L'aventure est à l'Ouest

Not a great or even a very good Western, but notable, for 1953 (more than ten years before Cheyenne Autumn), for its relatively strong anti-racist message with reference both to the Abolitionist issue in the Civil War and to the long history of failed promises to Native Americans. Given the standard tendency of Westerns (at best) to skirt over race entirely or to present a favorable interpretation of the Confederate cause, this is no small issue.

Apart from Dr Westgate's (Chandler) obvious sympathy for the Indian position, he presents his case for Indian neutrality in the Civil War to the Sioux Council, citing the clear racism of the Confederate general (which he implied would be transferred to the Sioux if they made common cause with the Confederates) and the sacrifice being made by Northern troops in the cause of racial equality. Elmer Daves' Broken Arrow of 1950 with James Stewart and Chandler had already raised the issue of Indian grievances against US Indian policy, but this was emphasizing the message in a 'B' Western context.

No one of earth could guess that this western could be made by the great Warner studios director Llyod Bacon, who gave us so many gems such as SAN QUENTIN, RACKET BUSTERS, MARKED WOMAN during the thirties and forties. Universal studios also hired a Hollywood veteran in the early fifties, for one western, Alfred Green, for SIERRA, starring Audie Murphy. But later Universal will get Nathan Juran and Jack Arnold for westerns, science fiction, and some crime dramas. I don't mean that this Universal Pictures western is lousy, bad or whatever else of this kind, but I just would have never believed any one about the fact that Bacon made it. I guess he needed money when he accepted the contract. Anyway, it was nearly his end of career and life too. Any Universal western is very entertaining, colourful, and that makes this company the best specialist during the fifties of great B westerns, starring the likes of Audie Murphy, Jeff Chandler or Rock Hudson in the leads. So, yes, this movie deserves to be watched, if you are a western buff, but if you are a big Lloyd Bacon's fan, with the memory of his Warner years, well, you should be warned or get away from it. That depends of you taste and state of mind....

Jeff Chandler is a veterinarian who sets up in a new town after he earns a measure of the Sioux War Chief, John War Eagle. He's not happy with the white man, because Lyle Bettger has just stolen a herd of their sacred horses to sell to the army. The Civil War is raging.

Lloyd Bacon directs this 'shaky A' western with a strong enough hand, and the script includes some real historical oddities, like an Indian who's a Confederate general, but mostly the movie is too busy with its standard western tropes, fight scenes, and Chandler running the gantlet to make much of them beyond some handsome Technicolor photography by Maury Gertsman. Faith Domergue offers some nice scenery as the love interest, and some long-time western stars can be spotted in the crowds, like Edmund Cobb and Kermit Maynard. However, while always watchable for its competence, it breaks no new ground.

Have you ever watched a film and thought to yourself "This isn't bad....but it also isn't good, either". Well, that's the impression I had in watching "The Great Sioux Uprising".

The story is set in the west during the Civil War. Apparently, the Union army needs horses and they've contracted with an unscrupulous dirt-bag to get them. But Stephen Cook (Lyle Bettger) doesn't seem to care where he gets them or if he starts a war with the various Indian tribes...all he wants is the money. So, it's up to a traveling doctor (Jeff Chandler) to save the day.

The action is fair. The villain is fair. The story is fair. The treatment of the natives in the film...fair. Nothing really stands out as good nor bad. It's purely a time-passer and nothing else.

I have a great affection for both Faith Domergue and Jeff Chandler. I do not feel that they got the scripts they deserved, and I believe this was the first time they acted together. The chemistry was good, but sadly the film should have expanded Domergue's role more than it did. Given the grand title the film needed more playing time and probably would have had if Cinemascope had been on offer in 1953. Bur given these quibbles the film is solid, thoughtful and has a liberal feeling to it often lacking in Westerns. The friendship between the Indian woman and Domergue is one example. I will not give any spoilers but just say that I would prefer to see this kind of Western than many others that have an over masculine bravado and a total indifference to the loss of the Indian populations which was too often portrayed.