Conquest of Cochise

The 1950s saw a change in the average western. In many of the era's films, the American Indians are seen in a very sympathetic light and often Indian unrest is due to evil white folks. In this one, it's about the Chiracahua Apache war chief, Cochise, and how he was agreeable to becoming peaceful...but this is undermined by greedy jerks intent on provoking war.

While the story is laudable, it's also sad to see what ALSO was common in the 1950s...having big-name white actors portraying the chiefs. In most of these cases, they sure don't sound like Native Americans...and John Hodiak paints up and wears a wig and looks like a convincing Indian...and sounds exactly like John Hodiak! It really takes you out of the story...especially because his diction makes it sound as if Cochise went to charm school!

The story begins with the Gadsden Purchase at the end of 1953. With this land treaty with Mexico comes a new problem...what to do with marauding Chiracahua Apaches who go back and forth across the border of the USA and Mexico to attack folks. Major Burke (Robert Stack) is assigned the task to make peace with Cochise, the leader of these natives as well as making peace with the Mexicans who just became Mexican-Americans. But when negotiations go sour, the Chiracahua and Comanche get together and decide to make war on the white men. Can the Major convince them to do otherwise?

While it was nice to see the Indian portrayed more sympathetically and the film in vivid color, it's still a poor western. The dialog is often ridiculous, Hodiak is terrible and the story is in need of editing and improvement. Worth skipping.

By the way, EVERYONE in this film uses repeating rifles and handguns. Such things were pretty rare in 1853 and even during the Civil War, most of the troops used single-shot rifles. So much for attention to historical accuracy.

I remain staggered when contemplating the inconsistency of William Castle's direction. My being boggled is seemingly rooted in Castle's implementation of two stylistic systems - malformed 'Twins' as it were. The Arnie isn't present in this outing. The "Devito" system is in full force with passive direction that features a tableau frontality dominant in the staging/blocking and camera positioning that succumbs to the idea that action should pass through it or track it in the most linear fashion. Like some of the Boston Blackie films, groups of characters are staged symmetrically creating an evenness like a Moe Howard bowl cut. Hackneyed quips and stilted performances abound. I believe the AFI archival notes on the film remark that the uniforms didn't fit historically. The stereotyping throughout Conquest of Cochise would fit adequately if you upped the action sequences in quantity and quality. The stereotyping could thus be rendered parodical cartoon or comic-strip homage, and vice-versa. The authorial voice of Castle is mute in this film and sequences are connected with sterile methodical execution. As such, the 4th Wall stands strong and the story is required to tell itself. The story itself is poor and the characterization does nothing to create spectator investment. Too much melodrama and not enough action renders a comic strip story into a tepid soap opera. Romantic subplots are developed as filler and not as focused torrid affairs. The talkiness is so overt that I have to wonder whether this churned out "B" historical Western was not produced solely to serve necking teens who needed a dark anonymous escape for a couple of hours. The ethnography of this film is bunk for a contemporary audience and perhaps outdated even at the time of its release. Were these Katzman-Castle history-drama productions simply gimmicks in service of a romantic subculture among audiences? I will admit that it would be easy to pay full attention to my lover's lips and blouse buttons with Conquest of Cochise playing - there would be no chance of a distraction.

I don't think so, as so many Sam Katzman productions, maybe not every of them however, but most of them for sure. Watch it only as a time waster, and also only if you are a die hard movie buff. Never look for historical facts, never with Katzman, it would be foolish. Directing is always bland, actors often ridiculous but the result rather surprisingly agreeable. It is a western about Chief Cochise and it could have been about any Indian leader: Chirf Crazy Horse, Sitting Bull, Geronimo.... Just non sense. Here, for the one millionth time, it is question of treacherous White dude selling booze to Indians, with predictable results.... I repeat, it is bearable. Nothing more. One thing very interesting though, the explanations that John Hodiak gives about Indians customs, for instance the water in the mouth that the Indians kids, future warriors, had to keep during a long run, without swallowing it. Thats was the only interesting thing in this tepid programmer. However I have seen far far worse and lousier. Especially from Katzman productions. Forget William Castle, the future director of som many excellent horror thrillers. He was just a yes man in this kind of films.

Sam Katzman formerly of Monogram Studios probably could not believe the budget he had with Columbia Pictures for Conquest Of Cochise. Color and location shooting. I can hear him saying I know I'm not at Monogram any more.

This story about Cochise takes place as the USA has formally taken over the Gadsden Purchase in 1853, the last bit of continental USA that we acquired. The Mexicans sold it to us for a tidy sum, it was mostly desert and its largest city was a desert settlement that was called Tucson. But it did sit across a possible southern continental railway route and we bought it for that purpose.

Now to enforce some law there because Cochise and his Chiracahua Apaches rule most of that bit of turf with Comanches occasionally raiding in there as well. That's what Major Robert Stack of the US Cavalry is sent there to do, make a treaty. Of course there are forces who don't want a treaty made.

Nevertheless Stack goes to negotiate with Cochise who is played most impressively by John Hodiak.

Broken Arrow which is set post Civil War has a lot of similarities and an actor who got great acclaim for playing Cochise. Jeff Chandler got an Oscar nomination for his performance. Broken Arrow got a far bigger budget than Conquest Of Cochise. Still what Hodiak did should have gotten more acclaim.

Conquest Of Cochise was not a bad film and for a Sam Katzman production its positively Cleopatra like.

I saw this movie when it was new, back in 1953, and the only thing I remembered about it was the final reel in which Cochise (John Hodiak) is sentenced to suffer three tortures: (1) scalded by hot steam, (2) sliced with knife blades, and (3) burned by fire. Many years later I saw the movie again and, what do you know?, the only thing worth remembering about it is that final reel. Robert Stack makes a serviceable, though undistinguished, hero, and the color photography has that "brightness" so common in early 1950's movies.