As the latest entry in the Predator what we’re now calling “franchiseâ€, Prey is mildly entertaining. It does have some twists that set it apart.
It is a prequel and takes place in 1719, probably in what will become Wyoming primarily among the Comanche people. Like practically all film treatments of Native American life, it is highly romanticized. For me that was actually the most entertaining part of the movie—the detailed, close-up, reverent look at late Neolithic culture.
It was also what was most distracting to me. I don’t believe there were any actual Comanche in the cast. To my eye they appeared to be heavily Europeanized people from the Southwest or the Northeast. Couldn’t the director have gone to Oklahoma where, to the best of my knowledge, most Comanche can be found today for casting? In for a penny in for a pound it seems to me. I don’t see a great deal of difference between the cast they used and casting Italians, Greeks, and Jews as they did in the 40s and 50s. Note to Hollywood: Native American peoples look as different from one another as Swedes to from Greeks. Saying “Native American†is like saying “Europeanâ€.
Among the Native Americans of the plains, the young woman who played the lead was old enough to have been married and had a couple of kids rather than being off hunting. Willing suspension of disbelief I guess.
One last point. I believe that by 1719 the horse had become an important part of the Comanche way of life. You would not have known it from this picture. Maybe it’s supposed to be a mythologized version of how the Comanche got horses. Again to the best of my knowledge the Comanche were the foremost horse breeders and handlers among Native American peoples.
I recommend seeing it. It’s predictable but pretty good fun.
“Prey†reminds me of Avatarâ€, “The Hunger Gamesâ€, and Robin Hood†genre and the recent fascination with bows and arrows.
That’s not really a criticism as it would be all but impossible to find a film which stands out as totally unique and indifferent to the times at the time of production.
A quick search of cast at IMDB shows the actors to be Native with the requisite 50% Caucasian
Blood to satisfy the audience’s preferences in facial features and body shape.
Film and advertising does this with African Americans as well.
They want the shade but not the shape.
I winced when it became obvious that would be gender bender knowing as I do that Native men would have done much more than ridicule her for stepping out of place.
The bungee cord powered hatchet requires suspension of disbelief but overall it was fun and worth a watch.
A good way of phrasing it. My gripe is that Comanche are as different from Navaho as Swedes are from Italians. That is something that Americans can’t seem to get their minds around. There are many, many different nations not just a big “Native American” bucket. BTW I think the actors are more like a quarter Native American rather than half. Presumably, they identify as Native American so there’s that.
Yes, I dodged around that a bit, electing to phrase it extremely gently.
It’s not just the bungee. The time it takes to make a rope from bark is completely ignored as is the tensile strength of the resultant product. My treatment of that was pretty gentle as well, electing to refer to it as “reverent”. They also ignored that ALL metal heads or tips on weapons were a result of trade and that flint axeheads would not have stood up to the damage being inflicted on them.
As I said, it was fun.
If you want reality, true to period, try “The Revenantâ€.
“As Swedes and Italiansâ€
Which is why today they emphasize “Nationâ€, as in Omaha Nation which in fact they are under right of congressional treaty.