Not so much product placement but reference. In establishing time period, older versions of current products are often used to create cues as to when the story is taking place, while still allowing us to connect since we still use the same items.
What is often called "American" is actually Western, which includes places as different as England and Australia. Anglocentric might be more accurate. A love of underdogs is, I think, a particularly American phenomenom, but wanting the tough guy to succeed . . . every culture loves their strongman heroes. It is particularly American that we do not, as opposed to other cultures, revere the aged and wise, preferring the young and lucky. Because US is so aggressive in exporting it's culture and products, and the world is so rapturous in devouring them, one might think that certain characteristics are purely American, but that is just a matter of branding and brand recognition.
As for the North being the enemy, it is a harsh and dangerous place, and for Charlie, it is an enemy. Conquering people usually attempt to control landscape rather than adjust to it, while those that have come to the land more peacefully, over time make peace with it. When his method of control, the plane, fails him, Charlie continues assert control with out attempting to understand the land. Kaarlaq (mispelled) does not treat the land as an enemy and Charlie learns to make peace with it. I think the movie takes the fact of the land and shows how different people respond to it. For "Town and Country" NYC is presented as a strange dangerous place, yet others movies thrive there. The tundra is the same in this movie. There are so many soaring shots that show the lonely, desolate beauty of the place, a place I will probably never see, but that I had affection for by the end of this movie.
Often, people claim acting is poor when they do not like a character. I look for the creation of character. I think poor acting is when the actor is the same every time you see them, when you cannot believe they are who they claim to be on screen. The harder the character is to embody the more acting ability is required. That said, I believed. It was easier because the actors, while some were familiar, they were not faces I see all the time. I didn't like Charlie, and after his "transformation" I'm still not that fond of him. But I believe him and even understand him better. We prefer charismatic characters, ones that we can like even as they do reprehensible things. Here we get to see a jerk, why his is a jerk, him being less of a jerk and the start of a new phase of his life. Does he stay with the Inuit or does he catch the first plane back to his old life? The movie doesn't say but it creates enough character that there is evidence to debate question.
None of this is meant to change your mind but just to continue the discussion.
Much love,
K-Nice
reply
share