Il barone dell'Arizona

I only use the word surprising because I happened upon this movie very late one night a long time ago. I remember looking in the T.V. guide and seeing that I had a choice between this movie and nothing else. I mean what kind of title is this ? i remember thinking , and starring Vincent Price of all people, who at the time I could only recall from the somewhat silly "The Fly". Well I figured what the hell. So I settled in and expected to be bored and disgusted for as long as I could stand. Then the surprise happened. I was thoroughly captivated by this unique and well made story which to my other great surprise also happened to be true, the attempted theft of the entire state of Arizona by a schemer apparently without equal. Vincent Price's performance completed the trifecta by amazing me with his skill as a legitimate actor. I would very much like to see this movie again but am not hopeful at the present. Like so many others it seems to have vanished. What is interesting about this fact is that when T.V. was free, there was more to choose from, unlike today where we pay to see the same things over and over.

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.

'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.

"Baron of Arizona" is a quirky,excellent film. The fact that the main character is based upon an actual one-time real person makes it even more interesting. Price is excellent in the title role and makes you almost want him to succeed.....I emphasize almost! The supporting cast,especially Drew,also perform well. This is an overlooked,but well done film. Of course,with Samuel Fuller in charge,that's not unusual. The action is not really what draws one to watch this film; the story itself is enough to make it an interesting and watchable film. Many of the characters add a great deal to the story itself,even though at times one gets the impression that some of them are there for continuity more than realism.HIGHLY recommended.

Samuel Fuller lived long enough to realize that movie audiences fully appreciated his innovative movies, and considered him a cinematic master. This was good, because all too frequently the tragedy of art careers is an underappreciation in the artist's lifetime. But after 1981 Fuller never made another film, and that is a tragedy. Unlike Orson Welles rumors did not suggest that Fuller was box-office poison, or a spend thrift, or an egomaniac. But like Welles Fuller had a deskful of movie treatments and scripts he couldn't get the funding for. A documentary made in the late 1990s about Fuller showed his desire to make a film biography about his favorite novelist: Honore de Balzac. Unfortunately it never got onto celluloid.

He made many historic films: mostly westerns, though he did do the underappreciated PARK ROW (the only film I know dealing with the construction of the Statue of Liberty and Ottmar Merganthaler's linotype machine and it's revolution on newspaper publishing). But one of the westerns is based on a 19th Century fraud that almost changed the face of the United States. In the middle of the Gilded Age, James Addison Reavis used an elaborate (and sophisticated) fraud to try to convince the U.S. Government to recognize his wife's family claims to ownership (from old Spanish land grants) to the territory of Arizona. The claim was that her ancestors, the Peralta family of Spain and Mexico, were given the lands of the territory by the crown of Spain, in recognition of their services. It took nearly a decade of careful investigation to discover the forgery used by Reavis (the inks he used on old documents were not made as they should have been in the 18th Century). Pictures of the Peraltas (who never existed) turned out to have been purchased at a street fair in Mexico. Instead of installing his barony on the North American map, Reavis went to prison.

Fuller turns the story into that of a basically good person who goes wrong trying to make a big place for himself in society. His Reavis does go to elaborate lengths to make the forgery as real as possible, including forging the necessary entries in ancient real estate books, and living for several years as a monk to do this work. But he is changed by the simplicity of the young woman he picks as his wife and "Peralta" heir. A decent woman, she slowly wins his love by her own devotion to him - with or without the property. Reavis also sees the more violent side of the "good citizens" of Arizona, who become vigilantes against him as they see his claims seem about to become recognized by the U.S. government. Ironically he saves himself when in a moment of disgust with these yahoos he explains that if they lynch him the claim will never be disproved, because (even with the assistance of the government expert) only Reavis knows where he slipped up.

Vincent Price, as Reavis, is a villain in that he is committing a massive fraud, but he proves he is more than a master of horror films. Here he gives one of his quietest and most effective performances, as a man who learns that happiness can be found more easily than by stealing billions of dollars in acreage. Ellen Drew is quite good as the young Mexican peon who saves Price's soul by her devotion. Vladimir Sokoloff and Beulah Bondi, as Reavis's servants are also quite good. If you can, I really recommend this film - which is not as well known as it should be.