Bury My Heart in Wounded Knee: Film Summary and Reflection

Adapted from the book written by Dee Brown, Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee is a film adaption that portrays the history of the Native Americans in the American West during the late 19^th century. In the film, we see the effects of American expansionism on the Native Americans namely the Sioux tribe. We see that through years of warfare between the Native Americans and the United States federal government, the natives are forced off of their ancestral lands and suffer displacement through forced relocations.

The main characters that this film's plot revolves around are Sitting Bull, who is the Sioux chief dubbed  "the last Indian chief" who refuses to submit to the U.S. government’s demands and policies that threaten to strip his people of their land, identity, and way of life. The second character is Charles Eastman né Ohiyesa, a young Sioux doctor who is viewed as the model example of the successful assimilation of the Native American’s into “cultured” society. The next major character in this film is U.S. senator Henry L. Dawes who is the engineer of the American policy to give alternative lands to the Sioux people forcing them into subsistence farming. Lastly, we have the character Red Cloud who is a renowned Chief who chooses to move his people to an “Indian reservation in order to make peace with the U.S. government.  

Sitting Bull leads the resistance against the U.S. government’s plans to break up the Great Sioux reservation. In this, he halts their plans in his aspiration to gain Independence for his people. Dr. Eastman and his wife Elaine Goodale travel to the reservation in hopes to improve the lives of the Sioux who live there plagued by sickness and poor living conditions. Dawes develops a proposal to break up the Great Sioux reservation in order satisfy American demands for the lands wealth while giving the remnants of the land for the Sioux to live on. In this, he enlists the help of Dr. Eastman who ultimately refuses to help him in the execution of his plan after he realizes the grim fate that it establishes for his people.

Meanwhile, a mysterious prophet by the name of Wovoka insights an uprising within the Sioux tribe reviving their religious practices and messianic hopes to see their deliverance for “the white man.” These various individualistic agendas clash and bring about the massacre of roughly 200 Native American men women and children by the 7^th Cavalry at Wounded Knee Creek in the winter of 1890.

Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee spotlights one of the many sad stories of the Native American holocaust taking its audience on a gut-wrenching journey to where we witness the results of man’s greed, callousness, and cruelty through “Manifest Destiny”, which has resulted in the demise of a people. 

“ The Earth belongs to the White man. There is no future outside his world. You must go.” These words uttered by Charles’ father are darkly prophetic and sum up the sad story of this film. The scene in the film where this statement is made is when Charles has been chosen from the Sioux children to go to Illinois to further his education. Charles is in opposition of going which leads to his father making this pivotal statement. It is one of the few scenes that illustrate the relationship and views of the Native American in resistance against the tyrannical culture of the U.S. and the Native American who have come to terms with what he/she perceives as their inevitable fate.

After Charles reluctantly submits to his father’s wishes for him to go to Illinois, the next scene is his father saying farewell. As he watched the train leave, it was clear that this was the last time he would see his son. As Charles’ farther began to sing “Jesus lover of my soul” he barely made it past the first stanza when he instinctively erupted into a wailing chant in his native language. The scene then cut to young Charles on the train holding his feather; we then see him put the feather away. This imagery of this scene is so powerful for me because we see a juxtaposition in the Native American varied responses to the invasive cultural that was imposed upon them. Young Charles represents those that resist and defy it and his father represents those who have submitted to it. We see that though one has submitted to the dominant culture, in his heart he still holds on to his culture; with the other who is defiant, we see that he finally chooses to give up his culture and embrace the philosophy of his adversary for his own survival; this is evident as the next image that appears is a photo of the adult Charles who is full assimilated into western culture.

Charles and his father in a way illustrate the character relationship of Red Cloud and Sitting Bull.  We see that though Red Cloud submitted to U.S. authority, he remained true to his culture humbly living as one of the Sioux people. Sitting Bull resented the actions of Red Cloud's surrender but in contrast, when he surrenders, he embraced the western philosophy of capitalism and exploited his culture and western ideas of "Indians" for financial gain and for his survival on the reservation.

 The fate of the four men is truly interesting as they illustrate what has happened to the Native American identity. The last image that we see of Charles’ father is him being left behind by his son, mourning in his native language. The last image of Red cloud is one where he is one of the lone survivors of the Sioux tribe, blind and asking to be told the fate of his people. Both men represent the image of the native American in the past who have been left behind as relics of the past; they are not relevant and cannot exist in the present of future American society.

Charles and Sitting Bull represent the fate of the Native Americans who have stepped into the future. It is interesting to see that though they both embraced the dominant culture's ideas in different ways for their survival, they ultimately rebelled by choosing to defend the interests and culture of their people. However, I was really troubled by the fact that their characters in the film are examples of what happens to Native Americans who resist the dominant culture. If you resist (like Charles) in a non-violent passive manner you end up poor and destitute. If you resist in an aggressive manner like Sitting Bull you end up dead. I saw this as a message from the filmmakers that it is futile to resist the dominant though I'm not sure if this was their intentions.

A disturbing yet powerful scene was Charles' dialogue with his teacher where she is trying to assign him a name. Though he is the smartest in the class she does not call on him until he chooses a proper Christian name for himself. This scene seemed to represent the greater dispute between the Native American and the European American where the European American refuses to acknowledge the very existence of the Native American as a man unless he assimilates himself into western culture. However, the Native remains nobly defiant claiming his place in the world...for a time. 

We see that through the purposeful twisting of native American culture and history, Charles' teacher tricks him into choosing a "Christian name." This in term reflects the crafty nature in which the European American robbed the Native American of his land and identity, through centuries of deception and the twisted history of the swindlers that is still being manufactured in the American educational system.      

A powerful point made in the storytelling of this film was that there was no “white savior” (as seen in other period films where people of color our oppressed), but there is rather an allusion to the futility and absurdity of the idea in the characters of U.S. senator Henry L. Dawes and Elaine Goodale.

Dawes is blinded by his self-delusions that he is actually helping the Sioux people by having them assimilated into European-American society and in having them make a land deal with the U.S. government where they would be split and parceled off to live in desolate areas. However, his self-delusions seem only to protect him from experiencing the guilt of his true interests which is to covet the Great Sioux reservation land in order to mine it for its gold and other resources.

Elaine Goodale is a white teacher drawn to the plight of the Sioux tribe through her wonder and admiration of her Sioux civilized husband. Though she appears naïve to the true plight that the Sioux face, her motives to help them seem pure. As the land deal between the Sioux tribe and the American government fell through, Charles urged Elaine to leave the reservation as the situation intensified with unrest amongst the Sioux, which resulted in the cavalry men being called in.

 Charles stated to her, “I think you should go.” she responded by saying, “We are still needed here.” He follows up by asking, “As what? Witnesses?” As Charles prophetic words become a reality, the scales fall from the eyes of Elaine and the well-intentioned viewer. As the viewer, I came to realize that I too like Elaine was only a witness to the horrors of these people that are still felt in the present.  The viewer is left with a "woulda, coulda, shoulda" moment in Charles who wished that he had jumped from the train taking him to "civilization" as a young child. You feel the piercing pain of regret with him as he slumps to the floor; this is the worst state of mind to be in after experiencing such a tragedy.

 This historical cinematic retelling of the Native American plight is a brutally honest snapshot of their historic truth whose affects still impact their communities to this day. It fits into the category of movies like 12 Years a Slave which do not offer a comfortable ending of fabled hope, just the cold hard facts of the harsh events that took place in America's history.