You will be redirected back to your article in seconds
Back to IndieWire

“This Film Deserves To Be Watched In A Temple”: Alejandro González Iñárritu Talks ‘The Revenant’

“This Film Deserves To Be Watched In A Temple”: Alejandro González Iñárritu Talks 'The Revenant'

Described as a “masterpiece” by Sean Penn, and “a poem” by Neil MarshallAlejandro González Iñárritu‘s gritty “The Revenant” certainly has its share of admirers. And while the director himself has said he’s unlikely to put himself through such an ordeal again (the production was “a living hell” by some accounts) the director is not only proud of his film, but believes it deserves to be seen in the best theaters that cinema has to offer. 

“This film deserves to be watched in a temple,” he told Financial Times. And who can argue that Emmanuel Lubezki‘s breathtaking cinematography doesn’t deserve the best viewing possible?

READ MORE: Review: Alejandro G. Iñárritu’s Fierce And Unremitting ‘The Revenant’ Starring Leonardo DiCaprio And Tom Hardy

And while Iñárritu welcomes all comments about his film, just don’t call “The Revenant” a western. “I don’t consider [my] film a Western,” he explained. “Western is in a way a genre, and the problem with genres is that it comes from the word ‘generic’, and I feel that this film is very far from generic.”

I’m not a linguist, but I’m fairly certain Iñárritu’s take on the word “genre” isn’t quite correct. However, the larger point is that he probably doesn’t want his film boxed into any preconceived notions. Meanwhile, Tom Hardy is dispelling a rumor that he punched his director while on set of the movie. 

“If you hit somebody, you’d know about it. That didn’t happen. That’s just nonsense,” he told Variety. So there you go.

“The Revenant” opens wide this Friday.

This Article is related to: News and tagged , ,



Those who dont understand of find Iñarritus films pretentious basically dont understand cinema…his films are not for the masses, they are for people with the brains to understand the difficulty of making those films


surely a true saint – whether he works for the poor or the movies – is similar to a certified mad man, completely lacking in self awareness. I’d just add that maybe the reason Birdman worked was cause it turned the over inflated ‘worthy artist’ ego into a twisted, bitter joke. He should make more black comedies.


I knew González Iñárritu was a hack since I saw Amores Perros. But I didn’t know he was a prick and an ignorant. I can’t even imagine Orson Welles saying that Citizen Kane deserves to be watched in a temple. And you don’t have to be a linguist to know that genre does not come from the word generic. This is the guy who beat Linklater. Congratulations to The Academy. They always love mediocrity.


I have seen The Revenant and it is amazing. Dicaprio and Hardy are stellar. I am a huge fan of "westerns" and although this is set in the classic "western" era, this is by no means a western. This is man against man against nature.


@ E. – " I can not wait for the The Revenant to amaze me." That explains a lot about the state of your intellectual maturity. That you are not simply waiting, but waiting to be AMAZED, means you have already made up your mind to be amazed by something that you have not seen yet! Maybe you think Inarritu is a GOD! He will FOREVER make AMAZING movies! That’s why you have made up your mind! But hey! It’s you who have stated, "I suppose Iñárritu is a hit and miss director." HA HA! You are the GREAT appreciator of SOPHISTICATED things! Good for you!


I don’t believe he is wrong about his statement about genre and generic. A simple search shows they both originate from the Latin genus, meaning stock or race. This work likely comes from the Ancient Greek word, Genos. I think his intention in saying it is clear, if you understand the root/etymology of the two words, and in that way, he is not wrong.


I suppose Iñárritu is a hit and miss director. His films either hit you or you find them pretentious. But boy, when he hits you, there’s no coming back. Birdman is one of the richest, purest cinematic joys I’ve witnessed. I remember in 2014 when I saw the first trailer I thought of Iñarritu as a one dimensional kind of director (the shaky camera and the bleak colors), but the idea of an Iñárritu directed comedy tickled me in a weird way. I saw it, and it blew my mind. The movie is a classic. Some will not be able to jump to it, maybe because of the sophisticated, lengthy lines or the drum score or the cinematography, but I did. I found a soul mate in Iñárritu. For some, Birdman is about nothing. For me, it’s about everything. It’d one of those movies people will look at as a testament to the 2010s. I can not sait for the The Revenant to amaze me.


Max, I totally agree with you. After seeing Birdman, I felt like I was an idiot for missing whatever ‘genius’ other people saw in it. It just seemed like a pseudo-philosophical bore-fest with a hint of tangential male-centric scopophilia in the way it treats its female cast. I felt like he really had nothing to say about anything. I like Lubezki, but I felt like his talents were really undervalued by Innaritu. It’s like the blatherings of a man who never really grew up past adolescence. All of this grandiose posturing in the form of a meta-textual Raymond Carver adaptation just reeked of self-obsession. It’s the cinematic equivalent of a "look mom, no hands" moment.


The size of Iñarritu’s ego is quite embarrassing. He is not the genius filmmaker he thinks he is. And his thoughts on genre and generic are pretty laughable…

Tiago Lopes

No, it’s not correct at all (like most of what he says/does)

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *