Woman Walks Ahead (2017)

• Year: 2017
• Released: 29 Jun 2018
• Country: United States
• Adwords: 6 wins & 1 nomination
• IMDb: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5436228/
• Rotten Tomatoes: https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/woman_walks_ahead
• Metacritics: https://www.metacritic.com/movie/woman-walks-ahead
• Available in: 720p, 1080p, 720p
• Language: English, Sioux
• MPA Rating: R
• Genre: Biography, Drama, History
• Runtime: 101 min
• Writer: Steven Knight
• Director: Susanna White
• Cast: Jessica Chastain, Louisa Krause, Boots Southerland
• Keywords: biography, based on true story, based on a true story, 19th century, native american,

	6.6/10
	51/100
	60% – Critics
	60% – Audience

Woman Walks Ahead Storyline

Catherine Weldon, a portrait painter from 1890s Brooklyn, travels to Dakota to paint a portrait of Sitting Bull and becomes embroiled in the Lakota peoples’ struggle over the rights to their land.

Woman Walks Ahead Play trailer

Woman Walks Ahead Photos

Woman Walks Ahead Torrents Download

Woman Walks Ahead Subtitles Download

Woman Walks Ahead Movie Reviews

Good movie that altered facts — could have been a great movie

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?

Why invent a story?

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.

modernized romanticized western

Catherine Weldon (Jessica Chastain) is a widowed painter in 1890 New York City. She decides to travel to Dakota by herself to paint a portrait of Sitting Bull (Michael Greyeyes). It’s highly unusual for a woman to be so independent. Local commander James McLaughlin (Ciarán Hinds) would like to see the hated liberal be arrested and sent back to New York. Colonel Silas Grove (Sam Rockwell) has been sent by the War Department to push through a new treaty which would take half of the tribe’s land. General Cook arrives to take charge but also is seeking an opportunity to avenge Little Big Horn.

Director Susanna White has infused a modern romantic feel and modern social justice understanding into this little known story. Quite frankly, I never heard of this story. My biggest issue is the look of Michael Greyeyes. My recollection of Sitting Bull is the photographs of the weathered old man. Greyeyes looks much younger. I had to check and he’s supposed to be 60 at that time. More importantly, those pictures are pretty much what he looks like at this time. Greyeyes looks like 40-50. He’s at least a decade too young and his face doesn’t have the prairie sun pounding on it all his life. I had to give this up since White wants to add a pulpy romantic feel to the movie.

The main complaint from critics seem to be that this is injecting modern social issues into history. I have a lot less problem with that. We get our understanding of the past from movies which are always tainted by the sensibilities of when they’re made. In some ways, the reactions from the white people seems right. They would be hostile. The native people is presented with a bit too much nobility although I love the train porter early in the movie. I would modify the Indian stealing her stuff to add more menace. He could push her down and steal what she’s carrying. As it stands, the scene is used as comedy. All in all, I like the characters and this story.