Hostiles Review (2017)

Grade: C-

In their new Western “Hostiles,” Director Scott Cooper and co writer Donald E. Stewart effectively deromanticize the American West and depict it as a place of casual violence and conquest. During the opening scene, set on a calm prairie out in the frontier, an unsuspecting homestead is attacked by a band of quietly terrifying Commanches. Children, including an infant are massacred with little fuss. Somehow, the movie only gets bleaker from there. It’s overflowing with violence, death and suffering.

Through this extreme gloominess, “Hostiles” is primarily two things: an exploration of the numbing, tormenting effect violence and suffering can have on individuals over an extended period of time, as well as a somber, revisionist look at the shameful legacy of white conquest in the old west. While occasionally compelling, the film ultimately comes up short on both fronts. Cooper’s narrative approach is disappointingly narrow-minded.

Our protagonist is Joseph Blocker, (Christian Bale) a US army Captain who is broken down and full of hatred. Years of battle and death have made him spiteful towards Native Americans. But that spite also masks an aching feeling of guilt. This is perhaps the most pained, intense performance Bale has delivered in his entire career. There’s no light or charisma in his demeanor. The first time we see Blocker, in close up as he watches a trio of Apaches being rounded up, he’s stiff and emotionless, dead inside.

Blocker is ready for retirement and maybe a hot bath. But his work isn’t done yet. He’s ordered to escort an elderly Cheyenne chief named Yellow Hawk (the great Wes Studi in another terrific, understated turn) and his family back to their land in Montana. Blocker reluctantly agrees and they set off, accompanied by a small cavalry unit. Along the way they encounter Rosalie Quaid (Rosamund Pike) an emotionally fraught woman who lost her family in the film’s opening attack, and face off against a diverse lot of antagonists (Indians, fur trappers, land owners etc.).

Throughout the course of the journey, Blocker will take a good hard look at his deep seeded hatred and guilt and perhaps even have a change of heart about his Native acquaintances. By the middle of the second act, “Hostiles” is dripping with white guilt, which is good. We have plenty to feel guilty about regarding our despicable treatment of Native Americans (and other minorities) in the old west and Cooper makes that very clear. In one scene, one of Blockers men essentially apologizes to Yellow Hawk for the treatment of his people. But this is also the main problem with “Hostiles:” despite its good intentions the picture ultimately prioritizes white guilt and white suffering at the expense of its Native characters.

This isn’t to say the film’s depiction of Native Americans is entirely offensive. In fact Studi portrays Yellow Hawk as stoic and enlightened. He’s generous even when his white counterparts don’t return the favor and constantly preaches unity when the group is in a tense survival situation. He’s a much better, more put together person than any of the white people. As a character, however, we don’t get to know Yellow Hawk on an intimate, human level (unlike Blocker or Quaid). How has he (and his family) been personally affected by violence and tragedy? Yellow Hawk is a resilient but two-dimensional figure rather then a well-rounded character. His own conflicts, past and personality are never fleshed out. There’s always a distance between him and us that makes him feel more like a symbol than a real person. Meanwhile, Yellow Hawk’s daughter and son in law are given only a few lines of dialogue and are paper-thin. In the end, the Indian characters are there primarily for Blocker’s redemption.

In “Hostiles,” white guilt and disillusionment are placed front and center while Native American tragedy and perspective is pushed to the side. Things get especially frustrating when the film directly attempts equate white struggle with Indian struggle. Somehow, Blocker losing friends during battle (with Indians, mind you) is on par with the systemic genocide and conquest of Native Americans.

With the exception of a few tensely edited action sequences, “Hostiles” suffers from a painfully sluggish stop and start narrative. I don’t mind slow burn storytelling as long as it pays off but the film builds to such an underwhelming and patronizing end point that the meticulousness isn’t earned. Overall, Cooper’s film is well intentioned but one sided. Native American perspective is minimized in favor of yet another tale of white redemption.

Black Mass Review (2015)

There’s an intense scene in Scott Cooper’s gangster film “Black Mass” that does a great job of encapsulating Irish mob boss James “Whitie” Bulger’s (Johnny Deep) outlook on life and depicting his general intimidating demeanor. Bulger, along with his right hand man Steve Flemmi, (Rory Cochrane) F.B.I. Agent John Connolly, (Joel Edgerton) and another F.B.I. Agent John Morris (David Harbour) are eating steak dinner, having a good time. Bulger casually asks Morris (who cooked the steaks) what the recipe is. Morris doesn’t answer at first, saying it’s a “family recipe” but then after Bulger asks a few more times Morris reveals it. Suddenly Bulger becomes dead serious, zeroing in on Morris with his buggy eyes and, in his soft voice, berates the agent about loyalty and how he easily gave up a family recipe. The color drains from Morris’ face and it seems like Bulger is going to smash his face in. A beat or two later and Bulger breaks into laughter, saying he was “joking.”

But beneath those cackles we know that he’s not joking. For Bulger, loyalty isn’t a laughing matter and up until now we’ve seen again and again how he deals with people who aren’t trustworthy…and it isn’t pretty.

Black Mass” is an elegantly made period crime film that’s all about loyalty-- how important it is to Bulger and how ruthless he can be towards people who aren’t. Organized crime is built on a combination of loyalty and fear; in forming and expanding your gang you need people you can count on and when someone gets out of line or backstabs you, you have to make an example of them, a gesture that instills some level of fear in the rest of your outfit and keeps them in line. This example-making extends to the community and non-gang members as well; if a civilian witnesses a cold blooded murder they’ll keep their mouth shut, either out of respect for the gang members or out of fear of getting killed. Scene after scene, Cooper’s film essentially comes down to: are you loyal to Bulger or not? Yes? Great, you get to keep on living. No? Well expect a bullet to the head or a rope around the neck. The film doesn’t shy away from showing us the graphic, disturbing details of Bulger’s wrath; basically every act of violence comes back to the question of loyalty.

Unlike, say, the lively, black comedic swaggering of a Martin Scorsese gangster film (“Goodfellas”) “Black Mass” is cold and unsettling; Masonobu Takayanigi’s cinematography is gloomy, almost  apocalyptic. There are some funny wisecracks every now and then but it doesn’t look like fun. Not that gangster films are supposed to look “fun” to us but the characters, for the most part, don’t look like they’re having much fun being gangsters, as if they’re permanently on edge. Will Bulger kill me for something I did? What did I do?

And frankly I don’t blame them. Bulger is a psychopath. With his slim stature, pale sickly skin and thinning hair, he looks like the cold remorseless monster he is. Bulger isn’t flamboyant or showy and he certainly isn't charming. Instead he’s calm and methodical, never becoming overly animated in times of anger and not above taking out his own trash. The opening scene where he gets mad at an associate for eating nuts and sticking his wet fingers back into the nut bowl shows how highly observant he is of other people’s behaviors. He often looks like he’s deep in thought. Thinking about his next move. Thinking about who might betray him next and how he might kill that person.  At the same time Bulger is extremely selfish—cherishing loyalty but only loyalty towards him. Depp’s Bulger is chilling and eccentric yet also measured and understated; the character never verges into hammy territory. After playing nothing but zany cartoon characters (“Pirates of the Caribbean”) for the last few years it’s nice to see him tackle real, compelling characters again (he’s good at it).

Edgerton is also strong as Connolly (who forms an alliance with Bulger in order to take down the rival Italian Mafia). Overall Connolly is a decent guy who’s morally conflicted—trapped between an obligation to perform his duties as a government agent and his admiration for Bulger. The two grew up in the same neighborhood together so he feels a connection to the malicious criminal, causing him to define his own notions of what’s right and wrong. It’s a great character that’s in some ways more compelling than Bulger; Bulger is a bad guy and knows it but Connolly wants to believe he’s doing good things.

 “Black Mass” falters when it wants to be a grand, ensemble gangster epic. Bulger and Connolly emerge as the only three-dimensional characters. Meanwhile the supporting characters (played by an array of immensly talented actors like Benedict Cumberbatch as Bulger’s politician brother, Corey Stoll as a no nonsense DA, Jesse Plemons as a budding young enforcer in Bulger's gang or Peter Sarsgaard as a wirey drug addict) have great moments but overall their characters sort of  fade into the background. Like a lot historical biopics, “Black Mass” bites off a little more than it can chew--trying to cram a rich, nearly ten year story with lots of colorful characters into a feature lenghth film. More than once the movie loses focus.

Also, for all the years that are covered (nineteen seventy five to the mid eighties) we don't learn that much about Bulger and how his Winterhill gang actually came to power in the first place. The script by Mark Mallouk and Jez Butterworth glosses over the “business” side of Bulger’s outfit (how they maintain control over South Boston) and his progression from smalltime crook to top dog is treated somewhat vaguely. "Black Mass" wants to be a traditional rise and and fall gangster epic but we don't see much of Bulger's rise or fall. It's really only about Bulger and Connolly and their years long alliance.

Even so, I can't say I had a totally unpleasant time during the film. As a crime epic, Cooper doesn't quite pull it off, but as a dark violent character study about a ruthless man who takes loyalty very seriously and his pact with a morally divided F.B.I agent, it's watchable. Also, as a vehicle for Depp and Edgerton’s heavy weight performances, “Black Mass” succeeds tremendously.

C+