Sitting Bull: Casta de guerreros

The critic Dilys Powell once said there were no bad westerns; there were great westerns, there were good westerns and there were westerns and I suppose you could say Sidney Salkow's film "Sitting Bull" falls into the last category. As you might guess from the title it culminates in the Battle of Little Bighorn which, given that this is fundamentally a B-Movie western, is actually quite spectacularly handled while the movie itself falls into that small group of films to offer a sympathetic view of the plight of the Native American.

J. Carrol Naish is Sitting Bull and Dale Robertson, the cavalry man who's on the side of the Indians. Its view of history may be a little off the wall but it's a perfectly accessible 'Cowboys & Indians' picture which makes you wish it were better written and acted; the on-again-off-again love affair between Robertson and Mary Murphy is frankly embarrassing. Not a great western, then and maybe not even a good western but as Dilys might say, not a bad one either.

TCM played this last night. It's cheap and shallow Saturday matinée stuff as the other comments suggest. I noticed two things: the day-for-night shots look good but the director(s) rarely used closeups. Most of the shots are long or waist shots, or two shots.This was an early CinemaScope production and perhaps they were limited by the lenses they had (the lenses were not plentiful at this time, especially to non- Fox producers). "Sitting Bull" was the first independent production to be shot in CinemaScope. This was W. R. Frank's last feature film production; he was a Minneapolis, MN theatre owner. The world premiere was held August 19, 1954 in Sioux Falls, SD. What did the Sioux Falls cinema-goers think of this picture being shot in Mexico?! It opened October 7, 1954 at the State Theatre in Minneapolis and Paramount in St. Paul. Both of the cities' film critics, Will Jones and Bill Diehl, hated the film. Comment cards were handed out at both theatres. A trade magazine item in April 1953 said that Frank had set May 20 as the production's start date, but decided to put it off until July when CinemaScope equipment was available. As early as 1950 actors such as Victor Jory were announced as being signed for this production. Later, names such as Boris Karloff and Dennis Morgan were mentioned in the trade press.

Historians Love to Quibble and Nit-Pick with Hollywood's Treatment of "Real History".

But the "Bottom-Line" is that Most Movies are Made as Entertainment with a Profit Motive.

So Historical "Facts" Aside, as an Entertaining Piece of an Early Cinemascope Film (the first Independent) In the First-Half of the "Decade of the Western",

You Could Do Much Worse than this Nobly Intended Movie about the Sioux Chief "Sitting Bull",

His Constant Battles with "Forked-Tongue" Treaties and the General Inhumane Treatment of Prisoners,

Leading Up to the "Battle of Little Big-Horn" and Custer's Last Stand.

Playing Fast and Loose with some "Facts" is a Consideration to Make the Movie Box-Office Friendly.

But the Film Deserves Credit for Bucking the Trend of "White-Man Wins Called Victory...Indian Wins Called a Massacre" and Taking a Liberal Other-Sided Approach.

In the End it is Not Guilty of Over-Indulging the Re-Writing of History and Shows Respectable Behavior on Both Sides.

The Casting is Weak but the Story and the Epic Battles are Well Staged, Engaging, and Somewhat Informative.

All Things Considered...A Fine Film and Definitely...

Worth a Watch.

Seeing "Sitting Bull" somewhat by accident on a "retro" TV channel, I sat through the whole thing, partly in dumbfounded amazement at another Hollywood butchering of history, partly in awe of a superlative cast trying really hard with such a poor script.

During the movie, I was also struck by the lush score. Naturally, the TV network didn't have the decency to show all the credits, but to my ear it sounded like the outstanding work of Raoul Kraushaar -- and praise all the gods of technology for IMDb, I was right.

In my opinion, he is a terribly under-rated composer. Even the cheapest Allied Artists movies attain the ranks of quality when he wrote the score.

J. Carroll Naish as the title character is another under-rated actor. That is, he does not seem to be known among viewers although apparently he was never out of work. He almost always played some accented character, some Latin or European or, as in this case, "Indian" character. And he was almost always extremely believable.

The rest of the cast, from the excellent Dale Robertson to the excellent John Hamilton, were almost uniformly perfect.

SITTING BULL is a sluggish western about a cavalry major (DALE ROBERTSON) who is compassionate toward the Indians and must face insubordination for some of his actions against harsh superior officers.

There's a traditional romance thrown into the mix, between a General's daughter (MARY MURPHY) and Robertson, with rival suitor WILLIAM HOPPER as another man interested in Murphy. J. CARROL NAISH is Chief Sitting Bull, who wants peace and refuses to put on his war paint although some members of his tribe are anxious to fight some of the white men's injustices. DOUGLAS KENNEDY is flamboyant and seriously miscast as the yellow-haired General Custer of the 7th Cavalry.

It's handsomely produced in outdoor settings that look authentic, but the stilted dialog is handled indifferently by a lackluster cast of players. DALE ROBERTSON gives a leaden performance in the major role and he doesn't get much help from WILLIAM HOPPER or MARY MURPHY, who in real life, married Robertson after this film. Their chemistry on film fails to register and her motivations throughout are sketchy, to say the least.

A major plot development has President Grant helping Robertson when he is condemned for helping Chief Sitting Bull and there are a few other subplots before we get to the battle at Little Big Horn. Robertson's compassion for the redskins almost lands him in big trouble toward the end, until Chief Sitting Bull intercedes just before he's about to be executed for treason by a firing squad.

Good western should have been much better but is marred by dull performances and uninspired direction of Sidney Salkow. The director unwisely allowed few close-ups of his cast throughout the film, depending solely on medium shots for most of the scenes, probably because he was new at the CinemaScope process. Since most of the cast underacts considerably, this is a real drawback in the more intimate moments.