Taza, Son of Cochise

This movie is well-famed and Rock Hudson looked great ( as he always did even to non-gay men). The long hair and darkened skin make him an awesome looking Indian. His Features are White but this was more often the case in Hollywood movies about Indians than roles of Indians played by real Indians. It is Ironic that Taza's son became an actor and acted in early westerns.. I learned this fact by IMDb. I shall use it in my future writing.

No-- It took 45 yrs to force Geronimo to Surrender and his legend is founded largely on the fact that he was never caught but due to many of his own warriors becoming scouts, he was forced to surrender. It is sad but in a very harsh way--just punishment that these scouts were stripped of their roles as Scouts and sent to the same prison where Geronimo was. They served much longer sentences than what they were given. This is yet another unfairness done to the APACHE and to Geronimo. Who died in his mid-eighties from alcoholism and from falling from his horse on the way home from a saloon. HE wound up in a irrigation ditch all night and caught pneumonia as a result and died shortly after. Not a fitting end for a man that could raise the back of the hair on many a settler and many a cavalry soldier who had to think about his chances of surviving a battle with him.

He almost beat the US army--but alcoholism is a disease that killed far more Indians than cavalry soldiers ever did. The Native American had NO time in their history to develop a resistance to the effects of alcohol---both the immediate effects and the long-term effects shortened the lives of most Native Americans who drank it.

In the much later movie GERONIMO starring Gene Hackman and Robert Duvall, the camera takes us on the long train ride to Florida in the end of the movie. Some Apaches who did not become traitors to Geronimo were being chastised by loyal warriors and Geronimo reminds them that they are so few that it would be good for them to learn to get a long- -he reminds them that all they have is each other.

Geronimo was a name that leaps off of the pages even now--- but in his lifetime-- anything written about him was read immediately because it was usually news about his ongoing exploits. It is very sad that they allow the mistake of saying that he was captured to be stated as truth among his own people. Because the fact that he was not captured or killed even though the forces used to find and arrest or kill him were massive, is a testimonial to the skill of the Apache and to Geronimo himself. I believe the final number that surrendered was under 100. However, I would not want to be a settler and live anywhere Near where that 100 Apache were running free. They were intelligent, skilled warriors and Geronimo has been called a tactical genius. Since he was NEVER captured-- that must be true.

I must clarify: I do not believe that Geronimo Was EVER actually Captured-- He did surrender twice and after the second surrender, he was sent to prison in Florida. He was treated with respect by white soldiers with high level rank and other Apache though that respect from White Generals did deteriorate, he was NEVER just dismissed by his peers. This movie shows that happening again and again. This is tragic for the Apache was never really conquered and to say that he was, cheats him of the truth. Entire Armies were sent against them but they were NOT actually beaten in the common sense of the word. IF I was an Apache-- I would want that fact to remain clear and would be angered by a sloppy screenplay from Hollywood that disputes the truth of the Apache's wartime accomplishments. They have never been equalled.

Warren E.Justice

Don't get me wrong.I've always been a big fan of Deltlef Sierck (Douglas Sirk in America)and most of his melodramas are among my all time favorites : "A time to live and a time to die ","All that Heaven allows" "Magnificent obsession" " Tarnished angels" "Written on the wind" plus those with Zarah Leander in Germany not to forget his final effort ,the remake of "imitation of life".

THis remake was drastically different from Stahl's version:the black servant Delilah became Annie and the only thing she could expect in life was a beautiful funeral.In Stahl's version (and in Fannie Hurst's novel) she was a businesswoman's associate ,in Sirk's screenplay she stayed the good servant -not very far away from GWTW's Mamma-who knew her place.

Still with me?I do think that,in spite of Sirk's storyteller qualities and good scenes (the discovery of the bruises on Barbara Rush's back),"Taza" is also a reactionary work .Taza (who in real life died of pneumonia two years after his dad)predates Annie in "Imitation" :he is the good Indian,who knows his place ,who (this is amazing) dresses like them ,who rebels against his people's customs and even fights them;on the other hand ,Geronimo (and his allies) plays the role of the villain : "we were hunters, warriors,we won't be breeders ".After all ,the white men are taking their land and sending them to reservations:his rebellion makes sense.

Rock Hudson,who was Sirk's favorite actor (his best parts were certainly "All that Heaven allows" and "Magnificent Obsession" -another remake of a Stahl's work-) ,is not well cast as an Indian.And what about Barbara Rush as a squaw?Debra Paget was acceptable ("Broken Arrow"),she is not.

Maybe someone knows something more about this: I once read part of an interview with Rock Hudson in which he said that Taza, Son of Cochise was "one of the great tongue-in-cheek westerns of all time." He didn't pursue the pint, so I'm not sure what it is that's tongue-in-cheek about the film. However, Hudson did say that he and Sirk and company had a great time making it. I'd love to find a video of this seldom-seen film and check it out, but perhaps someone has an inkling?

One might have expected a lot more from Douglas Sirk in this, his single Western. Beautifully shot by Russell Metty who worked extensively with Sirk, it's a very routine Western of no great interest.

Before Sirk hit his stride with the great melodramas he tried his hand at light romantic comedy and costume drama with pleasing if not spectacular results. He brought little if anything at all to the Western.

Perhaps more than anything it's an important rung in the ladder of elevating Rock Hudson towards stardom which would come with Sirk's next film "Magnificent Obsession".

Hudson is adequate in the role, but that's hardly difficult amongst some truly wooden performances. All in all something of a low point in the amazing 50's career of Douglas Sirk.

Jeff Chandler reprises his role as Cochise (in "Broken Arrow") and, in the first ten minutes, dies after instructing his youngest son, Hudson's Taza, to keep the Apaches on the path of peace. Taza's half brother Nache (Rex Reason), however, wants to slaughter all white eyes. Barbara Rush is the Apache princess torn between the two brothers. On location, brutal desert sun, despite body make up, severely burned Hudson, mostly shirtless to exhibit his physique. Film was shot and released in 3-D with expected effects of rocks, spears, and arrows flying from the screen. As a churning Western, the Apache POV places "Taza" in a group of early 50s Westerns, such as "Broken Arrow" (James Stewart) and "The Savage" (Charlton Heston), that sided with Indians and culminated in "Apache" (Burt Lancaster). Moral score card is reckoned by pairing white and Apache villains. With brisk direction, handsome cast (notably Rush and Reason), and Technicolor capturing expanses of red-orange desert, "Taza" is respectably good of its kind. In dealing with Indians vs. whites, "Taza" may be a bit cavalier, but tongue-in-cheek? No. Hudson here was only one stair tread away from achieving major stardom in "Magnificent Obsession"--and looks it.