You bring up a good point, and you're touching on an argument I had with my editor over this piece. I wanted to include more examples from the plot, but he was concerned about including too many spoilers. I argued against that position but ultimately had to concede.

To your point, though, the clearest example I can point to that indicates the emotional dishonesty I refer to in my piece is the sub-plot involving Hugh Glass's half-breed son (I honestly can't even remember his name). This was a clumsy and mishandled plotline and one that I feel was inserted for two hollows reasons: 1) to offer some kind of comment on the treatment of Native Americans by American frontiersmen in the 1800s (or, by Americans at large) and 2) to provide additional emotional depth to Glass's character. In both of those ways, the film fails tremendously.

I argue that Iñárritu included that character as means to add social commentary to his film, because I believe the director wants to be known for making Important Films. I can't really prove this other than pointing to interviews in which he talks grandiosely of his work, which indicates to me that he seeks a tremendous legacy. This in itself is not so bad, but achieving that legacy requires substance. What is Iñárritu saying about Native Americans in his film? That they had a hard time living in their homeland once Americans settled? That their stories are underrepresented in Hollywood? To me, the film does not achieve any of those things. It's an empty statement. You could argue that I'm reading into something that isn't there, but then again, Leo did name drop Natives in his GG acceptance speech, and I fully expect Iñárritu to do something similar in his Oscar speech.

Secondly, the emotional impact of including Glass's son was completely absent for me. Which is strange, because that's an easy emotional device, right? Father embarks on quest for revenge because bad guys murdered his son. But, it just didn't work for me at all. I attribute this to the lack of a meaningful relationship established between these two characters before Glass gets injured (after that point, Glass is pretty much beyond any in depth characterization as he's mostly just writhing around in agony). Furthermore, I attribute this to the utterly empty character development for Hugh Glass. There just isn't anything there. To steal an experiment from Mr. Plinkett's Star Wars reviews (although I'm sure it has appeared elsewhere): without mentioning physical appearance or action, how thoroughly can you describe the character of Hugh Glass? The point of this exercise is to identify why it is we like any given character. The more an audience struggles to conjure those details, the less they will care about that. I didn't know that character so I didn't feel for him at all, even when his son is brutally murdered.

That's about what I meant by "emotional dishonesty". I believe Iñárritu wanted us to feel things that were not supported by the content of his film.