MovieChat Forums > The Grey (2012) Discussion > Defending the movie as a philosophical f...

Defending the movie as a philosophical flick


Many people have posted that the entire movie is a philosophical exercise about man's struggle for life. Perhaps Man vs Nature.

First, can we all agree that the wolves were either (a) completely allegorical or (b) a really bad representation of actual wolves.

My question is that even if all of the wolves and the cold are allegorical, why would that excuse the humans from not using their heads, not thinking properly, not using basic survival skills. Please note that the primary protagonist is supposed to be a bad-ass survivalist and the others are oil rig workers living in Alaska. So we're not talking about a bunch of city-people suddenly dropped in the wilderness.

Why would the humans not use parts of the plane as shelter and to build weapons?
Why would the humans not strip the dead of their clothes to further ward off the cold?
Why would the humans attempt to jump/climb down the large cliff rather than finding an alternate way down to the valley?

Some posters have stated that this movie is really that Otway has died and is struggling in the afterlife. Why would this excuse him from using his brain? If you were really struggling to reach your wife in the afterlife, why would you suddenly become extremely stupid?

Hey, people have different opinions so if you loved the movie I have no problem with you loving the movie. I'm just curious about the logic of the script.

(And if you're going to answer "It's just a movie", then post instead "It's just a stupid-ass movie that doesn't make any sense but I love it.")

Sig, you want a sig, here's a SIG-sauer!

reply

I'm not a survival expert but:

They did use the plane as shelter but the wolves marked it as their territory after ripping the first dude's throat out... "they've pissed all over it". They had to make the decision to stay there and hope for the impossible chance they would be rescued (all the while under wolf attack, with no access to food) or move on to the forest and hope they are moving away from the wolves territory so they'd leave them alone. Ottway does gather parts off the plane to use - namely the shells and the jet fuel. Did you want a montage showing the team pulling off a door to use as a shield or a window to use as part of an elaborate trap or something? Armchair ashtrays filled with poop to use as landmines? Hanging around definite wolf territory would have been the worst idea at that point.

The survivors got themselves decent gear to wear - no-one was cutting about wearing just a vest and knickers at any point. Wearing 10 pairs of mittens may have made them feel warmer but excessive sweating and less mobility aren't great things - not to mention stripping all the dead bodies that would have been frozen solid at that point would have been a complete waste of energy and an utterly demoralising job.

At the point with the cliff the survivors were surrounded by wolves, they go ahead and use their brains and invent a way out of it but hey, let's just whine about that as well.

IMDb The Grey Messageboard might as well be called:
"If I were there, I would've just done X, Y and Z and survived - these dudes were idiots".

_____________________________________
I am the Devil and I have come to do the Devils work.

reply

No, they were not "surrounded by wolves" at the cliff.

So, KillerBoob, you'd rather whine about the message board? Lol. So everyone who does not share your exact opinion is "whining". Yup, that's pretty much the Internet.

Sig, you want a sig, here's a SIG-sauer!

reply

You need to rewatch the film. I replied to your post directly after watching the movie for the second time (first time was in the cinema years ago), movie was pretty fresh in my mind - y'know what? Don't even rewatch. Just think logically about it - those wolves didn't just vanish.

Let's just say your "points" have been answered, I welcome any retort. Also - so sorry for hurting your feelings. Get well soon. xxx

_____________________________________
I am the Devil and I have come to do the Devils work.

reply

I double checked the fact on putlocker before I replied. No, they are not surrounded by the wolves. Check for yourself.

Lol, so are you defending the "wolves" as an allegory or are you dumb enough to think this movie has a realistic portrayal of wolves?

Sig, you want a sig, here's a SIG-sauer!

reply

The fact is that the characters are being chased by wolves throughout the movie - whether you see them or not. Or were the wolves abducted by flying saucers? You've backed yourself into a corner here and have decided to lash out - the only reason I'm even responding at this point is because I'm bored. You should let go, holding onto silly opinions because they're yours is a bit stupid.

_____________________________________
I am the Devil and I have come to do the Devils work.

reply

Lol, oh man, you're too funny. Did you even watch the movie? If you're so bored why don't you check the facts. Sure, they were being chased by wolves so they had time to make a rope out of their clothes. You tell me, KillerBoob, where were the wolves while they were doing this? On a flying saucer would make more sense than the movie. That would also explain how the wolves got down the precipice before them.

Brush up on your reading comprehension then come back, KillerBoob.

Sig, you want a sig, here's a SIG-sauer!

reply

The wolves were hanging back, ready to strike as soon as the opportunity arose. The wolves at the bottom could be from a different pack? Doesn't really matter, but I suppose negating that idea and purposing the wolves used teleportation so you can whine about it and have a little platform where you can shake your self-interested little booty and sing about how much cleverer you are than the people who dig this movie then who am I to stop you?

Live or die on this day, yo.

_____________________________________
I am the Devil and I have come to do the Devils work.

reply

Lol, KB, you're a hoot. It really appears that you do not realize the utter stupidity of your posts. You could have starred in the movie. You fit right in.

Sig, you want a sig, here's a SIG-sauer!

reply

I hope you look back on the movie in a couple of years and realise it's not as dumb as you make out.

Have a good one.

_____________________________________
I am the Devil and I have come to do the Devils work.

reply

I just watched the movie and everything you've said is wrong.

reply

I know babies have no object permanence, but surely you're old enough to understand that not seeing something isn't the same as there not being something?

The fact that they were chased and watched throughout the movie didn't stick with you? You know, the whole thing that was driving the story?
Did the wolves leave for a smoke break?

And then you have the gall to call someone else stupid.

reply

To answer the question, this a philosophical take on life and death....the survival instinct, fight versus flight, and that deep place within the human soul that exists and questions existence and the meaning of life. It is really that simple. Liam Neeson captures this brilliantly. The script is almost flawless (for people who aren't looking for a "Man vs. Wolf fight"). It's brilliant!

reply

We all have different takes and expectations. I'm happy you enjoyed the movie!

Sig, you want a sig, here's a SIG-sauer!

reply

Exactly!

Try reading Kant, Neitsche, Locke, Mills, Aristotle, Socrates, Descartes, and Freud, and then watch it again. I think you need a little background in philosophy to understand the depth of it and what it's really all about. I'm not joking either.

I know people who didn't like it. I loved it. It's easily one of my top 3 films of this current decade and I can watch it easily. There's also some basic superficial enjoyment too that is just so eery and creepy but yet so in touch with nature. But that's not why I like it. I like that it has that element while also containing the philosophically dominated script and story. The score is brilliant too.

reply

Lol, don't start that. I am quite familiar with philosophy. If you like this movie that's terrific. It does nothing for me as either a philosophical flick or survivalist. But hey, if you like it and it works for you then go with it. (Maybe if Ottway had turned into a giant cockroach I would have enjoyed it more ;-) ).

Sig, you want a sig, here's a SIG-sauer!

reply

I respect your tastes and familiarity with philosophy. I personally could always use a refresher course myself.

The movie is depressing. Maybe that is why you don't like it. For example, in a basic action film or a man vs. nature film, the hero or protagonist would come out alive and be saved (See even Predator, for example), and here, it may seem gloomy to some people because the end doesn't contain such an event.

It might make you feel better that in the original script, Neeson does get saved and the rescuers get him. So that was what really was "supposed" to happen. By the way, I just found this out. Even if I didn't know that, I still loved the film anyway. That just makes me like it even more.

Like I said, it's really about life and death, but not in a typical Hollywood sort of way where robots are blowing up and superheroes are flying around in capes in the sky saving the city. It's much more "real" than that. I'll leave it at that. For further details, read up on the philosophies of those famous philosophers I listed in the post above, and then rewatch the film as a philosophical study of life and death. It's brilliant. Neeson makes it happen though. He really owns Ottway's soul in an amazing way.

reply

I agree with literally everything you have said. Fantastic film.

reply

Do you feel sufficiently patronized?

Monkey with small testicles roar loudest -- Confucius

reply

No, not patronized. It's just a movie and everybody has different opinions. I doubt anybody's opinion is going to be changed by some IMDB posts.

Sig, you want a sig, here's a SIG-sauer!

reply

Why doesn't anyone who defends this film as some philosophical examination ever have any specific scenes in the film they can point to and tie them to their philosopher or philosophical theory of choice?

What do each of the imaginary characters in this film represent in relation to the deeper meaning of the film, if Ottway is in fact dead for the whole film?

How can you defend the unrealistic portrayal of wolves as allegory and then point to specific actions of the wolves in defense of their unrealistic actions without explaining the metaphor they represent?

What does the river represent in your theory of purgatory or human survival?

Talk about the scene where the guy confronts Ottway about going out to the snow to kill himself. What does that mean and represent in regards to your supposed deeper philosophical meaning?

Describe each of the men's death, how they are different, and the meaning of them in regard to this deeper meaning the film portrayed.

Explain why in support of your theory of this films deeper philosophical meaning the characters in the film make ridiculous decisions like leaving the crash site. While doing so point to any clue in the film that would lead us to believe the wolves are an allegory for some deeper philosophical point thus explaining why they don't act like any wolves anywhere in the real world.

Everyone I have read on this board who defends this film as some philosophical examination has said nothing specific about the actual scenes in the film and what I am supposed to contemplate. It's not enough to say the film is an examination of life and death and its not enough to just wave me or anyone else off and say we just don't get it. It should be simple for you to explain.

Point out some scenes and tell us what they meant and how they support your theory.

reply

While many of these references to philosophical meaning hold weight, you're thinking too deep into it. That's why it's a movie, and why it's metaphorical. They're not going to spell it out- it's only two hours long. It's about finding a reason to live when there really is no reason to live. Freud, for example, talked about the two drives in humans: the life drive and the death drive. Life drive is popularly known as libido. When Neeson looks up to the sky yelling at God, it is a strong, powerful reference to the philosophical basis of the film. Why are we here? What is the point of existence? Is there a God? What is the meaning of life? Why live? Why not just die, or kill yourself like Ottawa almost did in the beginning with the rifle in his mouth. What about his wife, the flashbacks? Is nature evil? Or is man evil? If nature is evil, then where is man's place among it; part of it or detached from it? If nature is good and perfect as is, then what is man's role in it? What or how should man interact in it? Is there a difference between human behavior and wolf behavior in a primitive sense? (the alpha, beta, etc)....These are just a few questions the film brings up, but there's actually some more.

reply

You do realise this is a terrible answer to the guys question right?
You basically responded the same way he said you would respond.
If it's just a movie and these questions have no answer what makes you say it's philosophical or symbolic?

reply

Oh yes the dialog was deeply philosophical when "the guy confronts Ottway about going out to the snow to kill himself". Everything was so quiet and peaceful,..... then we run from wolves, AGAIN, lmfao nothing of any value here, move on

reply

[deleted]

Enjoy it for what it is. If you cant do that then youre an idiot and should stay off imdb.

reply

LMFAO! Yeah, because IMDB is certainly not a place to discuss movies! Take a flying leap at a rollin' donut, buddy.

Sig, you want a sig, here's a SIG-sauer!

reply

The Grey is a polarizing movie and I remember it shook Roger Ebert up so bad he had to stop watching the next film and compose himself for a day or two. A lot of critics liked this movie enough to put it in their top ten list for the year. Me? It was so harsh at times it was hard to watch. I did like the ending as Ottway was ready to battle to the bitter end. It takes guts to make a movie like this.

Shall we play a game?

reply

No, sorry, actually it was just very silly.

reply

It was clear to me from the second time the wolves appeared that the movie was in no way aiming for a realistic portrayal of wolves... so I quickly accepted that the wolves acting the way they did was part of this particular movie's world, call it fantasy if you will.

I do think the wolves were real in the story, they were there and they were a real threat. They were not a representation of real wolves though - they were the kind of wolves straight out of tales, they were painted as the beasts that men have always seen in wolves, that they always feared. Lurking in the dark, growling, snarling, always watching and waiting for your time to come.

So, in short... I think they were both real AND symbolic, but not meant to realistically portray actual wolves.


It's usually not hard for me to suspend my disbelief in movies... but in this particular case, I found it difficult for some reason - I kinda thought that the movie would have been way better if they had omitted the wolves completely and just made this about a bunch of guys trying to survive. But of course I understand that would be an entirely different story and one kinda missing the point. I liked the movie quite a bit overall, I think what made it so difficult to swallow was the weird combination of realism and the almost fantasy-like wolves.

reply

On a number of occasions Joe Carnahan defended his portrayal, claiming it to have been a realistic one, citing various recorded accounts throughout history of violent wolf behavior as proof. He was saying that real wolves could easily do everything the wolves in The Grey did. He did this because his portrayal received severe backlash from people and organizations that know a helluva lot more about wolves and their behavior than he does. In fact, the portrayal won the Scat Award from the International Wolf Center.

http://www.wolf.org/wolf-info/wolf-news/scat-awards/

Monkey with small testicles roar loudest -- Confucius

reply

Interesting, thanks for the link - I had no idea such an award even existed, haha.

It's almost sad that the director defended his portrayal as realistic, he'd have gotten a lot less flack if he'd simply said "nope, I wasn't aiming for a realistic portrayal of wolves, it's pure fantasy and it's exactly how I intended it to be". I don't even see that much of a problem in deliberately choosing to portray wolves as the beasts that men thought them to be for centuries... if it serves a purpose (and I think it did in this story).

reply

The argument has been made many times on this board that the wolves in The Grey were meant to be portrayed as fantasy and/or symbolic. The problem I have always had with that viewpoint is that the movie - and Joe Carnahan - never established that in even the slightest way. Carnahan presented them as real creatures, attacking and brutally killing real men who were caught up in and dealing with a real-world life-or-death situation. They didn't get on that plane and fly off into the Twilight Zone.

What I saw in The Grey was how the Ottway character defended his atheism by defining what he considers "real". The character only concerned himself with the natural world and could not accept the existence of anything outside of that. In my opinion the movie and it's maker were pushing that particular viewpoint. We see the ultimate example of this when Ottway is yelling at God for help and receives nothing but empty silence in return as if there is nothing there to respond to his cries. There is no supernatural. There is only the natural and the self ("F@#k it. I'll do it myself."). How can you push that viewpoint by portraying real-world creatures as supernatural? I see that as irreconcilable.

Monkey with small testicles roar loudest -- Confucius

reply

How can you push that viewpoint by portraying real-world creatures as supernatural? I see that as irreconcilable.


I don't think it's irreconcilable. In the world the movie takes place, the way the wolves are portrayed IS normal and realistic. Ottoway explains a bunch of things about the wolves, how they hunt, about the pack's hierarchy etc... all those things are in their world facts, in their world wolves are like that - they are very real and an actual threat.

They are just different from real wolves in our world. But I don't see how that is a problem for the movie. On the contrary, I think it works well enough (and I thought it was fully intended until you told me that the director was actually aiming for a realistic portrayal) - because men have seen wolves as bloodthirsty monsters for centuries, the fear of wolves (as they were portrayed in the movie) is a very primal thing, it is a strong symbol for man's struggle for survival against nature.

I don't actually think this contradicts your point at all.

reply

You're saying that the movie was set in an alternate reality from ours. Where and when was this established in the movie or by the director?

I could accept your take if the wolves weren't wolves but instead some sort of fantasy creatures we see in movies like Lord of the Rings or something. No. The Grey was a fiction, set in our reality. There's nothing to suggest otherwise. It's just that Carnahan believed that he was providing a factual representation of wolves. That's why he defended it so strongly. He believed that's what they are like.

So it is in fact irreconcilable if you are pushing an atheist, existentialist, humanist viewpoint (what The Grey does) to use a supernatural version of something natural. I'd go as far as to call it heretical, if that were in fact what they were doing. But they weren't. So yes, the wolves in the Grey were intended to represent real wolves. To say anything else just doesn't fly.

Monkey with small testicles roar loudest -- Confucius

reply

Not an alternate reality like you are thinking... what I mean is that basically any movie has its own world and own reality that is not always 100% congruent with ours (even when it was intended to be, like in this case).

Actually, you aren't even contradicting what I'm saying - you're saying the director made the wolves this way because he thought that real wolves are like that. So, that makes the wolves real in the movie's world (but not in ours because anyone who knows the slightest bit about wild animals knows that wolves do not behave that way).

The only difference between our views is that I thought initially that the director went for this portrayal of the wolves on purpose. You're saying he didn't, and of course, I believe you, so apparently he was just sloppy in his research (which is too bad because going for an exaggerated portrayal on purpose could actually have been argued to serve the storytelling imo - although I understand you disagree on that point).

It's like in most creature features, animals in those are almost never portrayed accurately but instead based in the often unwarranted fears of men.. regardless of how dangerous the animal really is (or isn't). That doesn't make them any less threatening or real in the movie (and yet while watching we are usually aware that in reality, great white sharks don't attack boats etc.).


I'm kinda having the feeling I explained myself extremely badly in the previous posts, I hope this clears up what I meant.

reply

I understood you completely. You're doing what a lot of people have done with this movie: You're trying to reconcile the irreconcilable. I fear you don't understand what I'm saying. I'm saying that you're not helping the movie by doing this, but instead hurting it. You're not fixing anything, but instead making the movie seem even worse than it already is.

Carnahan's intent was to present an accurate representation of wolves and their behavior, otherwise he would not have defended his portrayal so strongly. If you add in the fact that The Grey pushes an atheist, existentialist, humanist viewpoint, for Carnahan to have intended the portrayal to be one that was outside of the natural, and therefore symbolic, is entirely irreconcilable. It doesn't work. For instance, you don't push atheism by trying to convince people that God exists.

If Carnahan intended his portrayal to be accurate and representative of wolves and their behavior (the evidence clearly points to this), then you have to view them as real and not as fantasy and/or symbolic. It doesn't matter that he got it wrong or that animals many times are not portrayed accurately in movies. It comes down to what the movie is pushing. What you don't seem to understand, is that the wolves have to be real in order for The Grey to be a legitimate vehicle for what it's pushing. If the intent was not to present an accurate representation, and instead one of fantasy and symbolism, something outside of the natural, then the movie is an even bigger pile of horsesh@t than it already is and its maker is not just the hack that I know he is but an imbecile as well.

Monkey with small testicles roar loudest -- Confucius

reply

You'd have to be of extremely low intelligence to ever consider the portrayal of wolves in this movie as accurate. Yes there are cases of wolves killing man, but these are few and far between. However, i refuse to launch a verbal assault upon 'The Grey' criticizing this exact point because it would be, in short, hypocritical. Very seldom does any movie portraying itself as an accurate portrayal of the real world ever present itself as entirely so. Put it this way, there were a lot more than 300 Spartans, Will Gardener could not solve a Rubik's cube incredibly fast, Whip Whitaker did not land the aircraft, he crashed it and everyone on board died, almost everything about William Wallace in Braveheart is inaccurate. The difference between these movies and The Grey is they all claim to be true. This is Hollywood, if there's a truly amazing and heartbreaking story out there they'll take it and manipulate it into something a thousand times more dramatic, if you want to complain about factual inaccuracies this is not the right place to do so, to be entirely honest. I like The Grey, it's my opinion, would I have liked the wolves to be portrayed as slightly less SyFy, yes, am I going to let it ruin a truly amazing and moving movie, no.

reply

Carnahan's portrayal of wolves and their behavior is beside the point.

Monkey with small testicles roar loudest -- Confucius

reply

I'm afraid it's exactly the point

reply

You replied to me. You obviously don't understand the point that I was making.

Monkey with small testicles roar loudest -- Confucius

reply

The site automatically placed my reply underneath yours, perhaps you don't have the logic to understand that

reply

The site places you under the post you click on to reply to. Which means YOU clicked "reply" in my post. They don't randomly place your reply, doofus.

You see how this one is placed under yours? That's how it works when you click "reply" in a post. Mmmkay?

Monkey with small testicles roar loudest -- Confucius

reply

Yeah generally people use this thing called common sense to reply under the last post placed on a thread, but anyway i don't post here often and not going to get involved in an argument with someone who clearly spends quite a lot of their life on this board

reply



Common sense is that you reply to the post you want to reply to by clicking "reply" in that post. Generally people that lack common sense do what you did. Or is it just that you're making excuses to cover for not understanding the point I was making?

Ad hominem always makes for a great argument.  So it's good that you don't get involved.

Monkey with small testicles roar loudest -- Confucius

reply

[deleted]

Cross out of wallets, huh?



Monkey with small testicles roar loudest -- Confucius

reply

[deleted]

So the atheist Ottway, who blamed Jesus for Hendrick drowning ("Jesus, don't do this!"), who begged for help, laid down his terms for believing in the existence of God and got in return nothing but empty silence (affirming his atheism), is suddenly going to get all religious and decide to stack wallets in the form of a Christian cross? HAH!!! Pure BS! Maybe you should trust what's actually shown in the movie and not what a hack tells you. The wallets are stacked, yes, but not in the shape of a Christian cross... assuming you know what a Christian cross looks like. It must say in the Bible somewhere "Whosoever stacketh wallets in the shape of an "X" shall never die. Do you believe this?"

Monkey with small testicles roar loudest -- Confucius

reply

[deleted]

You obviously can't.

I don't care of you're convinced or not.

Monkey with small testicles roar loudest -- Confucius

reply

I am one of the people that defend this movie as a philosophical one. I wrote a reply to someone in another post, so I'll just copy paste since I already made my point pretty clear in that one.



What is the point of all this? Why am I alive? How do I cope with the harsh truth that I'm going to die? How do I cope with loss?

These are some of the most fundamental philosophical questions there are and this movie makes a point to bring up these questions and provide us with different characters who all verbalize and/or demonstrate through action, how they deal with these questions.

Right from the start the main character is going to blow his head off cuz he can't handle the loss of his wife.

On the plane the dude that sits next to Liam Neeson seems nervous and starts blabbering away in an attempt to distract himself. Later when there is turbulence, he makes the comment about not putting your head down cuz your spine will end up going through your head. Everyone gets upset with him, but he needed to verbalize it to try to deal with his fear. He's not saying it to be a dick. He's afraid and talking is how he deals with it.

This is all before any of the survival part of the movie takes place and it's already extremely clear that this movie is showing us people dealing with loss and fear.

After the crash, that guy dies of an injury and the black dude starts laughing. Is it funny? No. He's laughing cuz that's how he deals with his fear.

The other guy, Diaz, lashes out. He picks fights, questions the authority figure, demonstrates a faith in technology with that watch and gets mad later that it isn't saving them.

The dude with the glasses deals by having faith and believing in god. He loves his daughter and it gives him a sense of purpose and meaning in his life.

I mean, the movie isn't trying to hide these things. It's not as if the people that see this stuff are "reading too much into it" or something.

Liam Neeson tells them about his dad's poem.

Once more into the fray
Into the last good fight I'll ever know
Live and die on this day
Live and die on this day

That wasn't just meant to be a nice moment where he's recalling a fond memory of his dad. It's the entire point of the movie. Life is a fight, every day. It's the best fight you'll ever know. Today you are either going to live or you're going to die, and eventually you will lose this fight like everyone else before you.

He chooses to not kill himself and instead fights to keep himself and these other guys alive.

He refers to them in the beginning as ex-cons, fugitives, drifters, *beep* He calls them men unfit for mankind. By the end, he's looking over each of their wallets, each of their pictures, their loved ones, and he feels deep pain and sorrow that he and the world have lost them.

Technology fails them, civilization fails them, god fails them. They only have themselves and each other. It's how humans started and why the movie takes place in this setting.

To think this movie is meant to be an action movie about surviving wolves and harsh weather conditions is to miss a deep well of meaning that is right in front of your eyes the whole time. It's a complete waste of time to argue about realistic survival tactics.

reply

That was very well said. I'm surprised at just how many people do not seem to grasp the quite clear allegory and symbolism the movie entails. Maybe it was the marketing that was employed while advertising for the movie, maybe it was simply that post Taken, Liam Neeson has been branded the action man of bad movies.

This movie was definitely not an action adventure. To point out just a couple, the scene in which the guy jumps of the cliff, had the rope give in mid-air, with Diaz catching the rope and magically stall the fall. Conventional laws of physics will tell that is vastly incorrect. Diaz would most definitely have been pulled down as well. At the end, when Neeson meets the Alpha wolf, and quite conveniently, Neeson is not only provided time to realise it's den, he's also given time to furnish himself some impressive weaponry. Enough time for the wolf to have mauled and killed him really.

The movie was a symbolic look into the fear that drives men to do great things while ultimately being the reason for their downfall. It represented the inevitability that is death, and the different ways in which each of us perceive it. The scathing skyscapered city of today is compared to the harsh Siberian night with the ardent belief that the people inhabiting these places are all just the same, with only different forms taken by fear and will. Still others seek specific instances and examples of the nature of philosophy that the movie expounds with regard to ancient philosophical text, and that is absurd, since the net experience of the movie and not merely any single scene, encapsulate the entirety of its meaning. If you need any more exposition, it would only mean your ability to comprehend anything more than what is spoon fed, is thoroughly lacking.

The movie successfully made us care about a lot of these characters, and the acting and score were brilliant. The symbolic portrayal of human nature was affecting. All in all a fine film, especially considering I went in with little to no expectations.

reply

Lots of good points in this thread. But it always amazes me how many paragraphs people will type and still miss a key part of the explanation that will help "bridge the gap" for those still too focused on the literal....mainly: the wolves.

Sure, they're not entirely realistic in how they're portrayed. They are an exaggeration. Because they're a metaphor for death. Death stalks them all....and each of the men will face it in their own way. The wolves DON'T NEED to be realistic in this tale; this parable.

They are simply death. A means to help spoon-feed us a little....that what the men are facing isn't a pack of wolves. They are facing their own mortality. (Drops the mike).
Here endeth the lesson........

reply

Yeah I completely concur with you but just that as I previously stated, I find that while the wolves were an exaggerated grotesque perception of Death, the harsh Siberian climate and environment represent the inevitability of it, and our reaction to these adversities that mirrors our fears and insecurities.
But yes, the wolves are not to be taken literally, they are a symbolic portrayal of Death.

reply