Stella solitaria

The diplomatic and political machinations around the admission of Texas to the USA are incredibly complex and are touched on in this film. It would have taken a longer and better film to explain it all. I think MGM had plans for one in this, but Dore Schary was budget cutting at the time and this got B western treatment for a stellar cast.

One thing they show is true and that is the influence of 77 year old former President Andrew Jackson on the Democratic Party he founded. His prestige was that big, he was the dominant political figure for 20 years or so in the country before, during and after his presidency.

Lionel Barrymore reprises the role of Jackson, he had previously played in MGM's The Gorgeous Hussy. He's still wheeling and dealing and he doesn't like what he's heard that his old friend and comrade in arms Sam Houston is climbing off his position of being for the annexation of the Texas Republic to the United States. On his own he sends Clark Gable as Devereaux Burke Texas cattleman to seek out Houston and get the real story.

On the way to completing his mission Gable finds Ava Gardner who is the editor of a local paper in Austin and Broderick Crawford another Texas cattleman who is violently opposed to annexation. They get a good political rivalry and a personal one over Gardner.

In the film as in real life Sam Houston, played by Moroni Olsen, is running a big bluff. He's playing footsie with the British by negotiating a treaty of alliance with them in order to force the hand of northern politicians who are against slavery, but who would like even less the British moving into Texas.

There's an exciting battle between the pro and anti annexation forces while the Texas Congress meets. It results however in a very unreal conclusion to the story.

It's unfortunate given the stellar cast Lone Star has that a better scripted story was not developed for them, even one that is completely factual. It's an A picture subject that got B picture treatment.

It's 1845. Texas' future is in the balance. Sam Houston recently published an opinion against annexation after earlier attempts. News reaches ex-President Andrew Jackson (Lionel Barrymore) who decides to send in cattle baron Devereaux Burke (Clark Gable) to talk to Houston and recruit for the cause. He is opposed by powerful state senator Thomas Craden. He battles injuins on the way to Austin where he meets Craden's girlfriend Martha Ronda (Ava Gardner) who runs a local newspaper. He is assumed to be anti-annexation and decides to play along while Craden supporters hunt for him.

Historical accuracy is not always important. In this case, I find the history rather interesting and I wouldn't mind having the real story. This is obviously not the real story. I don't know anything about the real story and this is not going to enlighten me that much either. Some of the background issues are presented. The cast is headed by the great looking Clark Gable. This is a fine film but I would probably be more interested in a deep dive into the history.

I liked this movie and appreciated its general historical context. We sometimes forget the power of Mexico in early American history and before; and all the rapid annexation and political machinations. It's not like it was just quick and easy to build and adopt all the American states. There were fights with Indians, Mexicans, inner-state fighting as to annexation or not. Texas was independent for 10 years. And yet we know that Texas has always had its "I am my own country" view and this movie helps you see why and the Texas patriotism.

British and French were involved having a heavy hand in supporting the British or opposing them (French). France was a major instrument in helping the US gain its independence, and therefore lessen the UK's power, which was a strategic prerogative for France.

The movie does a good job keeping it about annexation and the forces that oppose it. Strong character development for Clark Gable as a man driven at times by heroism; by money; by doing the right thing. He forms a strong, believable, complex character, and his character unfoldment is strong.

The romantic interest with Ava Gardner is kept in its place, only about 10% of the movie. So we stay on track with the main plot.

The serious, egomaniacal Craden who wants to be president of Texas and to stay independent --- a great serious foil to Gable. It works well. However, a real wrecker of the film was the writing at the end: After Craden fights, and fights and fights -- and in really nasty, cruel ways -- we find out that Mexico is preparing for war (they will once they find out about annexation.). After Craden loses his fight to Gable, he shrugs his shoulders, joins Gable to fight Mexico. That brought down the movie score for me by 2 points. A ridiculous wink "Well I might as well join 'em" that just doesn't ring true. You feel everyone is having a good time, but all the tough stuff they just endured, "well, this is all for fun, glad we are entertaining you."

Great star cast. Gable is strong. Broderick the enemy is strong until the last ridiculous scene. Ava Gardner has fine acting; she is just given little to do. She still plays a critical role as the independent journalist who prints the truth - whether she likes it or not.

This movie was solid with great acting, good action scenes and history. I can't figure out why it doesn't go to the next level --perhaps because we just know everything is going to be ok. I'd say its formulaic but its not - they had some real depth to Devereax/Clark's character who had hero runs, runs for money, stays to do the right thing, never settles down -- a lot of mixed motives. There are different factions, Texas enemies, Mexico, indians. There are votes in Congress, exciting battle scenes, a romance and good acting. Somehow, though, it doesn't take it to the next level where you rave. I think we know it is going to be okay in the end, and so we relax too much; the writing could be different; and there needs to be a bit of a more serious tone for us to be on edge. The ending made you think they were all fooling around and don't take it that seriously.

Instead it's a solid, enjoyable, semi historical film, with very good acting. Great actors and good pacing. I enjoyed it a lot. Make the ending not joking/playful and it goes up 1.5 points.

Starring Clark Gable, Ava Gardner, and Broderick Crawford, "Lone Star" is a rousing story of political intrigue based on the historical battle for The Republic of Texas. One side wanted annexation by the United States. The other wished to maintain the republic and set treaties with Mexico and other countries.

The battle for the minds of Texans is an interesting one, involving many factions, including the native Americans of the territory. The year is 1845 and Andrew Jackson, who still wields tremendous influence from Nashville, advocates annexation. Andrew Johnson is against it. Sam Houston--a local hero--is a significant unknown entity who may sway the Texas government and Texas hearts.

Gable plays Dev Burke, a Texas cattleman who agrees to represent Jackson's interests. Broderick Crawford plays Tom Craden, a significant influence around Austin, who has big plans for the republic. Ava Gardner plays Martha Ronda, editor of the Austin newspaper and "the woman" of Craden. Or is she?

This historical drama contains a steamy love story that also involves principles. And like most westerns, the bullets and fists fly. I enjoyed this film, mostly due to its strongly drawn characters.

1845 Texas, Independent, survived Alamo, Goliad and San Jacinto ... But Annexation?

Quite often the joy in being a fan of genre film making, in this case Westerns/Southerns et al, is that a pic can coerce you into reading up on real instances. Thus making this particular picture a requisite requirement for literature delving.

Directed by Vincent Sherman and written by Borden Chase (who would supposedly be irked by the depiction of his writing) and Howard Estabrook, Lone Star comes off as an "A" list film given "B" list production values. Nothing wrong with cast performances, Gable still has charisma in his fifties, Gardner oozes sexuality and Crawford dominates like a great presence should. However, it looks stagy, is overly talky as the makers try to make a politico pot boiler out of a sow's behind, while the action - in spite of a grandiose battering ram finale - just doesn't have an oomph factor.

Romantic love triangle feels pointless in the context of such historical filmic tellings, but this is off set by the Sam Houston and Native American splinter of the narrative. Rendering this as a frustrating whole, not without merits, and above average for sure, but difficult to recommend as one to seek out as a must. 6/10