this is an excellent review it captured everything I thought was strange about the film. Thanks keep up the great work
Like you said it’s a tall tale.. interesting take
the thing that really defeated the native Americans was trade.
the first time the native got something that he couldn't make for himself he was doomed
Great video cypher you shud make a video on the movie Michael collins if you haven't seen it google him its right up ur street
I had always heard the two guys he wanted to kill were the ones carrying him on the litter and they left him to catch up with the rest of the group. Which explains why they were the only ones he wanted to kill.
Love ya work, Cypher.
Stupid Friendship Nonsense is a great name for a band. Bluegrass I think.
It is a dam great movie !!!👌
This movie was "INSPIRED" by a true story, not "BASED" on a true story. They used elements of history to make a fictional movie. You are erroneously comparing this movie against a standard that it was never meant to fulfil.
+chriskill08 lol "erroneously" , now that is laughable, as if the whole movie is beyond reproach. It matters not what the director chose to label the movie whatsoever.
The Cynical Historian Inglorious Basterds was also inspired by a true story, but it's full of historical inaccuracies as it was never meant to be historically accurate. If you are going to judge this movie like the way you did, you should also make a video about inglorious Basterds. I mean, why not judge it From an historical perspective since "it matters not what the director" intended
Inglorious Bastards makes no such claim, and it is not based on anything. If you want a percepective on how to judge historical fiction, go watch my episode on that, but don't pretend that this movie is somehow beholden to the same level of veracity
I think the difference between this movie and other historical fiction movies is the while Inglorious Basterds or even Abraham Lincoln Vampire Slayer are a good representation of the historical reality while also adding fiction to the matter. This movie tries to represent the time period of the 1820s-1830s but fails to do it correctly because of what was pointed out on the video
I can only assume that movie makers use the whole "inspired/based on true events" to garner incentive for greater ticket sales. I know little if this is truth, but it seems like a probable bonus for marketing. I do understand that current movie makers are inspired by these lengendary stories and tweak the history to fit their own artistic interpretation while appealing to modern day audiences (ex. Braveheart). And they know they can get away with it since 99% of people aren't familiar with the actual events or are willing to research it for themselves. It's just a shame they aren't able to separate true history and create their own fully unique story with characters without contaminating the real events and facts about these individuals. I'm pretty sure Hugh Glass would have a lot to rant about if he could see how his life was falsely portrayed to modern society.
I don't have a problem with the inaccuracies in this movie. I knew it was a fiction going in - did anyone not?
could you do LAST OF THE MOHICANS
It's definitely on the list, the very very long list.
Thin Red Line or Victoria?
5:25 BEARly survived??? sorry that was really bad
I'd love to see a really good film of this story. I'd also like to see a good film about cowboys that is not white washed to hell. But that's life i guess.
Good video. I believe your pronunciation of Arikara is not correct. Something more like "Uh-rih-ker-uh".....
I got like an hour and 45 minutes in and fell asleep. I still don’t know what happened after he climbed out of the water and met the Indian.
Movies are fabricated fiction by their very nature and over seen by the director's point of view and agenda. Smacking this movie around for being historically inaccurate when its based on a second hand account with holes in the story telling, and years of even more fabrication, is a lot of work for nothing. I do appreciate you going to the trouble to mention James Beckwourth. I'd enjoy a story about him even if it was fictionalized.
I think that the revenant is a alternate history film
I saw this movie and didn't even pick up on Inarritu's environmentalist/we-should-all-get-along message. I thought it was just a semi-historical survival story about abusing Leonard DiCaprio.