'Northwest Passage' (Book I -- Rogers' Rangers)

This is a western only in the widest sense of the word, since it's not set in the Old West. It's set in the mid 18th century during the French and Indian War, on what was the frontier then. It can be seen as an adventure movie, although mostly it's a war film. It's also a character study of Major Robert Rogers, very well interpreted by Spencer Tracy, commander of Rogers' Rangers, an American military company of rangers attached to the British Army (this was of course before the War of independence).

The movie is harsh in its military objective (destroying an hostile Indian village) as in its depiction of the epic journey to get there and to get back. And its mostly about the journey, where Rogers pushes his men on a grueling trip through the wilderness, on boats and on foot, through sheer grit and strength of character.

Some reviewers have complained of "too much walking in the woods", but that's the point of the movie, showing how these men pushed themselves through such a harsh journey.

It's filmed in technicolor, and that's a good thing, because this movie needs a good cinematography. The cinematography we get is not perhaps breathtaking, but it's good enough to do the trick and get us into the story.

One complaint I have is that the actors, while dirty and disheveled through all the hardships, never really look like they are starving. Also, the actual battle, while not the climax of the movie, was not done that well, at least if we judge it by modern standards. But it doesn't really matter, because as I said what matters here is the journey and the determination to survive, and that is well depicted.

An intense, harsh, war movie made in 1940 for a nation that was about to get into the biggest war.

Curiously, despite the title, it has nothing to do with searching for the Northern Passage. That was supposed to come in the second part that was never filmed. In fact, in the credits it's called chapter I.

Northwest Passage is based on a novel of the same name by Kenneth Roberts, in fact it is an adaptation of its first part The Roger's Rangers, the second part was also originally planned to be filmed by King Vidor, but MGM dropped the project fearing the costs involved. As a consequence only the first part of the novel was brought to the screen where passage through the northwest never actually happens but only is talked about.

The story is centred on Major Robert Rogers (Spencer Tracy) and his rangers who take a dangerous and adventurous journey through the territory controlled by the Indians and the French troops in 18th century America in order to destroy a hostile Indian village from where English settlements are constantly being attacked.

Right in the beginning the rangers are joined by right out of Harvard idealistic young cartographer Langdon Towne (Robert Young) who is dreaming of becoming a great painter `like Velasquez or Rubens' and is enthusiastic about the journey because of possibility it offers to paint portraits of Indians and landscapes in contrast with the other rangers who are mainly driven by yearning of revenge for relatives murdered during Indian raids.

Northwest Passage is possibly the best and the most visually impressive King Vidor's adventure film. Breathtakingly beautiful landscapes shown here certainly stand out as the most wonderful even among King Vidor's work who was well known for beautiful Technicolor exteriors in his movies. A beautiful film, definitely worth watching. 8/10

It is great when you find an old movie that you have never seen before, and I have seen many. This epic is one of broad scope and adventure, well balanced with good and evil aspects. A film of this quality could NEVER be made today and not maintain an unprejudiced view. Bravo!

Harking back to Kenneth Roberts' Roberts' "Northwest Passage," Rogers' life after the legendary mission to destroy the nest of Abenaki vipers equally unbelievable.

Did you know that Rogers undertook with just two companies of Rangers an equally legendary 1763 expedition into what was called the Northwest (the Ohio territory) to accept the surrender of the French posts to the British, who had in that year won the French and Indian War?

This trip afoot took Rogers nearly halfway across the continent. In fact, Rogers proposed to the British Crown an expedition to the Pacific, an exploration which one of his captains later partly accomplished while Rogers was stuck commanding Fort Michilmackinac in what would later become Michigan.

Thus Rogers almost achieved in 1763 what Lewis and Clark wouldn't actually fully achieve till some 40 years later -- an expedition of exploration to the Pacific Ocean.

Rogers was indeed turned down by George Washington at the start of the American Revolution as a volunteer Ranger in the colonial forces. Instead, Washington had Rogers arrested and tossed into prison.

Understandably rankled by this, Rogers broke out of jail and went over to the British.

Rogers is the guy of whom George Washington said: "He is the only man I ever feared."

We have our unfathomably brave predecessors in the Rangers to thank for the British colonists' ultimate victory in the 150-year-long war against the French and Indians -- America's longest war, and one that NO elementary or high school ANYWHERE in America teaches ANYTHING about.

Robert Rogers was larger than life. He is often called the Father of U.S. Special Forces, for his work pioneering the colonial rangers in early America. His Rules for Ranging are still required reading by the U.S. Rangers and Green Berets.

But Rogers wasn't the first colonial ranger. It is uncertain who could claim that title, because the tradition of "ranging" goes back to early England and Scotland. The colonists took that tradition with them when they settled America. Rangers were deployed in Jamestown.

Ranger Benjamin Church, who was instrumental in winning King Philip's war (1675-1678) in New England, is also called the Father of the Rangers. It was his team that hunted down and killed King Philip (aka Metacomet) in Rhode Island.

King Philip's War is another one of those gigantic historical struggles not taught in our schools.

This was the war in which the Indians pushed the American colonists all the way back to the shoreline towns all across New England (except in Connecticut, where there were just a few battles), and almost into the ocean.

Did you know that New England's colonists almost starved during that war, and would have had it not been for ships full of emergency provisions sent from England? The Indians banded together -- most of them, but not all -- to exterminate the white man.

But the colonists won that war.

They won all of the other Indian wars in New England too.

Rogers is the guy who turned the tide in the last such war.

If you read anything about Rogers and the men he fought with, you will not believe the hardships they endured to bequeath us our free and easy lives of today. Those who sling arrows at Rogers and his Rangers from their easy chair in a warm home on land won by their forebears from the Indians have no conception - absolutely none - of just how feral the so-called native Americans were.

FACT: Like most Stone Age peoples, most Indian tribes engaged in constant warfare. Tribal death rates, as a percentage, were far higher than any of the white man's wars. The Comanches would become the apex tribe in North America when it comes to aggression, outstripping even the Abenakis and Pequots. In fact, the Comanches were so powerful that they hunted the terrifying Apaches for fun, and chased all of the Apache tribes off the plains. Read "Empire of the Summer Moon: Quanah Parker and the Rise and Fall of the Comanches, the Most Powerful Indian Tribe in American History" by S.C. Gwynne if you want to understand Stone Age pathologies.

The "noble savage" is a myth. Most tribes, given half a chance, would exterminate enemy tribes in a New York minute. They extracted positive orgasmic delight in the most heinous and protracted tortures. These cultures refined torture for century upon century. This had nothing whatsoever to do with the New Age apologetics about "absorbing a victim's spirit." Balderdash. They just liked torture.

Rogers' bushwhacking victory over the Abenaki Indians -- the Northeast's Islamofacist terrorists of one-quarter of a millennium ago -- helped finally end the last of the five consecutive French and Indian wars in New England. Ironically, these wars had been going on pretty much continuously almost from the year of discovery -- 1609 -- i.e., the year that Samuel de Champlain (the "Father of New France") discovered the lake named for him, the same year that Henry Hudson sailed up the river named for him.

Yes, the year of discovery was 400 years ago in 2009 and the year of British victory in the 150-year war against New France was 1759, 250 years ago in 2009.

Tempus fugit.

Northwest Passage is one of the few films about the Seven Years' War that isn't based on a James Fenimore Cooper novel, and in that sense, it's a welcome lesson in how that important period has come to be mythologized in popular culture. I've never read the Roberts books, so I can't comment on how faithful the film is to its source material. I can only make a few comments on how movies have their own sensibilities and cultural rules. Like most films, this one tells us more about the era in which it was made than the time period in which the film's events take place. It's certainly an exciting story, but it has a number of cringeworthy elements (and they would have elicited just as many cringes back in the 1930s, I assure you.)Here's a few comments:

Jeffrey Amherst and Sir William Johnson: As anyone who has read any of the fine studies of this era can attest (I recommend the works of James Axtell, Gregory Evans Dowd, Daniel Usner, Daniel Richter, Richard White, and many others as fine introductions to Indian-White relations in the 17th and 18th centuries), this film takes a rather interesting view of these historical figures. Amherst is here depicted as the realistic good guy, who is in tune with Rogers's vicious sentiments. Johnson, on the other hand, is seen as part of the problem because of his private relationships with several Indian groups, especially the Mohawks. Johnson's Mohawk allies are here shown as lazy, duplicitous, suspicious interlopers. In fact, Johnson and his many Indian allies throughout Iroquoia and the Ohio country were indispensable to the British victory in the Seven Years' War, while Amherst, a capable officer but a virulent anti-native racist, instituted policies that helped start the 1763-64 Indian uprising ("Pontiac's War") and actually approved using germ warfare on Indians near Fort Pitt (he approved a plan to give them smallpox-infected blankets.)

Uniforms: If you squint, Roger's Rangers look like they should be in the Confederate Army. This may be a Technicolor issue. In fact, Roger's men often dressed as Indians and other backcountry residents did. It is the demands of movie convention that put them all in blue buckskin uniforms -- just as Japanese and German soldiers always wore particular shapes of helmets, so you can tell them apart from the other guys. Even the Mohawk and Abenaki Indians wear similar "uniforms," i.e. matching loincloths. The Indians in this movie look like they belong in the Southwest or the plains -- not in the Eastern Woodlands, especially late in the year.

Rogers himself: Well, his anti-Indian rants probably do illustrate something of the man himself. It should be noted that Rogers's sensationalized exploits made him a problematic celebrity during his life. He was always distrusted by his British superiors, who nevertheless bowed to public acclaim and gave him important positions after the war, including a brief command of Fort Detroit, and his disastrous tenure commanding Fort Michilimackinac after the Indian uprising. Like many outpost commanders, Rogers let his personal greed take over in the relative freedom of the pays d'en haut, and ended up being arrested and returned to Niagara in irons. Amherst gave him guarded trust, but Amherst's successor, Thomas Gage, and Indian Supervisor William Johnson, considered him a villain. As for the native Americans, everyone knew about Rogers's Indian killing, and he had few Indian friends and many enemies. Everywhere Rogers went became a tense place of interaction between Indians and Europeans.

Indian issues: Well, it's true that Indians, Abenakis and others, used brutal tactics in war. But this movie, like other movies such as Drums Along the Mohawk, definitely take the settlers' side in their confrontations with native Americans. In one scene, Rogers tells his men how the Abenakis should be killed for brutally hatcheting innocent settlers, who were just trying to make lives for themselves and weren't bothering anyone. It should be noted that settlers were often a great bother to Indians, just by their presence alone. Indians who lived in transitional regions resented the encroachments of white settlers more than anything else, including the presence of forts and soldiers. Settlers used land for farming, which was an exclusive operation. Unlike the skin trade, which used native residents as partners, farmers viewed Indians as being in the way. All Eastern Indians knew that farming was the one operation that turned Indian country into European territory exclusively, and did everything they could to oppose it. And as far as relative levels of brutality go, backcountry settlers and soldiers were capable of all the worst kinds of viciousness. Reference the Gnadenhutten Massacre during the Revolutionary War if you want to read about some really vicious behavior by America militiamen.

This movie is a great mirror on its time. Americans looked to their settler past, mythical or otherwise, whenever they wished to differentiate their national identity from the "bad old" Europeans, or the brutal state of nature. The rugged, idealistic frontier settler, hacking a life out of the wilderness but imbued with democratic virtue, was a popular model for Depression-riddled Americans who felt that their agency and power was slipping away. People today might like these movies for the same reasons!

As for me, I think the film is well-acted and filmed, and somewhat exciting, but too laughable to take very seriously. That is, it's laughable when it is not deplorable. This is the most virulent anti-Indian movie I know, worse even than most westerns. Some of the comments here label this as a "family" film. The hero of this film repeatedly labels all Indians as brutes, thieves, and cowards. I wouldn't let any child see this movie.