I watched the HBO film Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee last night with anticipation. Not having seen any previews, I wasn’t sure what to expect, but I was hoping for a powerful look at one of our nation’s low points. While it was a decent movie, I was disappointed in its lack of emotional impact. I expect more of a focus on the events as Wounded Knee themselves, but this was only a short part near the end.
I appreciate that the film makers were trying to provide a larger sense of history, and I think the portrayal of Sitting Bull was quite good. There was too much focus on Charles Eastman, IMO, given the limited time available. I would have loved for this to be a mini-series bringing more of Dee Brown’s book to life.
The one thing I absolutely hated was near the beginning when President Grant, Henry Dawes, and (I believe) General Sherman were discussing the Dakotas and the general actualy used the phrase “cut and run” – I wanted to slap the screen writer for that.
Yeah, that was very jarring, and made me wonder if I was watching a movie, or a political commentary.
I only got thru the first half last night, but I thought it was OK-- I pretty much agree with your analysis. While I appreciate the writers attempt to be even handed, and not to portray the Indians as “noble savages” or pure victims, I have to wonder how realistic it was that an army general would be intimately familiar with the history of the Dakota/Lakota tribes and how they were relative newcomers to the Plains. That scene between the general and Sitting Bull appeared very contrived to me.
I’m looking forward to finishing it up tonight. I give it about a “B” so far. On a side note, it was interesting to see the 2 main protagonists from “Oz” in minor roles here.
“…the roots of ‘cut and run’ actually lie in the days of sailing ships. A ship at anchor coming under sudden attack by the enemy, rather than waste valuable time in the laborious task of hoisting its anchor, would sacrifice the anchor by cutting the cable, allowing the ship to get under sail and escape the attack quickly. ‘To cut and run’ was thus an accepted military tactic in emergencies, and the phrase itself dates to at least the early 1700s. By the mid-1800s, ‘cut and run’ was in common use as a metaphor for abruptly giving up an endeavor in the face of difficulty, and appears in non-nautical context in Dickens’s 1861 novel Great Expectations.”
I don’t doubt the phrase has a long history. That doesn’t mean it’s use in this movie was helpful. I found it distracting, and that it took me out of the sense of time that the movie should have been striving for. And I’m sure the writers were aware of what they were doing (trying to make a modern parallel). In the HOB series “Rome”, this was a very effective technique, as it was used as an integral part of the story. In “BMHaWK”, the singular use of that technique looked more like a cheap throw-away line.
Well…since it’s a movie about the treatment of the American Indians, I would say it’s both.
Frankly, the “cut and run” debate is a little tedious as it is perfectly legit for the period and inconsequential to the movie. If he said “shock and awe” then you might have some justification for your outrage.
Adam Beach is a worthy successor to Wes Studi (also in the movie) as the All-Purpose Indian Actor.
I watched the previews, read some reviews, and watched a few minutes. It looks like an ordinary network movie-of-the-week. There was no depth or grit in any of the scenes I watched, and the story doesn’t need a love interest. (I’m assuming Anna Paquin’s character is a love interest.) So I passed.
I know that’s not enough to base an opinion on, but I bought the Firefly DVD after seeing the last 5 minutes of just one episode, so sometimes snap judgments work out.
It just wasn’t “tight.” There was no need for a focus on Anna Pacquin’s character. It was confusing to me when I discovered that Sitting Bull wasn’t in Pine Ridge. Why were there no references to Lakota and Oglala?
Why no mention that Pine Ridge is the poorest area in the United States today?
I think they would be pleased to have such building as they had at the time the Indian doctor first came.
I’d say that it probably did a good job of distilling the history and issues in a somewhat balanced and not overly simplified fashion given that they only had 2 hours. . .but that does not a movie make.
The guy who played Eastman was a pretty weak actor, too.
Exactly my feelings. The use of the phrase “cut and run” pulled me out of the story in a very jarring way. It didn’t outrage me policitally but annoyed me artistically.
That is Adam Beach. While I wasn’t impressed with this performance, I thought he was excellent in Smoke Signals, the only other major role I’ve seen him in. In looking over his roles on the IMDB, I notice Beach has been in a number of TV movies made of Tony Hillerman books. I love Hillerman, and I never knew any movies were made of his books.)
He was in Flags of Our Fathers (haven’t seen it) and Windtalkers (unfortunately I did see this one). He also had a powerfully compelling role in Joe Dirt.