This movie is a classic example in certain ways of the trends in thinking, and thus of the better movie-making, of time and place in which it was made,which in this case was the ever-challenging late 1960s in America. This movie is not really about anything that happened in 1869. It is about what was happening in 1969. That era was one of challenging traditional notions of practically everything imaginable (I have tutored modern history students by giving them the short-hand metaphor of calling it the "anti-everything" era) and this movie is a faithful illustration of that. The movie is a satire developed by way of two parallel and contrasting themes (reminding one somewhat of the structure of the famous satire, GULLIVER'S TRAVELS), juxtaposing traditional European American civilization with that of the more primordial native American Indian society of the Great Plains. But that is merely the vehicle. It is not really a Western, but a satire of the modern American civilization of the times it was made using a Western setting.
The mythos of the Wild West was still a dominant cultural feature in American society right up to the time the movie was made, and so in classic Sixties zeitgeist the story parodies, lampoons, skewers, ridicules, and at times operates to simply condemn numerous classic tropes of that mythos. And the reason you are seeing this kind of treatment at the moment this movie appeared is because that mythos, though having been pervasive throughout American society for the better part of the preceding hundred years, had pretty much finally arrived at its deathbed (with only its heritage of excessive gun-toting and other violence surviving in the culture of today in other even more fantastic forms even more divorced from any kind of cognizable reality; but possibly I digress), and movies like this seemed to be helping to give it its last push into its eternal grave. Thus, the movie takes on the Christian zealot, the gunfighter, the traveling medicine salesman, the shopkeeping townie, and even the humble immigrant settler and traditional marriage and the nuclear family, attacking throughout the hypocrisy in Eurocentric civilization that it seeks to highlight. Attacking hypocrisy was probably the most central consistently expressed theme of the 1960s Anti-Establishment movement.
Moreover, it's ultimate focus on the debacle of General Custer (unlike what some would-be historian wrote in another review, it was common courtesy to refer to a soldier of the period by his brevet rank even after he had returned to standard rank after the demobilization at the end of the Civil War, and if you find that confusing, well, Google it) at the battle of Little Big Horn was quite topical at the time the movie came out. It was about that time that school curricula had been updated to start teaching that Custer's decision to take on well over 1,000 plains Indian warriors with a cavalry troop of less than 200 men was a damned foolish thing to do. Previously, school children for generations had routinely been taught that he was a Great War Hero who died for his country in the usual treatment given practically anyone who died in any battle in any and all of America's previous wars. Oftentimes the term "hero" was (and still is) applied to anybody just for merely showing up at a battle someplace, regardless of whether his contribution was great or small, successful or unsuccessful, or even involved any actual combat. On the other hand, if you apply the term more narrowly, to mean someone who was actually successful in accomplishing something noteworthy in battle, the word "hero" no longer carries the connotation of a badge of honor in the nature of a participation trophy (or in informal military parlance, an "I Was There" medal). Rather, the latest, greatest thing to do in judging military leaders like Custer by 1970 was to apply this latter more limited notion of the hero, and so the movie naturally goes with that interpretation. And not only was this a historical connotation, but it was also a clear reflection of many people's widespread attitudes towards military leadership generally at time the movie came out, as a result of what by then had become the highly controversial (to put it but mildly) nature of the then ongoing, hotly fought, bloody and volatile Vietnam War. The movie is not just commenting on the purely historical curiosity of Custer's legacy; what it is really after is General William Westmoreland and the failure of our top leadership regarding Vietnam. In this sense this movie is operating in the same kind of vein as, for example, M*A*S*H, which also came out in 1970.
Also trending at that time was a lot of attention given the plight of minorities in the United States, and that extended to American Indians living in great poverty on many reservations, which in turn led to a lot of attention being given to incidents of atrocities committed a whole century earlier during the Indian wars by the U. S. Army against Indian villages on a particular noteworthy occasions, something this movie tends (unfairly, but completely in synch with its times) to generalize. Eventually, this trend led no less an icon than Marlon Brando to refuse his Best Actor Oscar award for THE GODFATHER in 1973 in some bit of Brando-esque sympathy with modern Indian protestors at a town called Wounded Knee, South Dakota, who were seeking attention for Indian rights (the site being chosen for being the location of an Army massacre of an Indian village there in 1890). Instead, Brando sent an essentially unknown actress who called herself Sacheen Littlefeather (her actual name was Maria Louise Cruz) to make a speech to this effect on his behalf at the awards ceremony.
Thus, the Indians in the movie are portrayed in contrast to the Whites as essentially, even sterotypically, honest and pure, simply taking things as they come without pretension in accordance with their much simpler guile-less traditional ways and essentially free of any taint of hypocrisy. This is not as "revisionist" as some mistaken people like to glibly toss that expression around in some of these reviews. The "Noble Savage" motif long preceded this movie and even this era (the expression first appears in print in 1672), and years before this movie Hollywood had already begun to treat Indians with sympathy, culminating with efforts such as CHEYENNE AUTUMN in 1965 which was made by no less than that ultimate master of the classic, traditional Western cavalry-hero genre, the iconic John Ford. Even Ford's favorite star, John Wayne, was taking a sympathetic tack with Indians in movies he himself produced during the period, with sympathetic if oblique or minor treatment in movies such as CHISUM (1970), BIG JAKE (1971), and even HATARI (1962). Thus, while the Indian sequences in the movie are not without humor, they are generally serious rather than comedic and almost entirely devoid of any satirical tone, and frequently are chequered with tragedy.
Reviewers who relate that they are lost as to what kind of movie this is speak the truth, it seems: they ARE lost, not recognizing that the piece is a satire of modern America as it was in 1970, and the duality employed, rather Jonathan-Swift-style, to make that point. Thus, much like BUTCH CASSIDY AND THE SUNDANCE KID, this movie is NO classic Western at all, but yet another well-made 1960s cultural criticism vehicle, scoring its points with perfectly-wrought satirical humor as well as effective poignant personal drama along the lines of so many other films of the time. The only disappointing thing I can think of about this movie is how, in reviewing the other reviews here, almost no one (even the most articulate writers) recognizes that this is what the movie is all about. It is shocking to see things that were once almost universally understood become almost nonexistent in the minds of 21st century people only 50 years later. I am increasingly giving up hope in believing that mankind can ever improve its overall level of understanding when so little cultural knowledge can succeed in transcending even only a couple of generations.
But to the viewer who gets this movie, it flows as smooth as silk. And in that regard, I thought that the screenplay was especially well-written, superimposing a lot of very interesting and entertaining characterization on top of the basic themes discussed above (these writers really know what real people, or at least, classic stereotypes, are like, especially elderly ones - the 121-year-old Jack Crabbe is priceless), and there is no discernable flaw in the first-class acting or any other aspect of this film I can see. While normally I don't feel engaged by Anti-Establishment cinema, in this case the result is so much fun and so sympathetic to ordinary human emotions that it is always enjoyable to watch. The result is a movie that deserves about 7.7 on the IMDb scale.
The mythos of the Wild West was still a dominant cultural feature in American society right up to the time the movie was made, and so in classic Sixties zeitgeist the story parodies, lampoons, skewers, ridicules, and at times operates to simply condemn numerous classic tropes of that mythos. And the reason you are seeing this kind of treatment at the moment this movie appeared is because that mythos, though having been pervasive throughout American society for the better part of the preceding hundred years, had pretty much finally arrived at its deathbed (with only its heritage of excessive gun-toting and other violence surviving in the culture of today in other even more fantastic forms even more divorced from any kind of cognizable reality; but possibly I digress), and movies like this seemed to be helping to give it its last push into its eternal grave. Thus, the movie takes on the Christian zealot, the gunfighter, the traveling medicine salesman, the shopkeeping townie, and even the humble immigrant settler and traditional marriage and the nuclear family, attacking throughout the hypocrisy in Eurocentric civilization that it seeks to highlight. Attacking hypocrisy was probably the most central consistently expressed theme of the 1960s Anti-Establishment movement.
Moreover, it's ultimate focus on the debacle of General Custer (unlike what some would-be historian wrote in another review, it was common courtesy to refer to a soldier of the period by his brevet rank even after he had returned to standard rank after the demobilization at the end of the Civil War, and if you find that confusing, well, Google it) at the battle of Little Big Horn was quite topical at the time the movie came out. It was about that time that school curricula had been updated to start teaching that Custer's decision to take on well over 1,000 plains Indian warriors with a cavalry troop of less than 200 men was a damned foolish thing to do. Previously, school children for generations had routinely been taught that he was a Great War Hero who died for his country in the usual treatment given practically anyone who died in any battle in any and all of America's previous wars. Oftentimes the term "hero" was (and still is) applied to anybody just for merely showing up at a battle someplace, regardless of whether his contribution was great or small, successful or unsuccessful, or even involved any actual combat. On the other hand, if you apply the term more narrowly, to mean someone who was actually successful in accomplishing something noteworthy in battle, the word "hero" no longer carries the connotation of a badge of honor in the nature of a participation trophy (or in informal military parlance, an "I Was There" medal). Rather, the latest, greatest thing to do in judging military leaders like Custer by 1970 was to apply this latter more limited notion of the hero, and so the movie naturally goes with that interpretation. And not only was this a historical connotation, but it was also a clear reflection of many people's widespread attitudes towards military leadership generally at time the movie came out, as a result of what by then had become the highly controversial (to put it but mildly) nature of the then ongoing, hotly fought, bloody and volatile Vietnam War. The movie is not just commenting on the purely historical curiosity of Custer's legacy; what it is really after is General William Westmoreland and the failure of our top leadership regarding Vietnam. In this sense this movie is operating in the same kind of vein as, for example, M*A*S*H, which also came out in 1970.
Also trending at that time was a lot of attention given the plight of minorities in the United States, and that extended to American Indians living in great poverty on many reservations, which in turn led to a lot of attention being given to incidents of atrocities committed a whole century earlier during the Indian wars by the U. S. Army against Indian villages on a particular noteworthy occasions, something this movie tends (unfairly, but completely in synch with its times) to generalize. Eventually, this trend led no less an icon than Marlon Brando to refuse his Best Actor Oscar award for THE GODFATHER in 1973 in some bit of Brando-esque sympathy with modern Indian protestors at a town called Wounded Knee, South Dakota, who were seeking attention for Indian rights (the site being chosen for being the location of an Army massacre of an Indian village there in 1890). Instead, Brando sent an essentially unknown actress who called herself Sacheen Littlefeather (her actual name was Maria Louise Cruz) to make a speech to this effect on his behalf at the awards ceremony.
Thus, the Indians in the movie are portrayed in contrast to the Whites as essentially, even sterotypically, honest and pure, simply taking things as they come without pretension in accordance with their much simpler guile-less traditional ways and essentially free of any taint of hypocrisy. This is not as "revisionist" as some mistaken people like to glibly toss that expression around in some of these reviews. The "Noble Savage" motif long preceded this movie and even this era (the expression first appears in print in 1672), and years before this movie Hollywood had already begun to treat Indians with sympathy, culminating with efforts such as CHEYENNE AUTUMN in 1965 which was made by no less than that ultimate master of the classic, traditional Western cavalry-hero genre, the iconic John Ford. Even Ford's favorite star, John Wayne, was taking a sympathetic tack with Indians in movies he himself produced during the period, with sympathetic if oblique or minor treatment in movies such as CHISUM (1970), BIG JAKE (1971), and even HATARI (1962). Thus, while the Indian sequences in the movie are not without humor, they are generally serious rather than comedic and almost entirely devoid of any satirical tone, and frequently are chequered with tragedy.
Reviewers who relate that they are lost as to what kind of movie this is speak the truth, it seems: they ARE lost, not recognizing that the piece is a satire of modern America as it was in 1970, and the duality employed, rather Jonathan-Swift-style, to make that point. Thus, much like BUTCH CASSIDY AND THE SUNDANCE KID, this movie is NO classic Western at all, but yet another well-made 1960s cultural criticism vehicle, scoring its points with perfectly-wrought satirical humor as well as effective poignant personal drama along the lines of so many other films of the time. The only disappointing thing I can think of about this movie is how, in reviewing the other reviews here, almost no one (even the most articulate writers) recognizes that this is what the movie is all about. It is shocking to see things that were once almost universally understood become almost nonexistent in the minds of 21st century people only 50 years later. I am increasingly giving up hope in believing that mankind can ever improve its overall level of understanding when so little cultural knowledge can succeed in transcending even only a couple of generations.
But to the viewer who gets this movie, it flows as smooth as silk. And in that regard, I thought that the screenplay was especially well-written, superimposing a lot of very interesting and entertaining characterization on top of the basic themes discussed above (these writers really know what real people, or at least, classic stereotypes, are like, especially elderly ones - the 121-year-old Jack Crabbe is priceless), and there is no discernable flaw in the first-class acting or any other aspect of this film I can see. While normally I don't feel engaged by Anti-Establishment cinema, in this case the result is so much fun and so sympathetic to ordinary human emotions that it is always enjoyable to watch. The result is a movie that deserves about 7.7 on the IMDb scale.