Der Weg nach Westen

Hard-driving Kirk Douglas organizes a wagon train to Oregon, hiring mountain man Robert Mitchum to lead the way and squaring off with Indians, the elements, and hostility among the settlers, particularly hard-headed farmer Richard Widmark.

Almost universally panned and patronized as director Andrew V. McLaglen's attempt to ape the style of his mentor John Ford, it's actually an innocuous, inoffensive adventure saga in the mold of How The West Was Won or Raoul Walsh's The Big Trail, though not as good as those films. It's still fairly watchable, except for the endless, obnoxious subplots featuring teenage Sally Field and her deflowering by a married, frustrated loser!

Douglas and especially Mitchum are excellent, as usual. However, Widmark falls a little short, thanks to a less than interesting character, though he's always a welcome presence in anything he's involved in.

In 1843 Missouri, hot-headed senator Kirk Douglas leads a large group of chosen people across rugged terrain to start "a new Jerusalem" in Oregon; he picks a half-blind pioneer scout (mourning the death of his Indian wife!) to help lead them, but immediately clashes with a family man over incidental matters; meanwhile, a sex-starved teenage girl has a fling with a married man, resulting in personal tragedy and an Indian attack (don't ask). A small pox outbreak is falsely reported, there's a wedding, a frigid woman goes insane, and the trail comes to an end at the Grand Canyon. A.B. Guthrie, Jr.'s book becomes somewhat besotted western epic with star-names, mixing vulgar jokes and inanities with ripe old clichés. A voice-over narration and a patriotic song come clean out of nowhere, while snarling Douglas blames himself for a death and asks a servant to whip him. It's cheap and low-brow all the way, but most viewers in the mood for a picture such as this probably won't be disappointed. There are some solid elements worth mentioning: William H. Clothier's outdoor cinematography is fine in the old-fashioned sense; and, although Bronislau Kaper whips up a dusty frenzy with his ridiculous score, the pacing is jaunty throughout and the wagons roll along at a fast clip. Douglas and Richard Widmark manage to retain their movie star allure, though Robert Mitchum was looking haggard by this time (and his performance is intentionally forgettable--he cancels out all his interest in the proceedings with one heavy sigh). Sally Field makes an inauspicious movie debut which I'm fairly certain she'd rather forget, but Lola Albright has a pleasing smile and Michael Witney does well as the handsome married man who can't get his wife to submit...but why does he shoot blindly into a rustling bush at night when it could have been his wife spying on him? Perhaps he was hoping it was! **1/2 from ****

This western is very unusual in that it features three top leading men--Kirk Douglas, Robert Mitchum and Richard Widmark. Now you'd think with all this high-octane masculinity and acting that this would be a terrific film, well, you'd be wrong. While it isn't a bad film, it does suffer from a thoroughly adequate script--one that never seems to deliver the goods.

Douglas plays an ex-senator bent on starting the first white colony in Oregon in 1848. The problem is that he's not exactly 'Mr. Personality'--and his abrasive and autocratic ways rub everyone in the wagon train wrong. Can he get them all to his promised land or will the folks ditch him and make for California? Tune in and see.

For the most part, this is a pretty ordinary drama about settling the West. As for Douglas, he overacts more than usual (and what's with that whipping scene?!?!). Widmark's character is inconsistent and underwritten. The only lead who comes off well is Mitchum--as a weary Kit Carson-type. Aside from being pretty ordinary and predictable, the film did have a few pluses. There was nice cinematography and as a history teacher, I appreciated how they showed lots of mules, oxen and cows pulling the wagons--whereas most films only show horses (a mistake). But this isn't enough to raise it above mediocrity.

This film is fairly anachronistic for 1967. It's attitudes are much more set in 1957 or earlier, although considering our cynical world, some of those attitudes, especially the ones about young and old love are quite charming.

The film is astounding for its three stars and the cinematography is stunning. This film has that old Hollywood top film stock quality, which shows in the brilliant compositions and frequently amazing scenery. So despite the tragedy, you get the impact and drama of the untouched nature that the first settlers must have felt.

There's also a good deal of tragedy along the way, which makes the film have veritas more akin to the late 60s or 70s. The treatment of Native Americans is actually quite reasonable, even beautiful, in parts, minus a terrible throwback scene of drunken Natives requesting alcohol for a toll, but don't let that one offense put you off the picture entirely. Fact is, it's probably not even possible to get a favorable film made now of Western settlers in the American West, which is a shame, because it is an incredible story, despite its now well-documented genocidal effects on the indigenous nations of what was to become the USA.

I'm not surprised I haven't heard of the film, because one could take this as a whitewash, but I was surprised by some modern scenes it includes. I'm a bit disappointed it's not better known, because it's pretty solid, if also at times uneven and unrealistic. I wouldn't brand it as severely cliched as some others have though. It's a hybrid of a sanitized Western with something considerably deeper and rougher. Widmark, Mitchum, and Douglas all play to their types, but Douglas actually ventures into less heroic territory than is his usual assignment. Mitchum phones it in a bit, but remains charismatic as always, and his role makes a fair amount of sense.

The impact of all three of these great actors can't be overstated, not to mention an excellent supporting cast, including some who are quite effective at reminding one of a time when people actually spoke and regaled each other with stories, and didn't barely move and mutter after too much internet and video games. There's a lot in this movie to remind you of times we are so far removed from, that you're really left what happened to the reward and simplicity of human existence before modern technology.

You're also left with some sense of the true tragedy and loss that many of these early settlers endured, though the struggles here are more interpersonal, and not so much against the elements, which is a bit of an oversight, though you are given a sense of the dramatic terrain that had to be conquered. There really aren't many Westerns that focus on the settlers, without gunslingers, so this movie is uniquely worth seeing in that regard.

The Way West is an epic western, but unlike another epic western How the West Was Won, it isn't a very good film. The main problem here is that the script writers and the director have got carried away, and have tried to cram far too many events and subplots into the two hour running time.

The main plot thread follows an ambitious and cruel visionary named William Tadlock (Kirk Douglas), who dreams of taking hundreds of people into the vast, unexplored wilderness of the Wild West and starting up a new town. His ambition is an obsession. It drives him and dictates his every move. Even his own family come second in his list of priorities. During the journey, his behaviour towards the other pioneers becomes increasingly irrational and unsympathetic, and in the end he loses the respect of his fellow travellers.

There are some good moments in the film. The climax is really surprising, with a twist that few viewers will predict. Sally Field has some interesting scenes as a young girl who undergoes a sexual awakening during the trip. There's also a well done scene in which a man who has killed an Indian child by accident is hanged. However, the abundance of plot threads, characters and subplots is a big drawback. The makers should have concentrated on a few elements and done them really thoroughly, instead of cramming in so much and only dealing with the themes in a shallow and all-too-brief fashion. This is not bad, I suppose, but it could have been oh so much better.