Dances with Wolves

Poimen · #1 (**permalink**) 12-04-2007, 02:27 PM

-SPOILER ALERT-

So I just watched this movie for the first time. (Yes I know it debuted in 1990 but I was only 13 then).

In any case I thought it was interesting and (generally) enjoyed it. I liked the fact that Costner spent time looking at the culture and language of the Sioux (though I don't know if it was accurate or not). He also did not try to glorify it or make them look like a bunch of peace loving hippies.

Although the white man is generally nasty, brutish and short I am not certain that Costner's point was that the Indian culture was better than the white man's. It seemed to me to be more of a personal struggle with the main character who, in the end, finds that he is more comfortable among the Sioux than his own kind. As he says, he didn't know who John Dunbar was until he was living amongst the Sioux.

There was one thing, however, that disturbed me. Costner and his Indian friends murder the soldiers who are accompanying him to the stockade/gallows. These men, despite their obvious ignorance and cruelty, were not really deserving of death. They were simply doing their job and, furthermore, Costner had abandoned his post. How could anyone justify this slaughter as Costner's character clearly does?

Thoughts?

Signed,

Hopelessly behind the times (and resigned to the fact that I will never catch up)

mangum · #2 (**permalink**) 12-04-2007, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Poimen

-SPOILER ALERT-

So I just watched this movie for the first time. (Yes I know it debuted in 1990 but I was only 13 then).

In any case I thought it was interesting and (generally) enjoyed it. I liked the fact that Costner spent time looking at the culture and language of the Sioux (though I don't know if it was accurate or not). He also did not try to glorify it or make them look like a bunch of peace loving hippies.

Although the white man is generally nasty, brutish and short I am not certain that Costner's point was that the Indian culture was better than the white man's. It seemed to me to be more of a personal struggle with the main character who, in the end, finds that he is more comfortable among the Sioux than his own kind. As he says, he didn't know who John Dunbar was until he was living amongst the Sioux.

There was one thing, however, that disturbed me. Costner and his Indian friends murder the soldiers who are accompanying him to the stockade/gallows. These men, despite their obvious ignorance and cruelty, were not really deserving of death. They were simply doing their job and, furthermore, Costner had abandoned his post. How could anyone justify this slaughter as Costner's character clearly does?
Thoughts?

Signed,

Hopelessly behind the times (and resigned to the fact that I will never catch up)

Good point. As far as I can recollect, The Sioux were at war with the US so them killing the soldiers falls under battle rather than unjustified killing or murder. But Costner's character was held captive for alleged crimes i.e., desertion, etc. plus add murder and treason to the list.