Most films today are mass-produced, poorly scripted, poorly acted and churned out to please no one but a minority of 'right on' politically tuned-in, left-wing wankers. Quality is rare. Sadly, this is the modern age we live in. Thus, the films I watch are not current and belong to a bygone age, when scripts had not become hackneyed, and plot development had not yet pandered to a ridiculous 'Woke Agenda', where the star roles are populated by strong black individuals of indeterminate gender pushing a narrative of contrived, indeterminate agenda. Today's films are, in general, dismal fare offered for our dubious viewing pleasure. Enough ranting, Flaxen.
Get on with it, Flaxen
Today's offering/proffering is a film put forth by Director Robert Aldrich that burst upon the Cinematic Screen in the early seventies. I am talking about: Ulzana's Raid, filmed in 1972. The film is set in the Old West, within the arid, unforgiving desert of Arizona. A time when frontier living was raw, and settlers faced the fading chances of being killed by raiding Apache Indians. Apparently, by this time, the Apache tribes had been corralled, but not tamed, on so-called Indian Reservations. It seems the barbarous savages (is there any other kind?) had not quite acquiesced, or had been convinced by the manifest benefits bestowed by civilised Western Culture. And therefore, they began yearning for times unfettered and unfortunately hankered for their quaint old ways of embarking on a murdering, raping and general mayhem fest. Therefore, the pesky Apache braves, under the leadership of the canny Ulzana, decide to sneak out of the reservation to deliver: (a) free toys to the local orphans, or (b) embark on a murdering, raping, wild escapade. I'll leave my readers to decide.
This is where our two main antagonists collide.
Entering stage left, we have the grizzled, seasoned and frontier-wise Army-Attached Advisor, McIntosh, played by the great, late actor Burt Lancaster. Burt is one of the last iconic actors of the 'Golden Era'. He grew in stature as an actor with age. He went from a stereotypical leading man to a true acting legend as he aged. In this film, we see Mr Lancaster at his best. His lines are clipped, measured, and his delivery is impeccable. This role redeems his dismal portrayal in the dreadful film. Zulu Dawn. His faux Irish accent grates and is jarring to behold, and haunts my memory to this day; mayhap he needed the gelt.
Great acting can only flourish with a great script. And whilst Ulanzas Raid has its share of technical slipshod, the dialogue is flawless, smart, and delivers pathos when the scene demands, without inserting maudlin sentimentality.
Enter stage right. We have the perfect foil to Burt's 'Tough Frontiersman Characterisation'. The actor, Bruce Davison, as Lt DeBuin, ably portrays the antithesis of Burt Lancaster's character. He is young, educated, sensitive but naive. This newly appointed officer, fresh from West Point, has an inquisitive intelligence and is eager, but ill-provisioned for the rigours and hardships to come. His strength is that he will evolve with time, and transfigure from the eager boy to a wiser, partly seasoned but saddened man. The horror of the coming human conflict betrays the futility of his West Point training when applied to the irregular warfare practised by his Apache foe. He has been instructed in the principles and practice of the 'Western Way of War'. No serried, disciplined ranks reminiscent of European warfare will transpire. His mindset was not equipped to comprehend the jarring reality of guerrilla warfare. A war without rules, without battle lines and without prisoners. At one point, our clean-cut lieutenant asks Burt, "Where do you think he will fight us?" We receive Burt's laconic response. "He doesn't intend to fight you anywhere, lieutenant; he means to kill ya". This lesson has not yet sunk in. But given time, and the harsh brutality to come, Lieutenant DeBuin will prove to be a quick and adaptable soldier.
McIntosh has a genuine, grudging respect for the Apache and their ways, even though he doesn't fully understand them. He views the Apache as a 'force of nature', and like the 'waterless desert ', there is no point in hating either. The common soldier lacks McIntosh's nuanced appreciation. They hate and fear the Apache with incandescent passion. It is interesting to compare how Injuns are portrayed in older films with how they are portrayed in films after Ulzana's Raid. Previously, the pesky Injuns were NPC, banshee bowling pins to be shot down by brave, square-jawed cowboys. Post-Ulzana's Raid, we see the wise, land-connected noble Indian, hard-trodden by the land-stealing white man. A good example of this fiction appears just four years after Ulzana's Raid, in the film The Outlaw Josey Wales. The portrayal of Ulzana and his merry band is perhaps too close to the truth for many folks to endure. The Apache are certainly connected to the land. However, they are also gleefully cruel. They are tough, brave when they need to be, and prepared to grapple with an enemy head-on, but only after every other ruse and tactic has failed.
The eager lieutenant is initially shocked by the Apache's cruelty and asks the Apache scout, Ken-Ni-Tay, why they are like that. Ke-Ni-Tay replies enigmatically. "It is the way they are". And then hints that it is the harshness of the land that maketh the man. The Apache in the film are depicted as casually brutal and sadistic without forcing an explanation. Historically, it does appear that the Apache had a long tradition of being 'unpleasant' to unwanted guests, and in fact to any other tribe, Apache or otherwise, that entered their orbit. There is no need to whitewash the redskin.
In one scene we are introduced to a situation which unsettles the lieutenant and brings an uncomfortable spotlight on his ingrained notions of the superior morality of the white civilised 'European' that separates them from savages and 'lesser breeds'. In the scene, the so-called civilised soldiers set about mutilating one of the Indian dead, taking great delight in removing his eyes. In a moment, the soldiers are no less savage than the savages. DuBuin is forced to witness his men's actions in extremis. Brutality breeds brutality, and textbook considerations of morality are theoretical constructs that do not reflect reality in times of extreme societal friction and stress. This is especially true when disparate groups come into conflict, and mutual bewilderment and social misperception run rampant. First comes the fear; then comes the hate; finally, comes the killing. I'm not a fan of those Ivory Tower professors who theorise about universal or objective laws of morality. Humanity and social behaviour are way too complex to be contained/constrained within a textbook.
Humanity is always present in this film, and not always in its raw form. Look out for the flecks of humour; it relieves the tension.
As a point of criticism, I do think Aldrich missed a wondrous opportunity to develop the Apache protagonists in vivid relief. In particular, the portrayal of Ulzana was unnecessarily one-dimensional. We see a man uniformly posed in grim tones. His granite visage and expression remain constant, an impassive reflection of pride tinged with a withering side glance of universal hate. Only one instant gathers a change in the stolid features. This singular rent in the mask brings about a noticeable softening of the countenance. It occurs in a scene that hints that Ulzanas' son has been propelled unto the 'Happy Hunting Grounds' before his allotted time. Also, the Indian scout, Ke-Ni-Tay, is left hanging, without reference or backstory. This is unfortunate, as the troopers ultimately prevail over the Apache only because Ke-Ni-Tay, an Apache, single-handedly uncovers a trap set by the wily Ulzana. What a missed opportunity for character development! I hope the Apache scout got a medal for his sterling work.
This is not a feel-good film. There is no hero, or heroism, for us to cheer from the sidelines. If you are expecting a neat ending where the plot comes to a tidy conclusion, this may not be the film you seek. No moral message or obvious political agenda is thrust upon us. The film remains morally ambiguous. Some critics have argued that Aldrich was making comparative points between the ongoing, unpopular Vietnam War and the film. To be honest, I don't read the film that way, apart from the bleeding obvious, although I'm happy to concede if someone can illustrate a deeper connection with conviction.
Not all films need an agenda or a narrative forced toward a contrived viewpoint. Ulzana's Raid is a tale, a very old tale. A tale, unscripted and reflected over thousands of years, detailing what usually happens when cultures clash. We have archaeological evidence from prehistory. Our ancestors were just as brutal and rapacious as modern humans.
If the history of the last 100 years plus has shown, we can slip into feral, cold killing machines with chilling ease. When disparate cultures clash, only one can win. Usually, the victor is the one with the 'Bigger Battalions', superior technology, and a more sophisticated financial and logistical system. History is written by the winner. Rarely do we receive a balanced account of martial conflict. Vae Victis! I wonder what treasures would be discovered if the writings of Hannibal Barca and his Greek secretary, Sosius, had survived. What marvels would be put before us to contemplate? Alas, this is the counsel of perfection, and we must be satisfied with the writings of those who hated him.
I commend this film for your viewing pleasure. Watch it again and again. It is well worth the effort. Tis like achieving the ecstatic state of nirvana. Only those willing to put forth the effort will achieve ultimate enlightenment, and shit.
