Gold

This is a western…of sorts. While it's NOT about the American West and occurs a few years after the wild and crazy days of westward migration in North America, it looks like a western. It's actually about the Canadian West during those crazy and dangerous days of the Klondike gold strikes. While the American gold rush of 1849-1850 is more famous (especially when you look at the number of films devoted to both), the Canadian rush of 1896-1899 was far more dangerous due to the climate and terrain of both Alaska (through which many of the prospectors came) and the Yukon. Into this mad rush is a group of German-speaking prospectors —including a single woman, Emily Meyer (Nina Hoss). However, the trek turns out to be not nearly as trouble-free and easy as the leader of the expedition says at the beginning of the film. There are lots of surprises, tons of peril and plenty of death. In fact, watching the film reminded me of the computer game "Oregon Trail", as practically every sort of disaster that could occur does!

In many ways, Gold should be commended. While about 95% of the westerns you see are historical nightmares, Gold is very realistic. The natives are NOT uniformly hostile, the gunfights are not glorious and the film is, at times, a bit dull—because life there was a bit dull! It's actually funny that it took a Bavarian (that's in Germany) production company to make a realistic film about the western migration! Plus, it did make sense as despite what you see in other films, folks who did not speak English and who were recent immigrants are the sorts of folks who settled the West. We SHOULD have been seeing people like this in our films long ago. As a retired history teacher, this sort of film really excites me. HOWEVER, and this is a big 'however', most folks probably do want to see a mythical portrait of the West!! They like heroes, fights with Indian tribes, fist fights, shootouts on the main street and all the mostly wrong trappings of a typical western. Realism, unfortunately, is not always so exciting and the film is the type of thing most viewers probably would struggle with enjoying because they want more action, happier endings and the like. So, Gold is definitely a film for a select audience—those who want realism, warts and all, instead of non-stop action and intrigue. As for the quality of the film, the acting and direction are just fine—very professional and competent. Also, while the film was apparently made in British Columbia and not the Yukon Territory (where the Klondike actually is), it's awfully close and the brown hills definitely look a lot like the ones in the Yukon (I've visited the area). Worth seeing though even I must admit this film isn't super-exciting and the ending is a bit of a downer.

Well, it shore is pretty. Little reason to watch this implausible movie, unless, like me, you're a fan of Nina Hoss and you like to watch beautiful scenery.

The trip itself is plausible enough. Plenty of fools made their way to Alaska for this second gold rush. There is even another movie (a better movie) about a similar subject called 'The Far Country' with Jimmy Stewart. But what happens along the way, and the way it is plotted and executed is absurd and comical.

Woe if you were a horse in this movie. Or one of the actors forced to speak the stiff dialog. The two main characters, Nina Hoss as Emily and Marco Mandic as Bohmer are believable enough, but tripped up by a silly plot. It's always difficult to make a movie about a long arduous trip without it seeming artificially episodic and here, the director and screenwriter, have failed.

This film is outstanding in its portrayal of pioneer travel. The trials and tribulations, from the petty to the disastrous are endured as they really were endured. There always will be characters like Emily and Carl who will keep it together for the whole team, despite being just as worn out as everybody else. And the cruel blow at the end, bitter and crunching does not deter the survivor from going on.

I remember very well the feeling I had when I walked out of the theater after watching "Gold" : the movie was so realistic that I couldn't get out of my mind life's knocks during the particular era of the movie - and how lucky I was to live in Europe these days, have a secure job, a house and loving family.

"Gold" deals with a common story of the 19th century in North America : a trek of settlers decide to go up north in search for gold. The variety of characters makes it easy to identify with a least one : there is the lonely guy, the intriguing girl, the elderly couple, the crook ... the harshness of nature and human behavior point out their vulnerability but can also reveal their pugnacity and strong character.

Everything seems to match in "Gold" : the beautiful landscapes without any track of man, the very discreet music, the simplicity of these settlers' habits, the whole making this movie quite fascinating. I absolutely recommend it to anyone willing to see what a contemporary western could be.

RELEASED IN 2013 and written & directed by Thomas Arslan, "Gold" covers events in 1898 when a single woman (Nina Hoss) joins a small group of other prospectors heading north through Canada to the Klondike gold fields near Dawson City. Their numbers dwindle as they face challenging hardships.

My title blurb says it all. Just as "Meek's Cutoff" (2010) covered the adversities of traveling in the late 1800s on an alternative route of the Oregon Trail and "The Homesman" (2014) covered journeying from western Nebraska to Iowa, so "Gold" features the challenges of traveling from Ashcroft, BC, where the train tracks end, to Dawson City in the Yukon territories.

Needless to say, "Gold" favors gritty realism to conventional Western staples. Still, there are Indians, Old West boom towns, covered wagons, a possible hanging, alcohol and a believable shootout. I think it's a little more compelling than those other two flicks, although those are worthwhile too if you favor mundane accounts of arduous travel in the Old West. If you'd like to see a more eventful old-fashioned Western covering similar terrain, check out "The Far Country" (1954) with Jimmy Stewart.

I suppose the movie should've contained at least one rain sequence, particularly considering it takes place in the Great Northwest. But shooting in the rain is challenging & costly so the viewer is asked to read in-between-the-lines that they experienced rainy days. The film never shows any of the characters 'going to the bathroom' either, but we're to assume it happened.

A German/Canadian production, THE MOVIE RUNS 1 hour 41 minutes and was shot in British Columbia, Canada. At least half the dialogue is in German with English subtitles.

GRADE: B