THE FAST RUNNER (Zacharias Kunuk, 2002)

Reviewed: June 25, 2002

I feel helpless as I start to write this review. The vast majority of critics have already spoken and their consensus is clear. At this point do I have any hope of swaying people in the opposite direction?

"An astonishing epic." --Roger Ebert
"A masterpiece...an extraordinary film, a work of narrative sweep and visual beauty that honors the history of the art form even as it extends its perspective." --The New York Times
"Engrossing from first image to last, so devoid of stereotype and cosmic in its vision it could suggest the rebirth of cinema." --Village Voice

I started chuckling to myself typing that last quote. I never cease to be amused by the level of stupidity our world is capable of producing. I cannot believe a professional critic working for a major publication could ever write such gibberish, and I especially can't believe how any of said critic's readership could ever again take another word he/she writes seriously after reading such a comment.

Let me rewrite that.

"So devoid of stereotype and cosmic in its vision it could suggest the rebirth of cinema."

Oh sorry, wait, apparently the Village Voice has a different definition of stereotype than me. See, silly me, here I am thinking that such familiar story elements as: the cheating spouse, the woman torn between two men, the fierce competition between said two men (hey is this... like... called, a like... LOVE TRIANGLE??!! Wait, wait, no it can't be because apparently Mr. Voice thinks a love triangle has never been in a film before), an eruption of violence over said love triangle and conflict among families are all dramatic clichés. According to me The Fast Runner's characters are stereotypes because they are only identifiable by their Big Traits, by their archetypal plot purposes. Not that there is necessarily anything wrong with having these elements in films-- they are almost unavoidable and even the best films use them as jumping off points to create original masterpieces.

But masterpiece The Fast Runner is most certainly not.

The point is, how dare the Village Voice give credit to The Fast Runner for being devoid of stereotype? That's just blatantly false. Far more importantly, how dare the fucking Village Voice give credit to The Fast Runner for suggesting the rebirth of cinema? What the fuck does that even mean? When the hell did cinema die? It's been vital as hell since the 90s, still alive and kicking, Mr. Voice, you cynical fuck.

I know most critics, even the best of them, are prone to hyperbole from time to time. When you feel you have to be cheerleader for a film, when you wanna scream into everyone's ears: for the love of God see this movie!, you are gonna do what you have to. I'll whip out sarcasm, sure. I'll start cursing profusely, yep. But there has to be a breaking point. There has to be a line that shouldn't be crossed. Sometimes exaggeration becomes too ridiculous to stand a chance of being taken seriously (by the sensible reader).

The Fast Runner inherently cannot suggest the rebirth of cinema, because cinema is doing almost as well as ever. In the past ten years we've been treated to a number of fantastic, destined-to-be classics, each of which have pushed the boundaries of their medium in daring new directions. Movies like Pulp Fiction, Toy Story, Fight Club, Memento, Magnolia, Requiem for a Dream, even The Blair Witch Project. And we still have grandmasters like Scorsese, Altman, Malick and Spielberg working in top form. The Fast Runner, on the other hand, is not daring. The quoted "rebirth" statement is plainly Mr. Voice thinking to himself, God damn I love this film, what can I say to make sure no one in their right mind misses it? Oh, I've got it! Say it suggests the rebirth of cinema!

And "cosmic in its vision?" What does that mean? That The Fast Runner provides such a sweeping statement about humanity, that its scope is so grand and all-encompassing, that its insights into all our lives are so profound, that the cumulative effect is nothing short of cosmic? Huh? The Fast Runner is about a very specific group of people, a group of Eskimos whom almost no one living in America or any other industrialized country can relate to. How can a movie about these odd Eskimos possess a cosmic vision?

Okay, I'm getting ahead of myself. Let me reorganize.

Everyone loves The Fast Runner besides me. I, on the other hand, find it wildly overrated, insanely overlong (at a whopping two hours and fifty minutes), staggeringly boring, rarely enjoyable and most certainly not revolutionary.

Now, at this point in the review a lot of you are probably wondering just what the hell The Fast Runner is and why you've never heard of it. Allow me to explain. The Fast Runner is the first film ever made in Inuktitut, the language of the Inuit people (read: the Eskimo people of Canada). It was made by an Inuit himself, it was shot on digital video, it was filmed entirely on location and most of the superb cast are nonprofessionals.

I will quote the imdb's plot summary:

"The telling of an Inuit legend of an evil spirit causing strife in the community and one warrior's endurance and battle of its menace."

I applaud whoever wrote that blurb. They're clearly a marketing genius, able to distill the faint essence of this film into a rock n' roll, I-can't-wait-to-see-this-movie single sentence. Sadly, it's misleading. Because what the blurb doesn't mention is that since The Fast Runner is stretched throughout a languidly tedious three hours, the real endurance of the evil spirit is required on the behalf of the audience.

I will quote the first user review on the imdb as well:

"The mystical elements are fairly low key and the story revolves around the always popular themes of jealousy, betrayal, rivalry and love. If the plot is nothing new, the people it portrays are."

I agree. The Inuit people are essentially new to us Americans. But therein lies the heart of my anger regarding the sky-high praise The Fast Runner has been receiving. I strongly believe critics are mistaking a candid glimpse inside a rare culture as a cutting-edge narrative film. Indeed, there are visuals in The Fast Runner we've never seen before (by virtue of the landscapes where the film was shot) and the endless expanses of snow and interiors of igloos are breathtaking to behold. But unfortunately all the filmmakers did was take plot strands and character traits we've all seen before, transfer them to this culture we haven't all seen before and subtitle the words in Inuit. What's so fucking cosmic about that?

I wish The Fast Runner had been made as a documentary -- it'd have been a far more interesting, successful film as such. A documentary would have freed the filmmakers up to not be slavish to a plot and somewhat one-dimensional characters, and I think the glimpse inside the Inuit culture would be even more raw and compelling in docu form. But as is, the filmmaker's ambitions are just too great. They want to show us this new world plus make their fictional story worth watching for three hours -- it's simply not. The texture of the Inuit people, their homes, rituals and values are interesting. Why not burrow deeper into those facets?

Another problem with The Fast Runner as narrative: even The New York Times admits the first section of the film is confusing and God damn, is it ever. In fact, I often found The Fast Runner's characters very difficult to tell apart and I would frequently be perplexed by the seasonal time jumps in the storyline.

However: there is one twenty minute stretch in The Fast Runner that is remarkable. Two men attempt to kill the title character, but he survives and flees naked across miles of ice and snow, pursued by his attackers. Finally he seeks refuge with a family of strangers, but the chase doesn't end there. These sequences are incredibly thrilling to experience. If only the rest of the movie had this level of sustained energy I'd be joining the assent of raves.

So is there anything wrong with The Fast Runner per se? No. Self-contained, minute by minute, it's mediocre. But extend mediocrity for long enough and it becomes wretched and painful to watch.

Return home.