Two Rode Together

Two Rode Together is directed by John Ford and adapted to screenplay by Frank Nugent from the novel Comanche Captives written by Will Cook. It stars James Stewart, Richard Widmark, Shirley Jones, Linda Cristal and Andy Devine. Music is scored by George Duning and Eastman Color cinematography is by Charles Lawton Junior. The US Army is under pressure to negotiate the release of Comanche captives and send in a party to ransom for their release. Heading the party are cynical hard drinking Marshal Guthrie McCabe (Stewart) and his pal First Lt. Jim Gary (Widmark). The two men are at odds in how to go about dealing with the problem to hand, but bigger issues are just around the corner..... The Searchers lite it is for sure, Two Rode Together is a mixed bag that hasn't been helped by the quotes attributed by its director. It's well documented that John Ford only did the film out of kindness and a love of money, the great man going on record to say he hated the film, the source and etc. The shoot was far from being a happy one, with the director pitching his two stars against each other whilst grumpily putting his film crew through the mangler. The end result shows the film to be psychitzophrenic in tone and structure, where airy comedy tries to sit alongside some serious themes and fails miserably. When the moral implications of the picture are to be born out, Ford, in his half-hearted approach to the production, comes off as being either clueless, sarcastically mean or going through the motions since he had already made this film as The Searchers. Well clueless is not something you can comfortably say in relation to this particular director.... However, film has strengths, not least with Stewart's over the top portrayal of McCabe. The actor is really giving it the full treatment, no doubt prompted by his director, this is a shallow man, motivated by ale and cash. This is non heroic stuff, he calls it as he sees it, he thinks nothing off telling the longing relatives of the missing that their loved ones are now alien to them. It's a clinical thread in the piece, deftly setting the film up for its telling last quarter as the moral questions are raised and the bitter irony leaves its sour taste. It's a mixed bag indeed, but hardly a disaster, though, and in spite of Ford's irreverence towards it, there's a worthy viewpoint in amongst all the causticism. It's just a shame that all the great individual aspects don't make a complete and rewarding whole, the blend of comedy and drama, this time, not making for a great John Ford picture. 6.5/10

I usually have a strong precognition about Westerns I've never seen or heard about-that's cause they generally suck. And this one didn't disappoint. John Ford???? Semi-light "buddy" formula with occasional serious overtones, or in this case undertones. I don't know what to say, I'm speechless, just a horribly bad movie. Only Gregory Peck's "Shoot Out" comes close to it's stupidassity. Oh yeah, Woody Strode as a Commanche....right. And Richard Widmark as a 45 yr. old West Point grad that is STILL a Lieutenant in the Cavalry. Apparently a symbolic demotion for accepting a role in a movie with such a pitiful script. Jimmy Stewart as a deranged bi-polar mercenary is the capper. You've been warned. 4/10

As a child I loved these old John Ford Films. Many years later, because of all the new releases to DVD and Blue Ray, we get to revisit some of these great classics. Watching this film, now, I found I could not finish it. Quannah Parker, a Commanche American Indian is so revered by his people. He was a really important figure, considered one of the great American Indian leaders of his time. In this film he is reduced to being a scalp-hunting, white child-rapist terrorist. I realize now that this vehement and terrible hatred of the American Indian is the central theme of John Ford's many films which touch this subject. I am an American Indian. Looking at this film is really painful because it fantasizes about a history that never happened. Of course, a good fiction adventure needs its enemy to work in Hollywood. That is the problem. Where can we go to find an enemy worthy of the adventures of our hero? I believe this fim should come with a warning label about its depiction of violent racism against the American Indian. This was really such a dark time for this minority in film. Maybe many in the Middle East have this same feeling when watching how Arabian people are depicted in film in this age. Seeing Quannah Parker portrayed in this way, by this horrible actor, is really tragic and emotionally painful to any reasonable American Indian. Clearly, at some point the life and character of John Ford needs to be examined more closely. There is a disturbingly violent hatred of the American Indian in these films.

It's no classic, but it is quite a good film. Jimmy Stewart plays a gruff, old, drunken sheriff who can speak Comanche and Richard Widmark plays a cavalryman assigned to accompany him on a mission to buy white captives away from the Comanches. The first half of the film can be called Searchers-lite. They buy back two captives, a young white man stolen in his youth and a Mexican woman stolen five years earlier. Other non-Comanches they find are unsalvageable. Now, The Searchers ends ambiguously. We're not sure what is going to happen with Natalie Wood's character. Two Rode Together goes into that part of the story a bit more. Stewart falls in love with the Mexican girl, but she cannot take the way other white people treat her. The boy is so far gone that he is entirely violent to everyone around him. The second half of the film is actually quite great, and the film has an extremely powerful climax. Jimmy Stewart is beyond excellent in the film. Could you ever imagine a bad performance from this man? It's rare that he plays such a cheating b**tard, but he's no villain, either. The actress who plays the Mexican girl is very good, too. The rest of the cast is more than adequate. There's a funny scene where Ford regulars Andy Devine and Ken Curtis fight in a slapstick fashion. Ford's direction is rather flat. The story goes that he did this only as a favor, not by any real choice. Frank Nugent's script is quite good, especially in the second half. The score is excellent. The photography is weak, but good sets and costumes make the visual aspect of the film decent if not great. 8/10.

Lately, I've developed the habit of waking up on Saturdays and checking up on AMC and TCM for a good movie to start the day with -- preferably a Western. (Not sure why I like Westerns best in the morning, but I guess it's the same reason why I prefer my film-noir after 9:00 p.m.) I don't often find them, but this one may not be a landmark exactly, but it is a real treat. Stewart gives yet another great performance, this time as a sort of cynical and corrupt, but far more sane, cousin to John Wayne's Uncle Ethan in "The Searchers." And the rest of the cast, including a nicely low key Richard Widmark, do just as well in less overtly meaty roles. As others have commented, this film delves far more into that films premise of what happens when whites are held captive by Comanches. In a sense, I really don't feel educated enough to have an opinion on this section of the film. On the one hand, there's a nasty undercurrent of sexual fear -- it's assumed at one point that Comanche braves will rape white women without too much thought. (It's put a bit explicitly for a film made in 1961 -- you can see the Hays code boys stirring uncomfortably there.) And life under them is portrayed as being a slow death. And then there is the issue of what you might call sexual contamination, which is an brought up even more overtly here than in "The Searchers." We're never quite sure where the filmmakers stand on this, but it's certainly a strong belief of the characters. (There are undercurrents in earlier Ford films, particularly "Stagecoach.") As a good liberal/progressive type, I want to chalk this up to the racism of the past. At the same time, simply being a Native American doesn't turn people into angels. (Even the overly long and "poetic," but still moving, "Dances with Wolves" bothered to depict a nasty Indian tribe as a contrast with the apparently saintly Lakotas.) I honestly don't know whether or not this type of thing actually went on, but, if you think about the "rape camps" of the Balkans or the practices of Japanese soldiers during World War II (the rape of Nanking, the "comfort women," etc.) and you can see how this sort of thing probably transcends all cultural boundaries. Once war makes murdering our fellow humans necessary, all the old boundaries are dropped and sexual torture might not seem so unthinkable even to those of us who like to think of ourselves as civilized. It would be interesting, just once, if a really well-researched film was done on these themes, really showing both sides of the struggle in as accurate a manner as possible in a fictional story. Maybe some sort of collaboration between Sherman Alexie and, I don't know, Walter Hill. (I'd suggest John Milius, but they'd probably start talking politics and things could get ugly!) Of course, it probably wouldn't be half as good as "Two Rode Together" (let alone "The Searchers")...but it'd be worth a try!

This is a weak attempt by Ford to tackle a subject of merit, and the miscasting of the two leads is the main reason why. By this time, 1961, Jimmy Stewart is so far along the way to being an elderly cantankerous character actor that it takes almost as much imagination to believe he's a youthful bachelor as it does to believe giant bug invasion movies are true. And he's showing Richard Widmark the way. The attempts at humor just fall flat and seem out of place, but imagine it this way: Dean Martin in the Stewart role, and John Wayne in the Widmark part, then you can see that it could have worked. Of course that would have meant changing Shirley Jones too, for she's not Wayne's type. The gal who owns the saloon sure was, though. It's pretty sad to see a beautiful 20 year old girl act foolish over a 50 year old grouch. Usually it's the other way around, but if it were Dean Martin, it would have made sense. And Wayne would have beat those two hillbillies in a great fight scene.

Enjoying just one more of a steady stream of easy days in his small town, Marshal Gutherie McCabe is visited by US 1st Lt Jim Gary, an old friend. Gary has orders to bring McCabe back to his base for an unknown assignment. Arriving back at the base, McCabe is asked to go into Indian territory so that he might barter for the children (now adults) who were captured by the Comanche many years ago. Despite the chances of actually collecting recognisable (or even civilised) adults from these children, McCabe accepts the job in return for considerable financial recompense. Gary is assigned to accompany him but both men are aware that their mission is only one that will fuel the despair that many already feel. The only things I knew about this film when I sat to watch this film were that it was a western, starred James Stewart and had been pretty much dismissed it as one he made as a favour for the boss of Columbia Pictures. With this final fact in mind I wasn't too hopeful for the film to really be much cop. True to my expectations the film was average at best, but it started out better than this and offered interesting material at the same time. The film opened with such a relaxed bonhomie that it was a surprise 25 minutes in to see it become more and more edgy, dark and mean. This change in tone comes in with the hurt and anger felt by the townsfolk who hope for something that can never be (the return of their children); in a way this offers potential because the plot cuts both ways and offers a lot of raw emotion if the script can harness it. Sadly the film never really gets to grips with any of this potential and produces a fairly bland and uninvolving story with emotions too simply spelt out in characters that are mainly too basic. The only character that I really felt was semi-realistic was Gutherie who drifts between his good side and more mercenary character; outside of him nothing was done well enough to cover the many problems. The cast are also part of this potential but few of them really manage to do anything with what little they are given. Stewart does well to turn his usual character into something a bit darker and gives an interesting performance. Widmark is always watchable but he doesn't fit into the story well enough for me. Of the support cast, most are poor or average. Cristal and Jones are painted too clean and don't give good performances, while Kent goes too far the other way with a poor 'savage' performance. However my biggest 'sighs' were saved for the Ford staple comic relief character – in this case Posey who is written with a lack of humour and originally that is only matched by Devine's performance. Overall this film opened with a nice comic tone that became darker and had me interested due to the change and the potential for the story. However the simple characters, basic emotions and uninspiring acting all combine to miss the mark and produce a rather average western albeit one whose dark tone and subject matter causes it to have some aspects that are interesting and thought-provoking.

James Stewart plays an amoral *-mongering marshal who is co-opted by the cavalry to find a group of settler children who had been taken captive and raised by the Commanches. Every supporting role is perfectly cast and the emotions strike deep to the core. Stewart is surprisingly comfortable playing an archly cynical contemptible mercenary with contempt for nearly everybody and everyone. Linda Cristal is excellent as the Mexican woman who was forced to be the Chief's wife for years. All aspects of captivity and dehumanization are carefully and sincerely explored here, and the twist ending is perfection itself. This is an overlooked classic.

No wonder director Ford considered the movie "crap". That may be a little too strong, but the results are definitely sub-par for the legendary filmmaker. If The Searchers (1956) dealt with whites kidnapped by Indians, the plot here is a reversal: Whites raised as Comanches are ransomed back into the white world, and in the process of reintegration, settler bigotry is exposed. That's a good thoughtful premise but the screenplay can't seem to provide a focus on anything. As a result, the story meanders from event to event in generally unfocused fashion. For whatever reason, writer Nugent can't seem to organize the elements into a coherent, effective narrative. Then there's the miscasting, especially Widmark as a 45-year old West Point lieutenant, who's supposed to romance a 26-year old Shirley Jones, who looks and acts like she just stepped out of a malt shop. And shouldn't forget poor 55-year old Andy Devine, a very un-cavalrylike cavalry sergeant. Somehow, his grossly over-weight figure is just not that funny. On the other hand, Stewart's not miscast, but this may be the only movie where his usual low-key style gives way to some serious over-acting, which unfortunately overshadows his low-key co-star Widmark. His character is, however, surprisingly dark and combative, an interesting feature. At the same time, for a western, there's little action, mostly just palaver and clumsy stabs at humor. However, the lynching scene is well staged and a real grabber. Anyway, it's pretty clear that director Ford's heart wasn't really in the production for whatever reason. Unfortunately, the end result is one of the least of his many fine Westerns.

"Two rode together" has a beautiful, poetic title, it shows the usual John Ford's art, it avails of Stewart's and Widmark's perfect acting, but it is too sad, too depressing to be really loved. There is no patent hate or war between whites and Indians, nevertheless there is no hope for anybody: to escape violence, to have back their beloved relatives, to overcome prejudice, even to find love. And to see Ford's supporting actors, we are so fond of, involved in a beastly lynch-law, this is really tough to bear; however, we respect the will of the artist. In all this sadness, let me remark a little delightful erotic touch. At the beginning of the movie they say that the pretty saloon-keeper is a tough girl, alleged to take a knife in her garter. At the end, to prevent an impending brawl, she quickly raises her skirt and draws the knife... after all it was true that she had a knife in her garter! With this little present the master John Ford improves a bit our mood.