Historically, when the American Movie Business gets it into
its head to explore or at least depict a culture far removed from any found
within the fifty states, or even some of the ones that do exist within them, at any rate, a culture that is not Los
Angeles and is not New York, the results tend to be a film that stands, as if
itself a person, benevolently above the actual people it's depicting, lowering
itself down to them (perhaps in a bucket) as a gift; or warmly crouches down,
to their level, handing itself to them like a father handing his son, or maybe
the neighbor’s son, a football. Hence
things like “white savior” films, wherein, in essence, a white person tells the
story of a non-white person because somebody
has to, goddamnit. Which, if you want me to lay all my cards on the table,
would bother me somewhat less than it does if more of these films could justify
themselves by being any good. Most of them can’t, so the defense is unable to
mount a case. And so you have to wonder about the makers of these films, and of
the wider world of the American Movie Business, when it comes to these sorts of
films, what stories do they actually think they’re telling? Because it looks like
it’s the story about how nice it is that they even thought to do this in the
first place.
That specific problem, the “white savior” one, is not what
plagues Nicholas Ray’s 1960 film The Savage Innocents, which has just
been released on DVD and Blu-ray by Olive Films. Based on a novel by Swiss
novelist Hans Ruesch, co-written with Ray by the Italian writer Franco Solinas,
and financed with Italian, French, and British money, the only American help
Ray got on this film was the distribution it received from Paramount. This may
explain why its problems are somewhat different than those that you could have
expected from a similar Hollywood production, but when all is said and done,
you still have a bunch of Americans, French, British, and Italian folks making
a movie about Eskimos. Eskimos played by Japanese, Chinese, and Mexican-Irish
actors, at that.
None of which, again, especially bothers me in
theory. Had I been fortunate enough to like The Savage Innocents, I
wouldn’t be here now sputtering things like “Well, but France.” But I did not like The Savage Innocents (in
fact, it’s the first Nicholas Ray film I’ve seen that I haven’t at least
enjoyed), and more than that, the flaws are inextricable from the situation I’ve
just described.
The story is simple: Anthony Quinn plays Inuk, an unmarried
hunter whose loneliness is exacerbated by his pride. Though it’s traditional
for other men to offer their wives to friends for carnal satisfaction now and
again, Inuk has begun refusing such offers, which is seen as rude. Eventually,
a matchmaking scheme is set in motion by others in Inuk’s community and after a
while he marries Asiak (Yoko Tani). During all this, we see various hunting expeditions,
and other rituals and daily chores that might seem unusual to us, the viewers,
often narrated by Nicholas Stuart. Along the way, Inuk and his wife encounter something
akin to Western culture and its specific ways of life when they go to a trading
post to trade furs for a gun, which Inuk has only recently learned existed.
Inuk and Asiak are also involved in the accidental death of a white man, which
ultimately brings all of the film’s concerns and arguments and preoccupations
to a head, as Inuk encounters a Canadian police officer (a pre-Lawrence
Peter O’Toole, inexplicably dubbed).
And I didn’t buy a second of it. The film looks as
stupendous as you’d expect from Ray – some images, such as those showing Inuk
and a friend rowing through the sea, between and alongside mountainous
glaciers, are breathtaking; on a giant movie screen, those moments might
literally take away one’s breath (the cinematography was a team affair
involving the English DP Peter Hennessy, who worked on many documentaries,
which fits as some of the film was made by having a crew shadow actual Eskimo
hunting expeditions, and the great Aldo Tonti, of Nights of Cabiria and Europe
’51 fame). But the depiction of the Eskimos is frankly appalling, and
hard to sit through. Quinn (whose makeup and wig make him look like a Vulcan),
and everyone else cast as an Eskimo, is made to caper and constantly giggle,
like little children, so innocent are
these savages (though who really is
the savage). The Savage Innocents may have the decency to be actually about
its Eskimo characters, but it betrays no desire to imagine them as adult human
beings. Inuk and the others may, in the first half of the film, have never had
any contact with what we call the civilized world, but I refuse to believe that
this sort of natural isolation leaves anyone so isolated in a state of
perpetual childhood. Everything makes Inuk laugh: talk of sex, actual sex, the
appearance of food, eating food, hunting, snow, other people. And his laugh isn’t
the laugh of a grown person, but the silly, somewhat abashed titter of, not
even a real kid, but a nauseatingly sweet movie
kid. And this is Quinn’s performance for most of the film.
It should maybe go without saying that authentic or not when
it comes to its depiction of Eskimo life and customs and attitudes, given the
condescending approach, I was less than convinced that much of what I was
seeing corresponded to reality. Again, this might not matter, but when you
consider all this in relation to the use of Nicholas Stuart’s narration, it
must be assumed that at least part of the ambition of The Savage Innocents is
anthropological. Yet am I really expected to believe that when Inuk and Asiak
have a baby, neither of them are aware that babies don’t have teeth (the mother
and father believe that the toothlessness of their child means their family is
cursed)? If they were literally Adam and Eve, okay fine, but both of them exist
in a larger Eskimo community. Not a massive community, but big enough to have
at various times included a baby here and there. Inuk, for all his childishness
is shown as knowing exactly what one needs to do to survive in this cold
wasteland (which makes that childishness even harder to swallow, but anyway),
but what babies look like is beyond him. And his wife, though both manage to care
for the baby, without having to ask around. It’s just that “no teeth” thing
that throws them.
Where The Savage Innocents finally goes is
interesting, potentially so anyway, but the situation that leads to the film’s
end is such a stacked-deck affair that I can’t accept the questions as being
fully asked, let alone answered. A film can’t provide insight if it doesn’t
seem to possess any. This is somewhat shocking, coming from Nicholas Ray, whose
career began with a masterpiece, They Live By Night, and would go on
to be one of the strongest (however short it sadly was) and most unique in
Hollywood history. They can’t all be knock outs, I guess.