The Naked Dawn

If for the first half of this drama, you can go through the typical Hollywood depiction of Mexico and its people (dancing flamenco and shouting "Olé"), you will enjoy this tale of greed and treason among common folks, related to one another in different ways. Never mind the mixture of Spanish elements with the Mexican: the description of Mexican culture (which is key to the story, though not essential) is not even offensive, but plainly cheap, funny and sometimes embarrassing for the cast, although Charlita seems to enjoy every minute of her part as a kind of Tongolele lost in a dusty cantina. Since the central plot is interesting enough by itself, we can overlook all the kitsch, for what is being told is universal: how human beings can become negative from one moment to the next, by ambition and lust for material possession. All the three leads are quite effective. I really had never seen Arthur Kennedy so good in a role, practically having the whole film on his shoulders; beautiful Betta St. John is a bit out of range in her dramatic scenes, but she is more convincing here than in those Tarzan movies with Gordon Scott; while Eugene Iglesias is intense enough to suggest the emergence of a lout in less than half a day. As in all of Edgar G. Ulmer's films, no matter how big or small the budget, the visuals are good. The ingredient I enjoyed the less was the proto-Morriconesque score by composer Herschel Burke Gilbert, who could have benefited by going to Plaza Garibaldi in México City and have some tequila and tacos, sing with a mariachi band, and listen to rancheras and other typical Mexican musical forms.

There is something very likable about this low budget, "poetic" story of an aging outlaw who comes upon the small farm of an ambitious peon and his willful wife. The atmosphere is a bit thick perhaps, constant philosophizing in a "poetic" Spanish accent, with a guitar playing in the background. But Kennedy is particularly good as the outlaw, worldly-wise and mellow with flashes of toughness, anger and cynicism. The other players carry their weight well enough, though Iglesias sometimes goes a bit overboard with his characterization of the naive, greedy young man. There's not much to the story, but it's well told. Here, certainly, is a film that, whatever its ultimate virtues, is unique. Though the subject makes it a Western, the style (as well as the Mexican setting and the apparent thirties time-frame) makes it something completely different. This is the sort of film one expects from Ulmer's reputation; small but personal. I really did like it, but I don't know if I would go as far as Francois Truffaut: "Poetic and violent, tender and droll, moving and subtle, joyously energetic and wholesome... reminds us inevitably of Renoir and Ophuls."

The movie's not a western in the usual sense. Instead, it's more like a pondering of character and life-styles set in modern Mexico. Manuel and Maria are in an arranged marriage, she being passed along like a piece of property, he being a budding farm entrepreneur. They are above all "respectable", and the feeling is that this is what holds the marriage together.

Then, into their settled life arrives escaping train robber Santiago. But he's not a typical robber. We know that from his buddy's moving death scene. There Santiago shows something of a poetic sensitivity, proving he's not without his own sense of values. In fact, he's more a free spirit than a criminal type, even giving away much of his loot to deserving strangers. Ironically, however, he appears unfree to be anything but free!

It's Santiago's free-wheeling effect on the young couple's brittle marriage that makes up the storyline. Kennedy, of course, was one of that era's premier actors. Here, his bravura performance effectively dramatizes Santiago's free spirit gusto. On the other hand, as the young couple, Iglesias and St. John appear over-the-top at times. Perhaps that can be rationalized by their emotional release from repressed lives. Nevertheless, the emoting does at times distract from story advancement.

The notion of respectability is also pondered here. What the screenplay seems to be saying is that conforming lives are okay as long as one's humanity is not sacrificed in the process. In his own eccentric way, this appears the lesson Santiago imparts to the young couple. At the same time, religion gets much the same treatment, while criminal Santiago acts poetically as a kind of secular priest in easing his dying confederate into the great unknown.

All in all, the movie's distinctive features come more from blacklisted writer Zimet's offbeat screenplay than from cult director Ulmer who's required to film in Technicolor instead of his b&w forte. Nonetheless, the movie's fully deserving of the Ulmer brand-- an offbeat 80-minutes that manages some depth over and above its tacky 50's title.

Fascinating little gem of a movie offering a slice of life and circumstances that makes one ponder about it all. The film is raw in its depiction of real life not setting the stage for anything but instead jumping right into one life dynamic after another. We watch as we see and relate of how senseless and unsatisfying the lead players life is but in no way will you condemn him simply because a bit of it exists in you. That's what keeps you engaged. Its to see how he would handle these scenarios and would it be different than your approach? He steals, lies, plays with morals, corrupts and mocks (plus more) yet he does it without denial. Actually there is a sorrow about his existence and for that reason, you forgive him. The supporting players do well to help drive the human nature points especially about temptation which visit casually and effectively with them all. The thing is, can they recover? Learn from it? Not repeat it? At no time to you believe that the main player likes what he does but at the same time effectively convinces the viewer that he doesn't know what he does or what to do different except after the fact. Some of his after (s) come with consequences. There is a theme in this movie of a simple life versus a non-simple life and it asks this question? Is your life simple good or simple bad? In other words, are you hiding out and avoiding or have you found contentment and peace? Only the viewer will know. This movies has a slow but meaningful pace and Arthur Kennedy carries it along without effort. If you find this, watch it and learn from it. Have a tasty drink and some Mexican food on standby as there are beans, tacos, tortillas scenes that you can eat along with. Of course, a tasty drink too and not because they drink tequila and pulque but to wash your meal down. BTW...pulque is a fermented alcoholic milk-looking type drink made from cactus type plant popular in Mexico. If a man cannot hold his pulque well he has some work to do. Also, there is a custom that if someone pours you a glass, you must drink it down. Its the second one you get to sip...

This movie provides the viewer with an opportunity to see a truly gifted,if unsung actor, in a role that he owns. Arthur Kennedy played many supporting roles in the 40's and 50's and was nominated five times for an Oscar as Best Supporting Actor. During that time he acted for most of the outstanding directors of the period and with actors like Mitchum,Sinatra,Douglas,to name a few. Long overdue for a memorable starring role, he finally has the lead in this movie. As Santiago he demonstrates how callousness and gentleness of spirit can reside believably in the same person. His contact with th peasant couple ultimately changes forever their views of the future as well as his own and final redemption. This is a movie one can see only on TV late shows. A pity, but if you're lucky enough to catch it, you'll be rewarded. Guaranteed.