After a few decades interval I re-watched "The Vanishing American" (1925) with Richard Dix, Lois Wilson, Noah Beery, Sr., Malcolm McGregor, Nocki, Charles Stevens, Bernard Siegel, Shannon Day, and others. I went in this time with the attitude that I'd watch as if it were 1925, not 2020, then assess the film from both ends, realizing that the finished assessment is still my own opinion and might differ radically from anyone else, or even everyone else. Overall, the picture, directed by George B. Seitz (known perhaps best as the director of most of the "Andy Hardy" series), is not just a Western taken from a Zane Grey novel, but closer to an attempt at an "epic" saga of a series of tribal leaders who are called Nophaie of what have become known as American Indians. The film begins before neolithic times, in a time where the geography is the beginning and the people follow into the geography. We then have a neolithic presence, then a sort of tribal presence, then the American Indian, then the arrival of Spanish invaders from down in the Mezo-American regions where they've already invaded, then the somewhat contemporaneous era of American Indians on a "reservation" mandated by whites who now rule the nation. Richard Dix is the current Nophaie of all the clans and/or tribes of the Western region plotted in the film. His instant nemesis is not the current white Indian agent of the area and the reservation, but rather his assistant, Noah Beery, Sr., an evil, money-grubbing, harassing, anti-Indian sort to whom viewers take an immediate dislike because of unbecoming behaviors at several turns. The local white teacher of all the Indian children is Lois Wilson. The plot runs as a typical Western would, except Wilson and Dix fall for each other, knowing that such is not going to be accepted; and the plot favors the Indian side over the white side which is shown to be duplicitous, sometimes out-and-out evil, and under a government that seems to talk out of both sides of its mouth, though follows its own path as it sees fit. And Manifest Destiny is behind all. I'll not give the entire plot, though we do follow the Indians through WWI and their return. I found the film as a 1925 vehicle very satisfying and well done. It manifests itself as any white produced film in America in 1925 would have done, though it gave the Indian far more a share than nearly any other film of the time would have dared, and the word "dared" is the operative one.
Now, shift gears and come up to 2020. It's interesting looking at the comments of viewers who have left criticisms of the film on the IMDb. Nearly all give the film from 8 out of 10 to 10 out of 10. EXCEPT 1. The one has the moniker of 'trujillotribe'. The Trujillo homesteads of Colorado were formed in the 1860s by Hispano Americans who came there when their lands were annexed from Mexico by America. The cultural differences in everything from farming to just being who each was caused conflicts that raged for decade after decade. The one exception on the IMDb as to rating "The Vanishing American" says the plot of the film is ridiculously false, and to quote the review, "Incorrect and disrespectful, regardless of the date released." It goes on in a vein of such feelings. I wondered when I finished watching this time if my liking the film wasn't based on my learning history in the 50s and 60s when Manifest Destiny was the theme of every history book. What does that entail? In a nutshell, it accepts - and that, too, is the operative word - it accepts the fact that white Europeans came to this land in 1492 and have with their doctrine of Christianity rightfully usurped all the land and driven out heathenism and savagery.
I accept that we've come to a point in our culture where accepting Manifest Destiny in its cultural overview of our history is not only outdated, but not 'history' in the proper sense of the word. It's very one-sided. But we've come to a time where the past is being dumped as utterly BAD. "The Vanishing American" actually is a very fine film in its regard to the American Indian of 1925. The film, considering when it was made, is lucky to have found a good audience with its theme. It had to have a Richard Dix as star, or few would have gone to see it. Also in the cast in a very prominent rôle is Charles Stevens. The name isn't known much today - a shame, as he was the grandson of Geronimo - and a terrific actor in his own right, plus a good tennis buddy of Douglas Fairbanks, Sr.! He could easily have essayed the rôle Richard Dix does, but would have found his audience not as wide as movie moguls would have needed to pay the bills. Interestingly, too, he plays the part of an Indian (and, of course, IS one) who has a thing for Gekin Yashi, NOT played by a Native American female, but by Shannon Day, a New York City born white woman who played several Indian and Mexican parts in her 29 film career!
Not to utterly belabor my thoughts, I enjoyed seeing this again, and I realize that I now live in a time that accepting white people playing native American parts is basically taboo, especially when the theme of the film is one where the whites are not necessarily the good guys. I found an interesting commentary by Richard Allen and Tom Holm which has this to say about the film: "...Were George Seitz and Zane Grey attempting to demonstrate that Christianity alone cannot save Native Americans? The film has the rudiments of an overriding theme of inevitable despair. In short, the fate of the cinematic Native American soldier is heroism for naught..."
I think the film should be watched, first, as a cinematographic masterpiece (Harry Perry and Charles Edgar Schoenbaum did the cinematography, much of which is borrowed again almost EXACTLY in "The Searchers" by John Ford), second, as an attempt by early Hollywood to exact a form of retribution for Manifest Destiny, whether it is appreciated a hundred years later or not, and, third, just because it plays very well without trying to belittle a race mercilessly and tells a good, if tragic, story.
Now, shift gears and come up to 2020. It's interesting looking at the comments of viewers who have left criticisms of the film on the IMDb. Nearly all give the film from 8 out of 10 to 10 out of 10. EXCEPT 1. The one has the moniker of 'trujillotribe'. The Trujillo homesteads of Colorado were formed in the 1860s by Hispano Americans who came there when their lands were annexed from Mexico by America. The cultural differences in everything from farming to just being who each was caused conflicts that raged for decade after decade. The one exception on the IMDb as to rating "The Vanishing American" says the plot of the film is ridiculously false, and to quote the review, "Incorrect and disrespectful, regardless of the date released." It goes on in a vein of such feelings. I wondered when I finished watching this time if my liking the film wasn't based on my learning history in the 50s and 60s when Manifest Destiny was the theme of every history book. What does that entail? In a nutshell, it accepts - and that, too, is the operative word - it accepts the fact that white Europeans came to this land in 1492 and have with their doctrine of Christianity rightfully usurped all the land and driven out heathenism and savagery.
I accept that we've come to a point in our culture where accepting Manifest Destiny in its cultural overview of our history is not only outdated, but not 'history' in the proper sense of the word. It's very one-sided. But we've come to a time where the past is being dumped as utterly BAD. "The Vanishing American" actually is a very fine film in its regard to the American Indian of 1925. The film, considering when it was made, is lucky to have found a good audience with its theme. It had to have a Richard Dix as star, or few would have gone to see it. Also in the cast in a very prominent rôle is Charles Stevens. The name isn't known much today - a shame, as he was the grandson of Geronimo - and a terrific actor in his own right, plus a good tennis buddy of Douglas Fairbanks, Sr.! He could easily have essayed the rôle Richard Dix does, but would have found his audience not as wide as movie moguls would have needed to pay the bills. Interestingly, too, he plays the part of an Indian (and, of course, IS one) who has a thing for Gekin Yashi, NOT played by a Native American female, but by Shannon Day, a New York City born white woman who played several Indian and Mexican parts in her 29 film career!
Not to utterly belabor my thoughts, I enjoyed seeing this again, and I realize that I now live in a time that accepting white people playing native American parts is basically taboo, especially when the theme of the film is one where the whites are not necessarily the good guys. I found an interesting commentary by Richard Allen and Tom Holm which has this to say about the film: "...Were George Seitz and Zane Grey attempting to demonstrate that Christianity alone cannot save Native Americans? The film has the rudiments of an overriding theme of inevitable despair. In short, the fate of the cinematic Native American soldier is heroism for naught..."
I think the film should be watched, first, as a cinematographic masterpiece (Harry Perry and Charles Edgar Schoenbaum did the cinematography, much of which is borrowed again almost EXACTLY in "The Searchers" by John Ford), second, as an attempt by early Hollywood to exact a form of retribution for Manifest Destiny, whether it is appreciated a hundred years later or not, and, third, just because it plays very well without trying to belittle a race mercilessly and tells a good, if tragic, story.