If as I've read, that director John Huston didn't like this movie, it's totally understandable. I'm more curious as to why he might have taken on the project given the inconsistent elements in so many parts of the story and characters. Perhaps he felt he could have melded these issues into a coherent picture, but if so, it was undone by the film's editing after he left the set.
Examples abound, beginning with the Zachary family at the center of the story. Early on, we come to understand that the Zachary brothers are returning home from Wichita to their mother and sister. Later on, in a scene with Ben (Burt Lancaster) and Rachel (Audrey Hepburn) on horseback, talk turns to the possibility of romance, with Ben mentioning that they are not even related. It's all revealed later of course, but wasn't it just a bit creepy that two people raised as brother and sister would suddenly begin to see each other in romantic terms? That premise managed to keep me off balance for much of the rest of the movie.
I also had difficulty with the central characters making one hundred eighty degree reversals in nature and temperament. Ben starts out as a noble character, willing to hire an Indian (John Saxon as Portugal) because of his skill with horses, even defending him against the racist local ranchers. Later though, he has no problem ordering brother Andy (Doug McClure) to kill an Indian under a flag of truce. Similarly, when Rachel learns of her heritage, she's willing to go off with the Kiowa camp, but has no difficulty taking up arms to shoot them when the family home comes under siege. Audie Murphy's character as brother Cash is possibly the most extreme; having been raised with Rachel as his sister, he doesn't even need one second to renounce her as a 'dirty Injun', demanding that Ben send her away. In all of these examples, there wasn't even a hint of any of the characters being conflicted about their decisions, they just managed to turn on a dime as the story called for. As for Johnny Portugal, what ever happened to him? He seemed to be set up for a role in the outcome, possibly as a rival for Ben, but that never materialized.
Before knowing that the film's basis was Alan LeMay's novel, I found myself mentally comparing it in some respects to John Ford's "The Searchers", starring John Wayne. Interestingly, that was also based on a LeMay book. In that movie as well, I couldn't understand why Wayne's character wanted to find his niece to kill her, having been kidnapped by Comanches, and unable to escape through no fault of her own. The harsh aspects of racism that underlie the themes of both stories are strong enough to make one focus on birthright and family relationships, so on that score, both have some value. Comparing the two, "The Searchers" is the stronger film.
The one thing I haven't seen anyone comment on in this forum though, are the shocking terms spoken in the movie in an era before political correctness became the norm. When Hagar Rawlins (June Walker) unleashes on Rachel as 'red ni--er as ever was', it was a genuine sit up and take notice moment in the story. The phrase 'red hide ni--er' was also used later on, again in an entirely inflammatory context, the only time I've ever heard the term used in film to this point.
On a final note, I agree somewhat with other reviewers who feel Audrey Hepburn was miscast as an Indian. However, for a Plains settler, I found it a bit ironic that when Burt Lancaster went for a swim, he was as white as if he had never been out in the sun with his shirt off. Not too convincing for a Western hero.
Examples abound, beginning with the Zachary family at the center of the story. Early on, we come to understand that the Zachary brothers are returning home from Wichita to their mother and sister. Later on, in a scene with Ben (Burt Lancaster) and Rachel (Audrey Hepburn) on horseback, talk turns to the possibility of romance, with Ben mentioning that they are not even related. It's all revealed later of course, but wasn't it just a bit creepy that two people raised as brother and sister would suddenly begin to see each other in romantic terms? That premise managed to keep me off balance for much of the rest of the movie.
I also had difficulty with the central characters making one hundred eighty degree reversals in nature and temperament. Ben starts out as a noble character, willing to hire an Indian (John Saxon as Portugal) because of his skill with horses, even defending him against the racist local ranchers. Later though, he has no problem ordering brother Andy (Doug McClure) to kill an Indian under a flag of truce. Similarly, when Rachel learns of her heritage, she's willing to go off with the Kiowa camp, but has no difficulty taking up arms to shoot them when the family home comes under siege. Audie Murphy's character as brother Cash is possibly the most extreme; having been raised with Rachel as his sister, he doesn't even need one second to renounce her as a 'dirty Injun', demanding that Ben send her away. In all of these examples, there wasn't even a hint of any of the characters being conflicted about their decisions, they just managed to turn on a dime as the story called for. As for Johnny Portugal, what ever happened to him? He seemed to be set up for a role in the outcome, possibly as a rival for Ben, but that never materialized.
Before knowing that the film's basis was Alan LeMay's novel, I found myself mentally comparing it in some respects to John Ford's "The Searchers", starring John Wayne. Interestingly, that was also based on a LeMay book. In that movie as well, I couldn't understand why Wayne's character wanted to find his niece to kill her, having been kidnapped by Comanches, and unable to escape through no fault of her own. The harsh aspects of racism that underlie the themes of both stories are strong enough to make one focus on birthright and family relationships, so on that score, both have some value. Comparing the two, "The Searchers" is the stronger film.
The one thing I haven't seen anyone comment on in this forum though, are the shocking terms spoken in the movie in an era before political correctness became the norm. When Hagar Rawlins (June Walker) unleashes on Rachel as 'red ni--er as ever was', it was a genuine sit up and take notice moment in the story. The phrase 'red hide ni--er' was also used later on, again in an entirely inflammatory context, the only time I've ever heard the term used in film to this point.
On a final note, I agree somewhat with other reviewers who feel Audrey Hepburn was miscast as an Indian. However, for a Plains settler, I found it a bit ironic that when Burt Lancaster went for a swim, he was as white as if he had never been out in the sun with his shirt off. Not too convincing for a Western hero.