| UK | Germany |
| Home - Video - Directors - ( B ) - Beresford, Bruce | Help | |
| 1-20 of 36 1 2 Next 20 |
click price to see details click image to enlarge click link to go to the store
| 1. Driving Miss Daisy Director: Bruce Beresford | |
 | list price: $9.94
our price: $9.94 (price subject to change: see help) Asin: 6301734734 Catlog: Video Sales Rank: 438 Average Customer Review: 
US | Canada | United Kingdom | Germany | France | Japan |
|
Amazon.com essential video Reviews (48)
Jessica Tandy performs her role as the unhappy elderly woman splendidly. Her every expressed emotion is felt upon audiences. She became the oldest person to win an Oscar, at age 80. Morgan Freeman and Dan Ackroyd's Oscar nominated roles (Best Actor/ Best Supporting Actor) offer the added unique theme to this great film. All other actors also performed wonderfully. The quality of "Driving Miss Daisy" proves that it's destined to become a classic in the following years. It's sure to continue pleasing audiences for many years to come. Most viewers will have to watch it multiple times to fully understand the movie because of its deep storyline. Afterwards, those who do will be glad they did.
This is a sensitive film that says a lot about humanity. | |
| 2. Crimes of the Heart Director: Bruce Beresford | |
 | list price: $5.99
(price subject to change: see help) Asin: 630400463X Catlog: Video Sales Rank: 19517 Average Customer Review:
US | Canada | United Kingdom | Germany | France | Japan |
Reviews (14)
The movie has a great cast with some very fine serio-comic acting. The direction is superb and the writing full of wit. Overall a charming film. However, this is a chick flick and if you're a guy, you may only want to watch this on a date.
| |
| 3. Black Robe Director: Bruce Beresford | |
 | list price: $14.98
(price subject to change: see help) Asin: 6302336546 Catlog: Video Sales Rank: 22773 Average Customer Review:
US | Canada | United Kingdom | Germany | France | Japan |
|
Amazon.com Reviews (36)
Laforgue's companion is the young Frenchman Daniel, and it is largely through his eyes that we see the clash between cultures and religions. The contrast between the faiths and cultures of the Western Christians and the native Indians is presented from the outset, with alternating shots portraying the "chiefs" of both sides preparing for a meeting. Both cultures fail to understand each other, and believe the other to be stupid and demon-possessed. At first, with Daniel, we are led to believe that the Jesuit's missionary endeavours are little else than misplaced colonialism and cultural arrogance. Laforgue is presented as rather arrogant and ignorant, his vocabulary of "poor barbarians" and "savage people", and his patronizing showing off of Western skills in reading and music and technology (an alarm clock) appears to confirm this impression. When Daniel suggests that the Indians are essentially Christian in their love for each other, and that with regard to their view of the afterlife the Indian beliefs are no harder to believe "than a Paradise where we all sit on clouds and look at God", Daniel seems to be a symbol of modern enlightened man who has realized it was wrong for Western man to force his beliefs on the natives. Daniel's romance with the Indian chief's daughter seems to be an unnecessary artificial intrusion of an unbelievable story of love at first sight, and appeared to be a concession to Hollywood's need to include sappy romance and sex. At this point I seriously wondered whether the movie was an apology for white supremacy and colonialism, a defence of multiculturalism, and another example of historical revisionism which romanticizes the Indians as saints and condemns the white imperialists as unforgivable criminals. But as the movie progresses, it becomes clear that although Jesuit priests such as Laforgue were sometimes guilty of peddling colonialism rather than the gospel, their simple assessment is not simplistic but accurate: the Indians truly are savages who live in darkness. Daniel's multiculturalism is naïve, and Laforgue's view that it is a clash between two religions turns out to be correct, for he perceives the Indian religions to be work of the devil, while they in turn perceive him to be a demon. In the end, Laforgue is proven to be right, for the Indians show themselves to be true savages, engaged in brutal animalistic behaviour. Their hostility is not just due to the priest's rejection of their beliefs, but is rooted in their very nature. These scenes are not pleasant to see: the movie portrays their primitive behaviour with all its brutality and passion - unrestrained sex, torture, murder. The gruesome blood and gore is not for the faint-hearted and will at times make you want to close your eyes. But these fruits confirm that the apparently simplistic assessment of the black robe is right: "The savages are living in darkness. We must convert them." They need the light of the gospel and renewal of the Holy Spirit, to become like Laforgue, who despite his misplaced colonialism, is sincere in his love to reach out to the lost. The ending, however, is ambiguous on this point, with Laforgue apparently being converted to some of the Indian superstitions as he makes his final trek to the village of the Hurons. The tragic conclusion about the annihilation of the Hurons after they were converted is ambiguous in attributing blame for this horror: is it with the Christians who converted them, or is it with the darkness of their own kind who remained unconverted? Would the indigenous Indians have been better off if they had been untouched by European imperialism? If the movie has weaknesses aside from his dark portrait of brutality, it would be the ambiguity of the ending, for surely although the Jesuit mission work was at times misguided by colonialism, its identification of the kingdom of darkness was never truer. Although it features wonderful cinematography of breathtaking Canadian scenery, this is not a pleasant movie to watch. Unlike most modern movies, the portrayal of violence and explicit sex is never entertaining, but always brutal, dark and representative of primitive barbarianism. On that point I personally found it rather too graphic and disturbing, and even the depth of the themes doesn't justify being exposed to this kind of darkness. But in the process it raises very complex and thought-provoking questions. The action is not fast and furious, but arranged at just the right places to stimulate contemplation. This is not typical Hollywood, because it gives the subject matter the realism, contemplation and seriousness it deserves. The blood and gore is all the more horrifying, because it is accurate. While this distinguishes it from the usual Hollywood cotton-candy, "Black Robe" is not surprisingly less popular because it requires an audience that can think. The movie is highly introspective, as Laforgue deals with his own struggles against lust and faith. But above all, it raises important questions about culture clash. While it portrays the truth about Jesuit missionaries being somewhat misplaced in their colonialism, it also portrays the truth about the barbarians that they sought to convert. Despite the weaknesses of the missionaries, in the end it becomes clear that as ambassadors of the kingdom of light, the black robes were truly symbols of light in battling against the powers of darkness. This is not an enjoyable movie to see, but it its treatment of colonialism and religion it raises profound questions - even if it doesn't answer them all.
The Jesuits presented a wonderful depiction of the people they were trying to convert. Some of the stories are very funny- one Algonquin hired by the Jesuits to be a translator was asked by his employers for the Algonquin words relating to spiritual and religious topics. The translator instructed them and the Jesuits rushed off to preach to the Algonquins. It was only upon being greeted by the peeling laughter of their would-be converts did the Jesuits realize that their translator had instead instructed them on Algonquin foul language. However, the Relations also depict a very grim picture of life in the mid 17th century wilderness. Contrary to what another reviewer has written here- adoption was not guaranteed for anyone! Yes, mass adoption later become something the Iroquois practiced, but only after their numbers had been so badly dwindled in their wars of conquest in the 1650-1670's. Women, children, and the elderly could be hideously tortured to death as well as men. The movie, in fact, was edited to avoid showing the Indians practicing ritual cannibalism on that slain boy- a custom that was common among the tribes of Eastern woodlands. To devour an enemy's flesh was to devour his power. The heart of a particularly brave enemy (such as the Jesuit martyr St. Jean Brebeuf) would be eaten by chiefs. Also in the 17th century, the gauntlet was not the only ordeal for a male prisoner captured alive. If captured a male prisoner would usually have his hands mutiliated in some way- finger joints cut off by either cutting (sometimes with sea shells as shown in the movie) or by biting. Why? A warrior without the use of his fingers was useless- could not pull a bowstring or grasp a knife. One could say that the Jesuits were biased in their desire to portray the Indians as savages and thus justify their conversion. However, the Relations are reknowned for their candor and there are too many other sources that describe women and children captives being summarily executed for little or no reason. (The famed voyageur and explorer Pierre Esprit Radisson in his autobiography "Voyages" saw with his own eyes- children and women being tortured to death by the Mohawks.) The Algonquin bands of hunter/gatherers, with whom the French Jesuits made first contact, lived a mean existence by any standard. Theirs was a society that was utterly "christian" in that they shared everything, but also one that could not tolerate those who fell sick or lame. These unfortunates would just be abandoned. Life was hard enough for those healthy and fit. Also, living in a birchbark tent with almost no ventilation for smoke, zero privacy, a bunch of dogs, and lots of unwashed bodies was probably a much, much nastier place than what was shown in the film. (The meanness of these living conditions must have have been very tough on many members of the Society of Jesus because a lot of them came from families of great wealth and privilege.) "Black Robe," the novel and the film, were meant to be an antidote to the current romancization of the AmerIndians. In recent decades we've taken one myth about the AmerIndians, that of the blood thirsty savage, and replaced it with another, the new age Eagle scout with a bent for ecology. "Black Robe" attempts to hit a middle ground- showing these people as humans who lived in a culture that was governed by different values than our own. They are shown as intelligent and brave, but also as greedy and very cruel. That Europe was awash with blood at the same time is beside the point. Brian Moore was trying to show that North America was never a Garden of Eden- people here still treated people different from themselves very cruelly. As mentioned above, Moore actually held back in the screenplay certain elements of Algonquin life that could be found in his novel. Their everyday language was peppered by words that we would call vulgar- but to them it them it was just talking. They allowed promiscuity among unmarried young men and women- a fact that was found very enticing by French laymen, but scandalized the priests. I don't think this movie is some sort of "propaganda" to perpetuate negative stereotypes on AmerIndians. I do think it is an honest attempt to show that these people were human beings whose lives were governed by the harshness of their surroundings. For an Algonquin band of hunter/gatherers living along the St. Lawrence, life truly was a survival of the fittest. Brian Moore simply held up a picture of the cruelty and difficulty of this existence, if some neo-romanticists don't like what they see then so be it.
The Black Robe reminds me of those classics during the 1960's of Daniel Boone and Davy Crockett. Another recent image for me is that of the movie the Last of the Mohicans (1992), based on the book of the same title by James Fenimore Cooper. Not to mention Dances with Wolves with Kevin Costner (1990) and directed by Kevin Costner. I happen to love most movies where that Native Americas are depicted in story that is uplifting about their lives. Black Robe was directed by Bruce Beresford, and is based on the novel written by Brian Moore. I found similarities in both Dances with Wolves and Black Robe. The use of the natural settings of woods and rivers were fantastic and beautiful. The use of rivers as means of transportation is very realistic in Native American culture, especially since water is seen as the source of all life. This film at times seems to be more about the inner spiritual life of Chief Chomina (August Schellenberg) and his quest to follow his vision than about the journey of Father Laforgue (Lothaire Bluteau) to minister to the Indians in Quebec. While the Father did not show much spirituality, he did however have his memories which seemed very stark compared to the chief's visions. The differences of their cultures really did stand out in this movie. The Hurons were used to sharing their resources amongst themselves while Father Laforgue tried to keep things back for later use. Another culture shock for the Father was that of the Natives procreating at night. This bothered him greatly, so much so that he was tormented by it and had to leave his bed. This scene also took place in Dances with Wolves, here again was a white guy (Lt. John Dunbar) sleeping by a Native fire. Yet his reaction to what was happening brought him into a relationship where he married a member of the tribe and became one of them. Whereas Father Laforgue cut himself off from relationship and went off alone to do penance. One phrase at the end of both films caught my attention: 15 years later. In the case of Dances with Wolves the phrase dealt with the fact that the expansion of white men into Native American territory meant the demise of their way of life. In Black Robe the Native Indians in Quebec who converted to Christianity became too docile and therefore were killed by other warring tribes after Father Laforgue's arrival. Interestingly spiritually they knew that this was going to happen. This film was great, but sadly since it came out not too long after Dances with Wolves, I believe that it was overshadowed by the former film. For those who want to add to the Native American story collection, it is a great film that could be watched and compared to two other Native American epics: Last of the Mohicans, and Dances with Wolves.
The film endeavours to illustrate how the French "penetrated" Indian societies as opposed to the Spanish model of total exploitation or the English model of sheer destruction. It centers on the religious activities of French missionaries and decides to filter French military and economic engagements in the raging "Beaver Wars" out of the picture. The clash of cultures is often illustrated by sharp cuts between Native and European worlds. These are always interesting, sometimes quite amusing. Often they amount to sheer propaganda of "savagery" vs. "civilisation". Indians huddle together, fart and copulate in dark, dirty and stinking wigwams while Europeans walk across beautiful Old World city squares conspiciously devoid of beggars, cripples and the omipresent garbage and sewage of the time. Indians practice primitive shamanism in forests while Europeans stride through light-flooded cathedrals and vow to relinquish the amenities of western Civilisation to salvage the infidels (even if "they" already cut of one of your ears in the process). Europeans do well-mannered house music in aristocratic mansions. Indians do it doggy-style in the dirt. Always, anywhere and with anyone, as the film will teach us through relentless repetition. The clash of belief systems is personalised in an encounter of the dignified Jesuit priest with an Indian shaman - impersonalised by a ridiculously behaving and profounfly vicious yellow painted dwarf. What could have been an interesting example of Indian attitudes towards disabled and retarded people - worshipping people who are different as a manifestation of the divine instead of confining them to the margins of society - is turned into just another example of the film's leitmotif - the savagery of the barbaric Indian. When the film was released a New York Times critic lauded the fact that this historical film got by with portraying American colonial history"without villains". Without white villains that is, of course. Set in a time when the Thirty Years War was raging through central Europe where entire populations of large cities were laughtered to the last woman and infant while seeking refuge in churches and when one third of Germany's population was slaughtered by armies of fellow Christians, the film centers entirely on what it presents as a realistic portray of "Indian savagery". When the Algonquin party with its European guests is captured by Iroquoians (the Algonquians speak neither Algonquian nor do the Iroquois speak Iroquoian but all happen to speak Cree here in fact but who would notice anyway) the male captives are forced to run the gauntlet in their captor's village. Once, badly battered, of course, they had survived this indeed pretty brutal initiation procedure, I , having at least a superficial knowledge of Iroquois culture, prepared myself for wittnessing the usual next step, the adoption of all captives into the tribe. I soon learned that the makers of the film seemed to have an agenda which would not permit such a less than traumatic ending. It is towards the end that an ambitious yet heavily slanted portrayal of culture clash tilts into point-blank atrocity propaganda. Portraying matriarchic Iroqois societiy with its democratic decision making processes as a male-commandeered dictatorship is in itself a surprising failure given Beresford's claim to show everything "the way it really was". One wonders if this distortive rendering of Iroquois social life occurred unintentionally. How could they get such basic things so wrong? However, this appears like a lesser evil compared to the what we are supposed to learn of the treatment of captives by Iroqois. Captured women and children were regularly adopted into the tribe. In fact the Iroqois waged numerous wars on neighbours and absorbed their vanquished foes through something that amounted to genocide by hostile takeover, if you like. There was a time when 25,000 out of 35,000 Iroquois were adopted former enemies. The biggest indian killers of the time were disease, not war. Tribes replenished their thinned-out ranks with captured enemies and could hardly afford to kill them "unnecessarily". Male captives were in for a tougher ride and were only adopted after having endured the gauntlet. The film shows none of this. Instead, the captured boy has his throat cut before his father's eyes for no apparent reason - exept "Indian savagery" which is, by definition, beyond any rationality. The captured woman is announced to be tortured to death the next day. The same fate awaits the male captives - although they just passed the initiation rite. One previous commentator hoped that the research done for the scenes in the Iroquois village was profound. Well, it was not. In fact, the makers of the film got everything beyond mere outfits wrong here. This is certainly not "a sensitive and earnest portrayal of Indians" as one previous reviewer reasoned. At the end the film raises "the profound question" if it was right to bring the light of Christianity to the Hurons since they were later on "annihilated" by their heathen Iroquois enemies (in reality parts of the survivors were adopted into the tribe, others formed the influental Wiandot nation). What the film fails to mention is that it was hardly a Christian "turn the other cheek" attitude that brought about the demise of the Hurons but the fact that only partial conversion of the Hurons occurred which split the disease-stricken nation at a time of war when unity was most needed and that the French had chosen the Hurons as their allies and prime proxy fighters in the Beaver Wars against their Iroquois enemies - and finally let them down militarily when the Hurons needed their support (For some reading check out http://www.tolatsga.org/hur.html). How to rate such a film? Five stars for its technical merits. One star for its often distortive, elaborate defamation of Native culture. I think that the latter weighs more heavily than the former. Two stars. See it. Carefully. I rented it. I wouldn't buy it. ... Read more | |
| 4. Paradise Road Director: Bruce Beresford | |
 | list price: $9.98
(price subject to change: see help) Asin: 079396041X Catlog: Video Sales Rank: 16165 Average Customer Review:
US | Canada | United Kingdom | Germany | France | Japan |
|
Amazon.com Reviews (27)
The moving tale of women POWs who form a chorus and use vocal music to help cope with the harsh reality of Japanese internment. Paradise Road is a wonderful movie, a true story wonderfully told. It never fails to move me everytime I watch it and I have watched it a few times! ;-)
| |
| 5. Puberty Blues Director: Bruce Beresford | |
 | list price: $14.99
our price: $14.99 (price subject to change: see help) Asin: B00003TKFH Catlog: Video Sales Rank: 35607 Average Customer Review:
US | Canada | United Kingdom | Germany | France | Japan |
Reviews (3)
| |
| 6. Black Robe Director: Bruce Beresford | |
 | list price: $14.98
(price subject to change: see help) Asin: 6302336562 Catlog: Video Sales Rank: 39890 Average Customer Review:
US | Canada | United Kingdom | Germany | France | Japan |
|
Amazon.com Reviews (36)
Laforgue's companion is the young Frenchman Daniel, and it is largely through his eyes that we see the clash between cultures and religions. The contrast between the faiths and cultures of the Western Christians and the native Indians is presented from the outset, with alternating shots portraying the "chiefs" of both sides preparing for a meeting. Both cultures fail to understand each other, and believe the other to be stupid and demon-possessed. At first, with Daniel, we are led to believe that the Jesuit's missionary endeavours are little else than misplaced colonialism and cultural arrogance. Laforgue is presented as rather arrogant and ignorant, his vocabulary of "poor barbarians" and "savage people", and his patronizing showing off of Western skills in reading and music and technology (an alarm clock) appears to confirm this impression. When Daniel suggests that the Indians are essentially Christian in their love for each other, and that with regard to their view of the afterlife the Indian beliefs are no harder to believe "than a Paradise where we all sit on clouds and look at God", Daniel seems to be a symbol of modern enlightened man who has realized it was wrong for Western man to force his beliefs on the natives. Daniel's romance with the Indian chief's daughter seems to be an unnecessary artificial intrusion of an unbelievable story of love at first sight, and appeared to be a concession to Hollywood's need to include sappy romance and sex. At this point I seriously wondered whether the movie was an apology for white supremacy and colonialism, a defence of multiculturalism, and another example of historical revisionism which romanticizes the Indians as saints and condemns the white imperialists as unforgivable criminals. But as the movie progresses, it becomes clear that although Jesuit priests such as Laforgue were sometimes guilty of peddling colonialism rather than the gospel, their simple assessment is not simplistic but accurate: the Indians truly are savages who live in darkness. Daniel's multiculturalism is naïve, and Laforgue's view that it is a clash between two religions turns out to be correct, for he perceives the Indian religions to be work of the devil, while they in turn perceive him to be a demon. In the end, Laforgue is proven to be right, for the Indians show themselves to be true savages, engaged in brutal animalistic behaviour. Their hostility is not just due to the priest's rejection of their beliefs, but is rooted in their very nature. These scenes are not pleasant to see: the movie portrays their primitive behaviour with all its brutality and passion - unrestrained sex, torture, murder. The gruesome blood and gore is not for the faint-hearted and will at times make you want to close your eyes. But these fruits confirm that the apparently simplistic assessment of the black robe is right: "The savages are living in darkness. We must convert them." They need the light of the gospel and renewal of the Holy Spirit, to become like Laforgue, who despite his misplaced colonialism, is sincere in his love to reach out to the lost. The ending, however, is ambiguous on this point, with Laforgue apparently being converted to some of the Indian superstitions as he makes his final trek to the village of the Hurons. The tragic conclusion about the annihilation of the Hurons after they were converted is ambiguous in attributing blame for this horror: is it with the Christians who converted them, or is it with the darkness of their own kind who remained unconverted? Would the indigenous Indians have been better off if they had been untouched by European imperialism? If the movie has weaknesses aside from his dark portrait of brutality, it would be the ambiguity of the ending, for surely although the Jesuit mission work was at times misguided by colonialism, its identification of the kingdom of darkness was never truer. Although it features wonderful cinematography of breathtaking Canadian scenery, this is not a pleasant movie to watch. Unlike most modern movies, the portrayal of violence and explicit sex is never entertaining, but always brutal, dark and representative of primitive barbarianism. On that point I personally found it rather too graphic and disturbing, and even the depth of the themes doesn't justify being exposed to this kind of darkness. But in the process it raises very complex and thought-provoking questions. The action is not fast and furious, but arranged at just the right places to stimulate contemplation. This is not typical Hollywood, because it gives the subject matter the realism, contemplation and seriousness it deserves. The blood and gore is all the more horrifying, because it is accurate. While this distinguishes it from the usual Hollywood cotton-candy, "Black Robe" is not surprisingly less popular because it requires an audience that can think. The movie is highly introspective, as Laforgue deals with his own struggles against lust and faith. But above all, it raises important questions about culture clash. While it portrays the truth about Jesuit missionaries being somewhat misplaced in their colonialism, it also portrays the truth about the barbarians that they sought to convert. Despite the weaknesses of the missionaries, in the end it becomes clear that as ambassadors of the kingdom of light, the black robes were truly symbols of light in battling against the powers of darkness. This is not an enjoyable movie to see, but it its treatment of colonialism and religion it raises profound questions - even if it doesn't answer them all.
The Jesuits presented a wonderful depiction of the people they were trying to convert. Some of the stories are very funny- one Algonquin hired by the Jesuits to be a translator was asked by his employers for the Algonquin words relating to spiritual and religious topics. The translator instructed them and the Jesuits rushed off to preach to the Algonquins. It was only upon being greeted by the peeling laughter of their would-be converts did the Jesuits realize that their translator had instead instructed them on Algonquin foul language. However, the Relations also depict a very grim picture of life in the mid 17th century wilderness. Contrary to what another reviewer has written here- adoption was not guaranteed for anyone! Yes, mass adoption later become something the Iroquois practiced, but only after their numbers had been so badly dwindled in their wars of conquest in the 1650-1670's. Women, children, and the elderly could be hideously tortured to death as well as men. The movie, in fact, was edited to avoid showing the Indians practicing ritual cannibalism on that slain boy- a custom that was common among the tribes of Eastern woodlands. To devour an enemy's flesh was to devour his power. The heart of a particularly brave enemy (such as the Jesuit martyr St. Jean Brebeuf) would be eaten by chiefs. Also in the 17th century, the gauntlet was not the only ordeal for a male prisoner captured alive. If captured a male prisoner would usually have his hands mutiliated in some way- finger joints cut off by either cutting (sometimes with sea shells as shown in the movie) or by biting. Why? A warrior without the use of his fingers was useless- could not pull a bowstring or grasp a knife. One could say that the Jesuits were biased in their desire to portray the Indians as savages and thus justify their conversion. However, the Relations are reknowned for their candor and there are too many other sources that describe women and children captives being summarily executed for little or no reason. (The famed voyageur and explorer Pierre Esprit Radisson in his autobiography "Voyages" saw with his own eyes- children and women being tortured to death by the Mohawks.) The Algonquin bands of hunter/gatherers, with whom the French Jesuits made first contact, lived a mean existence by any standard. Theirs was a society that was utterly "christian" in that they shared everything, but also one that could not tolerate those who fell sick or lame. These unfortunates would just be abandoned. Life was hard enough for those healthy and fit. Also, living in a birchbark tent with almost no ventilation for smoke, zero privacy, a bunch of dogs, and lots of unwashed bodies was probably a much, much nastier place than what was shown in the film. (The meanness of these living conditions must have have been very tough on many members of the Society of Jesus because a lot of them came from families of great wealth and privilege.) "Black Robe," the novel and the film, were meant to be an antidote to the current romancization of the AmerIndians. In recent decades we've taken one myth about the AmerIndians, that of the blood thirsty savage, and replaced it with another, the new age Eagle scout with a bent for ecology. "Black Robe" attempts to hit a middle ground- showing these people as humans who lived in a culture that was governed by different values than our own. They are shown as intelligent and brave, but also as greedy and very cruel. That Europe was awash with blood at the same time is beside the point. Brian Moore was trying to show that North America was never a Garden of Eden- people here still treated people different from themselves very cruelly. As mentioned above, Moore actually held back in the screenplay certain elements of Algonquin life that could be found in his novel. Their everyday language was peppered by words that we would call vulgar- but to them it them it was just talking. They allowed promiscuity among unmarried young men and women- a fact that was found very enticing by French laymen, but scandalized the priests. I don't think this movie is some sort of "propaganda" to perpetuate negative stereotypes on AmerIndians. I do think it is an honest attempt to show that these people were human beings whose lives were governed by the harshness of their surroundings. For an Algonquin band of hunter/gatherers living along the St. Lawrence, life truly was a survival of the fittest. Brian Moore simply held up a picture of the cruelty and difficulty of this existence, if some neo-romanticists don't like what they see then so be it.
The Black Robe reminds me of those classics during the 1960's of Daniel Boone and Davy Crockett. Another recent image for me is that of the movie the Last of the Mohicans (1992), based on the book of the same title by James Fenimore Cooper. Not to mention Dances with Wolves with Kevin Costner (1990) and directed by Kevin Costner. I happen to love most movies where that Native Americas are depicted in story that is uplifting about their lives. Black Robe was directed by Bruce Beresford, and is based on the novel written by Brian Moore. I found similarities in both Dances with Wolves and Black Robe. The use of the natural settings of woods and rivers were fantastic and beautiful. The use of rivers as means of transportation is very realistic in Native American culture, especially since water is seen as the source of all life. This film at times seems to be more about the inner spiritual life of Chief Chomina (August Schellenberg) and his quest to follow his vision than about the journey of Father Laforgue (Lothaire Bluteau) to minister to the Indians in Quebec. While the Father did not show much spirituality, he did however have his memories which seemed very stark compared to the chief's visions. The differences of their cultures really did stand out in this movie. The Hurons were used to sharing their resources amongst themselves while Father Laforgue tried to keep things back for later use. Another culture shock for the Father was that of the Natives procreating at night. This bothered him greatly, so much so that he was tormented by it and had to leave his bed. This scene also took place in Dances with Wolves, here again was a white guy (Lt. John Dunbar) sleeping by a Native fire. Yet his reaction to what was happening brought him into a relationship where he married a member of the tribe and became one of them. Whereas Father Laforgue cut himself off from relationship and went off alone to do penance. One phrase at the end of both films caught my attention: 15 years later. In the case of Dances with Wolves the phrase dealt with the fact that the expansion of white men into Native American territory meant the demise of their way of life. In Black Robe the Native Indians in Quebec who converted to Christianity became too docile and therefore were killed by other warring tribes after Father Laforgue's arrival. Interestingly spiritually they knew that this was going to happen. This film was great, but sadly since it came out not too long after Dances with Wolves, I believe that it was overshadowed by the former film. For those who want to add to the Native American story collection, it is a great film that could be watched and compared to two other Native American epics: Last of the Mohicans, and Dances with Wolves.
The film endeavours to illustrate how the French "penetrated" Indian societies as opposed to the Spanish model of total exploitation or the English model of sheer destruction. It centers on the religious activities of French missionaries and decides to filter French military and economic engagements in the raging "Beaver Wars" out of the picture. The clash of cultures is often illustrated by sharp cuts between Native and European worlds. These are always interesting, sometimes quite amusing. Often they amount to sheer propaganda of "savagery" vs. "civilisation". Indians huddle together, fart and copulate in dark, dirty and stinking wigwams while Europeans walk across beautiful Old World city squares conspiciously devoid of beggars, cripples and the omipresent garbage and sewage of the time. Indians practice primitive shamanism in forests while Europeans stride through light-flooded cathedrals and vow to relinquish the amenities of western Civilisation to salvage the infidels (even if "they" already cut of one of your ears in the process). Europeans do well-mannered house music in aristocratic mansions. Indians do it doggy-style in the dirt. Always, anywhere and with anyone, as the film will teach us through relentless repetition. The clash of belief systems is personalised in an encounter of the dignified Jesuit priest with an Indian shaman - impersonalised by a ridiculously behaving and profounfly vicious yellow painted dwarf. What could have been an interesting example of Indian attitudes towards disabled and retarded people - worshipping people who are different as a manifestation of the divine instead of confining them to the margins of society - is turned into just another example of the film's leitmotif - the savagery of the barbaric Indian. When the film was released a New York Times critic lauded the fact that this historical film got by with portraying American colonial history"without villains". Without white villains that is, of course. Set in a time when the Thirty Years War was raging through central Europe where entire populations of large cities were laughtered to the last woman and infant while seeking refuge in churches and when one third of Germany's population was slaughtered by armies of fellow Christians, the film centers entirely on what it presents as a realistic portray of "Indian savagery". When the Algonquin party with its European guests is captured by Iroquoians (the Algonquians speak neither Algonquian nor do the Iroquois speak Iroquoian but all happen to speak Cree here in fact but who would notice anyway) the male captives are forced to run the gauntlet in their captor's village. Once, badly battered, of course, they had survived this indeed pretty brutal initiation procedure, I , having at least a superficial knowledge of Iroquois culture, prepared myself for wittnessing the usual next step, the adoption of all captives into the tribe. I soon learned that the makers of the film seemed to have an agenda which would not permit such a less than traumatic ending. It is towards the end that an ambitious yet heavily slanted portrayal of culture clash tilts into point-blank atrocity propaganda. Portraying matriarchic Iroqois societiy with its democratic decision making processes as a male-commandeered dictatorship is in itself a surprising failure given Beresford's claim to show everything "the way it really was". One wonders if this distortive rendering of Iroquois social life occurred unintentionally. How could they get such basic things so wrong? However, this appears like a lesser evil compared to the what we are supposed to learn of the treatment of captives by Iroqois. Captured women and children were regularly adopted into the tribe. In fact the Iroqois waged numerous wars on neighbours and absorbed their vanquished foes through something that amounted to genocide by hostile takeover, if you like. There was a time when 25,000 out of 35,000 Iroquois were adopted former enemies. The biggest indian killers of the time were disease, not war. Tribes replenished their thinned-out ranks with captured enemies and could hardly afford to kill them "unnecessarily". Male captives were in for a tougher ride and were only adopted after having endured the gauntlet. The film shows none of this. Instead, the captured boy has his throat cut before his father's eyes for no apparent reason - exept "Indian savagery" which is, by definition, beyond any rationality. The captured woman is announced to be tortured to death the next day. The same fate awaits the male captives - although they just passed the initiation rite. One previous commentator hoped that the research done for the scenes in the Iroquois village was profound. Well, it was not. In fact, the makers of the film got everything beyond mere outfits wrong here. This is certainly not "a sensitive and earnest portrayal of Indians" as one previous reviewer reasoned. At the end the film raises "the profound question" if it was right to bring the light of Christianity to the Hurons since they were later on "annihilated" by their heathen Iroquois enemies (in reality parts of the survivors were adopted into the tribe, others formed the influental Wiandot nation). What the film fails to mention is that it was hardly a Christian "turn the other cheek" attitude that brought about the demise of the Hurons but the fact that only partial conversion of the Hurons occurred which split the disease-stricken nation at a time of war when unity was most needed and that the French had chosen the Hurons as their allies and prime proxy fighters in the Beaver Wars against their Iroquois enemies - and finally let them down militarily when the Hurons needed their support (For some reading check out http://www.tolatsga.org/hur.html). How to rate such a film? Five stars for its technical merits. One star for its often distortive, elaborate defamation of Native culture. I think that the latter weighs more heavily than the former. Two stars. See it. Carefully. I rented it. I wouldn't buy it. ... Read more | |
| 7. Last Dance Director: Bruce Beresford | |
 | list price: $9.98
our price: $9.98 (price subject to change: see help) Asin: 6304202741 Catlog: Video Sales Rank: 21509 Average Customer Review: 
US | Canada | United Kingdom | Germany | France | Japan |
|
Amazon.com Reviews (7)
| |
| 8. Tender Mercies Director: Bruce Beresford | |
 | list price: $14.98
(price subject to change: see help) Asin: 6303026664 Catlog: Video Sales Rank: 6042 Average Customer Review:
US | Canada | United Kingdom | Germany | France | Japan |
|
Amazon.com Reviews (21) IT IS DOUBTFUL THIS FILM MADE MUCH MONEY AT THE BOX OFFICE. BUT THAT IN ITSELF SHOULD TELL YOU IT IS A THINKING PERSONS FILM
Duvall can't be faulted though. His performance as Mac Sledge, down and out ex-country legend, tormented by alcohol and the debris of divorce, is first class. Mac is taut and restrained. None of the explosive volatility of Sonny from the Apostle. By holding back, Duvall can still say everything and does, but I would have liked to have seen more tears, more rages. Having hit rock bottom in some podunk Texas motel room, salvation arrives in the form of Tess Harper's character. A Vietnam widow, she eeks out a living for herself and for her son by managing a rundown motel. She decides to give her boozy tenant a chance to start over in life. Seeing what he was and what he could still be, her faith in Mac inspires him to change. The only problem is that Tess's character doesn't really work. She doesn't have any depth. We never know why she opens her heart to this stranger. Ok, love...but their relationship is pretty passionless. At least from her side. With her simple wholesomeness and quiet piety, she seems a mere foil to Mac's worn-out worldliness. The characters of Mac's ex and daughter are far more fleshed out. And better acted as well. Mac's ex seethes with the bitterness of their divorce and thus gives the film a jolt of life with her high strung antics. Jealous of Mac both professionally and personally, she can't accept his new life, his new happiness. Their daughter, played by Ellen Barkin, is the surprise of the film. Without a doubt, the best female character of the film, she subtly plays out the pains of a girl in search of her daddy. Whom she nevers really finds. Again, the complexities of the father-daughter relationship are poignantly hinted at, but taken no further..... As is the spiritual change that inspires Mac to become baptized in the local church. What's the motivation behind it? Merely love for Tess's character or did he himself feel the need for it? Unexplored territory. Such unanswered questions often times increase the suspense of things, but here, too little was just too little. The ending though makes up for these grey areas. Tragedy stikes as one door of life is closed and another opens. Mac dies to his past so he can start again. But at a tremendous cost. With the ending, Beresford does a truly masterful job of mixing pain with hope, as the ultimate message of the film is revealed. The Lord does indeed shower us with His 'tender mercies.' As He taketh, He giveth. Tender Mercies, despite its flaws, is indeed a powerful story. Well worth the watch and for Duvall fans, a must. A taste treat, it gives a hint of even better things to come.
... Read more | |
| 9. King David Director: Bruce Beresford | |
 | list price: $9.95
(price subject to change: see help) Asin: 6300213927 Catlog: Video Sales Rank: 21279 Average Customer Review:
US | Canada | United Kingdom | Germany | France | Japan |
Reviews (20)
The brief nudity in the wedding chamber sequence has in my tape, been darkened so as to be imperceptible; either this is a flaw in the tape, or an effort not to offend and capture a wider audience, which would be silly, as this is a very mature drama. It contains much brutal violence making it unsuitable for children, and the confrontation with Goliath for example (which is exceptionally well done), is one of four beheadings. This is far from being a "Big Bible Epic" with lots of well known stars, instead it's serious and beautifully acted, and perhaps arrived on the scene at the wrong time, that it was so unappreciated two decades ago. Total running time is 114 minutes.
| |
| 10. And Starring Pancho Villa As Himself Director: Bruce Beresford | |
 | list price: $26.99
our price: $26.99 (price subject to change: see help) Asin: B0001GH7YA Catlog: Video Sales Rank: 31002 Average Customer Review:
US | Canada | United Kingdom | Germany | France | Japan |
|
Description Reviews (6)
There's nothing in this movie about Villa's raid on Columbus, New Mexico, in which 26 American civilians were killed, or his murder of 16 American mining engineers captured on a train, or Gen. Pershing chasing him around Mexico for several months. Those events occurred later, a year after the filming of the movie in which he played himself. All-in-all, it is a good little movie, considering the modest budget it probably had.
| |
An Unlikely Pair
Faithful to the Play.
Neo-Colonial Propaganda at its best
Scenes Missing
definitely inferior to Sean Penn's movie Dead Man Walking