See "The Suffocating Solemnity of 'The Revenant'" by Richard Brody in The New Yorker. He argues this movie would have been better if made in a studio and Hugh Glass's dragging himself across the snow had been done by stunt doubles with Leo's face digitally collaged on "because the artifices of a studio production and its digital contrivances would have pushed Iñárritu outside his narrow aesthetic ideology regarding physical reality and spiritual redemption. Escaping the self-imposed limits of climatic and theatrical rigors alike might have sparked his imagination."
There is no imagination in this film, only effort. Tremendous effort though.
Brody has another recent essay, "The Baffling 2016 Oscar Nominees." Great observations here about the whiteness of the Creed nomination, the limitations and strengths of Carol, and why Ed Lachman's cinematography deserves the award, why Hanes's direction is too subtle to make it through the Academy's "gross filter." Why the Academy will miss a lot of what's best about Carol because they watch a lot of the films at home on their TV screens.
I have to add that you need to watch visually splendid films like Carol or The Assassin on a truly fine film screen like the Walter Reade Theater's where the NYFF is shown. I rewatched Carol on the Landmark Albany Theater in Albany, California, and it was diminished, had lost a lot of the Ed Lachman glow.
Bookmarks