Land der Gottlosen

"Santa Fe Trail", a 1940 film that brought a number of rising stars together, mixes gross distortion of history with an unusual, compelling and honest confrontation with the age of slavery.

Hollywood's uses (and, more often, abuses) of history fascinate me. Some films try to stick close to accounts generally accepted while others openly employ characters from real life as a launch point for stories that have little to do with actual events (hey, if Shakespeare could do it...). Many films blend fiction with fact and, usually, they serve neither well.

Director Michael Curtiz's "Santa Fe Trail" is part western, part military history, part comedic romance. Olivia de Havilland, fresh from her "Gone With the Wind" adventure, plays a frontier girl with spunk - and an ability to keep her clothes clean almost always, no matter what. She is pursued by two young army lieutenants, the soon to be legendary Confederate cavalry office, J.E.B. Stuart (Errol Flynn), and the eventually to be killed with his entire command George A. Custer (Ronald Reagan sans Bonzo). The rival suitors are typically 1940s romantics - no unfair or nasty stuff here. So sweet is the path to nuptial bliss.

The story takes place before the Civil War when the Army tried to maintain peace between pro- and anti-slavery factions in Bloody Kansas. The army officers who actually are part of history are portrayed here as being all members of the West Point Class of 1854-that would make Custer about seven years younger and earlier in graduating than was the case). No big deal.

What makes this film a remarkable document is its unflinching, for the Hollywood of the 1940s, portrayal of the evil of slavery, the pain of blacks ensnared in its web and the thundering role of John Brown, played by Raymond Massey in a powerful, gripping performance.

John Brown, the abolitionist who in life and in the film murdered slavery supporters and seized the federal arsenal at Harper's Ferry, Virginia was a zealot, not a madman (he refused an opportunity to plead insanity at the trial which ended in his death sentence). Massey, one of the greatest actors of all time, captures Brown's total devotion to ending slavery - he projects passion, not psychosis. It seems to me that Massey had a picture of John Brown that he was determined to bring to life, the inane or frivolous parts of the film being totally irrelevant to his mission.

Hollywood before World War II generally treated blacks as minor props (waiters, Pullman car attendants, cooks and maids). Here a black family is traumatized by truly sinister racists. Brown's condemnations of slavery are taken from his speeches and writings. The film's producer and director and script writers took a major detour from the concerted Tinseltown effort to not produce any story that might cut into box office take in the South (and elsewhere-the North was no hotbed of campaigns for racial equality).

Worth seeing because of its unique take on slavery, for the time, and Raymond Massey's towering performance.

8/10.

It's 1854. West Point is run by respected commandant Col. Robert E. Lee. Cadet Carl Rader brings in pamphlets from abolitionist John Brown leading to a fight among the cadets. Rader is dishonorably discharged by Lee after a fight with Jeb Stuart (Errol Flynn). Stuart and others are happy to be stationed in the toughest outpost. Stuart and Custer (Ronald Reagan) are sent to Fort Leavenworth in the Kansas Territory. On the train there, they're taken with 'Kit Carson' Holliday (Olivia de Havilland). Oliver Brown tries to smuggle Negroes out and is confronted. He escapes by shooting one of the bounty hunters. Everyone agrees that bloody Kansas needs to rid itself of the villainous abolitionist John Brown (Raymond Massey), father of Oliver.

This is a Bizarro world of yore where slavery is no big deal, abolitionists are villains, and people should simply let things be. The movie is definitely made in another era and serves as a time capsule for 1940 as much as for 1854. The rooting interest is against John Brown and the abolitionist, and for everybody especially slave-owing Stuart and flamboyant Custer in fighting against the revolutionaries. It's well made with plenty of action. The rooting interest is horribly tone-deaf in the modern sense. It is fascinating to see the old popular culture that is so different.

Well, lots of Hollywood films from 1940 wrestle with the problem of the wars that were then raging in Asia and Europe, and with the likelihood that the US couldn't keep itself out of the madness for very much longer. And this is a pretty blatant example; set just before the Civil War that all the characters "know" to be coming, with every other person making statements about how they're not going to start making moral decisions because they're soldiers who just do their duty. So the film has acquired an interesting historical patina. But the subject matter is just so toe-curlingly awful that there ought to be a health warning before it's shown. Perhaps its best audience would be students of history-with-ethics. And if there's no such college course, perhaps it's best not viewed at all. Plenty of other films to watch, with Errol and Olivia and gunfights (or bowfights)!

When Santa Fe Trail was released in 1940 it was to general critical acclaim. Though it is in no way a classic like Gone With the Wind, it's view of the coming Civil War is not too dissimilar from the David O. Selznick film that also had Olivia DeHavilland as one of its stars. It was a popularly held view of the time, the abolitionists were well intentioned rabble rousers who brought on the Civil War and as Errol Flynn as J.E.B. Stuart says, the south will settle the slavery issue in its own time.

Back in the day even in A westerns like Santa Fe Trail, liberal use of the facts involving noted historical figures was taken. The fact that Stuart, Custer, Longstreet, Pickett, Sheridan, and Hood would all graduate West Point in the same class was really a minor bending of the rules. The following year with Errol Flynn as Custer in They Died With Their Boots On, they got Custer's graduation class right, but then compounded his life with more errors.

One interesting fact that no one mentions in this film is Henry O'Neill as the real life Cyrus K. Holliday (1826-1900) who considerably outlived just about everyone portrayed in the film. He's of critical importance in Kansas history as having built the Santa Fe railroad. His children neither went to West Point as William Lundigan, did graduating with all these Civil War heroes, nor did his daughter wind up marrying one.

Olivia DeHavilland playing her usual heroine, gets out of the crinoline for a bit as a Calamity Jane type daughter to Henry O'Neill. I have to say she showed quite a bit more spunk than her normal range of leading ladies at the time at Warner Brothers. She certainly Errol Flynn and Ronald Reagan as George A. Custer on their toes.

If people remember anything at all about Santa Fe Trail today it is Raymond Massey as the fanatical John Brown. Yet even there, Brown has his hypocritical moments when he's quite ready to let a barn full of recent runaway slaves burn down so he can kill Errol Flynn in it. It doesn't ring true with the character as defined by Massey, I fault the scriptwriters there. Massey repeated his John Brown character in the later Seven Men From Now. Other than Abraham Lincoln it is the role that actor is most identified with.

As an action western though, Santa Fe Trail can't be beat. The battle scene with the army breaking John Brown's siege at Harper's Ferry is well staged. You really do think you are at Harper's Ferry watching a newsreel.

Though it never was history and hasn't worn well in its interpretation, western fans will still like Santa Fe Trail.

This is really shocking to see that this sort of propoganda was still made in 1940. It's impossible to enjoy this film "historical accuracy aside," because it's so obviously pro-slavery. The fact is we are not talking about whether the Winchester repeating rifle was really invented by 1850. The abolitionists are painted as violent, crazy, murderous people, "the reason why Kansas is called Bloody Kansas." Anyone who knows anything about this tragic period knows that pro-slavery forces were first to engage in murder and pillage. John Brown was notable because he was the first free-stater who started murdering back, and he made a campaign of it. After that, wholesale murder was found on both sides. THAT is why they called it "Bloody Kansas." What we see in the movie, however, is only John Brown's violence, time after time. We also see simple-minded black folks who would have been better off if John Brown hadn't made them free and responsible for feeding themselves. You can try and enjoy the story for itself, but the ugly and badly slanted arguments against abolitionists (and by extension against any reform of Jim Crow Laws in the 1940s) make it appalling viewing.