this is a post i started quite some time ago and then completely forgot about. i hate seeing things go to waste, so here 'tis...
john ford's 'cheyenne autumn' was a failure when it was released in 1964. though ironically, if it had been made cheaper the way ford himself had originally envisioned, it might have turned a modest profit. the studio system was essentially falling apart in the 60s and the elephantiasis that afflicted many hollywood films of the period is one of the odd, sad reminders of how desperate the moguls were to reclaim the audience they'd lost to television. during this period execs were either nickel-and-diming a movie to death, or frantically piling money into a film in hope of making it a roadshow attraction/event.
'cheyenne autumn', like much of ford's work, is problematic. i'm not among those who consider ford a genius. he was an inarguably talented man who made some great movies, but even his finest works are fraught with contradictions and flaws which, to my mind at least, defy the efforts of his staunchest defenders to contextualize and/or excuse them. i'm not talking about certain offensive aspects of ford's films like the racism or sexism that his boosters generally claim are so misunderstood. no, i'm talking about structural defects that often damage the films, like clumsily offhand plot devices or corny comedy relief. i wouldn't ever argue that 'the searchers' isn't one of the most important films ever made considering how influential it is, but even if one disregards the ugliness of its politics, the film has a number of clumsily staged sequences (the night ambush and even some of the climactic raid) and some nearly unbearable comic interludes.
so a film like 'cheyenne autumn', which even ford's most devoted acolytes admit is considerably less than great, is interesting to me. as an (i think) objective viewer, i enjoy coming to something like 'cheyenne autumn', because there's no advance chorus proclaiming the inarguable greatness of the film before i get to see for myself.
'cheyenne autumn' is based on historical events. it concerns the remaining members of the cheyenne tribe in 1878 and their troublesome decision to return to their home in wyoming from the desolate reservation in utah where they'd been remanded by the government. though ford spoke of a desire to tell this story from the perspective of the indians, most of what takes place in the film involves white characters. from the conflicted cavalry officer played by richard widmark, to carroll baker as a mormon missionary who accompanies the indians on their trek, to edward g. robinson as the sympathetic secretary of the interior, down to jimmy stewart in a rather long and unnecessary cameo as wyatt earp. yes, the indians are depicted respectfully, but they are more like dramatic props than real people. that's an understandable mistake given the terms that ford has set for the film. the indians are noble, but they're also inarguably the victims here. one gets the sense that ford may have esteemed the cheyenne so much as to not want the audience to pity them. this distancing strategy (if that's what it is) works, for the most part. depressing as the circumstances are, the indians never become laughable or pathetic figures.
unfortunately though, the dramatic personae ford chose to tell his story just aren't especially interesting. 'cheyenne autumn' mostly fails to ever fully engage. widmark and baker give good performances but both are stuck playing rather boring people. robinson's secretary of the interior isn't even vaguely interesting, as he's an inherently decent public servant without an ambiguous bone in his body. karl malden turns up as a german cavalry captain who is fully prepared to carry out inhumane orders, for the sole purpose of inviting rather obvious comparisons to the nazis. while it's pretty impressive that ford would go down this route, it's a bit heavy-handed. then there's jimmy stewart and the infamous (to ford fans) dodge city-wyatt earp sequence. this broadly unfunny 20 minute segment plops itself right down in the middle of the film and aside from stewart's likable performance, has nothing going for it. film critic and ford historian joseph mcbride explains this section of the film as being part of ford's tradition of adding comedy relief to even his most serious work. mcbride also talks about the sequence making a point about the generally unfounded hysteria regarding indians, and also being illustrative of ford's deepening pessimism regarding corruption among whites in so-called civilized society. i'm willing to acknowledge all those points and still say that the dodge city sequence stinks. it isn't funny and the 20 minutes drag by like molasses going uphill on a cold day.
oh, and three of the main indian roles are filled by hispanic actors (ricardo montalban, gilbert roland and delores del rio), with victor jory and sal mineo handling the other two. no, those last two guys aren't indians either. so much for ford telling the story from the indians' point of view. nice try, sean.
funnily enough, 'cheyenne autumn' is fairly entertaining in spite of its flaws. it's awe-inspiringly beautiful to look at. the only oscar nomination the film received was for william clothier's cinematography and it was well-deserved. the first hour is especially stunning, filled with shot after gorgeous shot. it's almost too much. ford's favorite location, monument valley in utah, has never looked better. and ford knows how to tell a story, so even though the film wasn't blessed with especially felicitous dialogue, it moves along at a good clip. real problems don't set in until the cringe-inducing dodge city segment, after which the film never quite regains its momentum.
