Listonixio Fresh and Exciting

TaryBiggBall It was OK. I don't see why everyone loves it so much. It wasn't very smart or deep or well-directed.

Tymon Sutton The acting is good, and the firecracker script has some excellent ideas.

Candida It is neither dumb nor smart enough to be fun, and spends way too much time with its boring human characters.

chaswe-28402 This story compresses many years, many lives and widely separated events into one narrative. It is mainly, if vaguely, based on the life and death of Wild Bill Hickok, 1837-1876, known in Harper's New Monthly Magazine as Hitchcock, and as having killed "hundreds of men". No relation. Hickok is portrayed by Gary Cooper. He checks in to a barbershop, where the barber tries to get him to cut his hair. He says he doesn't believe in getting his hair cut. Oddly, it's already quite short, in a style suitable for 1936. There are nevertheless many photographs of the real Wild Bill, in all of which he is shown with hair tumbling well below his shoulders. Not Cooper's favoured style.Is there any message in this mash-up of a movie ? Could it be that while he inspires calamitous fandom from the fair sex, the true gunman, and noble he-man, is essentially misogynistic ? This doesn't save him, though. He's fated for aces and eights, the dead man's hand, and gets shot in the back. The reason Buffalo Bill survives is because he weds a little woman, and intends, improbably, to run a civilised hotel, and do the washing up. Actually, I thought he ran a Wild West Show. No matter.This film is designed to entertain, and it does. It features an interesting antique mechanical cocktail shaker. Those were the days when America was great, but tragically undermined by internal political corruption and proliferating guns. Seems familiar. All the prominent Indians, except Mexican Anthony Quinn, were white men in war paint, and spoke with forked tongues, especially when setting out to trap the cavalry.

wes-connors At the close of the US Civil War, girl-shy Gary Cooper (as "Wild" Bill Hickok), fellow frontiersman James Ellison (as "Buffalo" Bill Cody), and feisty blonde Jean Arthur (as "Calamity" Jane Canary) battle Native American Indians and greedy gunrunner Charles Bickford (as John Lattimer). Mr. Ellison handles himself exceptionally well alongside Mr. Cooper, already a huge box office star, and young Helen Burgess (as Louisa) does well in the debut of her unfortunately brief film career. Speaking with forked-tongues, young Anthony Quinn and George "Gabby" Hayes have small but notable roles as an Injun and victim. The film starts by helpfully disclaiming, "The story that follows compresses many years, many lives, and widely separated events into one narrative - in an attempt to do justice to the courage of The Plainsman of our west." This film is far from historically accurate. While mannered and obvious, the handsome production benefits from beautiful visual framing by director Cecil B. DeMille and the Paramount studios crew.****** The Plainsman (11/16/36) Cecil B. DeMille ~ Gary Cooper, Jean Arthur, James Ellison, Charles Bickford

MartinHafer Cecil B. DeMille was an odd director. Although he was quite skilled (especially in making spectacles), it seemed as if he always was filming second-rate scripts. Now I know that this will ruffle a few feathers, as conventional wisdom has it that he was a great director. Well, great director or not (and I say NOT), his films generally have some of the worst dialog and anachronistic plots of any A-list director in Hollywood of his era. In other words, while he was clearly able to get great actors and amazing sets and scenes, it was all, to me, fluff due to insipid writing.Here in the case of "The Plainsman", DeMille had Gary Cooper and Jean Arthur at his disposal--two of the biggest stars of the era. And, 2000 American-Indians were on hand for the fight scene. But, the plot is one cliché after another--with historical figures tossed into the mix right and left--even though many of the events in the film never occurred or occurred very differently. As usual, to DeMille, none of this mattered--what mattered was that his film was exciting and BIG!! Early in the film, I got bored. After all, first Wild Bill Hickock just happened to meet his old friends Buffalo Bill and Calamity Jane--and then shortly after the two met General Custer!! It was as if the writers did all their research by glancing, briefly, at a history book and taking all the highlighted names and tossing them together! As a history teacher, I was (as usual) appalled...but not at all surprised.If you take common sense and toss it out the window (along with history), then the film is very watchable and fun...and brainless. Too many times the film played fast and loose with the truth--just like in DeMille's "Cleopatra", "The Ten Commandments", "Sign of the Cross" and many other pictures. But because Cooper and Arthur were such good actors, they at least made watching this mess pleasant.

theowinthrop After the failure of "The Crusades" at the box office, Cecil B. DeMille stopped doing films about non-American history. His films for the next thirteen years were about our history from Jean Lafitte to World War II (Dr. Wassell). The first in order of production was this film, starring Gary Cooper as Wild Bill Hickok, with Jean Arthur as Calamity Jane. James Ellison was Buffalo Bill, John Miljan (not a villain as usual) was General George A. Custer, and Anthony Quinn was one of the Indians who fought at Little Big Horn. The villains were led by Charles Bickford (selling arms to the Indians) and Porter Hall as Jack McCall (who killed Wild Bill Hickok).Basically the film takes up the history of the U.S. after the Civil War. Lincoln is shown at the start talking about what is the next step now that Lee has surrendered. Lincoln talks about the need to secure the west (more about this point later). Then he announces he has to go to the theater. That April 14th must have been very busy for Abe - in "Virginia City" he grants a pardon to Errol Flynn at the request of Miriam Hopkins on the same date.Actually, while Lincoln was concerned about the West, his immediate thoughts on the last day of his Presidency were about reunifying the former Confederate states and it's citizens into the Union as soon as possible. It was Reconstruction that occupied his attention, not the west (except for the problems of Maximillian and his French controlled forces in Mexico against Juarez). But he had been involved in actual problems with the West. In 1862 he sent disgraced General John Pope, the loser at Second Manassas, to Minnesota to put down a serious Indian war by the Sioux (the subject of McKinley Kantor's novel, "Sprit Lake". Pope, incompetent against Lee and Jackson, turned out to be quite effective here, and the revolt was smashed.However, with all Lincoln's actual attention to western problems, it is doubtful that he says (as Cooper repeats at least once), "The frontier should be secure." There is nothing to say he could not have said it, but it is hardly a profound pronouncement by a leading statesman. Like saying, Teddy Roosevelt said, "Eat a good breakfast every morning for your health." It is not a profound statement of policy. It is, at best, a statement of recognizable fact. Cooper turning it into a minor mantra, like Lincoln's version of the Monroe Doctrine, is ridiculous...typical of the way DeMille's scripts have really bad errors of common sense in them.However, this is not a ruinous mistake. "The Plainsman" is an adventure film, and as such it has the full benefit of DeMille the film creator of spectacle. As such it is well worth watching. But not as a textbook on Lincoln's political ideas or his quotable legacy.