A Estrada de Santa Fé

When Santa Fe Trail was released in 1940 it was to general critical acclaim. Though it is in no way a classic like Gone With the Wind, it's view of the coming Civil War is not too dissimilar from the David O. Selznick film that also had Olivia DeHavilland as one of its stars. It was a popularly held view of the time, the abolitionists were well intentioned rabble rousers who brought on the Civil War and as Errol Flynn as J.E.B. Stuart says, the south will settle the slavery issue in its own time.

Back in the day even in A westerns like Santa Fe Trail, liberal use of the facts involving noted historical figures was taken. The fact that Stuart, Custer, Longstreet, Pickett, Sheridan, and Hood would all graduate West Point in the same class was really a minor bending of the rules. The following year with Errol Flynn as Custer in They Died With Their Boots On, they got Custer's graduation class right, but then compounded his life with more errors.

One interesting fact that no one mentions in this film is Henry O'Neill as the real life Cyrus K. Holliday (1826-1900) who considerably outlived just about everyone portrayed in the film. He's of critical importance in Kansas history as having built the Santa Fe railroad. His children neither went to West Point as William Lundigan, did graduating with all these Civil War heroes, nor did his daughter wind up marrying one.

Olivia DeHavilland playing her usual heroine, gets out of the crinoline for a bit as a Calamity Jane type daughter to Henry O'Neill. I have to say she showed quite a bit more spunk than her normal range of leading ladies at the time at Warner Brothers. She certainly Errol Flynn and Ronald Reagan as George A. Custer on their toes.

If people remember anything at all about Santa Fe Trail today it is Raymond Massey as the fanatical John Brown. Yet even there, Brown has his hypocritical moments when he's quite ready to let a barn full of recent runaway slaves burn down so he can kill Errol Flynn in it. It doesn't ring true with the character as defined by Massey, I fault the scriptwriters there. Massey repeated his John Brown character in the later Seven Men From Now. Other than Abraham Lincoln it is the role that actor is most identified with.

As an action western though, Santa Fe Trail can't be beat. The battle scene with the army breaking John Brown's siege at Harper's Ferry is well staged. You really do think you are at Harper's Ferry watching a newsreel.

Though it never was history and hasn't worn well in its interpretation, western fans will still like Santa Fe Trail.

Even though this film is a jumbled mess and it does make John Brown out as his era's Osama Bin Laden, it still is a good film. Also, the fact that this film looks at some of the greatest generals in United States (Lee, Stewart and Custer) who were all good friends before the Civil War tore this country apart. Also, Raymond Massey gives a very chilling performance as Brown. His performance really made Brown look like the fanatic that he was portrayed as and he should have at least gotten an Oscar nomination. Even with all its flaws it is a pretty good film.

This is based around the story of one Jeb Stuart, a Southern born gent who would go on to become one of the South's greatest cavalrymen during the American Civil War. We follow his romance with sweetheart Kit Carson Holliday, his friendship with George Armstrong Custer, and onto his battles with abolitionist John Brown.

Though it's mostly agreed these days that Santa Fe Trail has no great historical worth, it is however still a decent movie that boasts great drama, a sweet romance, and no little amount of action. Knowingly directed by the astute Michael Curtiz and featuring the acting of Errol Flynn (dashing as Stuart), Olivia de Havilland (gutsy as Carson), Ronald Reagan (solid as Custer), and Raymond Massey (acting overdrive as Brown), the picture certainly holds up well on the technical front.

However, the relatively low rating on internet movie sites is of much interest to me, for being as I'm British I have no sort of conflict of interest with the actual story. Patriotic fervour booms out from the screen, but this appears to be at odds with the John Brown arc, the character's ambitions are nearly accepted as noble, creating a sort of odd coupling. I could of course be way off, but I wonder if the story doesn't sit well with some of our American friends?. Still the picture is never less than enjoyable, the great music from Max Steiner adds to the occasion and the finale is high reward for the viewers patience. 6.5/10

It's so sad.

I loved this movie so much as a kid. Then I grew up and found out it was all a big contrivance. It almost quashed my love for this movie.

But the truth did not succeed to extinguish my love.

The entertainment value of this movie is astounding and sometimes thrilling - but the historical value is so misguided that it almost ruins it for me. I now feel that, though this movie makes a sham of history - - it is a great showcase for the wonderful talents of Michael Curtiz, Errol Flynn, Ronald Reagan and Olivia de Havilland.

I particularly love the final rescue scene. It is choreographed and orchestrated so beautifully, it is hard not to be taken into the maelstrom of John Brown's destiny. Those battle trumpets still cause a chill to go up my spine.

Before I was old enough to understand the true nature of this tale, I visited Harper's Ferry and felt an honest chill when I visited the firehouse where John Brown and his men were captured. I touched the walls and stood in awe at being so close to such a fateful edifice.

It is now called John Brown's "Fort" because he was holed up in there for three days in October 1859. So close before the fateful Civil War embroiled our nation in its saddest chapter. But the building was a fire engine and guard house when it was built in 1848 and moved to Boston for display and then later, back to Harper's Ferry to a place about 150 feet east of its original location. The original location had become a railroad embankment...so it could not stand at the original spot.

Whatever you think about the historical inaccuracies of this film, its entertainment values are excellent for their own sake.

RAYMOND MASSEY is especially memorable as John Brown. His earnest and single-minded portrayal of a madman-with-a-quest is the great stand-out of this movie. The far-away gaze and fiery eyes are almost hypnotic in its concentration. I also enjoyed watching Ronald Reagan and Errol Flynn do their "stuff" as no one else can. These are actors that for better or worse will always stand out from the Hollywood fray with their own special brand of something indescribable and timeless.

Watch this movie with a grain or two or historical salt. Enjoy it for its sheer fun value.

This is really shocking to see that this sort of propoganda was still made in 1940. It's impossible to enjoy this film "historical accuracy aside," because it's so obviously pro-slavery. The fact is we are not talking about whether the Winchester repeating rifle was really invented by 1850. The abolitionists are painted as violent, crazy, murderous people, "the reason why Kansas is called Bloody Kansas." Anyone who knows anything about this tragic period knows that pro-slavery forces were first to engage in murder and pillage. John Brown was notable because he was the first free-stater who started murdering back, and he made a campaign of it. After that, wholesale murder was found on both sides. THAT is why they called it "Bloody Kansas." What we see in the movie, however, is only John Brown's violence, time after time. We also see simple-minded black folks who would have been better off if John Brown hadn't made them free and responsible for feeding themselves. You can try and enjoy the story for itself, but the ugly and badly slanted arguments against abolitionists (and by extension against any reform of Jim Crow Laws in the 1940s) make it appalling viewing.