Woman Walks Ahead

Knowing nothing of the story upon which this film centres, I have since viewing same been led to learn more about the treatment of Sitting Bull and his people leading up to the human tragedy of the massacre at Wounded Knee. Obviously this beautifully shot movie with its understated wonderful music score and very strong performances of lead characters, has left a deep impression. Justifiably, some reviews here have found fault with the story's historical inaccuracy such as the age of the two major characters. It seems that dramatic licence is always a component of movies based on real events. But this should not detract from all too real emotions engendered, not only between the artist and her subject but by the embittered townsfolk who see Sitting Bull and his people as true savages. A film of beauty to be recommended.

This film is very good but it deviates from the facts to such an extent it seems like an entirely different film. Why create a different story. Weldon was divorced, not a widow. Her $ came from her mother, not her father. She was part of the National Indian Defense Association, not an innocent painter. She had a son, who went with her. etc. etc. The real story is just as compelling, maybe even more so.

WOMAN WALKS AHEAD

"Your society values people by how much you have; ours by how much we give away."

The film - 'based on' a true story - focuses on the developing friendship of artist Caroline Weldon with Teton Dakota Indian chief Sitting Bull. The facts of the story have been changed in a way to distort the truth: In 1889, feminist Indian Rights Activist Caroline Weldon from Brooklyn, New York, a member of the National Indian Defense Association, reached out to Sitting Bull as an advocate at a time when tension over several issues including division and sale of parts of the Great Sioux Reservation were high. She made the trip to North Dakota with her son. In the movie, Caroline Weldon came alone as a lonely widow searching for herself, on a mission to paint the portrait of Sitting Bull. Also at this time, a religious "Ghost Dance Movement" was spreading eastward to the Plains; it called on the Indians to dance and chant for the rising up of deceased relatives and return of the buffalo. When the movement reached Standing Rock, the dancers danced at Sitting Bull's camp. The nearby white settlers were alarmed, and Sitting Bull was shot during his arrest.

While I understand that this story focused on the relationship between Catherine and Sitting Bull, so much of their lives were passed over or skewed.

I came away feeling mixed about this movie: the New Mexico landscapes are striking; I enjoyed this look at the life and culture of the Plains Indians; the relationship bewteen Jessica Chastain, (Caroline Weldon), and Michael Greyeyes, (Sitting Bull) was moving, and their acting was strong, but the story was misleading. Still, I think it's a film worth seeing, but I don't understand why this story wasn't told historically as it's such an important piece of history. What did they think they were improving by doing a bait and switch on facts?

My wife and I found this movie streaming on Amazon Prime, with high-def picture and D-D surround sound. Quite nice presentation and beautiful cinematography. Filmed in New Mexico.

It was the 1880s and Native Americans had already been defeated and controlled by the American government. A New York painter, Jessica Chastain in the role of Catherine Weldon, becomes sympathetic to the plight of the Natives and decides to travel to North Dakota to meet Sitting Bull, paint his portrait, and assist him and his people resist.

The movie isn't completely fact-based, it doesn't even mention her son, and the events that led to Sitting Bull's murder in 1890 are highly dramatized in the script, but overall it is a good dramatic depiction of what the relationship consisted of.

Canadian actor Michael Greyeyes is very good as Sitting Bull, powerful chief relegated to potato farming. This is a good movie but it is a sad reminder of how poorly the Native Americans were treated back then.

Entertaining. Well acted. Good cinematography. Slow paced, character-driven, decent script that does have several historical inaccuracies, but also portrays some informative historical facts on the 1887 Dawes Act, the Sioux Bill, the treatment of the Hunkpapa Lakota Sioux and their leader Sitting Bull, and the unrest in the Dakota Territory. Not sure why it has the R rating, no blatant nudity or language with 2 mildly violent scenes. If you watch, not for historical accuracy, but purely for entertainment value, this is a compelling and enjoyable movie worth 7 stars IMHO! (to get the historically accurate info, I suggest looking up Sitting Bull and Catherine Weldon after watching the film and check out the Imdb trivia posted for this movie) /April 2021.