Winston T. Boogie
Senior HTF Member
OK, I watched this on Friday night and well, yes, the presentation is fantastic. It looked and sounded wonderful, no question. If you have an interest in this kind of film, then this is a must own. I loved it. It is a giant production and looks like they put everything they had into it. I love this kind of outdoor adventure film and this one is pretty great.
I would think this would have been a stunning picture at the time it was released. I've not gone back to look at the history of it. I think I may have seen this once on TV back in the 1970s but I did not have much recall of it outside of the rangers running around the forest in green suits. It definitely would have been appealing to me as a boy, it is a giant boy's adventure kind of tale.
OK, I will say a few things about this that stood out to me on this watch beyond how wonderful it looked.
First, this is a pretty intense film. The violence and the subject matter seemed pretty hardcore. Expanding a country was a bloody business and this dives into that idea with both feet. It does not shy away from the fact that a lot of killing is going to happen and that these guys want to kill some people. I do think were it made today, Roger's Rangers would probably be portrayed as a bit evil. Essentially, these guys are like the gang that rampages through the west in Cormac McCarthy's Blood Meridian but here they are portrayed as straight heroes and men to be admired. That's a myth that McCarthy explodes in his novel, albeit with a bit of supernatural seasoning.
I am not judging the film nor the storytelling here, as I am old enough to realize what the goals of the film were, mainly to give us an adventure yarn with a star like Spencer Tracy in the lead. Tracy's character though gives some speeches, as do other characters, that would make some people cringe today. At one point he lists off a bunch of Native American tribes that he basically intends to slaughter and does so with a smile. At another he reports that he has basically wiped out a tribe, what would be genocide, and everybody celebrates this.
Context is everything, but I would imagine that there would be people today that find this film truly evil. It's not, but if they put it in a certain context, they could say it was. I think you have to look at the film based on when it was made and what they were trying to do.
Yes, Native Americans are portrayed in just a handful of ways, drunk, not to be trusted, servants of the white man, people to be slaughtered or dead. A few speeches portray them as vicious barbarians or people you need to keep your thumb on. Having seen many westerns get totally trashed for how they portray Native Americans, well, I would say this film would totally enrage some people.
There is a ranger character in this film that gets consumed with blood lust and goes off his rocker. It is pretty dark stuff. I won't explain what he does but it is gruesome. I am not sure how audiences would have seen this back when the film was released but watching it now, I was reminded of Blood Meridian. Other films did explore the blood lust idea or men that do a lot of killing going kill crazy. So, this is not the only intense older film. I would put this in the category of films like The Last Hunt (1956) and The Man from Colorado (1948) that also get intense when delving into the idea of men going kill crazy. I feel like these all must have been films Cormac McCarthy saw.
Needless to say, watching those three westerns as a triple feature would be a very violent and dark look at the growth of this country.
It was also kind of funny that when and where this film ends, it is like a modern day blockbuster, meaning it sets up a sequel. This is because, as Mr. Harris noted, while this film is called Northwest Passage, all it does is set-up the idea that they will look for a Northwest Passage. It kind of is Costner's Horizon, a film setting up more story. So, when this ends, I was sitting there thinking, now I have to go find the next film.
I could talk quite a bit about this film, I found it fascinating in a variety of ways. I looked at it as a massive entertainment from the, well, now distant past. I believe because some people were hard on Costner's Horizon for how the Native Americans were portrayed, there is no way in hell they would sit through this. I mean characters talking gleefully about slaughtering them and Tracy's character several times sort of mocking and teaching Robert Young's character that Indians are not to be painted (Young's character was setting out to create paintings of Native Americans as he was an artist) they are to be slaughtered was...well...the kind of thing that would enrage a modern audience.
Plus, Young's character by the end of the picture has this glowing vision of what a great man Tracy's Major Rogers is that he looks at him like a god. I thought "Oh my, would this turn people purple with rage."
So, this really is a beautifully made and fun older production. It is wonderfully filmed, has good acting, fantastic sets, and a story of men rampaging through the wilderness. However, yes, it is done in such a way that the portrayal of the rangers against the portrayal of the Native Americans is not what people now would find acceptable.
Personally, watching it now, I did not look at Major Rogers as a "hero" but rather as a guy that was doing some questionable things because he thought they needed to be done. Yeah, I do understand how people would feel what goes on here is gross and offensive and yes, I think people that would feel that way should not watch this film.
I don't think that watching it and enjoying it means you agree with what the characters in the film do, it can be enjoyed for what it is, a big old school Hollywood entertainment with a lot of flawed characters with some very violent stuff swirling around in their heads. It could be seen as a lesson on how much times have changed, which is not a bad thing.
I would think this would have been a stunning picture at the time it was released. I've not gone back to look at the history of it. I think I may have seen this once on TV back in the 1970s but I did not have much recall of it outside of the rangers running around the forest in green suits. It definitely would have been appealing to me as a boy, it is a giant boy's adventure kind of tale.
OK, I will say a few things about this that stood out to me on this watch beyond how wonderful it looked.
First, this is a pretty intense film. The violence and the subject matter seemed pretty hardcore. Expanding a country was a bloody business and this dives into that idea with both feet. It does not shy away from the fact that a lot of killing is going to happen and that these guys want to kill some people. I do think were it made today, Roger's Rangers would probably be portrayed as a bit evil. Essentially, these guys are like the gang that rampages through the west in Cormac McCarthy's Blood Meridian but here they are portrayed as straight heroes and men to be admired. That's a myth that McCarthy explodes in his novel, albeit with a bit of supernatural seasoning.
I am not judging the film nor the storytelling here, as I am old enough to realize what the goals of the film were, mainly to give us an adventure yarn with a star like Spencer Tracy in the lead. Tracy's character though gives some speeches, as do other characters, that would make some people cringe today. At one point he lists off a bunch of Native American tribes that he basically intends to slaughter and does so with a smile. At another he reports that he has basically wiped out a tribe, what would be genocide, and everybody celebrates this.
Context is everything, but I would imagine that there would be people today that find this film truly evil. It's not, but if they put it in a certain context, they could say it was. I think you have to look at the film based on when it was made and what they were trying to do.
Yes, Native Americans are portrayed in just a handful of ways, drunk, not to be trusted, servants of the white man, people to be slaughtered or dead. A few speeches portray them as vicious barbarians or people you need to keep your thumb on. Having seen many westerns get totally trashed for how they portray Native Americans, well, I would say this film would totally enrage some people.
There is a ranger character in this film that gets consumed with blood lust and goes off his rocker. It is pretty dark stuff. I won't explain what he does but it is gruesome. I am not sure how audiences would have seen this back when the film was released but watching it now, I was reminded of Blood Meridian. Other films did explore the blood lust idea or men that do a lot of killing going kill crazy. So, this is not the only intense older film. I would put this in the category of films like The Last Hunt (1956) and The Man from Colorado (1948) that also get intense when delving into the idea of men going kill crazy. I feel like these all must have been films Cormac McCarthy saw.
Needless to say, watching those three westerns as a triple feature would be a very violent and dark look at the growth of this country.
It was also kind of funny that when and where this film ends, it is like a modern day blockbuster, meaning it sets up a sequel. This is because, as Mr. Harris noted, while this film is called Northwest Passage, all it does is set-up the idea that they will look for a Northwest Passage. It kind of is Costner's Horizon, a film setting up more story. So, when this ends, I was sitting there thinking, now I have to go find the next film.
I could talk quite a bit about this film, I found it fascinating in a variety of ways. I looked at it as a massive entertainment from the, well, now distant past. I believe because some people were hard on Costner's Horizon for how the Native Americans were portrayed, there is no way in hell they would sit through this. I mean characters talking gleefully about slaughtering them and Tracy's character several times sort of mocking and teaching Robert Young's character that Indians are not to be painted (Young's character was setting out to create paintings of Native Americans as he was an artist) they are to be slaughtered was...well...the kind of thing that would enrage a modern audience.
Plus, Young's character by the end of the picture has this glowing vision of what a great man Tracy's Major Rogers is that he looks at him like a god. I thought "Oh my, would this turn people purple with rage."
So, this really is a beautifully made and fun older production. It is wonderfully filmed, has good acting, fantastic sets, and a story of men rampaging through the wilderness. However, yes, it is done in such a way that the portrayal of the rangers against the portrayal of the Native Americans is not what people now would find acceptable.
Personally, watching it now, I did not look at Major Rogers as a "hero" but rather as a guy that was doing some questionable things because he thought they needed to be done. Yeah, I do understand how people would feel what goes on here is gross and offensive and yes, I think people that would feel that way should not watch this film.
I don't think that watching it and enjoying it means you agree with what the characters in the film do, it can be enjoyed for what it is, a big old school Hollywood entertainment with a lot of flawed characters with some very violent stuff swirling around in their heads. It could be seen as a lesson on how much times have changed, which is not a bad thing.
Last edited:
