Sergeant Rutledge

To remake this film would be a very bad idea. I have never liked John Ford's westerns but this one finally does him justice and offers an African American audience some long overdue credit. We have a Black man as hero but of course the Native Americans still had to be presented as savages, and that is the main problem with this film. To remake this as a politically correct film would be worse because it allows Hollywood to negate all of their racial slurs as if it never made any.

Excellent and landmark Western with a complex structure by means of flashback , being one of the best Ford films . It deals with a respected black cavalry Sergeant Brax Rutledge (Woody Strode) who saves a damsel in distress (Constance Towers) who is besieged by Indians . Later on , he stands court-martial for raping and killing a white woman and murdering her father , his superior commanding officer . As Rutledge on trial for rape and murder , as a tribunal presided by a good judge (Willis Bouchey) , there he is defended by a lieutenant lawyer (Jeffrey Hunter as defense attorney) and accused by a stiff prosecutor (Carleton Young) . The tale of a court-martial told in flash-back , about a black cavalry officer on trail , well handled by master filmmaker Ford . Interesting and thought-provoking screenplay written by Willis Goldbeck , being based on James Warner Bellah novel , titled ¨Captain Buffalo¨ . This was a true landmark cavalry western , as it marked a strange occasion when a film from a major studio , Warner Brothers , depicted an African-American player as the central heroic figure . While the movie's stance on tackling racism is laudable , here there are lots of courtroom settings that proved to be claustrophobic . The courtroom is deliberately oppressed but does make the picture somewhat static ; however it includes an intriguing and twisted result to the end . Top-notch acting by Woody Strode , giving a moving performance as a heroic , yet human figure who refuses to be beaten by circumstances . Here Strode has his first main role , being usually a nice secondary actor . Support cast is frankly awesome , such as : Juano Hernandez , Willis Bouchey , Carleton Young , Rafer Johnson , final film of Billie Burke and Mae Marsh ; many of them are Ford's ordinaries . Colorful and evocative cinematography by Bert Glennon filmed in Monument Valley , Arizona , of course . Stirring and thrilling musical score by Howard Jackson , including wonderful songs by Jay Livingstone . The motion picture was well directed by the master of the unspoken emotion , John Ford , who carries out a detailed look at covert and over racism ; however , John has to rely on long speeches to get his points across . Ford puts on the highest pedestal of human honor to an African-American , which by that time when the film was made , it resulted to be a heroism . It proved the false accusations against John Ford as a racist director . Along with his cavalry trilogy : ¨They wore yellow ribbons¨, ¨Rio Grande¨ , ¨Fort Apache¨ , and ¨Stagecoach¨, ¨Searchers¨, ¨The man who shot Liberty Valance¨, this ¨Sergeant Rutledge¨ turned to to be one of the best Westerns .

Normally, a movie about the trial of a man accused of rape and murder would be suspenseful. But since the movie was made in 1960, and the accused was a black man who supposedly raped a white girl, it was a given that the man was innocent. About the only suspense was in whether he would be acquitted, as happened in this movie, or convicted, which is what happened in another such movie, "To Kill a Mockingbird" (1962). But that is still thin gruel, for even if Sergeant Rutledge had been white, the trial is a flop, dramatically speaking. In place of suspense or dramatic value, the movie delivers, or is supposed to deliver, a sense of moral worth, in which the audience is allowed to take pride in the way it is above racial prejudice. So, the question is, Which of the two is more important, enjoying a well-made movie that does not congratulate the audience for being so enlightened, but merely provides entertainment, or suffering through a poorly made movie just so you can wallow in a feeling of egalitarian righteousness? In its simplistic way, the movie might be on the right side of the racial issue, but it gives us a questionable treatment of women. The main female character, Mary Beecher, is a strong, independent thinking woman. Sergeant Rudledge hands her a revolver, saying she is a Western woman, implying competence with a gun, and that she will need it because the Apaches will show her no mercy. Minutes later, when a couple of Apaches attack, she shoots one of them before he can attack Rutledge. However, most of the rest of the women in this movie are a bunch of simpleminded old biddies, whose purpose in life is to be scandalized by the shameless behavior of others, obviously overprotected by their husbands. As a result, Mary and those women seem to be of totally different species, because the idea that she will become like them when she gets old defies comprehension. One of the things that scandalize these women is the behavior of Lucy Dabney, the girl who is raped and strangled. The women chastise her for riding a horse astride. But Lucy says, in front of Chandler Hubble, who we eventually find out is the one that actually raped her, that as long as she says her prayers and behaves herself, her father doesn't care if she rides around like Lady Godiva. It is also worked into the conversation that her mother is dead. In other words, Lucy does not have a simpleminded old biddy for a mother to instill the proper sense of decorum into her. At the end, Lieutenant Tom Cantrell, whose job it is to defend Rutledge, beats a confession out of Chandler Hubble while he is on the witness stand. Hubble admits that he had to rape Lucy because of the way she walked, the way she moved her body. You see, what with Lucy having her legs spread-eagled when she rides a horse and putting the image into his head of her being naked on that horse as well, it was just too much for him. In other words, the movie is just a hair from blaming the victim, although it stops short of that, blaming the circumstance of her not having a mother to raise her properly. One might think that the real blame for the rape would fall on Hubble, the man who raped her. But the movie portrays him as having acted under a sexual compulsion (especially since his wife is deceased, thereby depriving him of a normal sexual outlet). The point seems to be that it is up to women to behave in such a way as to not unleash the demon in men such as him. Regardless of the way this movie handles race and gender issues, however, its biggest problem is that it was a bad movie when it was made, and it just gets worse with age.

Well, Woody Strode was finally given the opportunity to act in this 1960 film and acted he did in an especially emotionally charged court scene. As for the picture itself, it's routine fanfare. It's 1881 in the Arizona territory and the good sergeant has been accused of raping a young girl and killing her father. While this has occurred, the Apaches are on the attack. Jeffrey Hunter played Rutledge's fellow soldier who defends him at his trial. The young girl had a young admirer with the roving eye. The ending couldn't even be thought up by Perry Mason. Wait to you see who the real killer was. Billie Burke, with that sing-song voice is just a little too much out of place as the wife of the court administrator. The guys handling the trial break to play cards. Burke's outfit is appropriate for the period, but you will get very hot just looking at it in a rather benign cold film. Constance Towers is the love interest of Hunter who arrives back in Arizona after 12 years, only to find her father dead at the hand of the Apaches. Having met and been with Rutledge, when the stage master was killed, she testifies on his behalf.

I can't believe this movie is rated so high. It's childishly bad. A black soldier is accused of rape and 2 murders. The trial starts. The prosecutor asks a young lady what happened. She says "she found a dead person with an arrow in his chest. She then ran outside and then said soldier grabbed her and covered her mouth with his hand to prevent her from screaming" . The prosecutor then stops and finishes as though this is proof the soldier killed the man. The defense then asks for the rest of the story. The woman says the soldier explained there were Apaches chasing him. He needed her not to scream so as not to alert them. He gives her his gun to defend herself. Two Apache attack. She shoots one and he overpowers and kills the other but gets grazed by a shot. She then says "the soldier saved my life" In what kind of alternate reality would the prosecutor not already know that this witness he calls will not help is case? It's meant to show prejudice but instead it's just ridiculous writing. The next 2 witnesses give ridiculous circumstantial evidence. That's fine, it establishes the accused was at least at the scene of the crime. But the prosecutor is like "Open and Shut Case! Hang Him!". WAT? Was this written by an 8yr old? I stopped there.... Seeing how poorly written the first 47 minutes were there was no point in taking it further.

It was alright for Mr. Lincoln to say we was free. But that ain't so! Not yet! Maybe some day, but not yet! John Ford's Sergeant Rutledge tells the story of a black man, 1st Sgt. Braxton Rutledge, a Buffalo Soldier of the 9th U.S. Cavalry who was up before a court-martial for the rape and murder of a white girl, Major Dabney's daughter, Lucy. Taking place in the court room the story is told in flashback as Rutledge's (Woody Strode) troop officer, and defence council, Lt. Tom Cantrell (Jeffrey Hunter) attempts to piece together the evidence. From the outset Ford is on biting form as the case is being tried in a biased and corruptible court, we as the viewers are left in no doubt that Rutledge could be at the mercy of obnoxious white racists. It's one of the many things that makes the film a bold and at times angry picture. This was after all two years before the critically acclaimed To Kill A Mockingbird, thus making it one of the flag bearers for early acknowledgement of race relations in America. As the sharp narrative moves forward, cloaked in visual excellence with Bert Glennon this time being Ford's cinematographer of choice, the film always keeps us guessing as to the outcome. We really can never be sure, such is the stench of racism that hangs heavy, a stench that is counter pointed by Woody Strode's wonderful and powerful performance as the on trial man. Also in fine physical shape at 46, Strode serves notice to just what a fine and important actor he was in relation to Black Americans in Hollywood. Hunter is handsome and strong in vocal delivery as the council in the middle of a real tricky trial, and Constance Towers as Mary Beecher is the glue binding them, and the story, all together. It's a first rate picture from Ford, one that is largely (and wrongly) forgotten when talk of his oeuvre comes around. Still awaiting a DVD release in the UK, it's evident that it still remains hidden from many a prospective new viewer. This needs correcting because it's bold, beautiful and important cinema from a master director, who, as always, had much to say. 9/10

period courtroom drama that attempts to humanize former slaves by endowing them with the extraordinary kindness of saints and/or morons, thus maintaining a fiercely racist viewpoint. the apaches are, naturally, beasts. and no, it is not "fine because it was 1960." for the rest, while the subject matter is sharp, the execution is filled with stereotypes, reversed stereotypes, and sentimentalism of all sorts.

Western is not my favorite genre, but good character studies are, and Ford specialized in these in the 50's and 60's to a greater extent that most moviegoers realize. The boundaries of what Strode is willing to share with Hunter and what cannot be broached are fascinating enough, but Ford takes us deeper into all the characters and their motivations. I agree with an earlier observation comparing it with Breaker Morant and saying it was more than 20 years ahead of its time; I would say a mix between some of the most compelling aspects of Breaker Morant and A Soldier's Story. Watch this film.

Up to now I have considered "The Searchers" the Best of Ford Westerns. It has better picture (VistaVision), and the legend of John Wayne to back it. Some of the secondary roles are better portrayed by more expert actors such as Ward Bond, just to mention one. Production is more lavish.. But the plot in "The Searchers" is unidirectional. It's just a story of white settlers against Indians. Sergeant Rutledge goes much deeper, into the social "fabric" of America, To avoid fastidious repetition, let me just point that the story goes into "American Problems" that endure 100 years after. Racism, young female behavior, that affects men of power, and old rich females who own perhaps more than 50% of the total assets (the wealth of the Nation) of the USA, and last but not least, the excessive power and "tricks" of legal professionals that always leads to corruption. It is all there. If the actors were a bit upper-crust it would be the best, but Jack Warner did no provide the cash. A must see...

When I watched this film I didn't enjoy it because it was presented from a mainstream perspective about a marginalized society. The fact that Woody Strode can't act didn't help things, but when I read the script I was blown away. It is true when they say that you can make a bad film out of a good script as opposed to a good film out of a bad script. I think if a film is bad, you should read the script first before you condemn it.