Woman Walks Ahead

Loosely based on fact this interesting historical drama tells of Catherine Weldon's (Jessica Chastain) journey out west to paint a portrait of Sitting Bull. Saskatchewan Cree Indian, Michael Greyeyes gives a slick performance as the famous chief, during his latter days on the reservation. It might seem a curious topic for English director; Susanna White to tackle but she turns in a competent (if a little slow) rendition of this unique event. The New Mexico locations provide a nice setting for this rather odd story - although historical accuracy seems to be a little wanting. The white woman and the chief sharing a Tepee together might be a bit of a stretch - just as the ending also seems to wander from other recollections, still, much time has passed and recollections do become hazy. Some may find it no Dances With Wolves but it should maintain interest for those with knowledge of this sad time and the tragic events that unfolded during a dark phase of pioneering USA history. It looks at the pros and cons of Ratification and Ghost Dancing - the latter that caused controversy for its war connotations.

There's an emotional sense to the film, the images, direction and dialogue have a honest but poetic tone. Cinematography was beautiful. And it's a tragic and moving subject. The destruction of a varied and rich culture, the nations and the resignation of these indigenous people. I felt the profound loss through the character of Catherine Weldon, the determined painter who was captured by the spirit of Sitting Bull while trying to capture him in paint.

The performances were noteworthy, I always like the projects chosen by Jessica Chastain and Sam Rockwell. And Michael Greyeyes has a lot of charisma portraying Sitting Bull especially with scenes with Jessica.

However, the story does lack in some pacing and factualness. The story was a very loose representation but it still makes it's point in the theme. Some have suggested this a white savior movie and it may well be. Yet, one doesn't take away a sense of pride in any of it. It's still a white story, just a sad and not particularly flattering one.

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?

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.