The Baron of Arizona

I do not know how historically accurate it is, but It does show the depths that one man would go through in order to get what he wanted. He came up with an idea to get what he wanted and set his plan in motion and stayed true to his ideals for years, until morals took hold of him and changed his outcome.

The Baron of Arizona is not a shoot 'em up Western; it's a tale of the Old West ! Despite the rather low budget production, the film is surprisingly good. In large part thanks to the fine acting of Vincent Price! The depicted biographical story maintains one interest throughout. I regard The Baron of Arizona as one of the best classic films.

Judging from the title, probably more than a few ticket-buyers in 1950 expected a western. What they got instead was a real oddity that defies classification. It's sort of like a western, but instead of the bad guy grabbing off a ranch, this baddie (Price) wants to grab an entire state, Arizona. And he's not doing it with a gun or a gang. Instead he's doing it with years of legal fabrication and planning. Those early scenes showing him falsifying the legal groundwork are the movie's most interesting and unusual.

Despite the many novel moments, the movie's no triumph—Sam Fuller or no Sam Fuller. Lippert was a real cheapjack production company, and it shows, particularly in the skimpy sets and LA area locations. Then too, Fuller wobbles when helming love scenes (not his strength), especially with the really inept Gypsy girl (Pine) that's almost painful to watch. On the other hand, there's the lordly Vincent Price, perfectly cast in the domineering lead role. His verbal fencing with the government man (Hadley) is particularly well acted. Then there're the lynch mob scenes that are both intense and scary. Fuller is clearly at home with crowds and violence.

All in all, it's an interesting and different kind of movie, whatever its drawbacks, marking Fuller as a movie-maker to watch.

I tuned across it and almost kept going, except I watched for a moment and found myself growing interested. An entertaining premise, a well written and acted script, and although it appears to have been shot on a budget, very well produced. It reminds you what a good actor Vincent Price really was before he became pigeonholed as a master of the horror genre. There are a couple of surprising twists, and by and large I would recommend it.

'The Baron of Arizona' has a title that makes it sound like a Western, especially since it was directed by Sam Fuller. In fact, this is a remarkable and hugely improbable drama, made even more remarkable because much of it is true.

SPOILERS THROUGHOUT. James Addison Reavis (1843-1914) was an obscure veteran of the American Civil War (on the losing side) who drifted into the Southwest at the time when whites were settling that region, displacing Amerindians and Mestizos. Thousands of acres were free for the taking by U.S. citizens, but the U.S. government -- under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo -- were determined to honour the existing deeds of Spanish settlers who had arrived during the time of the conquistadores. When Reavis learnt this, he hatched one of the most audacious schemes in the history of real estate: he literally stole the entire Arizona territory.

Carefully stealing 16th- and 17th-century parchments from obscure libraries, and duplicating inks from that period, Reavis forged documents deeding thousands of acres to Miguel de Peralta, a fictitious Spanish grandee. Reavis ingeniously salted these documents into legitimate archives. Among his other gambits, he traveled to Spain and infiltrated a monastery, where he unstitched the bindings of antique books, inserted his forged documents, and restitched the bindings. He invented an entire family history for the Peralta clan, planting fake documents in appropriate places in Arizona, Mexico and Spain ... even carving a message (ostensibly written by Peralta's expedition) onto a boulder in the remote Arizona desert, knowing that other developers would eventually 'discover' this.

As gringo Reavis was unable to pass for a descendant of Peralta, he then found a Mestiza girl in a Mexican orphanage, whom he supplied with (forged) documents allegedly proving her pedigree as the descendant of Miguel de Peralta. Reavis then married this 'heiress' to solidify his claim to the land. Armed with his authentic-looking deeds, Reavis then solicited backers (including William Randolph Hearst's father) to press his claims against the U.S. government.

The scam paid off, very nicely indeed. Settlers and developers -- including the officers of railway lines -- who believed they owned land in Arizona now learnt that Reavis was their landlord, and the rent would be very expensive. For several years in the 1880s and '90s, millions of dollars' worth of tribute poured into Reavis's coffers. He and his wife toured Europe, where genuine nobility treated them as fellow bluebloods, and they were even received at court by Queen Victoria. (These true incidents are not in the movie.) But then a federal investigator noticed a discrepancy in one of the documents...

Vincent Price, not yet the ham actor he would be later, gives a riveting performance as Reavis. We know from the beginning that he's a fraud, and we're in on the scam as he puts his brilliant scheme into operation. Master cameraman James Wong Howe surpasses himself here, especially in one sequence in which Price emotes with an improbably large map of Arizona behind him as a backdrop. When Reavis's scam is rumbled, the lynch mob break into his land office to hang him on the spot. In one of the best scenes of his entire film career, Price explains to his swindled victims why they'll be better off if they let him live: Reavis is the only one who can untangle the web of his forgeries.

Another fine performance is given by dwarf actor Angelo Rossitto in a supporting role. In silent films and well into the 1930s, Rossitto was cast in movies purely because of his physique, and he was a wretchedly bad actor, being especially inept with dialogue. (His scene with the armless woman in 'Freaks' is painfully inept.) By the 1950s, Rossitto had acquired some acting ability (largely through his friendship with Bela Lugosi), and he was a fine dramatic actor. I hail him as the only performer who worked with both Lon Chaney Snr *and* Mel Gibson! Sadly, Ellen Drew is far less effective here in the crucial role of Sofia de Peralta, the counterfeit Baroness who owes all her wealth to Reavis's connivances. Drew is utterly unconvincing as a Mestiza ... this is fatal to her characterisation, as the sole reason for Sofia's presence in the scheme was her Latina ancestry.

Regrettably and unnecessarily, the taut screenplay of 'Baron of Arizona' deviates from the historic record. There's evidence that the real Reavis's convoluted scheme involved at least one murder; this isn't mentioned in the film. Reavis's marriage to the false Dona Peralta produced twin sons: in this film, the two boys are combined into a single character. The movie ends touchingly: Reavis confesses his crimes, is convicted, endures the confiscation of all his wealth, and serves a long prison sentence. Years later, he emerges from prison -- broken, broke and disgraced -- and stumbles out into the rain, only to find Sofia and their son waiting for him in a carriage. 'Get in,' says Sofia tersely. In real life, the ending was much more inglorious. As soon as the money was gone, Sofia and her twin sons vamoosed into the mesquite. James Reavis spent a year in prison awaiting trial, then served two years: a surprisingly merciful sentence. He emerged an utterly broken man. Allegedly, he spent the last two decades of his life haunting libraries -- the same archives he'd previously scoured for materials -- pathetically re-reading old newspaper accounts of his past glories.

'The Baron of Arizona' is an astonishing film, with unusual subject matter, briskly told. I'll rate this movie 9 out of 10.