Yes, the dialog is in Cheyenne and Crow, and the actors do a remarkably good job with pronunciation, tone, pacing, etc. Yes, the wardrobe is largely authentic, although in many cases the characters wore *way* more clothes than real Cheyenne or Crow would have. Yes, a lot of the Cheyenne and Crow traditions, motives, etc. were accurately portrayed. Yes, some of the children were portrayed by real Navajo kids.
The story was an OK telling of the life of a man and his family, shown in both forward and backward chronology. But for me it raised too many unanswered questions to make sense in the end.
How are we supposed to cheer for a brash douche-bag of a young Cheyenne who steals enemy Crow horses as a dowry without considering the horrible impact it will have on himself and all the people around him? What year was it, anyway? Horses didn't come to the New World until Spanish settlers/invaders brought them in the 1600's, and they didn't reach Cheyenne territory until the 1700's. One of the Crow wears a Hudson Bay blanket jacket, but those didn't make it past the Great Lakes until railroads arrived in the 1800's.
What was the deal with the central character having blue eyes? The actor who played the old man wore tinted lenses, clearly visible in close-ups. James Remar, who played the same character younger, has naturally blue eyes. In the book does the main character have blue eyes too? Was it even necessary to the story? If the actors are in colored lenses, why not brown ones? How does an old man, just risen from death or near death, kill and skin a bear? And how does he tan the hide in a day? And (this isn't a question) no Cheyenne, Crow, or other Native American would leave the blood of his enemy on his own skin after a fight. That's sort of like willingly turning yourself into a voodoo doll for your enemy to abuse.
Likewise, Cheyenne women would never be as passive as they were portrayed. They'd be fighting fast and brutal along with their man, no hesitation, no hiding.
The story? Kind of OK, nothing special, but mostly it was a vehicle for sumptuous tableaux showcasing beautiful Natives against nature's golden splendor. You know, stuff you'd see airbrushed on the side of a customized van.
The story was an OK telling of the life of a man and his family, shown in both forward and backward chronology. But for me it raised too many unanswered questions to make sense in the end.
How are we supposed to cheer for a brash douche-bag of a young Cheyenne who steals enemy Crow horses as a dowry without considering the horrible impact it will have on himself and all the people around him? What year was it, anyway? Horses didn't come to the New World until Spanish settlers/invaders brought them in the 1600's, and they didn't reach Cheyenne territory until the 1700's. One of the Crow wears a Hudson Bay blanket jacket, but those didn't make it past the Great Lakes until railroads arrived in the 1800's.
What was the deal with the central character having blue eyes? The actor who played the old man wore tinted lenses, clearly visible in close-ups. James Remar, who played the same character younger, has naturally blue eyes. In the book does the main character have blue eyes too? Was it even necessary to the story? If the actors are in colored lenses, why not brown ones? How does an old man, just risen from death or near death, kill and skin a bear? And how does he tan the hide in a day? And (this isn't a question) no Cheyenne, Crow, or other Native American would leave the blood of his enemy on his own skin after a fight. That's sort of like willingly turning yourself into a voodoo doll for your enemy to abuse.
Likewise, Cheyenne women would never be as passive as they were portrayed. They'd be fighting fast and brutal along with their man, no hesitation, no hiding.
The story? Kind of OK, nothing special, but mostly it was a vehicle for sumptuous tableaux showcasing beautiful Natives against nature's golden splendor. You know, stuff you'd see airbrushed on the side of a customized van.