Attended my first 'big' film of the year at the weekend. The
Revenant has been strongly billed around the country as an Oscar
contender, and word on the internet is that Leonardo DiCaprio - long
over-looked by The Academy - will be picking up the top
acting prize for his role. Worthy of checking out no?
The word 'revenant' means a person who returns from death. Here this concept is embodied by DiCaprio's character, a man who should by all rights have died. Hugh Glass is a troubled tracker aiding a group of trappers and explores in the early days of the US expansion west across the Americas. He is mauled terribly by a wonderfully rendered CGI bear and eventually left to die, but not before rival Fitzgerald (played by Tom Hardy - utterly unrecognisable) gives him good reason to seek a return to civilisation and find his revenge.
It's difficult to not give too much away about The Revenant, mainly because not a lot really happens. The plot and characterisation of Glass and his contemporaries is very thin. It's a revenge film in which the character earning his revenge has to endure a series of trials to be reborn into the world of men, escaping the uncaring clutches of nature and Native Americans alike. What is great about the film is the care and attention that has gone into rendering amazing landscapes on to screen. All the techniques in the arsenal of the cameraman are on display as the wild frozen scenery is placed on the screen for an enraptured audience to marvel at. An opening battle sequence (possibly one long take - though perhaps there are cuts) demonstrates an astonishing merger of CGI, camerawork, timing and use of lighting / framing to tell a story of utter panic. It's a film for which the Director of Photography deserves huge credit.
Though what we see on the screen is beautiful to take in, I did get a feeling that a lot was being repeated, which added to my nagging doubts over the thinness of the plot. There are only so many times we need to marvel at the frozen prairie landscape before it isn't doing anything to advance the story. How many times can DiCaprio's character get metaphorically reborn? How many times does he have to look up into the trees towards heaven, the camera providing the audience with a point-of-view shot? I reiterate that it looks fantastic, but is it 150 minutes of fantastic? Rehashing the same beat time and again - that of rebirth and redemption though suffering - I couldn't help be reminded of Mel Gibson's Passion of the Christ. Not a great comparison.
Is
Leonardo DiCaprio about to get his Martin Scorsese moment at the
Oscars? Is it the case that he's finally been handed a role in the
sort of film that the Academy feel comfortable handing out awards over?
I can't see why DiCaprio has remained on the sidelines of the
Oscars for so long, especially since many of the films in which he gave
signature performances won awards in other categories (Titanic, The
Departed, Inception - even Django Unchained). I think the Academy is in
the process of convincing itself that The Revenant is better than it
is so they can give DiCaprio the award he merits for this career's work. Or maybe The Academy always just give out awards to actors who play parts where they have to suffer. Not that The
Revenant is in any way a bad film or that DiCaprio gives anything less
than a solid performance, but I just don't see it as an actor's movie. It's a
movie in which the Director of Photography and special effects team
should receive the highest praise. As for the acting? Well I remain
unconvinced it is award-worthy.
Check it out for yourself; but get a comfy seat, 150 minutes of comfy seat.
No comments:
Post a Comment