You have to consider Jimmy Stewart's career in context. Before the war he usually played in lighthearted roles, romantic comedies or mysteries. (Once the poor guy was forced to sing.) Then the war, in which he earned a record of distinction. Afterwards his performances for a decade or two tended to be edgy. Never villainous, but suggestive of anguish under the condescending self reliance. (Watch his expression when he's on the telephone being offered a job and throws it away to mash Donna Reed against him.) Anthony Mann -- a tyrant on the set -- cashed in on this hidden dimension in Stewart's character. In Mann's films, Stewart isn't only driven by some goal, he tends to be obsessed by it, even when the reasons for it aren't clear to his friends.
Come to think of it, it's a little hard to imagine how he came by as many friends as a movie like "Bend of the River" gives him. He's not particularly amiable. He's not even polite really. Somebody saves his life and Stewart understates his expression of gratitude until it's almost unrecognizable -- he lowers his face and smiles slightly, maybe, or says, "Thanks for the loan of the gun." (Not, "Thanks for saving my skin.") There is also something irritatingly complacent about his character. He never seems to experience any doubt or temptation.
But if his character is a little difficult to decode, Arthur Kennedy's is mostly on the surface. He's a smiling pal who jumps in a number of times to aid Stewart, yet is overcome (without much preamble) by greed enough to betray Stewart and leave him alone in the wintry mountains of Oregon. If he is so easily won over by the opportunity to make some quick money -- even though it means the deaths of 100 people -- why was he so anxious to jump in and save Stewart in the first place? (And he does it repeatedly.) Why does he suddenly turn rotten? This has nothing to do with Kennedy's performance. The problem seems to be in the script.
Rock Hudson's part isn't too well written either. He also jumps in several times, unasked, to aid Stewart, yet when Kennedy takes over the wagon train and deserts Stewart, Hudson offers no objection.
But, again, it's not the acting. All of the performances are quite good. Julia Adams has a strangely beautiful face with striking eyes. And she seemed to mature in later years from a juicy young woman to a comely and elegant person who still had a lot of what the French call le sex appeal. (Just kind of joking there.) The photography is good, the scenery monumental, raw, majestic, colossal, stupendous, effulgent, phallic -- and phat.
It's an enjoyable movie, especially if you're interested in the Westerns of the 1950s, a good example of the joint work of Anthony Mann and Jimmy Stewart.
Come to think of it, it's a little hard to imagine how he came by as many friends as a movie like "Bend of the River" gives him. He's not particularly amiable. He's not even polite really. Somebody saves his life and Stewart understates his expression of gratitude until it's almost unrecognizable -- he lowers his face and smiles slightly, maybe, or says, "Thanks for the loan of the gun." (Not, "Thanks for saving my skin.") There is also something irritatingly complacent about his character. He never seems to experience any doubt or temptation.
But if his character is a little difficult to decode, Arthur Kennedy's is mostly on the surface. He's a smiling pal who jumps in a number of times to aid Stewart, yet is overcome (without much preamble) by greed enough to betray Stewart and leave him alone in the wintry mountains of Oregon. If he is so easily won over by the opportunity to make some quick money -- even though it means the deaths of 100 people -- why was he so anxious to jump in and save Stewart in the first place? (And he does it repeatedly.) Why does he suddenly turn rotten? This has nothing to do with Kennedy's performance. The problem seems to be in the script.
Rock Hudson's part isn't too well written either. He also jumps in several times, unasked, to aid Stewart, yet when Kennedy takes over the wagon train and deserts Stewart, Hudson offers no objection.
But, again, it's not the acting. All of the performances are quite good. Julia Adams has a strangely beautiful face with striking eyes. And she seemed to mature in later years from a juicy young woman to a comely and elegant person who still had a lot of what the French call le sex appeal. (Just kind of joking there.) The photography is good, the scenery monumental, raw, majestic, colossal, stupendous, effulgent, phallic -- and phat.
It's an enjoyable movie, especially if you're interested in the Westerns of the 1950s, a good example of the joint work of Anthony Mann and Jimmy Stewart.