In ARROWHEAD, we have Charlton Heston as a white Cavalry scout who once spent several years of his childhood with the Apaches. He has since rejoined white civilization and he now has nothing but contempt for the native people around him. So by fifties' standards, he is supposed to be the Injun-hating hero.
Add into the mix Jack Palance as an Apache who was sent east to be educated by white men. But while he was at school in Pennsylvania, he refused to cut his long hair and act much like a white. Now he's come home to Texas, where he will take off his hat, show off his long hair proudly and declare he is still Apache, which means instant conflict with Heston's character.
This all seems rather interesting, until the script takes both characters in a somewhat vicious direction. Heston is given all kinds of dialogue that today seems quite politically incorrect, where he disparages the Apaches, calling one of them dirt. But the tipping point, where we learn who the filmmakers want us to root for, is when Palance goes into an office to meet a white guy he once played with as a child. He has decided that it was a mistake for an Apache to have bonded like a blood brother with a white man. Just as the man goes to call his wife and young son to meet Palance's character, Palance pulls a gun out and shoots him at point blank range, instantly killing his old friend. It is depicted as a senseless brutal act.
Of course, this sets into motion a series of scenes where Heston as the good guy must avenge the other white man's death and bring Palance and his lawless Apaches to justice. As I said, it's hard to decide whether either one of them should be who we root for. Do we root for Palance who is filled with his own blind rage against whites and trying to seek vengeance against those who have taken so much from his own people? Or do we root for Heston who supposedly has law and order (and civilization) on his side, but is filled with just as much contempt toward the natives?
Add into the mix Jack Palance as an Apache who was sent east to be educated by white men. But while he was at school in Pennsylvania, he refused to cut his long hair and act much like a white. Now he's come home to Texas, where he will take off his hat, show off his long hair proudly and declare he is still Apache, which means instant conflict with Heston's character.
This all seems rather interesting, until the script takes both characters in a somewhat vicious direction. Heston is given all kinds of dialogue that today seems quite politically incorrect, where he disparages the Apaches, calling one of them dirt. But the tipping point, where we learn who the filmmakers want us to root for, is when Palance goes into an office to meet a white guy he once played with as a child. He has decided that it was a mistake for an Apache to have bonded like a blood brother with a white man. Just as the man goes to call his wife and young son to meet Palance's character, Palance pulls a gun out and shoots him at point blank range, instantly killing his old friend. It is depicted as a senseless brutal act.
Of course, this sets into motion a series of scenes where Heston as the good guy must avenge the other white man's death and bring Palance and his lawless Apaches to justice. As I said, it's hard to decide whether either one of them should be who we root for. Do we root for Palance who is filled with his own blind rage against whites and trying to seek vengeance against those who have taken so much from his own people? Or do we root for Heston who supposedly has law and order (and civilization) on his side, but is filled with just as much contempt toward the natives?