Drango

Its worth a watch because it is a decent Western with all the right mix except this one takes place right after the Civil War and shows you quite effectively the hatred the South had for the rest of the country. I found this depiction rather accurate right down to the prejudice, murders and realism as this really happened. Remember, people were so opposed to this war that they went to war to make their point. We got whiskey drinking, fighting, horses, love interest, lynchings, farms and a good look at things back then. The plot is a good one and it cost many people their life (in the move and out) to make the point of stopping what doesn't work and doing what does. Killing always starts with a reason and ends with a reason to stop as well. I had a hard time with the name of this movie i.e. "Drango". It makes no sense, doesn't capture a personality or point and leaves you with a sense of unfinished business even though it is the name of the main character. Obviously whoever named this movie wanted to get it over with or had an appointment elsewhere. Even when I accepted the name, hearing others say it took effort. It just doesn't have the Western flavor and in fact detracts. Pay close attention how people lived with the seasons as you needed a crop in one season to make it through the next one. Miss an opportunity and it can cost you your life and your farm in other words everything. Nice little portrait of an orphan family whose mom & dad were killed. They had shelter but lacked food and clothing. This is as real as it gets as well as the solution given. I like to eat during movie watching. This one is a sandwich or even some beef jerky with a tasty drink. Confederate or rebel, ride into this, dismount and sit a spell

A rather dour Reconstruction Western that's probably too earnest for its own good. Writer Hall Bartlett's heart is in the right place—reconciling North and South following the Civil War. Union Major Drango (Chandler) wants to unite rebellious Confederate town around a regime of humane occupation, despite widespread resistance. The supporting cast is familiar from about every popular TV series of the day—Stone, Phillips, Sande, Ankrum, Baer. Too bad the powerful Donald Crisp is largely wasted in a circumscribed role, and why Julie London's presence other than to build box-office appeal is unclear to me. In fact, her romantic subplot with Lupton sprawls the story without strengthening it.

Also, reviewer Lorenellroy is right—Chandler's major comes across as too stiff and unappealing for a central character. His besieged Major should be serious, but the seriousness is finally carried to a deadening degree. Bartlett was interesting as a producer, especially with Navajo and Unchained. Here, however, I'm afraid he tries to do too much with a screenplay that ends up in too many talky subplots. Then too, direction should have been left to a better stylist since the core material had potential.

In passing—note that no reference to slavery or appearance of a black person occurs anywhere in the movie, a rather startling omission for a film dealing with the post-Civil War South. My guess is that the producers, like others of the period, didn't want to risk dealing with a sensitive subject at a time when Jim Crow laws still prevailed below the Mason-Dixon Line. Anyway, considering the number of Westerns on TV and in theatres in 1957, it's probably not surprising that despite good intentions and a fine performance from Joanne Dru this dour little oddity has remained lost in the mix.

Intriguing bit of history circa 1865, as a Union Army major is assigned to bring law and order to a burnt-out, starving Georgia town, but finds the residents hostile to post-Civil War change. Director Hall Bartlett also wrote and co-produced this forgotten film for United Artists, which deals with some complex issues and fiercely tangled emotions and loyalties. Jeff Chandler is forthright in the lead, attempting to do his job politely and carefully, unarmed, but forced to fight an entire town seemingly bent on destruction and savagery. The dramatic scope of the proceedings is minimized for a 90-minute format, and the circumstances Bartlett chooses to focus on--a local man's trial, a tyrannical land baron's desired leadership--nearly reduces the power the director manages to build up in smaller corners (such as Chandler bringing a winter coat to an orphaned youngster). The absence of blacks (the freed slaves) is noticeable, though judging the movie on what is presented culls up much bigger problems. The townsfolk flip-flop laughably between the two sides (vicariously cheering evil, glinty-eyed Southerner Ronald Howard one minute, then turning inward and solemn once Chandler's Major Drango takes the floor). We don't see a full-scale view of what is transpiring personally within these people's lives (probably due to a limited budget), and so are forced to rely on the performances (which are adept) and the direction (the writing being alternately too soft and too harsh). The brutalities inherent to the scenario are discreetly presented--with one very important murder happening off-screen--but the affects are still quite strong. An intriguing drama for history buffs. ** from ****

For a story set in Georgia in late 1865 the absence of any blacks in the town and surrounding rural areas is utterly absurd. The labor force the farmers would mobilize to replant would have included the freed slaves. They would certainly have been a source of support for the Union military government.

The movie perpetuates the cry-baby version of history that the state of Georgia has foisted on the consciousness of the nation. Sherman's armies did not ravage Georgia anywhere near as bad as they complain. They did NOT routinely burn down houses and churches and schools. They did destroy supplies that could help the military effort of the South. It was noted at the time that where Sherman marched through Georgia, hardly a house in any town was torched.

By contrast, when the same armies marched through South Carolina, hardly a house in any town was left standing. That was no accident. Sherman blamed South Carolina for the war and gave orders to his men to burn everything. When his armies crossed the border into North Carolina, his forces reverted to the milder policy they had observed in Georgia.

South Carolina was the only state of the Confederacy whose citizens did not supply at least one regiment for the Union army. In all the others there were Unionists who made their way north to enlist and fight for the United States.

Either previous reviewers are confused as to exactly who John Lupton is or they're not watching the same movie I am. Previous reviewers state that Lupton's character Capt. Banning is out for revenge against the south-Incorrect! Banning is Major Drango's adjutant. His role in the film is more of a "spear carrier" than anything else. "Capt. escort the lady home"-"Capt. Go get the Doctor"- He expresses almost no opinion through out the film except on Christmas day when he tells the Major he needs to take a day off.

Another reviewer has confused the characters completely and has Capt. Banning as the son of the Judge when in actually it is Ronald Howard, the Confedrete Villin...

On the whole I thought this was a good plot but to squeezed into a short film to explore the subject properly. I like Jeff Chandler, but he overacts way to much in this one.