Walker
Where does one even begin when discussing this movie? First of all, I'm guessing a lot of people are unfamiliar with this movie. Anyone I've ever tried to speak to about this movie had no idea what it was, so perhaps I should begin by explaining what it's about.
Walker is a semi-fictionalised account of the life of William Walker, the Grey-Eyed Man of Destiny, and his Immortals. Spurred on by the loss of his fiancé, Walker and his motley band of mercenaries are sent to Nicaragua to end a civil war and create what will essentially be a puppet government of the United States. Cornelius Vanderbuilt, a wealthy American businessman, funds the expedition in hopes of being able to gain control of trade routes through the country.
Walker and his small military group enter the country shooting, and don't ever really stop firing until half of their people and the Nicaraguans are dead, and the rest of them leave and abandon the country. Honestly, that's really all it is. I expected this explanation to be far more complex. Of course, if you want to understand the history of the relationship between the USA and Nicaragua in the 19th century, or about the life of William Walker, you should definitely look it up for yourself. And this is important: this movie is not a completely reliable source of information on either of these things; it is a film, not an academic source. Of course, thanks to my history studies, I could argue with you all about how this film is or is not a legitimate historical source (in fact, that was why we watched this movie in class), but I won't do that.
Let's get back to Walker. In all honesty, I don't know how to feel about this movie. There was something so off-putting about it. The overkill in the way the violence is portrayed was clearly an inspiration for Django: Unchained; the films are actually quite similar. It's not even realistically gory, but I was somewhat disgusted. It definitely disturbed me to see so many deaths, and the way that the soldiers kill with a very nonchalant attitude, and sometimes even a lust for murder. Of course, that was part of the message of this movie. This is made clear by the slow introduction of anachronisms, from magazines, to computers and cars, and finally to a modern army unit in a helicopter. The director used the story of William Walker, in a somewhat satirical manner, to highlight the problem with America's interaction with Nicaragua around the time that the film was being made (in the 80's). He was essentially pointing out that history was repeating itself, and not in a good way. Now, whether what William Walker did was good or bad depends on whose history you hear/read, but this movie points out how problematic it was to the locals.
Walker is a frustrating character. Besides his temper and his sexual tendencies (yes, there are some sexual references and scenes, as well as implications that he may have been gay), he comes off as a cold, unfeeling man who acts only for his own good while believing that it is the greater good. He is also very detached, and seems completely willing to kill any of his men or family member should they try to turn against him. Oddly, the death of his fiancé, whom he often fought with, drove him made with grief.
This film is definitely created to make audiences think, and will probably have the most profound effect once it has been watched a few times and analysed for deeper meaning and understanding. It is artsy, but not in the way I would have ever expected and artsy film to be. I don't like this movie much, but a part of me feels that this is one that needs to be watched just for the experience. If you do watch it, just please remember that some elements - as with all movies - have been altered for creative and/or practical purposes, and may not reflect the history exactly. But you probably know that. I'm just extra cautious with this film because I studied it.
Walker is a semi-fictionalised account of the life of William Walker, the Grey-Eyed Man of Destiny, and his Immortals. Spurred on by the loss of his fiancé, Walker and his motley band of mercenaries are sent to Nicaragua to end a civil war and create what will essentially be a puppet government of the United States. Cornelius Vanderbuilt, a wealthy American businessman, funds the expedition in hopes of being able to gain control of trade routes through the country.
Walker and his small military group enter the country shooting, and don't ever really stop firing until half of their people and the Nicaraguans are dead, and the rest of them leave and abandon the country. Honestly, that's really all it is. I expected this explanation to be far more complex. Of course, if you want to understand the history of the relationship between the USA and Nicaragua in the 19th century, or about the life of William Walker, you should definitely look it up for yourself. And this is important: this movie is not a completely reliable source of information on either of these things; it is a film, not an academic source. Of course, thanks to my history studies, I could argue with you all about how this film is or is not a legitimate historical source (in fact, that was why we watched this movie in class), but I won't do that.
Let's get back to Walker. In all honesty, I don't know how to feel about this movie. There was something so off-putting about it. The overkill in the way the violence is portrayed was clearly an inspiration for Django: Unchained; the films are actually quite similar. It's not even realistically gory, but I was somewhat disgusted. It definitely disturbed me to see so many deaths, and the way that the soldiers kill with a very nonchalant attitude, and sometimes even a lust for murder. Of course, that was part of the message of this movie. This is made clear by the slow introduction of anachronisms, from magazines, to computers and cars, and finally to a modern army unit in a helicopter. The director used the story of William Walker, in a somewhat satirical manner, to highlight the problem with America's interaction with Nicaragua around the time that the film was being made (in the 80's). He was essentially pointing out that history was repeating itself, and not in a good way. Now, whether what William Walker did was good or bad depends on whose history you hear/read, but this movie points out how problematic it was to the locals.
Walker is a frustrating character. Besides his temper and his sexual tendencies (yes, there are some sexual references and scenes, as well as implications that he may have been gay), he comes off as a cold, unfeeling man who acts only for his own good while believing that it is the greater good. He is also very detached, and seems completely willing to kill any of his men or family member should they try to turn against him. Oddly, the death of his fiancé, whom he often fought with, drove him made with grief.
This film is definitely created to make audiences think, and will probably have the most profound effect once it has been watched a few times and analysed for deeper meaning and understanding. It is artsy, but not in the way I would have ever expected and artsy film to be. I don't like this movie much, but a part of me feels that this is one that needs to be watched just for the experience. If you do watch it, just please remember that some elements - as with all movies - have been altered for creative and/or practical purposes, and may not reflect the history exactly. But you probably know that. I'm just extra cautious with this film because I studied it.
Comments
Post a Comment