bmoroncini 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.

disinterested_spectator 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.

magneta This is a movie that was not generally recognized when released, but which has over time become a cult favorite. John Ford once again returns to Monument Valley to give us a tale of soldiering, military justice, and who-done-it, with a strong racial overtone. The film is a good one, with an unusual mystery angle, and survives by overcoming the handicap of some very bad acting. Jeffery Hunter and Constance Towers are fine in their roles, Juano Hernandez is believable as an old soldier whose friend has been accused of a heinous crime, and Woody Strode handles the title role with dignity and appealing intensity. Strode once remarked that in this film John Ford "put some good words in my mouth," and he certainly did. The anchor that this film drags is in the deplorable acting by most of the supporting cast. The murdered young girl and her boyfriend are uncredited, and deservedly so. The usually dependable Willis Bouchey blusters and stumbles through his role as the president of the court-martial, while the other court members engage in what can only be called slapstick. Billie Burke, in her final role, is plain silly, and Carleton Young is irritatingly overbearing as the chief prosecutor. The Razzie for this film, though, goes to Fred Libby as the post sutler, who chews the scenery completely up in the film's climax, a performance that is painful to watch. The film, despite this major drawback, is worth seeing. Ford, who had approached the subject of racism four years earlier in "The Searchers," is less subtle in his approach here, but handles the subject expertly, telling the story of the Ninth Cavalry's "Buffalo Soldiers" with the respect that their place in history deserves.

Melvin M. Carter Woody Strode is the title character but the film stars Jeff Hunter and Constance Towers. Mr. Strode is a towering presence but sadly he's wooden in his acting ability. And he's trapped in the "Good Negro Eunuch" role. Like Sidney Poitier in some of his earlier roles he's sexually non threatening, the sexual drama is all in the evil mind of the garrison folk, Rutledge would desert if the female victim had approached him sexually! While Sgt.Rutledge and his Tenth Cavalry mates are making it safe for white settlers to bring their racism westward, the Indians are relegated to bullet collectors. Ford would rectify this somewhat in the film Cheyenne Autumn but in Rutledge it's one uplifting minority tale at a time for Ford. If he had lived longer maybe the Japanese would have been seen in anew light earlier. Strode was in a couple of the aging directors last films Two Rode Together he played an Indian warrior, and in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance he played John Wayne's faithful western Stepin Fechtit. But it's not as SGt. Rutledge I remember him for it's as an I Had a Enough of This Crap enlisted man in Pork Chop Hill a superior war movie starring Gregory Peck. Strodes' Pvt. Franklin is the exact opposite of the iconic Rutledge a brave man reaching his breaking point and aware too aware that the Korean War US is a double standard society. Rutledge is a weak Fordian western, ill regardless of it's subject matter.