new thread
I know this movie is quite old now but I watched it the other night and was so impressed by it. I can't think of a more longhair friendly movie. The main character, John Dunbar (Kevin Costner), begins to find his true self while his hair grows longer and longer. I wonder if that was Kevin Costner's real hair.
And the Indian, Wind in His Hair (something like that) has absolutely incredible hair - probably the best I have ever seen on a guy.
Anyone else here appreciate this movie as a great longhair tribute?
It's come up before. One thing you didn't mention is that the good guys had the long hair, and the villains had the short hair.
I honestly cannot think of "any man" that I have ever seen - either on the screen or in person - who had better hair than "Wind in His Hair". I am not quite sure if that was his real hair or "Hollywood Screen Hair", but either way that is absolutely the best hair I have ever seen in my entire life.
I have this movie in my collection and pull it out and watch it from time to time. I cannot watch it too often because it kind of makes me ashamed to be a "white man"...It is terrible how the Native Americans were treated!!! All of us as a collective group of American settlers basically said to the Native Americans, "This is ours now so you need to leave."
Hey there!
Rodney A. Grant Official Webpage
Rodney A. Grant Official Webpage
Yes, he had gorgeous hair in that flick and it looks like has kept it long since then. I wouldn't have known it was him but he did play a role in an episode of Stargate SG-1!
Now, as to the history of our colonizing this continent and making it our own, well, we did some pretty appalling things. Especially when viewed from today's perspective and mores. While I readily acknowledge that, I'm also aware enough of the various American Indian tribal cultures and history to know that they were hardly the saintly & "noble primitive tribesmen" too many folks today want to paint them as being. So, in our rush to condemn our forefathers for doing what they thought was right, let's not gloss over any unpleasant details on the other side in the process.
Madoc
...So, in our rush to condemn our forefathers for doing what they thought was right, let's not gloss over any unpleasant details on the other side in the process.
Unpleasant as the details may have been, it was STILL THEIR LAND and we took it. Period. I'd be "unpleasant" too if someone came and took away what was mine without so much as asking.
Might makes right. Also there are just too many people in the world
to allow 500 people to take up a million square miles.
Now THERE'S an intelligent statement!
All my statements are, of course!;)
Mudtallica (what is your actual name?),
Go back and look at the history of these tribes. I'm not talking about the way they reacted to our Westward expansion. I'm talking about some of their cultural practices and history before they ever even saw a white man.
The thing I object to the most is this constant harping about their being some sort of "noble savage." They weren't. The American Indians were no more noble and no less noble than any other people - and in particular were no more or less noble than any other stone age aboriginal tribal peoples.
Maintaining otherwise just perpetuates the myth, does nothing to acknowledge the reality, and is actually racist at its core.
Madoc
Ans: Chaikwa
Response: I know the history of MY particular tribe very well, and our cultural practices are exactly that: OUR cultural practices. They were never looking for acceptance from anyone, nor did they need it.
Response: I agree. Nothing more to say. You have a very valid and un-arguable point, in MY opinion.
Response: It took me awhile to think about my response for this one, but I guess to some degree you're right. The reality isn't really presented very much, and I think when you get right down to it, it IS racist because of the way it IS presented. But the truth is, we weren't and AREN'T any better then anyone else. We were and ARE just treated differently because of what we believe and practice.
You've brought up some very good points and done it in a very considerate way. I want to thank you for that! There's no reason people can't talk about their opinions on this board, (even if they ARE a bit off topic!), without everyone getting all offended and pissed off. THANX!
American settlers basically said to the Native Americans, "This is ours now so you need to leave."
That's right, and someday, a REAL smart Indian is gonna say, "...And we want it all back. NOW!" and rightfully so, as far as I'm concerned.
I agree! There isn't anything about that movie that isn't great, including the music. I doubt that it was Costner's own hair, but it sure got better looking as it got longer. He never looked better. And there's a great life-lesson for us all in the way Lt. Dunbar accepts Indian society over the materialistic white man's way-of-life.
Tarn,
"...a great life-lesson for us all in the way Lt. Dunbar accepts Indian society over the materialistic white man's way-of-life."
Uh, don't you think that's a bit much? And are you sure we're talking about the same movie?
Lt. Dunbar was escaping from the slaughter of the American Civil War. He wasn't fleeing any materialism. He was fleeing the insanity of a war fought for political purposes. That those purposes had much nobility to them was conveniently omitted.
As to the rest of the film, well, it sure was pretty. Beyond that, it was a fantasy of almost epic proportions. I think you also need to look at the actual history of American Indian tribes. For one thing, look up the origins and meanings of the Sioux, the tribe that Lt. Dunbar joined. Among other meanings are "little enemy" and "snake." Not particularly noble things.
This is reflective of the bigger problem I see all too often when folks see fit to comment on the American Indian tribes and our history of dealing with them. All too often the failings and ugliness of some of the practices of these tribes is glossed over or completely omitted while the failings of our actions are held up in glorious detail.
If anything, this notion of "the noble savage" is actually racist at its core and is on the same level as the tripe about "the White Man's Burden."
I also think it ironic to be reading such laments as to the materialistic culture we have as they are being posted on an Internet Hyperboard. If it weren't for that culture none of us would be here to make those laments.
Madoc
Interesting comments, Madoc. Although it's been awhile since I've seen the movie, I believe Lt. Dunbar wasn't exactly "fleeing" anything, but instead wanted to see the American West before it disappeared. The Indian life the movie depicts, and fairly accurately, is one in which you live in harmony with nature, only taking what you need and leaving the rest for future generations,in contrast to the white man's "take all you want without regard to the future." I don't believe the buffalo hunt scene was inaccurate as far as the methods used by white hunters is concerned (killing only for the tongues). That's what I meant by "materialistic." Anyway, it's still a great longhair movie.
Tarn
Tarn,
The movie opened with Lt. Dunbar in the midst of fighting the US Civil War. Overcome by the seemingly senseless slaughter, he attempts to commit suicide by riding back and forth in front of the Rebel lines. So distracted by this act of bravado, the Rebels (and I'm having to work hard here to use the word Rebels and not the more accurate "murderous scum traitors" ;^P) focus on trying to shoot Lt. Dunbar and thereby fail to notice the Union troops charging them. A pitched battle ensues in which the Union troops rout the Rebels. A Union general happens to observe all of this and views Lt. Dunbar a hero. For his act of self-less bravery, the general offers Dunbar any posting he might wish. In short order, and once he has recovered from his wounds, Lt. Dunbar finds himself sent out to the middle of absolutely nowhere in the far reaches of the American West. And thus starts the tale in earnest.
You can read into that tale as much as you might wish. From what I've read of it and of Costner's intent, it was an anti-war film as much as anything. It was also something of an anti-Western Western movie in that it went out of its way to show the Indians in a favorable light. As favorable a light as the traditional Western movies showed the settlers and cowboys in. The result was just as biased and just as unrealistic as any John Wayne shoot-em up. It was awfully pretty though...
As to what the settlers and cowboys did back then, yes, the carnage and waste was appalling. By today's standards. And that's the key - by today's standards.
Back then, nature was a limitless thing. Especially in the American West as there was so much American West in the American West. There was _always_ another fertile & empty valley beyond the one in front of you. There was always thousands of square miles of empty prairie ahead of you to farm once the plot you were tilling ran out. There was always more buffalo to hunt as the herds were so huge they couldn't possibly ever run out. Today we view this as being naive at best. Back then it was an obvious and provable fact of life.
One other thing you should bear in mind, all this talk about "living in harmony with nature" is usually coming from folks who have never had no other choice but to live in such harmony. Today we call that a "subsistence existence" or "living hand to mouth." Sure, materialism can be a pretty crass thing and the waste in modern civilization can be bad at times. However, if the rains don't come on time that doesn't mean that people starve to death in our country. "Dances With Wolves" was a fine piece of fiction. As such, it would have distracted things quite a bit to have shown what would happen to a tribe, like the one depicted in the film, if the weather stayed bad for too long, or if it got too cold in the winter, or if the buffalo herds didn't come their way enough to keep everyone fed. All of which did happen back then, happened before the White Man ever came, and could completely wipe out a tribe like that in the blink of an eye as it "lived in harmony with nature."
This is just something to bear in mind before waxing poetic about the virtues of these primitive cultures or the failings of our own culture.
Madoc
The only reason they lived so harmoniously with nature is that there
weren't enough of them to destroy it. Typically they would camp in one
area and denude it of every thing they wanted and move on. There just
wasn't enough of them to permanently damage nature.
Why didn't their numbers increase? Well, nature of course provided
its own population control and the different tribes managed to kill
each other off regularly. They also took members of other tribes as
slaves. Is this what made them "noble"?
However, they did (and still do, at least the ones I know)have great
hair. Some of the best hair I've ever seen was on some of the indians
I went to school with. BTW, I'm not anti-indian, just anti the
current thinking that the indians were the great master race. They
are people, just like the rest of us.
I think I'll be watching that this Friday night with my girlfriend, actually. Thanks for the idea! Haven't seen that flick in a long time.