Conquest of Cochise

I remain staggered when contemplating the inconsistency of William Castle's direction. My being boggled is seemingly rooted in Castle's implementation of two stylistic systems - malformed 'Twins' as it were. The Arnie isn't present in this outing. The "Devito" system is in full force with passive direction that features a tableau frontality dominant in the staging/blocking and camera positioning that succumbs to the idea that action should pass through it or track it in the most linear fashion. Like some of the Boston Blackie films, groups of characters are staged symmetrically creating an evenness like a Moe Howard bowl cut. Hackneyed quips and stilted performances abound. I believe the AFI archival notes on the film remark that the uniforms didn't fit historically. The stereotyping throughout Conquest of Cochise would fit adequately if you upped the action sequences in quantity and quality. The stereotyping could thus be rendered parodical cartoon or comic-strip homage, and vice-versa. The authorial voice of Castle is mute in this film and sequences are connected with sterile methodical execution. As such, the 4th Wall stands strong and the story is required to tell itself. The story itself is poor and the characterization does nothing to create spectator investment. Too much melodrama and not enough action renders a comic strip story into a tepid soap opera. Romantic subplots are developed as filler and not as focused torrid affairs. The talkiness is so overt that I have to wonder whether this churned out "B" historical Western was not produced solely to serve necking teens who needed a dark anonymous escape for a couple of hours. The ethnography of this film is bunk for a contemporary audience and perhaps outdated even at the time of its release. Were these Katzman-Castle history-drama productions simply gimmicks in service of a romantic subculture among audiences? I will admit that it would be easy to pay full attention to my lover's lips and blouse buttons with Conquest of Cochise playing - there would be no chance of a distraction.

Sam Katzman formerly of Monogram Studios probably could not believe the budget he had with Columbia Pictures for Conquest Of Cochise. Color and location shooting. I can hear him saying I know I'm not at Monogram any more.

This story about Cochise takes place as the USA has formally taken over the Gadsden Purchase in 1853, the last bit of continental USA that we acquired. The Mexicans sold it to us for a tidy sum, it was mostly desert and its largest city was a desert settlement that was called Tucson. But it did sit across a possible southern continental railway route and we bought it for that purpose.

Now to enforce some law there because Cochise and his Chiracahua Apaches rule most of that bit of turf with Comanches occasionally raiding in there as well. That's what Major Robert Stack of the US Cavalry is sent there to do, make a treaty. Of course there are forces who don't want a treaty made.

Nevertheless Stack goes to negotiate with Cochise who is played most impressively by John Hodiak.

Broken Arrow which is set post Civil War has a lot of similarities and an actor who got great acclaim for playing Cochise. Jeff Chandler got an Oscar nomination for his performance. Broken Arrow got a far bigger budget than Conquest Of Cochise. Still what Hodiak did should have gotten more acclaim.

Conquest Of Cochise was not a bad film and for a Sam Katzman production its positively Cleopatra like.

Conquest of Cochise (1953)

** (out of 4)

Another Castle Western from Columbia certainly sticks to its "B" origins but there are a few interesting ideas that make it worth sitting through, although no one should expect a classic. Set in 1953 Arizona, Maj. Tom Burke (Robert Stack) wants to avoid a war between whites and Indians but a greedy Mexican wants both sides to fight and kill each other off. Indian Cochise (John Hodiak), on the other hand, wants peace but his people begin to pressure him into fighting this war. This film certainly doesn't have enough going for it to recommend to all people but I think those who enjoy "B" Westerns might find enough entertainment in its 70-minutes to make it worth watching. The film has way too much talk during the early parts but the final fifteen-minutes really pick up and end up packing a very strong punch. We start off when Cochise is sentenced to three tortures with one being bathed in hot steam and another impressive sequence where he's tied to a pole while the other Indians ride their horses up to him and slice him up with knives. This sequence doesn't contain anything too graphic but the editing and way it was directed makes it quite effective. We fall this up with a big battle scene that has the expected gunshots, bodies falling and of course the wild horse chases. Director Castle is best known for his horror films and most of them were in B&W but these early Westerns he did at Columbia gives you the chance to see him work in color and he certainly takes advantage of it. This movie looks like a coloring book because of all the vivid colors that are constantly on display. Whenever a set is on display it's got as many colors as they could possibly put in and this is a plus as there's always something to look at. Stack is pretty good in his role as I enjoyed the laid back approach he brought the character. It seems like the majority of the budget went to painting Hodiak red but he too is good in the role and gives it a certain passion that you can feel. The rest of the cast are pretty much what you'd expect in a film like this in terms of performances and character. Sam Katzman served as producer so that should pretty much tell you everything you'd need to know. Again, there's nothing overly special here but the final fifteen-minutes are well worth watching.

This is an interesting film of the Indians with John Hodiak as the legendary chief of the apaches Cochise, who finds himself in a quandary, whether to make war with the white Americans or with his brothers the comanches. He chooses what he thinks is the lesser evil and gets trouble with the comanches. The diplomatic efforts to make peace between Robert Stack as the white major and Cochise encounter difficulties and lead inevitably to a violent serttlement with the comanches. John Hodiak was always interesting as a character on film, always playing personalities with great integrity, and here he is perfect as Cochise, an apache chief of superior self control. He never shows his feelings, but the audience must understand them all too well. The film is directed by William Castle, who made all the Crime Doctor films, and this is made with equal efficiency with no waste on nonsense. The film is mainly worth watching because of the insight into the apache way of life that it offers, and of course there is a lady involved (Joy Page) who also knows her own mind: she actually kills an Indian here in a raid. The colours are brilliant, they always are in films of Arizona, and that is an extra credit to the film to make it more than worth while. It is one of the first major westerns that take sides with the Indians or at least shows a deeper understanding and interest in them, which makes it important in the line of westerns. Robert Stack as the major is more standard military officer routine soldier, while it is the actions of Cochise that keep you engaged.

The 1950s saw a change in the average western. In many of the era's films, the American Indians are seen in a very sympathetic light and often Indian unrest is due to evil white folks. In this one, it's about the Chiracahua Apache war chief, Cochise, and how he was agreeable to becoming peaceful...but this is undermined by greedy jerks intent on provoking war.

While the story is laudable, it's also sad to see what ALSO was common in the 1950s...having big-name white actors portraying the chiefs. In most of these cases, they sure don't sound like Native Americans...and John Hodiak paints up and wears a wig and looks like a convincing Indian...and sounds exactly like John Hodiak! It really takes you out of the story...especially because his diction makes it sound as if Cochise went to charm school!

The story begins with the Gadsden Purchase at the end of 1953. With this land treaty with Mexico comes a new problem...what to do with marauding Chiracahua Apaches who go back and forth across the border of the USA and Mexico to attack folks. Major Burke (Robert Stack) is assigned the task to make peace with Cochise, the leader of these natives as well as making peace with the Mexicans who just became Mexican-Americans. But when negotiations go sour, the Chiracahua and Comanche get together and decide to make war on the white men. Can the Major convince them to do otherwise?

While it was nice to see the Indian portrayed more sympathetically and the film in vivid color, it's still a poor western. The dialog is often ridiculous, Hodiak is terrible and the story is in need of editing and improvement. Worth skipping.

By the way, EVERYONE in this film uses repeating rifles and handguns. Such things were pretty rare in 1853 and even during the Civil War, most of the troops used single-shot rifles. So much for attention to historical accuracy.