Controversy In Violence
When asked to watch The Revenant in class, I remember feeling the excitement as I recalled the first time I watched the film. As immense cinephiles, me and my friend Meri decided to catch a movie in the winter of last year. I remember vividly how we ran through the streets of Los Angeles trying to catch the evening showing of Quentin Tarantino's The Hateful Eight. Being one minute late, unable to purchase tickets, and exhibiting a long history of being huge Leonardo DiCaprio, we decided to watch Alejandro Iñárritu's The Revenant instead. I remember being the only teenage girls in a theater full of middle aged, bearded men.
The plot of the story seemed to be an unlikely one that I would enjoy; a fur trader by the name of Hugh Glass gets violently attacked by a bear and trudges through the wilderness to get back to camp. But the visuals, the scenic landscapes, the cinematography, and the gorgeous score allow the film to be extremely pleasant and engaging. When brought up in section, I was eager to hear the discussion that would surface from such a considerable and grand film.
A question brought up about the film that I thought was interesting was: is the film's use of violence gratuitous? Meaning, is the use of violence in the film unnecessary and unjustifiable? I stood fairly solid on my answer, that the use of violence is neither of those. While is it uneasy to watch the events that take place, such as the attack on the camp by the Arikara tribe, Glass being brutally mauled by a bear, the killing of Hawk, the use of offensive slurs, and the abduction of Powaqa, I do believe it to be an integral part of storytelling. The fact remains that the time period of The Revenant, 1823, was a primitive and violent one. Iñárritu employing these elements serves to accurately portray the time period that the story is told in and show the world around Glass precisely the way he saw it. By forsaking the use of such violence, gore, and explicit language, we would not get the full idea of the world that Glass is living in and what forces he has to go against. The most important aspect of the use of these elements, is that it allows Iñárritu to accurately portray the relationship between the white men and the natives of the story. Iñárritu succeeds in showing the true extent of the tensions between the two groups, and shows why Glass and his son Hawk stand out in such a world as they break down such heavily built cultural barriers. To truly showcase this, I believe, violence is necessary to not belittle and underestimate the turbulence and cultural divide that existed in such a time.
What makes Iñárritu's use of such elements in his film different from the filmmaking of, let's say, Quentin Tarantino? Starting from the early 1990's, Tarantino has been a classic and highly influential filmmaker and director. Millions and millions of people gather to watch his critically acclaimed films full of vulgar language, killing sprees, shootings, pools of blood, and beheadings and they absolutely marvel at it for what it is.
"If you ask me how I feel about violence in real life, well, I have a lot of feelings about it. It's one of the worst aspects of America. In movies, violence is cool. I like it."- Quentin Tarantino
While I do believe that Tarantino makes more conscious decisions about the violent elements in his films that he cares to admit, it still stands that it lacks true significance and meaning in his storytelling. While it adds character, plot development, and a highly visual component, it holds no true essence. It is not necessary for the story of the film; the film does not revolve around his use of blood and sword fights. They instead rely on his camerawork and intricate dialogue and narration. What draws Iñárritu away from such a perception is the substance his direction holds. While he employs gore and uneasy visuals like Tarantino, they are meant to portray an accurate historical story. They are making a comment about our past relations and the extreme degree to which cultural difference leads to animosity.