Director: Kelly Reichardt
Screenplay: Jonathan Raymond
After trudging through windswept and scorching wasteland for days, the party realise that they are lost and that Meek is leading them blind. The men are riled and gather to discuss their dilemma, debating whether or not to shoot Meek and retrace their steps. True to nineteenth-century culture, the women have no say in the decision making. And as viewers, we too are only allowed to eavesdrop on the conversation from a distance, along with the bonneted women, which lets us sympathise with their lack of control over the future. Divided in their opinion over Meek’s fate, and swayed by his blustering bravado, the men decide to let him guide them on for a few more days before taking any action.
During this time the group captures a Cayuse Native American (Rod Rondeaux) who had been following them for a while. Meek is all for killing him immediately, claiming he’d lead ‘an army of heathen’ to them. However, Solomon Tetherow (Will Paton), the oldest man in the group, convinces the frightened party that they should keep the Indian alive since he probably knows the layout of the land and could lead them to water. And so once again the women fall in line with their menfolk’s decision and the wagon trail moves on – this time following the Indian.
Reichardt prioritises the women’s perspective of the journey - we see them grinding coffee, gathering firewood, mending clothes, and fixing meals, all after a long day of walking under an unrelenting sun. They stay with the canvas-covered wagons, and make camp while their husbands ride off to scout out the land ahead. Their opinion isn’t sought after or validated, and they depend entirely on their husbands for their survival in this harsh environment. At least, Millie Gately (Zoe Kazan) and Glory White (Shirley Henderson) do. Emily Tetherow’s character on the other hand, develops with the movie: she goes from being reserved and quiet, to more independent and vocal in her opinion, as the group’s supplies and endurance dwindle. Superbly played by Michelle Williams, Emily portrays the strength that pioneer women in the 19th century would have needed as they forged into unknown territory. While the men are easily led like dumb sheep, Emily isn’t taken in by Meek’s blundering lies. And when things come to a head with the capture of the Indian, she becomes the moral compass for the group, and the main contender against Meek.
The Cayuse Indian is never given a name; he isn’t even given a voice – his dialogue, in his native language, is not translated or subtitled for the benefit of either the characters or the viewers. Reichardt explains, ‘I didn’t want to give the audience any information that the immigrants didn’t have. They have to figure out what this person is all about without the resource of language.’ To the travellers he is a dangerous savage and a natural enemy.
To Emily, however, he becomes the last hope for a future. She is able to rise above her cultural upbringing and societal norms, to show him some kindness. Her initial motive is to do something for the Indian so that he would be indebted to her, and if a time came when she was at his mercy, she would have something to bargain with. But she slowly grows to trust this stranger and even stands up for him against Meek’s bullying.
But what is the Indian all about for us, the audience?
The movie’s ending is unresolved and ambiguous. Does Reichardt want the audience to decide for itself the consequences of the travellers following the Indian, or is she pointing towards the uncertainty that we all face when it comes to matters of trust? Seeing that the Indian eventually led the travellers to a tree that held out hope of water nearby – and through it, hope of life – can he possibly be likened to another man who held out hope of an eternal life? The question of the possibility of life after death cannot be answered for sure while we still live, but as mortals haven’t we all wondered, if there is more to this life? If there isn’t; if this is all there is, then doesn’t our existence seem a bit pointless? Somehow, there seems to be in all of us a longing for eternity, a thirst for a meaning to our existence. And Jesus offers to satisfy this otherwise unquenchable thirst. He said that the only way we could go to heaven, and have eternal life, is by believing in him. As preposterous an idea as that may seem, what if he were right? What if there is a heaven and the only way to enter it is through believing in Jesus Christ? Of course, we don’t know for sure; there is no foolproof guarantee that what he said was true. As Solomon puts it, ‘We don’t know, either way.’ But we do have to make a choice, and it will be a life-altering one: dare we trust Jesus’s claims? Maybe we ought to consider that question and its impact on our life while weighing the last line of the movie as Meek says,
We’re all just playing our parts now. This [the future, past, and present] was written long before we got here.
What if he was right?
This article was first published at http://www.damaris.org/content/culturewatcharticles/1296
Screenplay: Jonathan Raymond
Starring: Michelle Williams, Bruce Greenwood, Will Patton, Paul Dano, Shirley Henderson
Distributor: Oscilloscope Pictures (USA); Soda Pictures (UK)Cinema Release Date: 8 April 2011 (USA); 15 April 2011 (UK)
Certificate: PG (USA / UK) Contains infrequent mild violence and languageWarning: This article contains plot spoilers
Kelly Reichardt’s latest film, Meek’s Cutoff, leaves you thirsty. The arid landscape - the brown, ochre and yellow of the desert, the sparse scrub and bleached sky, the parched earth and cracked salt flats – leaves you feeling dry mouthed and dehydrated by the end of the movie. Meek’s Cutoff is not a stereotypical Western, with gun-slinging men, saloons and sheriffs. In fact, there’s almost nothing ‘western’ about this movie, other than its geographical location. Like her previous two movies, Wendy and Lucy and Old Joy, Reichardt has again made a road movie of sorts – only there is no ‘road’ in this historical drama, and canvas-covered wagons replace cars.
It’s 1845, and three pioneer couples, one with a twelve-year-old child, are being led off the Oregon Trail and over the Cascade Mountains via a supposed short cut by Stephen Meek (Bruce Greenwood), a mountain man and their guide. We first meet them as they ford a river. The arduousness of this task is stretched over the dialogue-free, first ten minutes of the movie, hinting at, and preparing the viewer for, the scarcity of words to come. Meek, who is anything but what his name suggests, is the only exception to this lack of conversation, and his flood of anecdotes and unasked-for advice make a blaring contrast to the minimal dialogue from the rest of the characters.
After trudging through windswept and scorching wasteland for days, the party realise that they are lost and that Meek is leading them blind. The men are riled and gather to discuss their dilemma, debating whether or not to shoot Meek and retrace their steps. True to nineteenth-century culture, the women have no say in the decision making. And as viewers, we too are only allowed to eavesdrop on the conversation from a distance, along with the bonneted women, which lets us sympathise with their lack of control over the future. Divided in their opinion over Meek’s fate, and swayed by his blustering bravado, the men decide to let him guide them on for a few more days before taking any action.
During this time the group captures a Cayuse Native American (Rod Rondeaux) who had been following them for a while. Meek is all for killing him immediately, claiming he’d lead ‘an army of heathen’ to them. However, Solomon Tetherow (Will Paton), the oldest man in the group, convinces the frightened party that they should keep the Indian alive since he probably knows the layout of the land and could lead them to water. And so once again the women fall in line with their menfolk’s decision and the wagon trail moves on – this time following the Indian.
Reichardt prioritises the women’s perspective of the journey - we see them grinding coffee, gathering firewood, mending clothes, and fixing meals, all after a long day of walking under an unrelenting sun. They stay with the canvas-covered wagons, and make camp while their husbands ride off to scout out the land ahead. Their opinion isn’t sought after or validated, and they depend entirely on their husbands for their survival in this harsh environment. At least, Millie Gately (Zoe Kazan) and Glory White (Shirley Henderson) do. Emily Tetherow’s character on the other hand, develops with the movie: she goes from being reserved and quiet, to more independent and vocal in her opinion, as the group’s supplies and endurance dwindle. Superbly played by Michelle Williams, Emily portrays the strength that pioneer women in the 19th century would have needed as they forged into unknown territory. While the men are easily led like dumb sheep, Emily isn’t taken in by Meek’s blundering lies. And when things come to a head with the capture of the Indian, she becomes the moral compass for the group, and the main contender against Meek.
The Cayuse Indian is never given a name; he isn’t even given a voice – his dialogue, in his native language, is not translated or subtitled for the benefit of either the characters or the viewers. Reichardt explains, ‘I didn’t want to give the audience any information that the immigrants didn’t have. They have to figure out what this person is all about without the resource of language.’ To the travellers he is a dangerous savage and a natural enemy.
To Emily, however, he becomes the last hope for a future. She is able to rise above her cultural upbringing and societal norms, to show him some kindness. Her initial motive is to do something for the Indian so that he would be indebted to her, and if a time came when she was at his mercy, she would have something to bargain with. But she slowly grows to trust this stranger and even stands up for him against Meek’s bullying.
But what is the Indian all about for us, the audience?
The movie’s ending is unresolved and ambiguous. Does Reichardt want the audience to decide for itself the consequences of the travellers following the Indian, or is she pointing towards the uncertainty that we all face when it comes to matters of trust? Seeing that the Indian eventually led the travellers to a tree that held out hope of water nearby – and through it, hope of life – can he possibly be likened to another man who held out hope of an eternal life? The question of the possibility of life after death cannot be answered for sure while we still live, but as mortals haven’t we all wondered, if there is more to this life? If there isn’t; if this is all there is, then doesn’t our existence seem a bit pointless? Somehow, there seems to be in all of us a longing for eternity, a thirst for a meaning to our existence. And Jesus offers to satisfy this otherwise unquenchable thirst. He said that the only way we could go to heaven, and have eternal life, is by believing in him. As preposterous an idea as that may seem, what if he were right? What if there is a heaven and the only way to enter it is through believing in Jesus Christ? Of course, we don’t know for sure; there is no foolproof guarantee that what he said was true. As Solomon puts it, ‘We don’t know, either way.’ But we do have to make a choice, and it will be a life-altering one: dare we trust Jesus’s claims? Maybe we ought to consider that question and its impact on our life while weighing the last line of the movie as Meek says,
We’re all just playing our parts now. This [the future, past, and present] was written long before we got here.
What if he was right?
This article was first published at http://www.damaris.org/content/culturewatcharticles/1296
No comments:
Post a Comment