Lonesome Dove (1989)
I understand that this is a beloved series, and that America-or at least "middle America"-sees this rough frontier world of ranchers and Indians in a sympathetic light. I also see that there is a stellar cast here, not just Danny Glover, Tommy Lee Jones, and of course Robert Duvall, but Chris Cooper, Steve Buscemi, and (toward the second half of the series) Anjelica Huston (who is not at her best).
I also see that the story is about a kind of love for friends, and family in a way, and of a feeling for the land and herding cattle, about life and death under the big sky. It has all these qualities that many people appreciate.
So what is my complaint? I think, first, to sum it up, it feels and looks and sounds like a "made for TV" movie. What do I mean? 1) The heavy fill light both inside and outside (to keep the dynamic range low for television screens of the time), 2) the dulled and echoed sounds for interior scenes, 3) the typically deep depth of field and tight cropping, and the langorous editing so that the run time is long (8 hours) for a story that might actually have been a stronger 2 hour movie.
The novel (Larry McCurtry's book of the same name) is about archetypes, which these days means stereotypes-well worn types. Furthermore, these are all "cleaned up" for television. This isn't really a gripe (I'm glad old school t.v. Is safe for kids), but it makes for a rosy view of a rough world. The prostitutes, the ranchers, and the general townspeople are given a "pretend" toughness. Even Duvall, to me, is a bit of a soft-scrubbed hero, likable and sincere, but restrained and incomplete.
Which brings the problem of the Indians-the Native Americans-who are either played by non-Indians, or are portrayed as brutish thugs, Western style. Even Danny Glover is somehow given a slightly secondary role, as in his first appearance when he's the one, as a black man, who has to put the horses in the stable. Mexicans barely appear, even though part of the movie is even set in Mexico. White folks? They act rough and earthy in a sanitized way. It really starts to seem like a parody. Except the actors aren't in on the spoof.
Oddly enough, the series is also slow in many parts. The dialog takes its time, the actions scenes quickly turn to a calm appraisal of the moment (the leading survivors have calm conversations about the mayhem or tragedy that just happened). The filming (camerawork) is not bad, but very straight forward, including the lighting (when needed). It feels like McCurtry (for the story) and the producers (for this version) all learned about the old West by watching movies. Old movies.
Death, by the way, appears often and is quite casually administered. This might be the most realistic aspect of the "film," but I don't know how to judge that. It certainly comes off a bit thin, without the life-and-death reactions you'd expect from at least some of the characters. There are exceptions, but few.
I have read some comments from people who object to some of these same things but come away saying it's still worth watching. Really? That's a painful way to look at things. I would say that about "Gone with the Wind" because, for me, the acting and story and filming make the somewhat racist story line bearable, and compensated. But I can't here. I'd avoid this mini-series, sentimental and false, and all for herding some cattle across several states that didn't used to belong to the ranchers in the first place.
Yes, this is big, heroic material. But you need a Texas Ranger/Manifest Destiny outlook to watch it without cringing. Or maybe just an interest in human love and interaction without strings attached. And history. And yes, it ends with a sunset.
I understand that this is a beloved series, and that America-or at least "middle America"-sees this rough frontier world of ranchers and Indians in a sympathetic light. I also see that there is a stellar cast here, not just Danny Glover, Tommy Lee Jones, and of course Robert Duvall, but Chris Cooper, Steve Buscemi, and (toward the second half of the series) Anjelica Huston (who is not at her best).
I also see that the story is about a kind of love for friends, and family in a way, and of a feeling for the land and herding cattle, about life and death under the big sky. It has all these qualities that many people appreciate.
So what is my complaint? I think, first, to sum it up, it feels and looks and sounds like a "made for TV" movie. What do I mean? 1) The heavy fill light both inside and outside (to keep the dynamic range low for television screens of the time), 2) the dulled and echoed sounds for interior scenes, 3) the typically deep depth of field and tight cropping, and the langorous editing so that the run time is long (8 hours) for a story that might actually have been a stronger 2 hour movie.
The novel (Larry McCurtry's book of the same name) is about archetypes, which these days means stereotypes-well worn types. Furthermore, these are all "cleaned up" for television. This isn't really a gripe (I'm glad old school t.v. Is safe for kids), but it makes for a rosy view of a rough world. The prostitutes, the ranchers, and the general townspeople are given a "pretend" toughness. Even Duvall, to me, is a bit of a soft-scrubbed hero, likable and sincere, but restrained and incomplete.
Which brings the problem of the Indians-the Native Americans-who are either played by non-Indians, or are portrayed as brutish thugs, Western style. Even Danny Glover is somehow given a slightly secondary role, as in his first appearance when he's the one, as a black man, who has to put the horses in the stable. Mexicans barely appear, even though part of the movie is even set in Mexico. White folks? They act rough and earthy in a sanitized way. It really starts to seem like a parody. Except the actors aren't in on the spoof.
Oddly enough, the series is also slow in many parts. The dialog takes its time, the actions scenes quickly turn to a calm appraisal of the moment (the leading survivors have calm conversations about the mayhem or tragedy that just happened). The filming (camerawork) is not bad, but very straight forward, including the lighting (when needed). It feels like McCurtry (for the story) and the producers (for this version) all learned about the old West by watching movies. Old movies.
Death, by the way, appears often and is quite casually administered. This might be the most realistic aspect of the "film," but I don't know how to judge that. It certainly comes off a bit thin, without the life-and-death reactions you'd expect from at least some of the characters. There are exceptions, but few.
I have read some comments from people who object to some of these same things but come away saying it's still worth watching. Really? That's a painful way to look at things. I would say that about "Gone with the Wind" because, for me, the acting and story and filming make the somewhat racist story line bearable, and compensated. But I can't here. I'd avoid this mini-series, sentimental and false, and all for herding some cattle across several states that didn't used to belong to the ranchers in the first place.
Yes, this is big, heroic material. But you need a Texas Ranger/Manifest Destiny outlook to watch it without cringing. Or maybe just an interest in human love and interaction without strings attached. And history. And yes, it ends with a sunset.