"TAP ROOT" (1948) Review
I am sure that many are aware of Mississippi-born Confederate soldier-turned-Unionist Newton Knight and his formation of the "Free State of Jones", which opposed Confederate forces during the U.S. Civil War. I first heard about Knight and his men while watching Ken Burns' 1990 documentary, "THE CIVIL WAR". But I had no idea that knowledge of this little corner of Civil War history went back even further.
Recently, Hollywood released a movie version about Knight and his followers in the 2016 historical drama, "FREE STATE OF JONES". However . . . some seventy-four years earlier, a novel titled "Tap Roots", which had been written by James H. Street, hit the bookstores. It told the story of a cotton planter, his family and a newspaper publisher; who had decided to remain neutral during the first year of the Civil War. Unfortunately, their decision to remain neutral led to disastrous consequences for the planter and his family, along with other local men who decided to follow them. Six years later in 1948, Universal Pictures made a movie adaptation of Street's novel.
In a nutshell . . . "TAP ROOT" begins in the fall of 1860. Northern Mississippi plantation owner Big Sam Dabney and his son Hoab express concern over Abraham Lincoln's election as the 16th president and the possibility of Southern states seceding from the Union. Both men begin to consider having Levington County in Lebanon Valley, location of the family's cotton plantation, remain neutral if a civil war breaks out. Meanwhile, Hoab's older daughter, Morna Dabney, becomes engaged with Army officer, Clay McIvor. Younger sister Aven is jealous, due to also being in love with Clay. As for Morna, local newspaper owner Keith Alexander becomes attracted to her.
Before 1860 ends, Big Sam dies, leaving Hoab in full control of the family's neutral stance. And poor Morna has a riding accident, leaving her physically disabled and her engagement to Clay in jeopardy. Apparently, the latter is unable to maintain interest in a disabled woman and transforms his sexual interest to Morna's younger sister, Aven. This gives Keith the opportunity to court Morna and help her recover from Clay's rejection. However, Mississippi secedes from the Union, driving Hoab, Keith and the Dabney family's Choctaw friend, Tishomingo, to organize Levington County's neutral stance and secession from Mississippi.
There are aspects of "TAP ROOTS" that I found admirable. Alexander Golitzen's production designs for a Northern Mississippi community between 1860 and 1861 struck me as pretty admirable, if not mind blowing. I could say the same about Yvonne Wood's costume designs. However, there were some signs of 1940s fashion getting in the way, especially in the men's costumes. The shoulders for Van Heflin's jackets struck me as so wide that I found myself wondering if he had portrayed a time traveler from the 1940s. On the other hand, I found Winton C. Hooch and Lionel Lindon's photography of the Southern California and North Carolina locations rather beautiful, thanks to its sharp color. And I thought director George Marshall did an admirable job with the film's action scenes. I was especially impressed by the final conflict between Levington County's "rebels" and the local Confederate forces. Between Marshall's direction, Hooch and Lindon's photography, and Milton Carruth's editing, that final action sequence proved to be one of the film's finer aspects.
If I must be honest, I did not have any problems with the performances featured in "TAP ROOTS". Well . . . with most of the performances. Van Heflin gave an entertaining, yet commanding performance as the cynical newspaper editor Keith Alexander. Susan Hayward was equally commanding as Southern belle Moana Dabney, who endured her own trials while her own personal life fell apart. I did not care for the character of Clay McIvor, who struck me as something of a jerk; but I cannot deny that Whitfield Connor did a solid job in bringing his character to life. A very young Julie London really held her own as Moana's younger sister, Aven Dabney, who managed to win Clay's love from Moana, following the latter's riding accident. Russell Simpson gave a entertaining performance as Moana's colorful grandfather, Big Sam Dabney. Ruby Dandridge, mother of Dorothy Dandridge, gave a solid performance as the Dabneys' housekeeper, Dabby. And I can say the same about Richard Long's portrayal of Moana's younger brother, Bruce Dabney; Arthur Shields as Reverend Kirkland; and Sondra Rogers as Shellie Dabney.
Despite the solid performances that permeated "TAP ROOTS", two of them proved to be problematic for me. First, there was Ward Bond's portrayal of Hoab Dabney, the Mississippi planter who not only inherit the family's cotton plantation following his father's death, but also the latter's plans for a neutral Mississippi. I might as well say it. I found Bond's performance to be an exercise in histrionics. I found this surprising since Bond has never struck me as a hammy acting. I wish that director George Marshall had found a way to rein in his acting - especially in one scene in which Hoab came into conflict with Moana over her past relationship with Clay McIvor. Alas, I thought Bond gave his hammiest performance in that one scene. The other problematic performance came from Boris Karloff, who portrayed the Dabney family's Choctaw friend and retainer, Tishomingo. Mind you, Karloff gave a competent and subtle performance as one of the few sensible characters in this movie. And although many may have been put off by a British actor portraying a Native American, I was surprised to discover that Karloff had possessed both English and East Indian ancestry from both of his parents. I do not know if that gave the actor a pass, considering he still lacked any Native American ancestry. But if I really had a problem with Karloff's performance is that he had portrayed Tishomingo as if the character was an Englishman. Even if Karloff had been portraying a white American, I still would have found his performance slightly problematic.
And what about the narrative for "TAP ROOTS"? Did I like it? Honestly? No. For me, the 1948 movie had failed to impress me. And this is a pity. I believe the problem stemmed from the movie's original source, the 1942 novel. Author James H. Street had claimed he was inspired by the life of Newton Knight, when he wrote his novel. However, out of fear that Knight's life was too controversial - namely his common-law marriage to former slave Rachel Knight - Street changed the nature of Knight's story. The leading characters of "TAP ROOTS" were portrayed as members of Mississippi's planter class. They opposed slavery - at least one or two characters had claimed this - but also owned slaves. But aside from the Dabneys' "faithful" housekeeper Dabby, all other slaves were minor characters who barely spoke. If a movie is going to have its main characters claim to be anti-slavery, why ignore the topic for the rest of the film? Newton Knight's grandfather was a major slave owner in northern Mississippi during the early 19th century. But Knight and his father had opposed slavery and became yeoman farmers who never owned slaves. Knight had been an Army deserter and managed to successfully opposed the Confederate authority in Jones County between 1863 and 1865. The Daubey family and Keith Alexander had no such success in "TAP ROOTS". And I never understood this. Why did Street and later, the movie's writers did not follow Knight's Civil War experiences? What was the point of creating this story if they were not willing to closely follow Knight's conflict with the Confederate authorities? Why not allow the Daubey family to be yeoman farmers who opposed slavery? Street and the filmmakers could have still kept out Newton Knight's relationship with Rachel Knight.
Instead, I found myself watching a movie in which the main protagonists claimed they opposed slavery, yet practiced it and barely touched upon the subject for most of the film. The movie literally dragged its feet between Abraham Lincoln's election in November 1860 and the outbreak of the Civil War in April 1861. And although I disliked Moana Dabney's romance with the unworthy Clay McIvor, I found Keith Alexander's "courtship" of her rather troubling. In Keith's attempt to get Moana to forget about Clay, he resorted to bouts of manhandling her that seemed to border on sexual assault. For some reason, this reminded me of the Scarlett O'Hara/Rhett Butler relationship from "GONE WITH THE WIND". And not in a good way. I also had a problem with the film's portrayal of Lebanon Valley's citizens. I noticed that the film seemed to portray them as mindless citizens who followed the Dabneys' anti-Confederate stance without any real explanation. Like the Dabney slaves, Hoab's followers lacked any real agency. Did author James Street, along with the filmmakers of this movie really lacked the courage to convey a story about how a Southern-born yeoman farmer and others from his class had successfully fought against the Confederacy? Or even exploring his anti-slavery stance? Back in the 1940s?
In the end, this is my real problem with "TAP ROOTS". James Street and producer Walter Wanger took a historical event from the Civil War and used fiction - a novel and its Hollywood adaptation - to render it toothless. Its main historical figure Newton Knight had been transformed into a borderline hysterical and controlling cotton planter and member of the elite. The story failed to explore what led many of the planter's combatants to follow him. The story barely touched upon the topic of anti-slavery, while including slaves as minor and background characters. And the movie dumped some tepid attempt at a "GONE WITH THE WIND" clone romance to keep movie goers interested. The movie had some virtues. But in the end, the movie vague adaptation of Newton Knight's Civil War experiences simply fell flat. I hope and pray I am never inclined to watch this film again.
"FORT APACHE" (1948) Review
Between 1948 and 1950, director John Ford made three Westerns that many regard as his "cavalry trilogy". All three films centered on the U.S. Army Cavalry in the post-Civil War West. More importantly, all three movies were based upon short stories written by American Western author, James Warner Bellah.
The first film in Ford's "cavalry trilogy" was "FORT APACHE" released in 1948. Starring John Wayne and Henry Fonda, the movie was inspired by Bellah's 1947 Saturday Evening Post short story called "Massacre". Bellah used the Little Bighorn and Fetterman Fight battles as historical backdrop.
The movie began with the arrival of three characters to the U.S. Army post, Fort Apache, in the post-Civil War Arizona Territory - a rigid and egocentric Army officer named Lieutenant Owen Thursday; his daughter Philadelphia Thursday; and a recent West Point graduate named Second Lieutenant Michael O'Rourke, who also happened to be the son of the regiment's first sergeant. The regiment's first officer, Captain Kirby York, and everyone else struggle to adjust to the martinet style of Thursday. Worse, young Lieutenant O'Rourke and Philadelphia become romantically interested each other. But since O'Rourke is the son of a sergeant, the snobbish Thursday does not regard him as a "gentleman" and is against a romance between the pair. But Thursday's command style, the budding romance and other minor events at Fort Apache take a back seat when the regiment is faced with a potential unrest from the local Apaches, due to their conflict with a corrupt Indian agent named Silas Meacham. Thursday's command and his willingness to adapt to military command on the frontier is tested when he finds himself caught between the Meacham's penchant for corruption and the Apaches' anger and desire for justice.
"FORT APACHE" proved to be one of the first Hollywood films to portray a sympathetic view of Native Americans. This is surprising, considering that Bellah's view of the Native Americans in his story is not sympathetic and rather racist. For reasons I do not know, Ford decided to change the story's negative portrayal of the Apaches, via screenwriter Frank S. Nugent's script. Although Ford and Nugent did not focus upon how most of the other characters regarded the Apaches, they did spotlight on at least three of them - Captain Kirby York, Lieutenant-Colonel Owen Thursday, and Captain Sam Collingwood. Both Thursday and Collingwood seemed to share the same negative views of the Apaches, although the latter does not underestimate their combat skills. York seemed a lot more open-minded and sympathetic toward the Apaches' desire to maintain their lives in peace without the U.S. government breathing down their backs. In the case of "FORT APACHE", York's views seemed to have won out . . . for the moment.
As much as I enjoyed "FORT APACHE", I must admit that I was frustrated that it took so long for it to begin exploring its main narrative regarding the Apaches and Meachum. The movie's first half spent most of its time on three subplots. One of them featured the clash between Thursday and the men under his command. The second featured the budding romance between Philadelphia Thursday and Second Lieutenant O'Rourke. Do not get me wrong. And the third featured scenes of the day-to-day activities of the fort's enlisted men and non-commission officers. I must admit that I found the last subplot somewhat uninteresting and felt they dragged the movie's narrative. I had no problems with the Philadelphia-Michael romance, since it added a bit of romance to the movie's plot and played a major role in Lieutenant-Colonel Thursday's characterization. And naturally the York-Thursday conflict played an important role in the film's plot.
The ironic thing about "FORT APACHE" is that the plot line regarding the Apaches does not come to the fore until halfway into the film. Due to this plot structure, I found myself wondering about the film's main narrative. What exactly is "FORT APACHE" about? Worse, the fact that the Apache story arc does not really come to fore until the second half, almost making the film seem schizophrenic. There were plenty of moments in the first half that led me to wonder if director John Ford had become too caught up in exploring mid-to-late 19th century military life on the frontier.
Many have claimed that "FORT APACHE" is not specifically about life at a 19th century Army post in the Old West or the U.S. government's relations with the Apaches. It is about the conflict between the two main characters - Captain Kirby York and Lieutenant-Colonel Owen Thursday. In other words, one of the movie's subplots might actually be its main plot. Both York and Thursday were Civil War veterans who seemed to have conflicting ideas on how to command a U.S. Army post in the 19th century West and deal with the conflict between the American white settlers and the Apaches, trying to defend their homeland. Captain York had expected to become Fort Apache's new commander, following the departure of the previous one. Instead, the post's command was given to Colonel Thursday, an arrogant and priggish officer with no experience with the West or Native Americans. What makes the situation even more ironic is that while York had wanted command of Fort Apache, Thursday is both disappointed and embittered that the Army had posted him to this new assignment.
The problem I have with this theory is that movie did not spend enough time on the York-Thursday conflict for me to accept it. Thursday seemed to come into conflict with a good number of other characters - especially the O'Rourke men and his old friend Captain Sam Collingwood. York and Thursday eventually clashed over the Apaches' conflict with Silas Meacham. And considering that a great deal of the movie's first half focused on the day-to-day life on a frontier Army post and the Philadelphia-Michael romance, I can only conclude that I found "FORT APACHE" a slightly schizophrenic film.
Despite this, I rather enjoyed "FORT APACHE". Well . . . I enjoyed parts of the first half and definitely the second half. While I found some of Ford's exploration of life at a 19th century Army post rather charming, I found the movie's portrayal of the entire Apaches-Meachum conflict intriguing, surprising and very well made. Instead of the usual Hollywood "white men v. Indians"schtick, Ford explored the damaging effects of U.S. policies against Native Americans. This was especially apparent in the situation regarding Silas Meacham. Ford and screenwriter Frank S. Nugent made it clear that both Captain York and Lieutenant-Colonel Thursday regarded Meachum as a dishonorable and corrupt man, whose greed had led to great unrest among the Apaches.
And yet . . . whereas York was willing to treat the Apaches with honor and consider getting rid of Meachum, Thursday's rigid interpretation of Army regulations and arrogant prejudice led him to dismiss the Apaches's protests and support Meachum's activities because the latter was a U.S. government agent . . . and white. Worse, Thursday decided to ignore York's warnings and use this situation as an excuse for military glory and order his regiment into battle on Cochise's terms - a direct (and suicidal) charge into the hills. U.S. policy in the Old West at its worst. God only knows how many times a similar action had occurred throughout history. I might be wrong, but I suspect that "FORT APACHE" was the Hollywood film that opened the gates to film criticism of American imperialism in the West, especially the treatment of Native Americans.
Another aspect of "FORT APACHE" that I truly enjoyed was Archie Stout's cinematography. What can I say? His black-and-white photography of Monument Valley, Utah and Simi Hills, California were outstanding, as shown below:
Thanks to Ford's direction and Jack Murray's editing, "FORT APACHE" maintained a lively pace that did not threatened to drag the movie. More importantly, the combination of their work produced a superb sequence that featured the regiment's doomed assault on Cochise's warriors. Richard Hageman's score served the movie rather well. Yet, I must admit that I do not have any real memories of it. As for film's costumes . . . I do not believe a particular designer was responsible for them. In fact, they looked as if they had come straight from a studio costume warehouse. I found this disappointing, especially for the movie's female characters.
"FORT APACHE" featured some performances that I found solid and competent. Veteran actors like Dick Foran, Victor McLaglen and Jack Pennick gave amusing performances as the regiment's aging NCOs (non-commissioned officers). Guy Kibbee was equally amusing as the post's surgeon Captain Wilkens. Pedro Armendáriz was equally competent as the more professional Sergeant Beaufort, who was a former Confederate. Grant Withers was appropriately slimy as the corrupt Silas Meachum. Miguel Inclán gave a dignified performance as the outraged Apache chieftain Cochise. The movie also featured solid performances from Anna Lee and Irene Rich.
John Agar's portrayal of the young Michael O'Rourke did not exactly rock my boat. But I thought he was pretty competent. I read somewhere that Ford was not that impressed by Shirley Temple as an actress. Perhaps he had never seen her in the 1947 comedy, "THE BACHELOR AND THE BOBBYSOXER". Her character in that film was more worthy of her acting skills than the charming, yet bland Philadelphia Thursday. John Wayne also gave a solid performance as Captain Kirby York. But I did not find his character particularly interesting, until the movie's last half hour.
I only found three performances interesting. One came from George O'Brien, who portrayed Thursday's old friend, Captain Sam Collingwood. I thought O'Brien did a great job in portraying a man who found himself taken aback by an old friend's chilly demeanor and arrogance. Ward Bond was equally impressive as Sergeant Major Michael O'Rourke, the senior NCO on the post who has to struggle to contain his resentment of Thursday's class prejudices against his son. But for me, the real star of this movie was Henry Fonda as the narrow-minded and arrogant Lieutenant-Colonel Owen Thursday. I thought he gave a very brilliant and fascinating portrayal of a very complicated man. Thursday was not the one-note arrogant prig that he seemed on paper. He had his virtues. However, Fonda did an excellent job in conveying how Thursday's flaws tend to overwhelm his flaws at the worst possible moment. I am amazed that Fonda never received an Oscar nomination for this superb performance.
How can I say this? I do believe that "FORT APACHE" had some problems. I found the movie slightly slightly schizophrenic due to its heavy emphasis on daily life on a frontier Army post in the first half. In fact, the movie's first half is a little problematic to me. But once the movie shifted toward the conflict regarding the Apaches and a corrupt Indian agent, Ford's direction and Frank S. Nugent's screenplay breathed life into it. The movie also benefited from a first-rate cast led by John Wayne and Henry Fonda. I must admit that I feel "FORT APACHE" might be a little overrated. But I cannot deny that it is a damn good movie.
