Grey Owl (1999)

There's something a little funky about this movie - and yet it's still very likable, a true story, they say. How true to the real story? Who knows. PIERCE BROSNAN does a good job with his part ... yet it's a bit hard to get past the Pierce Brosnan thing. His brogue slips through occasionally when it shouldn't. But, still a pretty good film. Then again, I liked "Jeremiah Johnson." Not quite the same story, but some similarities there. JJ was the real thing of course. You'll see what's meant by that after seeing the film.ANNIE GALIPEAU was good though her diction was at times both effective (good) and affected (not so good). But, again, she's easy to watch & to like - maybe it's the fantasy of having a slim young woman who was so with-it with you in whatever setting, comfy, or not. If Attenborough had added just a bit more free spirit nudity for her (of which she had tiny bits in the film) it would have made her seem more vulnerable to this unusual character for whom she had an eclectic attraction and love. OK. Give it a look and see what you think. Saw it streaming and wish some of the DVD extra materials a reviewer elsewhere noted was available with info about the true story aspects and the leads the actors portrayed. The streaming video image had a partial anamorphic squeeze look in a 4:3 frame - so it expanded to full screen OK w/the set controls.

A number of Richard Attenborough's films as director have been biographies of major historical figures- "Young Winston", "Gandhi", "Chaplin". "Grey Owl" is also a filmed biography of a historical individual, but in this case Attenborough's subject is a much more obscure character.Grey Owl was a Canadian writer of the 1920s and 1930s who promoted the ideas of environmentalism and nature conservation at a time when these causes were less fashionable than they are today. He was widely believed to be an American Indian; the story he told about himself was that he had been born in Mexico to a Scottish father and Apache mother and had emigrated to Canada where he had been adopted as a member of the Ojibway tribe. He lived in a cabin by a lake in a remote part of the Canadian wilderness, where he earned a living as a trapper. He toured Britain twice, in 1935 and 1937, to promote his books and to give lectures on conservationism, and achieved great success, even being introduced to the Royal Family. (During one of these tours Attenborough, then a teenager, saw Grey Owl at the London Palladium theatre). After his death in 1938, however, it was revealed that he had not been who he claimed to be; his real name was Archibald Belaney, and he had been born in the English seaside town of Hastings.The film departs somewhat from the facts of Grey Owl's life. In a scene set in 1934 he states that he is 41 years old; in reality, he was born in 1888 so would have been 46 in that year. (46 would have been Pierce Brosnan's age when the film was made, so I am not sure why this change was made). Numerous events are compressed into the last four years of Grey Owl's life (1934-1938). In the film it is during this period that he meets and marries Gertrude Bernard whom he called Anahareo; in reality, he met and married Gertrude as early as 1925. The film also omits the fact that they were divorced in 1936 and that Grey Owl remarried shortly before his death.The revelation of Grey Owl's true identity adversely affected his posthumous reputation, and he was dismissed as a "fraud". His supposed deceit was even used to discredit the causes which he had championed. Richard Attenborough, however, takes a more sympathetic view of his achievements. One of the themes explored by the film is the question of ethnic identity. Although the erstwhile Archibald Belaney was not a Canadian Indian by birth, there is no doubt that he had a deep knowledge of Ojibway culture and lore and that he spoke their language fluently. He was accepted by the Ojibway as a member of their tribe. It therefore seems unfair to describe his claim to a Native North American identity as being a fraudulent one, merely because it was an identity he had chosen rather than one he had been born into.According to the film, Grey Owl's wife Gertrude was herself of Indian descent, but came from a family which had been assimilated into white Canadian culture. Her marriage can therefore be seen as her reclamation of her family's original cultural heritage. She was clearly influenced by her husband, but she also had an influence on him, persuading him to give up his work as a fur trapper as she had moral objections to killing animals for their fur.One criticism made of the film is that Pierce Brosnan is "miscast" as the hero, a criticism which seems to be rooted in the preconception that Brosnan can only play action heroes in the James Bond mould. It seems to me, however, that Brosnan may deliberately have taken this role in order to avoid being typecast, the taciturn backwoodsman Grey Owl being about as far from the suave, sophisticated agent Bond as one can get. The original Bond, Sean Connery, also seems to have deliberately opted for contrasting roles when he appeared in films like "The Hill" or "The Molly Maguires". Brosnan is in fact very good in this role, although I would agree with those who found Annie Galipeau weak as Gertrude.Another frequently-voiced criticism with which I would not agree is that the film is "boring". Certainly, it is not an action film like the Bonds, nor is it a great epic biopic like "Gandhi", and it may indeed seem boring to those who were expecting it to be either the one or the other. It is however, likely to please anyone with an interest in the early days of the conservationist movement or the philosophical implications of national and ethnic identity. The scenes of the Canadian forests are also beautifully photographed. Richard Attenborough has done us a service by helping to revive interest in this half-forgotten but fascinating figure. 7/10

James Bond in the wilderness? Well, that's the way it looks: Pierce Brosnan is after all best known as Bond in "Tommorrow Never Dies" (1997) and "Golden Eye" (1995) - both shot prior to this release. Frankly, the film's two leads are both badly miscast, with Brosnan turning in the marginally more convincing performance, and with Annie Galipeau (as Pony, Grey Owl's love interest) having to battle with carelessly-written dialogue.The two aunts, on the other hand are perfect. But the film is not about aunts. It is about the wilds of the Canadian wilderness. And while the photography may be pretty, there is no grit to the harsh reality of living in the wilds. Annie Galipeau, as Pony, just fails to be convincing, unfortunately, because I really wanted to believe in her. She was a relatively inexperienced twenty-year-old on this film, and it could have worked, but Richard Attenborough was maybe just not tough enough on her. He makes her look vulnerable, which of course she is.. but in the wrong sort of way.But one thing for sure, she appears picture-perfect throughout. But mascara and eyebrow thickener in the wilderness? It just doesn't fit, especially as she only ever seems to walk forest trials with Bond (sorry, Grey Owl), and use photo-ops for kissing close-ups.I've lived with forest people in the Pacific North West, and they simply don't look this pretty and stay so sweet while fighting for survival. Which brings me to another point: the film fails to evoke the period in which it is set: the 1930s. I put the blame here largely on a lack-lustre script that is keen on preaching at the expense of dramatic arc, plot points and those small details that can evoke period through action.William Nicholson wrote the screenplay, and his latest offering, "Elizabeth, the Golden Age" opened three days ago, so I do hope there is an improvement.Yes, I've read the comments others have posted, but I'm not convinced. A lot of potential, but mishandled and even maybe ill-conceived. If it had had a religious film, it would have been panned, but because it preaches environmentalism, the film remains somewhat above criticism, since it is "politically correct." Sorry, for all that, I don't buy it. Amen.

This film was made in Saskatchewan and Manitoba Parks and returned the world eye again to what little of the "Wild Western Canada" is left. When Archie began to write his stories for the papers; the thought of the day was to tame the wilderness and convert/absorb the First Nation Peoples.The film puts forward and asks the question; why would a well-educated, obviously talented Englishman become an Indian? Archie, as an English boy dreams about becoming something but grasping the full meaning of that dream is unique and priceless - no mater what it is. Sounds like a famous puppet story doesn't it. In my opinion, I saw Archie become my living image of the "Cigar store Indian" a very wooden character and not real at all - very well done acting on the part of Mr. Brosnan. He also portrayed the wild Indian in the dance scene for the tourist. The fullness and or reality of it weren't realized till he met and married his wife, Annie. Annie pushed Archie in a direction that would bring him to the forefront of the Englishman's world stage, not as himself but Grey Owl -an Canadian Native of the wilderness frontier. This is the closest Archie get to becoming the noble savage prototype. Mr. Brosnan's interpretation as well as the directors is both well done. I have watched documentaries on Grey Owl and I think this is a good big screen movie to add to my collection.Spoiler - I thought the final scenes with Archie going to meet the Grand Council of Chiefs was a great a great moment in the film. Very beautiful Canadian lake scenery and real "Grey Owl" locations.