In the same year came one of the best of the recent westerns. Glory was the story of the first black regiment to fight for the North in the civil war and how they overcame prejudice from their own side to gain respect and dignity for blacks in America. Directed by Edward Zwick, it lit the tinderbox for the careers of a young Denzel Washington and Morgan Freeman and told a moving story about the difficulties faced by them and the young white officer charged with leading their regiment.  The ending always brings a lump to my throat when I see it. Oscar glory followed with 3 gongs for best supporting actor (Washington) and best cinematography (Freddie Francis).

Westerns became cool again. The next year we were treated to Dances With Wolves (1990), a stirring Kevin Costner western, looking at prairie life from the point of view of the native Americans and a disaffected cavalry officer. Costner collected 2 Oscars for it and went on to make other westerns but never reached the heights that he did with this film. Open Range was a return to form but Dances With Wolves was the pinnacle.

Clint Eastwood successfully returned to westerns in 1992 both acting in and directing Unforgiven. This film was a gritty and realistic account of how Clint’s character is paid to avenge the disfigurement of a prostitute. It is a character-led piece with occasional bursts of explosive and bloody action. The supporting cast are pitch perfect and some of the myths of the west are exposed. It won 4 Oscars including best picture and best director.

Gettysburg (1993) directed by Ronald F. Maxwell recreated the famous civil war battle and gained many admirers for its attention to detail and stirring battle scenes. It also spawned a prequel – Gods and Generals (2003) – showing the events leading up to civil war.

So the western is alive and well and can still thrive in the mainstream. When Spielberg does mini series about westerns (Into The West) and old stories can be reinvigorated to reach a new generation then it will always have a place in Hollywood.

That is not to say that epic films are not made but they now tend to inhabit different genres. The definition of epic has changed slightly because you can now see Science Fiction epics, Western epics, War epics etc. They are not confined to historical subjects or reality for that matter but they still rely on big stories with universal themes and more CGI effects than any normal film can handle.

Just think of the impact of Star Wars at the time of its release.The first major science fiction epic. You might argue with me that 2001 – A Space Odyssey was really the first space epic but I contend that it paved the way for Star Wars. Nothing had really been seen like this before. The special effects were eye-popping, the scale of the sets huge and the galactic gallivanting and action sequences better than the most advanced computer game at the time.

Like all true epics you need to see it on a wide screen to appreciate its epic qualities. Each episode got bigger and more CGI laden (not always for the better) and pushed the envelope in terms of CGI and what the audience could take in visually. The story of a band of renegades taking on an evil empire is a classic story dressed up in science fiction garb. Like all good stories it follows the Hero’s Journey structure described by Christopher Vogler. Weird and wonderful (and most importantly, memorable) characters also litter the Star Wars films and the energy and superb sound and editing make it an assault on the senses and a roller-coaster ride of action.

No less impressive is The Matrix trilogy although the epic concept, story and visualisation tend to rely more and more on CGI as the mind boggling narrative loses steam and coherence in the third episode. Not to say that the final battle against the machines isn’t exciting and adrenalin-pumping, no siree.

But the real daddy of them all has to be The Lord of The Rings trilogy. This fantasy adventure that brings the well loved Tolkien story to the silver screen has to be the biggest labour of love and the greatest triumph in recent years. Peter Jackson and the cast quite simply have created a series of believable and engrossing characters that interact with each other an imaginary world that soon become an alternative reality throughout the playing time of the films. The films are fantastic but adult in their visualisation. This is not child’s play. And here we have an example of where the CGI definitely enhances the story telling and is not there just to show off. The journey of the Hobbits through the weird and wonderful landscapes imagined by Tolkien provides a strong backbone of narrative against which the colourful characters and sub plots are introduced. Large scale epic story, action and visuals connected to individual emotion and drama in a seamless presentation to the viewer. Not a weak link in the trilogy and something to truly marvel at.

What is interesting is that the true spirit of the epic is still alive …. and living in China. For the past few years, if you want to see a cast of thousands then you need look no further than some of the historical Chinese films such as Hero and The Curse of the Golden Flower. The rich sensual qualities of the fabrics and colours and the large scale settings coupled with balletic action and fighting sequences clearly put these films into the epic category. They carry on the oriental epic tradition elegantly promoted by Kurosawa in Kagemusha and Ran. Choreography and organisation rather than CGI are the order of the day but the final product is no less stirring and spectacular.

It will be interesting to see if the forthcoming Mongol, the story of Genghis Khan, furthers the epic tradition.

But there is a problem with Costner the actor. He’s basicly a lightweight. An agreeable enough Hollywood leading man and action hero but nevertheless a lightweight. He has an annoying nasal tone to his voice and has a range of emotions from A to B. But this is not so different from many Hollywood leading men. His character usually struggles when acting alongside more heavyweight actors such as Duvall, Sean Connery, Alan Rickman. But, in the 1980′s and early 1990s he had a purple patch when he could do no wrong – as actor, producer or director.

Costner seems to be a very clever guy though and keeps on working between the duds and the diamonds. Just look at his track record.

First major appearance in a starring role was in Brian dePalma’s “The Untouchables” in 1987. Playing the boring, decent but driven Elliot Ness opposite Sean Connery’s streetwise Irish Cop (complete with hideous accent) and a powerhouse cameo by Robert de Niro as Al Capone seemed to work and opened up a lot of doors in Hollywood for Costner. His next three films, the pentagon thriller “No Way Out”, the baseball movie “Bull Durham” and the well-loved but schmaltzy “Field of Dreams” all fared well both critically and at the box office. This provided him with a lot of leverage and in 1990 he was allowed to not only star in but produce and direct his film “Dances With Wolves” a tale of the expansion of the western frontier through the eyes of a disaffected soldier who meets and lives with the Plains Indians. This is really Costner’s zenith, his career high point where he produced a truly memorable film which was acknowledged by the industry with Oscars. His standing as a Hollywood player was cemented by this film.

Over the next five years he performed in the likeable “Robin Hood – Prince of Thieves” but was outperformed by Alan Rickman. He also got the production credits. The interminably long conspiracy theory film “JFK” seemed to bring back a little gravitas or weight to his reputation. “The BodyGuard” did well at the box office but was not exactly one of his finest moments. He tried to kick the leading man/ hero image a little in “A Perfect World” but he was shortly to enter into a slump which was difficult to get out of.

His next three major films “Wyatt Earp”, “Waterworld” and “The Postman” showed that power corrupts but absolute power corrupts absolutely. Hollywood gave him such artistic freedom at this point in his career which can be a blessing or a curse. “Wyatt Earp” is a ponderous western that people stayed away from. That should have been a warning sign.

For his next effort, Costner acquired the rights to the greatest unfilmable script in Hollywood – “The Mariner”. He turned it into “Waterworld” in 1995. This was nearly Costner’s “Heaven’s Gate”. There were production problems with filming mostly on water; the budget spiralled out of control; and the film-going public didn’t particularly like it. Costner had no chemistry with the love interest, Jeanne Tripplehorn (known from Basic Instinct) and Dennis Hopper’s pantomime villain didn’t help matters. In hindsight and with the passage of time,”Waterworld” is actually a superior action movie with some tremendous set pieces on the water but its weaknesses weigh it down.

The buck had to stop with Costner who as the leading actor, producer and director had total control over the finished product. His career started to nosedive. This downward plunge was helpd along by “The Postman” in 1997 ,a post apocalyptic tale that did not hit any buttons with the film-going public.

Since that time he has had a checkered career. Whilst he has continued producing several moderately successful films, critically and at the box office, including the romantic “Message in a Bottle” and “Thirteen Days” a political thriller about the Cuban missile crisis, his directing career appeared to have finished until “Open Range” in 2003.

He clearly has an instinct for survival in Hollywood and maybe he will mature as director later as did Clint Eastwood. Until then I am sure he will continue to produce successful movies and maybe act in them.