Mohamed Shafiullah explores the themes of Race and Masculinity in Anthony Mandler’s Western film Surrounded (2023), starring Letitia Wright as the subversive and pivotal hero.

Surrounded is a 2023 Western directed by Anthony Mandler (also the director of the 2011 Sundance darling Monster) and written by Andrew Pagana and Justin Thomas.

I believe this film to be the final evolution of the Western genre; we had the old Westerns, where the white gunslinging cowboy fought the moustache-twirling villain, with racist portrayals of African Americans and Native Americans (ironic that the Indians were shown as barbaric savages when the White men were the ones slaughtering and pillaging). We then (thankfully) saw the rise of Revisionist Westerns, where morality was no longer black and white and the heroes and villains were less cartoony. But these were still the stories of White men; the diversity of the Old West, along with the experiences of the oppressed, were yet to be highlighted. We then had the glorious Django Unchained (2012), a hyper-stylized story of Black Romance, Love and Revenge. And now we have what I believe is the final stage of Westerns; non-stylized (sorry Quentin!) realistic stories set in the Wild West exploring the struggles of minority characters along with commentary on social issues.

The director explores masculinity and its relation to femininity and race, especially concerning Black women. Moses “Mo” Washington (Letitia Wright) is a Black woman but she masquerades as a man traveling along the American frontier. Why? Mo believes that her femininity is a weakness; traveling as a woman (especially a Black one) not only means people would disregard and disrespect her, but being a “vulnerable and lonely woman” could put her life at risk. Mo is also not accorded the respect that White women are afforded; she is forced to ride in the back of the wagon (akin to baggage) while the White women are helped onto the front and ride comfortably. Mo essentially uses masculinity as a shield against the brutal realities of 19th-century America; she will not be treated as well as a White woman, so at least as a man, she might be able to trek somewhat safely across America.

This film might have been perfect if not for the ending. The ending of this beautifully shot film betrays the entire essence of Mo’s journey. I’ll keep it short; Mo loses her housing document, the only proof that she owns the land she is heading towards. She is distraught. Then comes in the villain, promising Mo that in exchange for helping him escape, he will give her half of the treasure only he knows the location of. Mo has been harassed and betrayed by the White people she was travelling with, and despite fighting in the Civil War for the Union, the White Unionists have not repaid her the favour. There is no reason for Mo to keep her word to her White travelling companions. She should just help the villain and get the money, right? Yet Mo chooses to kill the villain and lose the money. Why? Despite all that Mo has gone through, all the pains and the misery, she still has a strong sense of justice. This sense of justice is all Mo has left of value, so she keeps to it. We can see Mo’s dedication to what is right by how she sacrifices her only shot at making it in life (which is getting the buried money) in the name of justice. This would have been a perfect ending, but the director betrays the essence of Mo’s character by letting her find the money in the end. This ending undermines the value of the sacrifice that Mo made to ensure she stuck to her morals.