CONSENSUS 92. Ulzana’s Raid (1972)

SYNOPSIS: In the 1880's in the American West, a group of Apache Indians led by a Geronimo-type of leader named Ulzana escape from their reservation and start raiding, which includes murdering and torturing.  A cavalry unit under a green lieutenant (Bruce Davison) is sent to track them down. The cavalry is led by a seasoned scout named MacIntosh (Burt Lancaster) and an Apache Indian tracker who has sided with the whites. It is a cat and mouse game from here. 

BACK-STORY: “Ulzana’s Raid” is a revisionist Western by Robert Aldrich (“The Dirty Dozen”) which was released in 1972 toward the end of the Vietnam War. It was filmed on location in Arizona and Nevada. It is loosely based on a true story.  Ulzana was an Apache who went on a raid in Arizona in 1885.  The movie has been described as an allegory about the Vietnam War.

TRIVIA:  Wikipedia, imdb

1.  Screenwriter Alan Sharp was inspired by “The Searchers”.  He felt that three of the worst historic locales were Nazi Germany, Turkey during WWI, and the American Southwest during the Indian Wars.

2.  Since Burt Lancaster was one of the producers, he got to edit his own version of the film.  His version was similar to Aldrich’s, however.

3.  The production cost only $1.2 million and took only seven weeks of filming.

Belle and Blade  =  N/A

Brassey’s              =  3

Video Hound       =  N/A

War Movies         =  N/A

Military History  =  54

Channel 4             =  not on list

Film Site                =  yes

101 War Movies  =  no

OPINION:  I understand why some consider it to be a war movie, but in my opinion it is clearly in the Western genre.  With that said, I do not think it is even a great Western.  I believe it gets more love than it deserves from critics because they like the criticism of the Vietnam War.  If Aldrich meant to comment on America’s role in the Vietnam War, he missed the mark because Ulzana and his Indians are not sympathetic characters.  It seems more likely that Aldrich was trying to make a revisionist Western and in this respect he was successful, but the 1970s were full of revisionist Westerns and this is not one of the better ones.

DUELING MOVIES: Buffalo Soldiers (1997) vs. Rough Riders (1997)

vs.

                 TNT produced two movies bringing recognition to legendary cavalry regiments of the late Nineteenth Century.  It seemed logical to compare them especially since the two units fought alongside each other in the Spanish-American War.  “Buffalo Soldiers” is a fictional story about the Tenth Cavalry in the West participating in Victorio’s War.  “Rough Riders” tells the tale of the formation of Teddy Roosevelt’s volunteer cavalry regiment through its Charge Up San Juan Hill. 

                “Buffalo Soldiers” appeared on TV in 1997.  It is set in the New Mexico Territory in 1880.  Apache Indian leader Victorio has broken out of the Mescalero Apache Reservation and is ravaging the countryside.  The Buffalo Soldiers are represented by Company H, Tenth Cavalry stationed at Fort Craig.  They are led by Sgt. Wyatt (Danny Glover).  Their nobleness is established in the first scene as they rescue some Indians who are being hanged by Texas Rangers to get them to reveal the location of Victorio.  Theme:  whites racist, blacks mistreated, Indians misunderstood.  When the unit returns to Fort Craig they are confronted with the newly arrived all-white Second Cavalry  with its racist commander and the new post commander Gen. Pike (Tom Bower) who is openly hostile to the black soldier “experiment”. 

                Both units are sent out to track Victorio.  The units separate and the Buffalo Soldiers are lured by some decoys into an ambush.  They get spanked, but luckily capture Nana (another renegade leader who was hoping to hook up with Victorio).  However, Wyatt is blamed by Pike for abandoning the Second.  In case you don’t realize what a jerk he is, he murders a captive during the night because his singing is keeping him awake!

                Col. Benjamin Grierson (Bob Gunton) leads another tracking expedition, but is wounded by a sniper and command falls to Wyatt.  Redemption time?  Or corruption time?  Wyatt seems to be going over to the dark side (or the Texas Ranger side) as he threatens to kill an Indian woman warrior to get Nana to talk.  They ride into another ambush so a main character named Christy (Mykelti Williamson) can get killed.

                Wyatt sets up an ambush at a watering hole and Victorio’s band walks right into the trap.  It’s a Mexican standoff with both sides fingering their triggers.  Will the Buffalo Soldiers do their duty as members of the U.S. Army or will they side with the similarly mistreated  Indians?

                Historically speaking, “Buffalo Soldiers” is a farce.  It is fiction if you bother to check, but any casual viewer would get the impression that it is based on actual events.  Very loosely based.  There is no background given as to the history of the Buffalo Soldiers.  This is no “Tuskegee Airmen” (an obvious comparison).  We do not find out that the Ninth and Tenth Cavalry were established after the Civil War.  They were stationed in the West and earned their nickname from the Native Americans.  Sadly, their duties were more of the scouting, protecting railroad workers and mail carriers, and building roads variety, instead Indian fighting.

                As far as the movie events are concerned, Victorio broke out of the San Carlos Reservation in Arizona in 1879 and launched Victorio’s War.  They were provoked by disease, lack of supplies, and general mistreatment.  They did attack settlers.  They ambushed a company of the Ninth Cavalry in Las Animas Canyon using the classic decoy tactic.  Later, Grierson led the Tenth in a campaign to track down the Apaches.  His strategy involved staking out watering holes.  This forced Victorio to escape into Mexico where his band was surrounded and wiped out by Mexican soldiers.

                “Rough Riders” was a two part miniseries that appeared on TNT in 1997.  It covers the entire history of the First US Volunteer Cavalry.  It also gives an overview of the Spanish-American War, specifically the Cuban part.  The movie introduces us to numerous real and fictional characters.  It hits the greatest hits of the war:  Hearst telling Remington to provide the pictures and he’ll provide the war, TR sending Dewey to the Philippines, the Spanish use of smokeless powder, Teddy’s multiple glasses, etc.  It concludes with an extended reenactment of the Battle of San Juan Hill.

                The movie opens with pictures, newspapers, and political cartoons to get us into the war.  Teddy creates the Rough Riders and a motley crew of outlaws, Ivy Leaguers, ranchers, Indians, etc. gather at the encampment.  A famous sheriff named Bucky O’Neill (Sam Elliott) becomes the stereotypical drill sergeant.  There is more than a training montage.  Eventually they entrain to the singing of “Garry Owen” and pass by waving crowds that include forgiving Confederate veterans.  In Tampa, Teddy wins a race to get on ships first by commandeering a train and mooning the infantry as they race by.

                In Cuba, the unit walks into an ambush in the woods when Gen. Wheeler (Gary Busey) pushes the regiment ahead against orders.  The first main character dies.  An ex-outlaw named Nash (Brad Johnson) runs away and stumbles into a Spanish flank.  The unit has followed him so he ends up the reluctant, wounded hero.  This is supposed to be the Battle of Las Guasimas.  The rest of the film concentrates on the Battle of San Juan Hill.  There is an artillery bombardment.  Nash returns from the hospital to seek cinematic redemption.  Teddy leads the charge up Kettle Hill and kills a couple of Spaniards.  After taking the hill, they move on to San Juan Hill and mingle with the Buffalo Soldiers.  Teddy shoots two more.  Nash is brave.  We win.  The survivors return home.

                As far as historical accuracy, the movie is above average.  The creation of the unit and the roles of Teddy Roosevelt and Leonard Wood are accurate.  The Battle of Las Guasimas is vaguely close.  Wheeler did disobey orders and the Rough Riders walked into an ambush.  However, the Spaniards were firing volleys instead of from in and behind trees.  In the movie, the Americans blunder into the Spanish flank and force them to retreat.  In reality, the Spanish inexplicably withdrew in spite of having the Rough Riders in a bind.  The movie plays down the incompetence common in first battles in American wars.

                The Battle of San Juan Hill is problematical.  It starts accurate and ends laughable.  The movie accurately depicts the terrain and the pre-charge bombardment that provoked the charge.  Teddy did start out on his horse “Little Texas”.  The capture of Kettle Hill was close to as depicted.  Teddy did go off toward San Juan Hill with just a few men because of miscommunication.  From this point on, the movie descends into bull shit.  In actuality, the Rough Riders did move on to San Juan Hill but by the time they arrived the fighting was over.  The mingling with the Buffalo Soldiers occurred during the charge up Kettle Hill.  The movie does not have any Buffalo Soldiers doing that.  As far as Teddy’s personal actions, Bill Clinton must have based his push for awarding Teddy the Medal of Honor after he saw this movie.  In his autobiography, Teddy (not known for modesty) claimed he shot a running Spaniard “like a jack rabbit”.  In the movie, I counted him shooting at least four of the enemy.  That's Hollywood for you - take the facts and make them four times more exciting. 

                The fun part of “Rough Riders” is the intermingling of real historical persons with the fictional.  Surprisingly, the real figures are accurately portrayed.  Bucky O’Neill and Hamilton Fish died basically as depicted.  O’Neill did say the last words that are put in his mouth.  Frederic Remington and Stephen Crane were spectators as shown.  Wheeler was the loose cannon loony as played by his equivalent Gary Busey.  Tom Berenger gets Teddy’s personality down.  Some will be surprised by his zest for warfare and his boyish mentality, but it fits what I have read about him.

                Both the movies are admirable attempts to bring recognition to famous units.  “Buffalo Soldiers” has the additional aim of making a statement about racism both toward African-Americans and Native Americans.  It is done in a heavy-handed way with hissable villains and cringe-worthy preachy dialogue.  The acting is average and thank goodness for Glover anchoring the film.  The rest of the cast includes some scene-chewers (especially Bowers).  The scenery is excellent.  The music is a blend of made-for-TV forgettableness and some period songs.  The action is average as expected for a movie of this type.  The scenarios are ridiculous and the evolution of Wyatt’s character is hard to believe.  The movie ends with you scratching your head about the motivation of the Buffalo Soldiers.

                “Rough Riders” is well-acted, but also has some scene-chewing.  I’m tempted to mention Busey, but he was playing a scene-chewer.  The dialogue is a bit florid, especially from the mouth of Stephen Crane.  There are the expected cliches.  The redemption of Nash, the gruff leadership of O’Neill.  Westerners and easterners learning to become a team.  The music score is a cut above due to it being composed by Elmer Bernstein’s son Peter.  The sound effects are well done during the battle scenes.  There is some welcome old school humor of which “Buffalo Soldiers” is totally bereft.  Neither movie has anything special in the cinematography department.  The action is more intense and realistic than in “Buffalo Soldiers”, but neither is bloody or graphic.  There is quite a bit of hand-to-hand combat that is well staged.  It is a much better history lesson than “Buffalo Soldiers”.

                Which movie is better?  Clearly, “Rough Riders”.   It could not have been much better considering the made-for-TV nature of it.  “Buffalo Soldiers” could have been a lot better.  I’m no big fan of “Tuskegee Airmen”, but it did a better job lauding its unit.

Buffalo Soldiers  =  C-

Rough Riders      =  B+          

P.S.  I have often shown the charge up Kettle Hill from “Rough Riders” to my American History class because it is entertaining, action-packed, and acceptably accurate.  It also offers an excellent example of how Hollywood plays with history.  I have the students count Teddy’s kills and then I tell them the truth.

#54 - Ulzana's Raid (1972)

BACK-STORY: “Ulzana’s Raid” is a revisionist Western by Robert Aldrich which was released in 1972 toward the end of the Vietnam War. It was filmed on location in Arizona and Nevada. It is not based on a true story.


OPENING: On the San Carlos Indian Reservation sometime in the 1880’s, a group of Chiricahua Apaches led by Ulzana (Joaquin Martinez) steal some horses (considering their need for horses later, maybe they should have taken more than one each) and leave on a raid. A messenger arrives at Fort Lowell and the word spreads that “Ulzana’s gone out!” Grizzled Indian scout MacIntosh (Burt Lancaster) is sent to the agency to gather information.

SUMMARY: The commanding officer at Fort Lowell assigns a green Lt. DeBuin (Bruce Davison) to lead the pursuit with twenty troopers and two scouts – MacIntosh and a Chiricahua named Ke-Ni-Tay (Jorge Luke). Ke-Ni-Tay happens to be Ulzana’s brother-in-law. Besides pursuit, there are settler families that need to be warned. One crusty codger sends off his wife and son, but stays to defend his homestead. The woman and boy are ambushed at the same time a trooper arrives on the scene. He shoots the woman and then himself to avoid the inevitable torture. The Indian braves do the next best thing by cutting out his heart and tossing it around. These are not noble savages. Later, DeBuin’s unit finds the husband’s body tortured.

     DeBuin is new to the West and wants to learn about the Apache’s and their culture. He is empathetic at first. After seeing the tortured corpse, he asks Ki-Ni-Tay “Why are your people mean and cruel?” The response is “it’s how they are.” Torturing a man means you acquire his power. Why did Ulzana leave the reservation? "Ulzana is at agency long time. His power is very thin. He had old smell in the nose. The smell of dog, of women, of children. Man with old smell in the nose is old man. Ulzana wants new smell. The smell of bullet. Pony running. For power!"  (We married fathers have Hooters, they had the open plains.) MacIntosh encourages DeBuin to be realistic. “Hating Apaches is like hating the desert for not having water.” He also tries to teach the young LT how to fight the Apaches. “Remember the rules, first to make a mistake gets to bury some of his people.”

     Ulzana is a classic guerrilla warrior. He tries to get an advantage over his pursuers by dismounting most of his men and having two warriors run the ponies in a loop to exhaust the bigger cavalry horses. This would probably have worked except that not only do the whites have the Yoda of Indian scouts in MacIntosh, but the T1000 of trackers in Ke-Ni-Tay. They see through the Indian ploy and do not fall for it. In fact, MacIntosh heads off the pony string killing one of the braves and depriving Ulzana of his horses. Although he has lost his empathy for the Apaches, DeBuin does stop some troopers from mutilating the Indian corpse.

     At another farm, they find a raped woman who has been left alive by Ulzana so that the cvalry will be forced to split, sending some men with the woman back to the fort. Since MacIntosh sees through this strategy, he and DeBuin come up with a counterplan. MacIntosh and a few men (and the woman) will walk into the inevitable ambush and then DeBuin will swoop in and catch Ulzana with his loin cloth down. The humane DeBuin seems unconcerned with sending this distraught rape victim into an ambush which will be suicidal for at least some of the bait. Considering she is dressed as a soldier, you would think a soldier could have masqueraded as her.

     The plan hinges on Ke-Ni-Tay eliminating the Indian who will be watching the main group. He is so good he is able to follow tracks over bare rock! Due to miscommunication, DeBuin moves prematurely and Ke-Ni-Tay has to catch up to the Indian before he warns Ulzana. Being super-tracker as well as super-warrior, Ke-Ni-Tay kills his prey in time.

Jaekel as the Sarge

     Meanwhile, MacIntosh is ambushed in a canyon with predictable results for the poor bastards that are the bait. Mac, the sergeant (the ever-reliable Richard Jaekel), and the woman are forced to take refuge under a wagon. The sarge is killed and Mac is gravely wounded. Ulzana, who holds all the cards, orders two of his men to charge in the open and they are gunned down by MacIntosh. Wait, aren’t they guerrillas?

     DeBuin arrives with bugle blaring (so much for surprise). Instead of flanking the Indians, he comes charging up the canyon. However, this tactic is sufficient to win the “battle” and rescue the few survivors.

CLOSING: Ke-Ni-Tay tracks Ulzana, but can’t locate him. Just kidding. The two confront each other and it looks like it will be a classic Western duel, except with Indians. Think again. Ke-NI-Tay shows Ulzana his son’s (and Ke-Ni-Tay’s nephew’s) bugle.  This is the Apache way of saying I killed your son.  Opting against vengeance, Ulzana sings his death song and kneels for Ke-Ni-Tay to shoot him in the back of the head. MacIntosh insists DeBuin leave him behind to die.

RATINGS:

Acting - 7


Action - 6


Accuracy - 6


Realism - 7


Plot - 5


Overall - 6


WOULD CHICKS DIG IT? Highly unlikely. There are no significant females in the movie and those that appear mostly have very bad things happen to them. This is very much a guys’ movie. It does not have a lot of violence, but some of it is graphic. It is definitely not a feel-good movie. If you took a date to it when it was in the theaters, the dinner better have been outstanding and even then don’t expect much after you leave the cinema.

ACCURACY: The film is not based on a true story which is a crying shame. Why make up Ulzana when there were similar and better actual historical figures like Cochise, Mangas Coloradas, Geronimo, and my choice – Victorio? Any one of their stories would have been more interesting and given Aldrich the opportunity to explore the same themes.

     As far as Apache culture, the movie is fairly accurate although it does not cover anything but warrior culture. The discussions between DeBuin and Ke-Ni-Tay are enlightening as to how the warriors thought and fought. Their guerrilla tactics appear to be realistic, but if they were the great guerrilla warriors respected by historians, some of Ulzana’s decisions seem weak. The Apaches certainly knew the value of horses so the decision to go on the warpath with just one mount per raider is suspect. The ploy of dismounting and leading the pony string around looks like a Hollywood plot invention to me. Ulzana was well ahead of his pursuers and lengthening the distance. Giving up that gap does not strike me as something an intelligent Apache would have done.

     There is little doubt that the Apaches could be hard on prisoners. They certainly tortured and mutilated prisoners, including other Indians. I cannot vouch for the “take their power” explanation. I do know that Indians tortured their foes because they expected the same treatment and saw it as a way to show their bravery. I have never run across reference to cutting the heart out and tossing it around. They did tend to cut off genitalia and stick it in the victim’s mouth, however.  (You're welcome for that fun fact.)

     The Apache did have a tendency to leave the reservations to conduct raids which were hard on white settlers. Geronimo and Victorio were good examples of this.

CRITIQUE: “Ulzana’s Raid” has the feel of a made for TV movie. It looks low budget and the cast (other than Lancaster) is underwhelming. Lancaster is his usual strong force and gives the film gravitas. Davison is surprisingly good as the naïve lieutenant. Jaekel is his reliable self and gets a meaty supporting role. Luke stands out as the stoical Ke-Ni-Tay. The rest of the cast is below average.

     The score is stereotypical Western music. If you only heard the music, you would know immediately you were watching a Western. Some of it borders on ridiculous. The cinematography is fine, but although the terrain is similar you will not mistake this for a John Ford oater. The vistas are impressive.

     The movie has been described as revisionist. This is spot on. Before you give it too much credit on this account, remember this was the seventies when most Westerns were outside the box. By revisionist, I mean it portrays both sides as shades of gray. However, there is no doubt who the bad guys are. The same bad guys as in most previous Westerns – the Indians. The revisionism is in the respect they are shown in their depiction and the less than saintly portrayal of the cavalry. Ulzana’s motives are briefly outlined, but not really debated. The torturing of victims dilutes any sympathy the audience might have for him.

     Davison’s character is supposedly the conscience of the film. He is the opposite of the clichéd Indian hating officer. He wants to understand the Apache. As the film progresses his Christian principles are challenged by what he witnesses. Aldrich does a good job of not predictably going all the way down this path. DeBuin ends up a realist, not a racist. It is telling that at the end, instead of bringing Ulzana’s head back as proof or a trophy, he insists on burying the corpse.

     The most memorable aspect of the movie is the relationship between MacIntosh and Ke-Ni-Tay. Their laconic friendship is like that of an old married couple. A nod is enough some of the time. Their mentoring of DeBuin is refreshing. They do not treat him as a rube, but there is some head-shaking. Ke-Ni-Tay is a strong character in his own right. He is loyal to his employer – the U.S. Army. He is super-Indian when it comes to tracking. I can’t help but point out that he is a traitor to his own people and chose the wrong side. He helps track down an Apache leader (and his own nephew) who are fighting for their way of life. And he kills them.

     The film has been described as an allegory on the Vietnam War. I do not know if this is something the critics deduced or was an intention of Aldrich. If he intended the movie to comment on the war, he missed the target. Ulzana does not do a good impression of a Viet Cong. They did torture and mutilate, but I would think that is not the point Aldrich would be trying to make. A liberal, anti-war statement would have portrayed the Indians in a more positive light and the whites as more imperialistic and racist. It seems more likely that Aldrich was more interested in making an iconoclastically realistic Western.

CONCLUSION: I know I am beginning to sound like a broken record, but… Just as with "She Wore a Yellow Ribbon", this movie is a Western first and nothing else second. Perhaps the critics that decided it was an allegory on the Vietnam War insist that it then has to be a war movie. Sadly, regardless of what genre it is placed in, it is not a particularly good movie.