American Wisdom

I have been a cautious movie-goer for quite some time now. There were times when I didn’t give much anticipatory thought about a film I was about to see. Yes, I made choices, of course but I didn’t run through different scenarios what this film might turn into. I think, in many ways, it all changed when films became propaganda pieces for the leftist cause with no effort at aesthetic expression or a higher, universal message. As a result, I have been visiting cinemas less and less.

But in the last month or so, I was pleasantly surprised when I saw three films in a row that were actually good: The Tree of Life, Midnight in Paris and Buck. In this essay, I will offer my reflections on the film, Buck.

Buck is a 2011 documentary film directed by Cindy Meehl (this is Meehl’s first film). It explores the life of a “horse-whisperer” Dan “Buck” Brannaman. The exploration of his past and present are intertwined as the director follows Buck on his 40-week-per-year circuit around the country. On this circuit, Buck gives “clinics” for the horse breeders/trainers on the proper way to own, treat and train horses.

Buck has his own philosophy of life, and there is nothing kitschy or clichéd about it. At some point he speaks to one of the people who came to him with horse problems: “Your horse is a mirror to your soul. Sometimes you might not like what you see, sometimes you will.” On other occasion, Buck says that even though he helps people with horse problems, oftentimes, he ends up helping horses with people problems.

What makes Buck an exceptional film is that it deals with a deeply particular story of one human being as it is related to the universal principles of life. Buck’s story spoke to me not because he is cowboy or because he has led a life completely different from mine. It spoke to me because of his humanity. And this is one of the characteristics of the film: Meehl’s vision does not control the outcome of the film or people’s responses. She is there as a gentle guide of the uniqueness of Buck (and the people surrounding him) but most of all, the reality of his life.

There is nothing pretentious about Buck or his life. The truth of the matter is that he is on the road for a good portion of the year, and as a result away from his wife and daughters. This is particularly hard on his wife, who has no problem saying that although she supports him in this endeavor, she would be a liar if she said that it did not bother her, or that she was not experiencing difficulties when Buck is not around.

Another meeting with reality comes when Buck is consulting with a woman who brought one of her stud horses, trying to figure out how to approach this animal. Throughout the segment, Buck learns that she has a farm full of stud horses (if I remember correctly, almost twenty) and Buck flat out tells her: “Lady, you are crazy!” He tells her that she has to confront herself and figure out why in the world would she be compelled to have that many stud horses. The woman breaks into crying but this is not a sentimental scene because Buck is not sentimental at all. He is compassionate but not “soft and chewy” in his delivery. In the end, this particular horse could not be saved (not even by Buck) and the owner is faced with reality. Buck is not afraid to make judgments (after all, that is why people pay to attend his “clinics”) but his judgments are never condemnations, nor does he think he is better in some way than the rest of the people.

We also learn throughout the film that Buck was terribly physically and emotionally abused by his father, which compelled him to live his life differently. But this is not an excursion into victimology. Far from it; Buck chooses not to wallow in self-pity, yet he gently and in a manner of forgiveness acknowledges the past that he was given as a child.

This film is a great piece of Americana but it does not hearken back to lost times of America. This is today, and this is how some Americans live. And that is one of the aspects of the film, which made it real, unique and true.

Although the idea of animal abuse was mentioned throughout the film, there was no “animal liberation” propaganda. I highly doubt that Buck thinks that we are below animals. What his being and actions do is affirming a life creation, and that although we have dominion over Earth, we are not to become domineering (and as a result coercive and abusive) but rather that we participate in a kind of stewardship and caretaking of our surroundings. If one can assign a meaning to Buck’s philosophy, it would be “human relationality to all things created.”

We seem to have lost our way in this society through the tyranny of multiculturalism. Every human being is a token fill-in-the-blank. I feared that Meehl might turn Buck into a token cowboy: a sort of city understanding of “oh-isn’t-he-cute-with-his-horses-and-accent” kind of thing. But she did not. The only thing that was “strange” about watching this film was exactly the fact that there was no exotic nature or “diversity” in any of the scenes. We have gotten so used to the tyranny of diversity in our culture that we forget that uniqueness of a human being comes with his successes and failures, his goodness and his wickedness. Implicitly, this film reminds us of man’s fallibility.

The film is without pretensions just like the people in it. If I had to further characterize the film, I would say that it made me think of man’s connection to the soil. What I mean by this is that my thoughts centered on the Book of Genesis, and a clear conception of human being: that we are created from the earth, and to earth we will return.