The Indian is is essentially a blank slate. But as already expressed, concluding on this will make the film less interesting. This is a true story - in the sense that hundreds of thousands of people made the Westerward journey in the mid 1800s in America.

'(For lack of better word). If Reichardt had chickened out, so to speak, and ended the film with a scene of either A) Everyone lying dead on the ground, or B) Everyone drinking water, it would have betrayed the tone of the story completely.I saw Emily as being the defacto leader from the beginning.

The men argue among themselves and make questionable decisions, always leaving her and the other women out. Not only does it highlight the lack of understanding of Indians in the mid 19th century, but it exemplifies that it is the white masculine gaze that defines them.At the film's ending we don't know what function the Indian would eventually embody - perhaps Meek was right, perhaps he will lead them to water or perhaps he will lead them around aimlessly lost in translation. Round about the 2nd act the settlers are in a fairly dismal state and we transition from them in a valley, or at some other conversation friendly set up, to this long slow dissolve of their caravans across the … But judging it according to my feelings about the story and characters, the way it was filmed and treated the setting and landscape, I think it's a pretty strong film.I won't say that I thought of Emily as the defacto leader from the beginning, but she does wield power through her husband and becomes the focal point and very definitely the leader by the end. He is their only hope now.At the films ending it is the Indian who walks alone into the vast and desolate wilderness recalling Alan Ladd in Shane of John Wayne in The Searchers. In many ways the film subverts expectations of the form and doesn't offer any of the usual pay-offs. Instead David Chase ended it much more interestingly - if the audience already knows the ending, why not end it in such a way that will make the audience leave contemplating something entirely different - something more important than, in Sopranos case, retribution or a reaffirmation of morality for an audience who cheered along an evil man for years.Similarly we all know the real ending of Meeks Cutoff. I watched Kelly Reichardt’s ‘Meeks Cutoff’ (2008) what is your interpretation of the ending? The narrative of Meek's Cutoff is very simple, and as the tension gradually builds to an inevitable, presumably climatic, conclusion, I was thinking to myself; wow, there is a lot depending on the end - it will really determine whether I love this film or not.Thus as the film progresses and the characters become even more desperate (in search for water), I hypothesised all the possible endings; and realised that there could only be a variation of 2 endings - either the Indian leads them to water or they die. I was very intrigued to see how Reichardt would conclude this without coming across as either racist or boring. I got a sense for the remoteness of the West at the time and the isolation that must have been felt by the early settlers.New comments cannot be posted and votes cannot be castPress J to jump to the feed. !I remember David Chase hinting at some stage during The Sopranos that Tony's story only has two possible endings; either he dies or goes to prison. I ended up writing about it which really helped gather my thoughts. His masculinity is slowly becoming more and more redundant as the story progresses.Michelle William's character, Emily, begins timid and a little annoying when she criticises decisions in hindsight. Then we look upon the Indian through Emily's gaze - framed by the half dead half alive tree.In the Western stand-off the three characters are on a hill.

But I hated him from the beginning. All his masculine stories and poetically dark views of humanity (woman is chaos, man is destruction) are most likely made up or highly exaggerated. Unlike a lot of classic Westerns, I even felt a stark reality here. (SORT-OF SPOILER ALART FOR SOPRANOS IN THIS PARA). It doesn't really matter.' In these heightened uncivilised circumstances, they are even further reduced to do the jobs of 'niggers,' or so they complain.Emily, however, very gradually acquires power through an innate confidence, while the men fall pray to their own vices. It is what the others project onto him, shaped by racial and cultural prejudices, and extenuated both by hope and fear, that ultimately defines him. I was generally interested in the way the movie often looked through the women's perspective, which is not something we usually get from these kinds of movies or Westerns in general. I noticed there has been no discussion on Meek's Cutoff. While she lead through her husband William, toward the end she bore the full weight of the decision to follow the Indian, which was beautifully shown by her profile framed in the tangled branches of the lone tree they found. We hardly know anything about the characters in Meek's Cutoff - this allows them to represent all those people who made the same journey. Not to mention he is the one who got them lost - even this he romanticises for the sake of pride 'we are not lost we are finding our way.' Either they made it or they died along the way (as many did). Also she is playing her own manipulation game with the Indian - 'i want him to owe me something,' which is contrary to Meek's barbaric masculine perspective - "kill him now while we have a chance.