How “The Revenant” is a film about revenge, nature, and capitalism: a quick analysis.

In Alejandro Iñárritu’s latest film, Leonardo diCaprio (Glass) is tragically attacked by a bear, injured, and left for dead a little while later by his son’s killer. He then embarks on a difficult yet necessary journey not to save his life, but to avenge his son. On this adventure, we learn to know Mr. Glass; where he come from and how he sees the world; both from his attitude towards his life or death situation, but also from his many dreams. This truly immersive movie gives us a taste of what a survivor must go through to live again. But Alejandro Iñárritu does more than introduce us to the tough life of the first americans. He gives us a lesson about our place in the world.

I. Nature has other things to care about than Humans.

In the first scene of the movie, we see the the fur trappers hunting a dear. What is great about this movie, is that it takes its time, it doesn’t rush things (like nature does t rush either). The camera wanders through the trees who appear like tall sticks in the ground. Through those sticks are the humans. There are many times when the actors, in time of panic, look towards the sky as to find answers, yet all there is to be seen are the tree tops. This shows us that the nature doesnt care for our problems; it is only there, completely passive. Glass wants to take revenge, and nothing in nature will come give him support. This is why the landscapes are so slowly filmed, like when Glass is walking across the huge frozen lake, and we see him from above, all alone in the cold.

There is a very interesting moment when Glass’s breath fogs the camera. The movie is made in way that we feel like we are with diCaprio: the camera turns everywhere he looks, and we are following his journey. Yet at that moment, we realize we are behind a camera. Us, the spectators, all of a sudden realize we are external to the story, only watching. Then this fogg is transitioned into the clouds above the mountain. Nature is like the guy behind the camera, and us behind the screens. It is only watching and won’t do anything to help him. Finally, human violence and noise is heavily contrasted with the stillness of nature, it’s passiveness. That is all to enforce this idea of an indifferent nature.

II. The Native Americans, Gods on earth.

This brings us to the native Americans who play a very important role as nature’s voice in this film. I realized this towards the end of the film, when Glass, right before trhowing Fitzgerald in the river (Fitzgerald who is almost dead), says something about the Gods having to decide of his faith now. Then it is the Native Americans who end Fitzgerald’s life, right across the river. Throughout the movie, they seems to have the stronger position on the trappers. They, together with nature and the cold, are the main enemies to Glass’s life. The Native Americans, so close to nature, are in a way God’s voice on earth, and Glass, on his journey, starts to understand the truth.

Nature is beautiful; that’s one of the morals of the story. But it is deeper than this. One might ask how come the Native Americans seem so powerful in this film. And that is because they are close to nature, the one true God. When in time of trouble, the men look up at the trees, like we might look up at the sky to ask God to protect us. What changes here is that there is no doubt Nature doesn’t care about humans, or at least not about humans that don’t respect nature. Remember when Fitzgerald talks about this guy he knew who met God? Remember how that guy said that God was a squirrel? Yes, God is within the natural things in is film. Now does Glass realize this? We can remember when he meets this huge hurdle of bisons: he is a trapper, and his reaction in normal time would have been to shoot as many animals as possible. It is not possible anymore, and he is left watching the beauty of the animals. There is a profoundness about this scene, because we see an interesting contrast in between a man (supposedly the most powerful specie) who is fragile, dying in the wilderness, and completely powerless in contrast with these animals who have no problem living in the same cond

Now with Capitalism. There are multiple references made with money, trading, and exploitation. Like said above, Glass has to accept nature for once, and not try to make profit out of it; he has to accept living with nature throughout his journey. In contrast, the Native Americans always live with nature, and they are somewhat more prone to survival (like the other man Glass meets, who gives him food, and then helps him travel). All this puts back into question the purpose of man: is it to live with nature, or to make profit with it? At one point, the chief of the Native’s tribe tells the French that all the money he is making is on their back, that they are stealing what is theirs. It is true, they are not looking to exploit, meaning they are being exploited unfairly; the two “types” of men have different goals. Finally, remember in one of Glass’s dreams, we see a pyramid of skulls. Those are bison skulls (reminding us of all the one he could have killed if he wasn’t injured. This pyramid reminds us of multiple things. First, wealth, stacking them up like this shows us what it means to make a lot of money, to kill a lot of things (that didn’t deserve to die). Then, it might remind us of “In God we Trust”, printed on Amercan dollars. Although this might seem far fetched, it seems to be in direct relation with the fact that money made by the Americans is all on the Native’s back, that really it’s all dirty money, that the whole capitalistic system has its roots in something somewhat cruel. More ironic, “In God We Trust” would mean “In Nature We Trust” in this movie, yet considering it’s dead bisons… And Fitzgerald, the guy who runs off with all the money, only to be killed a little while later? His name kind of reminds me of another great author who wrote a book about capitalism…. But that’s too much I guess.

III. On the point of Revenge

Did the bear attack Glass, or did Glass attack the bear? In my memory, there was a fine line. The bear attacked first, but then Glass shot back, which got him injured. It was in a way his pride acting, not wanting nature to take the best of him. This got his son killed in the end, and started an unpleasant journey. Should he have killed the bear? No. Like in the rest of the movie, it was an act for revenge. But as said at the end of the film, “Killing me won’t bring your son back”, or killing doesn’t make anything better. It isn’t the natural thing to do; the bear attacking was nature acting, and Glass shouldn’t have interfered.

Conclusion

Perhaps all all this is far fetched, and I am still waiting to see the movie a second time, to study the church scenes, and to see precisely the murals in that abandoned church. Maybe I missed things, or maybe I over-analyses. Still, I think this movie makes a point about nature, and our place in nature. In that Context, Leonardo’s Oscar Acceptance speech about not taking nature for granted was very much related to the moral of the movie.