Río Rojo

Fourteen years ago Thomas Dunson entered Texas across Red River with two head of cattle, his trail hand, and a young boy, Matt Garth, who survived an Indian attack on a wagon train that killed Dunson's sweetheart. After years of development he is now head of a ranch and is preparing to drive his head of thousands of cattle up to Missouri for sale, despite the perils. However Dunson's brutal leadership style bucks up against the more peaceful Matt, leading to a rebellion and a splitting of the ways between Dunson and his adopted son.

With an early scene establishing both Dunson's methods (taking land by force) and the source of much of his future bitterness and rage, this film sets itself out to be a real good character piece and pretty much manages to do it. The plot sweeps across 14 years but doesn't suffer for it. The main plot device is the cattle drive, which is depicted with affection here, however the main story is the conflict between Dunson and Matt's methods and views on man management. This aspect is not given quite as much time as I had hoped and tends to be over shadowed by the scale of the cattle drive itself – however this is still good.

The weakest point here is the romance which feels tacked on at the end. Not only does it feel unnecessary but it doesn't really work very well either. To make matters worse – when the conflict between Dunson and Matt manifests itself physically, it is devalued by the involvement of Tess somewhat. Wayne's leading man is strong and is a good performance considering how unpopular he is as a character. Clift gives a balanced performance and stands up well alongside the Duke. The support cast is full of western favourites and does well to fill the story out with colour, comic relief from Brennan's chuck wagon driver is great fun.

Overall this is a good western that I felt didn't quite reach it's full potential as a film. It could have gone further with the battle of wills between the characters but instead the cattle drive takes the lion's share of screen time. Having said that, there is still plenty to enjoy with both the character clashes and the perils of the cattle drive itself.

I read quite a few references to the ending and how it should have been an "unhappy " one. The screenwriter, Borden Chase, was also very unhappy with it. The original ending was The Duke's death. Hawks changed the ending and Chase never spoke to him again. Mr. Chase was married in 1920 to my Grandmother, Lillian Doran. But, that is another story!

Wo aspects that make the film tick: the handling of the large number of cattle and Montgomery Clift. Otherwise the film is ordinary putting some history in focus: the Chisholm trail, the railroad, Texas as a beef state, and Abilene.

Dimitri Tiomkin's thunderous score sets the tone for this rousing story of cowboy ranchers in nineteenth century Texas headed north, with a thunderous herd of cattle in tow. It's the archetypal story of the American West, with its strong, ethical male leader, Thomas Dunson (John Wayne), and his pursuit of a big dream, set in an era when men were men, times were tough, hardships were inevitable, guns ruled, and Native Americans were the bad guys. What a saga ...

What makes "Red River" such a grand adventure is its high quality. Its story is simple, direct, exciting, and well told, with complex characters, interesting and sympathetic because they show weakness as well as strength. Dunson is a good man, but he's stubborn and headstrong. His semi-adopted son, Matt (Montgomery Clift), is good with a gun but a little softhearted. Dunson's chief sidekick is Groot (Walter Brennan), a cantankerous old buzzard who has problems with his teeth.

It's the relationship between these three men that is the heart and soul of "Red River". Trouble ensues along the way, you can be sure. And how that trouble unfolds and plays out presents viewers with engaging human drama, and humor, centered on these three main characters. The lonesome High Plains, with all its inherent risks, adds grandeur to the epic story.

At strategic points in the film, the page of a book appears on screen with text that briefly summarizes upcoming events. It's like we, the viewers, are reading a book about some long ago trailblazers. It's a technique that could have been intrusive. But here, it is handled with such finesse that it actually helps the narrative, by functioning as a transition from one sequence to the next.

The acting is fine. John Wayne is more than convincing as Dunson. Walter Brennan is characteristically funny. And Montgomery Clift is terrific. Had he maintained his looks, and if real-life circumstances not intervened, Monty could have been one of the truly top actors through at least the 50s and 60s.

If the film has a weakness, it might be the cinematography. Not often, but at times, the actors appear to be standing in front of a canvas, an effect that renders a shallow depth of field. Maybe this was the result of technical limitations of photography at the time the film was made.

There are few film westerns that can compare in quality with "Red River". And I don't know of any other cinematic cattle drives that are this good. So, the next time you herd your cattle to market, this is the film to watch. Even if you have no cattle, "Red River" is still a wonderfully entertaining cinematic experience.

I really enjoyed this the first time I saw it but it got a little slow on the second viewing. Nevertheless, it's a pretty solid classic-era western that has a deep cast. By deep I mean John Wayne, Montgomery Clift, Walter Brennan, Harry Carey Sr., Noah Beery Jr., John Ireland, Joanne Dru, Coleen Gray, etc. This is more of a man's movie as those last two ladies listed both have small roles.

In addition to the western action, you get some nice black-and-white cinematography. The cattle driving scenes are magnificently filmed.

Wayne plays a "Captain Bligh" type of tyrant for most of the film, although he shows a few soft touches. Brennan has a great knack of making all his characters interesting, and this movie is no exception. Clift usually was pretty interesting, too.

My only complaint is the length of the film. This could have been much better with a tighter script and about 15-20 minutes chopped off it. It's still a compelling story.