I don't get it...


why is this film scored so highly? firstly the indians spoke english?! thats like the worst thing you can do, it just doesn't work its like japanese speaking english, the languages are totally different, and hoffman's over-acting was just awful, its like it was trying to a comedy and be serious at the same time, it just doesn't work. it should be more 6-6.5 rating. please tell me why this film is so good, its rated about the same with "dances with wolves" which i consider to be far superior film on all fronts.

reply

Insofar as the Native characters speaking English, you really have to appreciate this film in the context of the time in which it was made. In 1970, Hollywood was just coming out of the era in which all Natives were portrayed as savages, usually played by white actors in bad wigs. For its time, this film broke a surprising amount of ground (even though, granted, we still have some white actors in bad wigs). However, the film's sympathetic and for the most part realistic portrayal of Cheyenne life was groundbreaking for the time.
(Ever hear of the old saying, one must take small steps before one can run? This film was actually taking some rather large strides!).

The general consensus in 1970 Hollywood would have been that no audiences would be willing to sit through a two-and-a-half hour film with Cheyenne dialect and subtitles. Of course, history has since proven this mode of thinking wrong, with films like Dances With Wolves and Apocalypto proving that audiences will not only tolerate a subtitled film, but will turn out in droves at the box office). But that being said, it's still a risk, and even today, there are people who will refuse to see a film that is subtitled. The notion in 1970 would have been practically unthinkable.

What the film is really expecting of us is that we suspend our belief and assume that the Native characters are speaking in Cheyenne. I personally find this far more distracting than reading subtitles, but again, the practice of using subtitles was just not a generally done practice at this time.

Funny thing is, I had just watched this film with my sister over the holidays and I made practically the same comment: If you can ignore the fact that all the Indians speak English, it's a great film.

Personally, I thought Dustin Hoffman was great. But everyone is entitled to their opinion, I suppose.

reply

I loved the film, even my son and he is 14. One of the reasons why it was such a great film is that it was done with a blink. You can see that through the whole film.

If you want to see a serious film about the Cheyenne and what was done to them watch "Soldier Blue", there you have a piece of real US history.

reply

why is the film scored so highly? Because it's a great film. Forest for the trees huh?

reply

It was a good and entertaining comedy but never a great movie.

reply

"In 1970, Hollywood was just coming out of the era in which all Natives were portrayed as savages, usually played by white actors in bad wigs."

Perhaps you refer to so many "B" movies, however, there were number of "good" movies made well before the 70's that portrayed Native Americans as intelligent, reasoning individuals.

True, many were played by actors that were not Native Americans, but they were not necessarily "white" men and they didn't wear bad wigs.

This is a link to a list of Hollywood-type movies that, "to various extents present Native Americans; some films provide a respectful image of the Native American, some less so." http://www.americanwest.com/pages/namovies.htm

Perhaps, prior to the 70's, we were not as "enlightened" or "politically correct" as people are today, but that doesn't mean we weren't aware of the fact that Native American's were civilized human beings.



“That may be true, but it is also irrelevant.”

reply

[deleted]

I have mixed feelings about characters speaking their authentic languages. For me, personally, I would prefer character's language with subtitles. Or, everybody speaks articulate English, instead of broken English w/ an accent. One of the world's most sophisticated directors, Phil Kaufman, when he made THE UNBEARABLE LIGHTNESS OF BEING, had his Czechoslovakian characters speak English with a slight Czech accent. It worked for that movie, but then, you're talkin' Daniel Day Lewis and other top notch actors. Mostly, it ends up being much ado about not much; when the film is released overseas, 95% of the time it'll be in a dubbed version.

reply

The reason I don't like subtitles is that they never get the nuance or the complexity of the original language. It's just impossible to translate 2,3 or 4 sentences into a short phrase or two. In this case, using English allows those of us who don't speak the native Indian language - which is almost everyone watching this great movie - to get everything the characters are saying, and implying. I think it's the best possible compromise. I also like that the dialogue used mostly colloquial English, just as the Indians would have used colloquial Cheyenne instead of the stilted, broken English usually used for Indians during this period. BTW, I didn't understand that the movie implied the Indians were speaking English but that the MOVIE used English so we could understand what they were saying. I've always liked this flick a lot. I don't think it's Hoffman's best by far, but I do think overall that even at 7.7 it's an underrated film.

reply

The native Americans aren't suppose to be speaking English, the film is translating for us. Understand ?. For example when his red-headed wife starts talking, it was said " while she never learned English she sure learned Cheyenne"

nullo facere opinari omnia in serium convertere. vitae ad eundem modum jocari

reply

I get it. How is a person supposed to enjoy all the striking cinematography and generally appreciate a movie's characters when he has to constantly read subtitles? I love the Cheyenne dialect but I would rather not be distracted by the translations.

Take the sinners away from the saints and you'd be lucky to end up with Abraham Lincoln.- Hud

reply


I have no problems appreciating a films cinematography while reading subtitles, but emailraven's explanation is dead on.

reply

I, too, find subtitles distracting, though I have loved several movies that required them. In the case of Little Big Man I think presenting the dialogue in English is one of the strengths of the movie. I stumbled across this exchange of comments accidently, and I haven't sat down and watched Little Big Man for at least five years. But I still remember lines from the movie, and it was the brilliant comic timing in the way those lines were delivered that I remember most. "That was the end of my religion period" "They're whittlin' ya down purty severe" and "You go down thar" as well as a half dozen other moments have stuck with me keeping Little Big Man on my permanent top 10 list.

reply

I don't know maybe it has something to do with good acting, thought-provoking sometimes, often funny, beautifully shot, and addressing a hard topic at the time. Basically the Western Forrest Gump.


I was thinking of Gump as I watched it for the 1st time, well, tonight. From Wash*ta to Bighorn with Hickock along the way, and the side characters seem to return at every opportunity. For Cheif Dan George alone this film gets a 10, let alone it's treatment of a shameful period in American history. In the cruelest of ironies the US army went straight from liberating blacks to butchering Indians. An Army that fought, for the most part, as gentlemanly war as one can imagine became an army that slaughtered women and children.

reply

Why is it a problem that the Indians spoke English? If I watch a British/American version of War and Peace I don't expect it to be in Russian with subtitles. I only expect to see subtitles if the film it's self was made in a foreign country, for example Crouching, Tiger Hidden Dragon. If we called all films "bad" where the film translates for us then there an awful lot of well regarded "bad" films.

reply

(Original post: "like", "like", and "totally")
Oh well, musn't grumble.

The discovery of the poster about Jack's slangy English compared with his perfect "English" when he was with the Cheyennes was a very acute perception. I hadn't noticed it before.

Reading these posts and all the talk about talk, I was remembering Chief Dan George's wonderful and elegant lines. Much of this was lifted from the novel, and the Chief's delivery was so beautiful. I felt I was close to the authenticity of the situation, which feeling I would not have had if the dialogue had been in Cheyenne.

Every time I see Chief Dan George it "causes my heart to soar like a hawk."

reply

[deleted]

I don't mind subtitles, but you lose a LOT in translation. You just can't relate as well to foreign language. I think this Arthur Penn made the right decision.

reply

I'm a little late on this discussion, but I would also point out that the way film uses the English language denotes when Cheyenne is actually being spoken. Notice that when Crabbe is speaking English with whites, he uses a lot of bad syntax and slang. But when he is understood to be speaking Cheyenne, he speaks perfect English.

I love this film. The fact that English is spoken throughout is not a problem at at for me, at all.l

reply

I don't think that the language was a problem. Anyone can make that slight leap off to make it proper. However, I did not like the film for many other reasons. While watching it, I thought that it was actually really obvious why I had never heard of it before (this coming from a cinephile). It was incredibly cheesy, it had mediocre cinematography at best, it had a plot that sounded like it was made up as it went along... If I cared about movies being believable, then I would complain about that.

Sure, the film had some funny moments. Sure it had some moments that carried some emotional weight. However, as a whole I found the film to be a hackneyed mess of a revisionist western. Peckinpah and others did a far better job a few years before this.

reply

Little Big Man, despite the comic-book exaggerations of the plot, is actually a far more believable rendition of the plains Indian war era. Dances With Wolves is played straight serious, and as such is not believable as Kevin Costner attempts to paste a 1990's sensitive liberal hollywood sensibility over an historical period that was anything but (very much like his pathetic pasting of a sensitive liberal hollywood sensibility over the Robin Hood story, in another movie). Dustin Hoffman is ten times the actor Costner ever thought about being, and he very successfully embraces the humor and pathos of the book on screen....the juxtaposition of the sardonic voiceovers and other comic relief moments with the tragic reality of the Indian wars makes the whole truth of what was going on more understandable than what I get from Costner's earnest labors. Little Big Man is truly an iconic American motion picture that will still be watched and studied centuries after other westerns have faded from the public memory. This film is a beautiful example of the fact that art is a lie that enables us to see the truth.

- [email protected]

reply

[deleted]

And to elaborate on the first sentence--it's a story being told to some young oral historian, so the dialogue that would have been in Cheyenne when originally spoken is not only being filtered through our narrator's memory but translated for the benefit of the listener, which is why it's in English. And no wonder it sounds good--the alternative is that sort of stilted nonsense that Chinese characters used to speak in movies of an earlier era.

As for the complaint that the story sounds like it is being made up as he goes along--that's another question for the viewer, who has to decide how much (getting run out of town tarred and feathered on a rail, becoming a gunslinger, almost being shot by General Custer), if any, you want to believe. We used to have a whole lot more of that sort of fantastic literature in which the narrator winked at his readers when the story got more and more improbable--Munchhausen, Tristram Shandy, etc. So for those who find the story to be too much to swallow, you're either trying too hard or not trying hard enough. You can tell I like it (another person who saw it as a know it all college student back then).

One last comment--if you see Europa Europa, about a young Jewish boy adopted as a mascot by some Nazi soldiers (who don't know his origins, obviously), then the Soviets, then the Nazis again, you'll get a story with much less humor, but the same sort of hero who seems to survive almost every turn of fate by luck coupled with a certain amount of optimism and cleverness that allows him to keep his head up. Similar in a way to the hero of The Pianist--but now we are really veering off the track.

reply

Let's not forget that on this very site, DANCES w/ WOLVES is referred to as a remake of Samuel Fuller's RUN OF THE ARROW(1957)

reply

Right on!!

reply