Header Ads Widget

Ticker

6/recent/ticker-posts

The Savage Innocents: Nicholas Ray


Nicholas Ray was responsible for some of the greatest and most iconoclastic films of the 1950s. Films like In a Lonely Place, Johnny Guitar, Rebel Without a Cause, and Bigger than Life challenged societal norms and became personal favorites of many a critic (particularly those writing for Cahiers du cinéma in France). However, he was not an immaculate director. He did release the occasional stinker. And The Savage Innocents is one of those unfortunate bombs. The film follows Anthony Quinn who plays Inuk, an Eskimo hunter. The first half of the film shows his various struggles for survival in the Arctic, such as hunting seals and polar bears and winning his wife's hand in marriage. The film was mostly shot on location in the Canadian Arctic, giving it a distinct documentary feel. In fact, at times it felt like Ray was trying to shoot the sequel to Robert J. Flaherty's seminal Nanook of the North. But then the second half of the film kicks in with a disquieting thud. Inuk is introduced by a fellow hunter to a settlement of white men who trade guns for furs. While at the settlement trading, Inuk and his wife are approached by a missionary who tries to convert them to Christianity. In an unfortunate cultural misunderstanding, Inuk offers the priest his wife's sexual services for the night, as is his people's custom. The priest politely refuses. However, to Inuk, the refusal is tantamount to the greatest insult imaginable. So Inuk kills the missionary and flees from the settlement. The rest of the film watches as Inuk is pursued by policemen who want to arrest and hang him. And, of course, Inuk ends up saving them, proving that maybe...just maybe...they're not so different after all. Cue sweet and re-conciliatory music. This film just doesn't work. The documentary first half is decent, but feels artificial whenever we are reminded that Inuk is indeed Anthony Quinn. And the second half is a tired commentary on race relations that was cliched even in the 60s. It may feature genuinely beautiful cinematography...but that isn't enough to save this emotionless, tired film.

5/10

Post a Comment

0 Comments