Randolph Scott plays it perfectly straight as a post-war captain in the Union Army, stationed in Texas and a Southerner himself. He and his wife, Phyllis Kirk, are uncomfortable with their duties. Scott is supposed to protect the civilian authorities from the depredations of a gang led by Charles McGraw. But the civilians -- the wide-eyed and trembling Elisha Cook, Jr., and his dominant partner, the sneering and treacherous Hugh Sanders -- are worse than the gang. They overtax the locals, buy cotton for one tenth what they sell it for after they ship it to New York. For Scott, this is known as "role conflict," when a person is caught between two non-concordant roles -- loyal Texan and loyal Army officer. For the South, this is known as "reconstruction."
Nobody knows how Lincoln might have handled reconstruction since he was assassinated at the end of the war. (He'd said the Southern states would be welcomed back into the union "as if they'd never left.") His successor, Andrew Johnson, was an unregenerate racist and a barely literate ex tailor who mismanaged the deal as best he could. His earnest hope was that the white aristocrats of the South, being gentlemen, would reestablish order and the slaves, now free, would assume their accustomed place as subordinates and servants. It didn't work out. Reconstruction was a disaster and order was maintained by the presence of Army troops for years. Seven years after the year of this movie, 1869, Rutherford B. Hayes found himself in a controversy concerning the electoral college and the popular vote, and apparently made a deal to withdraw the Army from the Southern states in return for the presidency. For the next ninety years the South would remain solidly Democratic and segregated.
It's in this historical context that the movie's particular interest lies. It's not just another Western with a good sheriff against a band of evil outlaws and cattle rustlers. The role conflict that Randolph Scott was in was very real and generated by political circumstances. No nonsense about who's the fastest draw around here.
It's one of Scott's best performances, full of complexity. The villains are clearly identified -- Cook and Brand, that scurrilous duo of miscreants. The movie's sympathy is obviously with the native Texans, most of whom are men of principle, including the gang leader, McGraw. He holds up the shipment of that tainted cotton all right, but he doesn't keep it for himself. He evidently returns it to those who rightly own it or he burns it.
Scott is joined by an arrogant officer, Lex Barker, who does everything wrong and who puts moves on Scott's wife. He's another unlikable villain. (You can always tell the villains because they have no sense of humor.) Lex Barker does not perform celluloid magic but he's stolid in the part. As Scott's wife, Phyllis Kirk must have been genuinely uncomfortable. Stuck out there on the Texas plains, with her elegant accent and aristocratic features. She must have wondered what life was all about, how to cope with it all, how to live in the unfolding moment. (Her birth name was not Kirk but Kierkegaard.) It has its Western conventions but it's an attempt at a serious movie about a serious subject and Scott handles it well.
Nobody knows how Lincoln might have handled reconstruction since he was assassinated at the end of the war. (He'd said the Southern states would be welcomed back into the union "as if they'd never left.") His successor, Andrew Johnson, was an unregenerate racist and a barely literate ex tailor who mismanaged the deal as best he could. His earnest hope was that the white aristocrats of the South, being gentlemen, would reestablish order and the slaves, now free, would assume their accustomed place as subordinates and servants. It didn't work out. Reconstruction was a disaster and order was maintained by the presence of Army troops for years. Seven years after the year of this movie, 1869, Rutherford B. Hayes found himself in a controversy concerning the electoral college and the popular vote, and apparently made a deal to withdraw the Army from the Southern states in return for the presidency. For the next ninety years the South would remain solidly Democratic and segregated.
It's in this historical context that the movie's particular interest lies. It's not just another Western with a good sheriff against a band of evil outlaws and cattle rustlers. The role conflict that Randolph Scott was in was very real and generated by political circumstances. No nonsense about who's the fastest draw around here.
It's one of Scott's best performances, full of complexity. The villains are clearly identified -- Cook and Brand, that scurrilous duo of miscreants. The movie's sympathy is obviously with the native Texans, most of whom are men of principle, including the gang leader, McGraw. He holds up the shipment of that tainted cotton all right, but he doesn't keep it for himself. He evidently returns it to those who rightly own it or he burns it.
Scott is joined by an arrogant officer, Lex Barker, who does everything wrong and who puts moves on Scott's wife. He's another unlikable villain. (You can always tell the villains because they have no sense of humor.) Lex Barker does not perform celluloid magic but he's stolid in the part. As Scott's wife, Phyllis Kirk must have been genuinely uncomfortable. Stuck out there on the Texas plains, with her elegant accent and aristocratic features. She must have wondered what life was all about, how to cope with it all, how to live in the unfolding moment. (Her birth name was not Kirk but Kierkegaard.) It has its Western conventions but it's an attempt at a serious movie about a serious subject and Scott handles it well.