wordsmith100

This is a reasonably faithful (to Rex Stout) movie and it has very good period piece settings. My major difficulty is with Maury Chaykin as Wolfe. Yes, he's a significant improvement over William Conrad--but a bit too distant and peevish and his shouting rants are not quite the bellowing that one associates with Wolfe. I find it difficult to relate Chaykin's acting and persona to the fictional character. Moreover, one feels mostly unsympathetic with his portrayal of Wolfe--nor does he have the mass,size or presence of the fictional Wolfe (what I would have given to see the great ORSON WELLES play this part in his day--he would have been perfect in size, bombast, wit, love of fine food and wine etc.; Raymond Burr would have made another fine Wolfe, in my opinion). Perhaps John Goodman--who certainly has the size and acting skill--would have been a better choice as Wolfe. In the books, Wolfe had the ability to silence people with one glance; he took in bushels of air in each breath. In short, he was a giant in size and intellect among men. Chaykin simply isn't and cannot convey this important side of Wolfe.

Timothy Hutton is much better as Archie Goodwin, Wolfe's "legs and eyes" and banter between them is faithful to the books. However, the third person in the Wolfe household--Fritz--is also not quite right in his role. Here he has a Frenchish accent while in the Stout books Fritz, as befits his name, is Central European, as I recall, with a Germanic accent. Otherwise, Colin Fox looks and acts his part well. Others have commented about the orchid/planting room as not being large enough and having enough plants. I think a worse problem is that Wolfe is shown in this movie as if he is still in the office; Wolfe really worked with plants and got himself dirty--he didn't just peer at plants through a magnifying glass.

Still, overall, this is an enjoyable period piece and a must for lovers of the great detective created by Rex Stout. To the person from Canada who wrote in, you must read the books to understand the Wolfe-Goodwin-Fritz dynamics which in a sense are the real "action" in the series. The Stout-Wolfe books are one of the great achievements of detective fiction and if I am griping a bit here, it is only because they set such a high mark.

Like most of the commentators here, I found "Dances With Wolves" to be a moving and superbly made movie. Others have eloquently talked about the wonderful music and score, the very real script, and excellent acting, so there is no need for me to elaborate. But another element of the movie that I found even more notable is its depiction of Native Americans as individuals with feelings, honorable if at the same time frequently peculiar customs, and as human beings with human urges and impulses. What a refreshing contrast to all of the pablum and nonsense that has been the staple of Hollywood and its treatment of "injuns" over the years.

So it comes as no surprise that some of the criticisms here come from people who believe the movie is anti-white or anti-army or glorifies Native Americans. But I believe these comments completely miss the mark. First off, Costner in the movie himself portrays an army figure--the movie is trying to show that not all people in the army are beasts. This is again brought out by the young leader of the troops attempting to arrest Costner and bring him back to trial; this soldier is depicted as a fair and honest young man put in a difficult spot.

Perhaps one of the reasons for the shortsightedness of some of the movie critics is their lack of understanding of the terrible plight faced by native Americans and the awful, holocaust-like consequences of the policy that was known as "Indian Removal." And yes, I am a professor who knows something about the subject and who uses this film in class (and I am not afraid to admit it). Please have a look at "As Long as Grass Grows or Water Runs" a chapter in Howard Zinn's famous book, "A People's History of the United States." It uses many primary sources to describe exactly what happened; the phrase, by the way, was a promise made by Andrew Jackson (later President Jackson) to Cherokee Indians if they would relocate (a promise later broken, of course). Jackson, by the way, refused to enforce a court order from the Supreme Court in the case of Worcester v. Georgia involving an individual sentenced to prison for questioning the legitimacy of laws repressing the Cherokees. Jackson also fought the Creeks killing hundreds of them and later boasted, "the truth is, the (Creeks) did not respect the power of the United States...We bleed our enemies in such cases to give them their senses." From 1814 to 1824, Jackson was instrumental in fashioning a series of treaties that deprived Indians of over 3/4 of Alabama and Florida, one-third of Tennessee, one-fifth of Georgia and Mississippi, and parts of Kentucky and North Carolina. These treaties were little more than land grabs and Jackson is widely known to have practiced extensive bribery and other dirty tricks in securing them. At the same time, Jackson and his friends and relatives received many patronage appointments as land agents, traders etc (I guess he would have gotten along well with Dick Chenney and Bush) and of course, he and his friends bought up much of this land that became suddenly available.

Another good source for what happened to the Indians is the eyewitness account of a soldier who served in the mounted infantry. John G. Burnett in 1890 published his reminiscences, "The Cherokee Removal through the Eyes of a Private Soldier". "I was sent as interpreter into the Smoky Mountain Country in May, 1838, and witnessed the execution of the most brutal order in the History of American Warfare. I saw the helpless Cherokees arrested and dragged from their homes, and driven at the bayonet point into the stockades. And in the chill of a drizzling rain on an October morning, I saw them loaded like cattle or sheep into 645 wagons and started toward the West." This evokes images not unlike those showing S.S. officers putting Jews in railroad cars. "At this time, 1890," continues Burnett, "we are too near the removal of the Cherokees for our young people to fully understand the enormity of the crime that was committed against a helpless race. Truth is, the facts are being concealed from the young people of today." Burnett later describes the "streams of blood that flowed in the Indian country in the summer of 1838" and the "4000 silent graves that mark the trail of the Cherokees to their exile", again very much like a World War II death march. So what I find shocking about "Dances With Wolves" is that it shows, to a great extent, the brutality of the conflict between "settlers" from one civilization, and the people who already lived on the land. This stands as a testament to Costner and his willingness to take this brave position. It is precisely because this subject has become taboo and because most Americans haven't a clue as to their own history, because their image of America is similar to Pleasantville (before colorization), that many people find this movie revolting and unacceptable. Hence, they prefer to shoot the messenger of the "bad" news-- Costner.

Finally, as others have pointed out, the movie does not glorify all Native Americans. It shows that there is a spectrum of behavior amongst them, and also shows that many of their customs (eating fresh meat from just-killed animals, for example) are shocking and barbaric to us today.