I will not belabor the obvious. As the more acute critics of this film have pointed out, this film sentimentalizes and sanitizes Sioux culture.It is, in fact an interesting example of the American equivalent of what Edward Said called "orientalism"., which could be called "indianism". An ideal "indian ' culture is created to act as a kind of American pastoral, an "anti-Industrial" mythos.Of course, there is nothing wrong with good pastoral, nor with an intelligent critique of the excesses of industrialization.However, sentimentality and falsification do not make for good pastoral, nor do self righteousness and pseudo -intellectualism make for intelligent criticism of industrialist materialism. Note here that I do not mean to denigrate or insult the Sioux-or any other American tribe.Their REAL cultures are fascinating. In fact the American Indian actors are uniformly excellent in this film. I have a sneaking suspicion that they were laughing behind their backs at the pompous , guilt ridden, hypocritical naive, paleface, who had come among them to make this film praising their culture. Not a single White man ( other than Costner ) is portrayed as anything other than brute. The only white character other than Costner who is portrayed as having a soul is Stands with a Fist..and she had the good fortune of being kidnapped and having her family massacred by the peace loving Indians. Let me reiterate. This is NOT a pro -Indian film. It is a patronizing, pompous film, with Costner portraying himself as the benevolent Great White God, Finding Himself among the Noble Savages.Repeatedly, Costner echoes Christian iconography and language in an effort to transform his character into some "crucified hero" out of Peckinpah. Someday, people will marvel that Kevin Costner beat out a genius named Martin Scorsese for best director
Review of Dances with Wolves
