Review: Hostiles

Despite the SJW lecturing in one scene and the rather heavy-handed treatment of the themes of forgiveness and reconciliation, the movie is worth a viewing by fans of the genre. The message is comparable to that of Dances with Wolves and the cinematography is beautiful.  Criticisms of the plot, with spoilers, follow below.

*spoiler warning*



The movie begins with a citation of D.H. Lawrence: 'The essential American soul is hard, isolate, stoic, and a killer. It has never yet melted.'

Does this apply to Christian Bale's character, Captain Joseph Blocker, who is tasked by his commanding officer to escort one-time enemy Cheyenne chief Yellow Hawk and his family to his homeland in Montana? I think so -- if anything, the story is of the melting of his soul, even though one may disagree with how plausible it is for him to turn his gun against the Montanan ranchers who demand that his party leaves their land, along with the Cheyennes and the body of Yellow Hawk. He makes peace with his enemy and comes to value the Cheyenne under his protection as part of his own. Once his mission is accomplished, he is finally able to retire from the army and turn his back on war-fighting, ultimately choosing to make a new life with Mrs. Quaid and Yellow Hawk's grandson.

I can see why some might be critical of the movie because it gives a happy ending for the two main white characters, while killing off most of the Cheyenne. Some may have wanted the movie to end with the reconciliation of Blocker and Yellow Hawk. Is the reconciliation unearned, with regards to the story-telling? Or is the discovery of commonalities done well? They come to understand that while they have done horrific things during war, ostensibly for the sake of their people, they also have the love of family and bravery in common. Captain Blocker isn't the only one seeking forgiveness for his war crimes -- Master Sgt. Thomas Metz, his comrade-in-arms for a long time, is also a man who is haunted by what he has done and does not have inner peace. Living with one's enemy, even if it is in the context of escort duty, may help one see his humanity. Perhaps this aspect could have used more exposition, but at 2 hours and 15 minutes, the movie is already long. Some may think that the movie takes an unnecessary detour with the introduction of the prisoner Sgt. Charles Wills, but Wills, being someone else who has fought with Blocker before, is supposed to serve as a contrast to Blocker and Metz, and who does not hesitate to kill another cavalry trooper in order to escape.

In contrast, the relationship between Capt. Blocker and the black Corp. Henry Woodsen was touching, though some may find it forced, that sort of positive depiction of white-black relations. But theirs was a relationship that also seemed to go back a time, as Blocker seemed to know Woodsen's father and their friendship was one forged in battle and the trust that goes with that.

The wife of Lt. Col. Ross McCowan makes comments critical of the treatment of the Indians on reservations which may strike some viewers as anachronistic, but the movie is set in 1892, so perhaps it is not as anachronistic as it seems. Were there social Gospel Christians who were aware of the plight of the Indians and try to advocate for them? And there were also Christian missionaries on the reservations at this time, I believe.

For the true SJW, there can be no acceptable Western, I think. The genre is irredeemable. As a "message Western" I did not think it was worse than Dances with Wolves. I did not find the transformation of Blocker to be implausible, even if it was expected given the hype surrounding the movie.


Misc:
I did not recognize Stephen Lang at first when he appeared as Blocker's commanding officer, but eventually his bright blue eyes got me thinking about whether it was Stephen Lang. Sure enough, it was. He needs to be in more movies, and he does look good in Yankee Blue, even if his most memorable character remains Stonewall Jackson in Gods and Generals. Great costume work by Jenny Eagan.

One minor complaint: Blocker does not use a rifle in the movie. Nor does he carry a sword/saber -- was that already no longer an option for US Army cavalry officers in the 1890s, or an option of which they generally stopped availing themselves?

INTERVIEW: Jenny Eagan, Max Richter, and Tom Cross Discuss Scott Cooper and ‘Hostiles’

Rotten Tomatoes
IMPA