Saskatchewan

O'Rourke is a red coat – no, not Butlins but a member of the Canadian Mounted Forces; and he is returning to service having travelled with his Cree Indian half brother Cajou. When he reaches his posting, his commander Benton immediately distrusts Cajou, driving a divide between the half brothers that see them separate. Escorting the beautiful survivor of a Sioux attack (Grace Markey) across the territory, the Mounties are fearful of the Sioux, even though O'Rourke can see their side of things – a viewpoint that makes him the target of suspicion and mistrust from Benton, Smith and others in the party.

The strange name attracted me to it, a statement that perhaps shows just how ignorant a person I really am! The cast also suggested that this would be a solid and enjoyable b-movie western that would meet my needs. The film actually did more than that and I found it to be an enjoyable if slightly apologetic b-movie that provided solid characters, a good plot and some exciting (if dated) action scenes. Of course it isn't anything that wonderful and those who dislike the genre would do well to avoid it for obvious reasons. The plot starts well, with some interesting character issues but then does little with them and heads into the usual b-movie territory, forgetting the more interest conflict between O'Rourke and Cajou that appeared to be the focus early on. That said it does well enough for the genre and provided enough entertainment for my needs.

Cinematography wise it looks good; despite the claim that it was all filmed in Saskatchewan the presence of rolling hills and impressive mountains suggest that perhaps this was not the case. Despite this it looks good, not John Ford but the bright colours and location feel that the better b-movies could muster. Ladd is enjoyably wide-chested in a typically heroic role and will please genre fans. Winters is a good female co-star, pretty enough to fill that role but feisty enough to avoid blandness. Silverheels has a smaller role than I would have liked and people like Long, Douglas and Naish all fill their roles well enough despite not doing anything in particular of merit.

Overall this is a solid b-movie western that does all that you expect it to and, if that is what you want, you'll enjoy it like I did. It could have done more of course but it works for what it is and the colourful presentation and solid pace help cover what "could have been" with what is.

This movie was filmed in Banff National Park not far from the headwaters of the Saskatchewan River. Locations such as Bow Lake and Peyto Lake are on the Icefield Parkway Hwy 93 North of Lake Louise. The movie showed the Sioux a little farther west and north of where they retreated after the Custer Massacre as they only (most of them) only made it to the Cypress Hills in Southeast Alberta. Actual number of "mounties" involved in bringing them back to the border?? Three!! The Canadian and American governments had agreed no harm would come to the Sioux or Sitting Bull but of course this promise was not kept and Superintendant Walsh of the R. C. M. P. (Then Northwest Mounted Police orN.W.M.P) resigned over the betrayal of the Sioux.

I was there on location for this film and it was filmed mostly in Alberta in the vicinity of Lake Louise and Banff. It rained a lot during the filming and a lot had to be redone at the studio. I was an extra and mostly rode horses and was a dead man in several scenes. As a kid it was a great experience.

Alan Ladd was wonderful as was Carrol, Shelly and Raoul. They fed us well and we stayed in small out buildings, like motel buildings, near the Banff Springs Hotel.

I had to leave early to do a film with Jeff Chandler and I had a commitment at the Pasadena Playhouse at that time also. My last theatre work was in 1960 when I had to give up show business for health reasons --- I needed to eat!

Hope this clears up the question of where it was filmed.

Don Alan (Droesch)

I would have to agree with most of the other posters, who give this film mixed reviews. The scenery is fantastic, the action is compelling, and there are a number of good actors on hand. But the historical inaccuracies, concerning things like the Mounties' costumes, and the actions of the post-Custer (Last Stand) Sioux, do detract from the film. Raoul Walsh is one of my favorite old-time directors, but he made his share of films which deviate from the truth. After all, he did direct the Errol Flynn version of Custer, "They Died With Their Boots On," which must be one of the most fanciful historical films ever. Walsh wasn't (and isn't) alone in this casual disregard for the truth, by any means. Everyone knows that there is history, and there is movie history. And plenty of other directors took as many liberties with the truth. The great John Ford, for instance. For example, the shoot-out at the OK Corral was nothing like that portrayed in "My Darling Clementine" (great film though it is). And the fact that Monument Valley creeps into so many of his westerns, some of which are taking place far from that photogenic area, isn't accuracy at work. Artistic license, and making a good movie, have often taken precedence in this regard.

One Walsh movie which does seem more true-to-life is "The Big Trail," his ground-breaking 1930 film with John Wayne. Historians could no doubt find some mistakes in the film, but it seems fairly realistic as regards a covered wagon trek. Maybe the lesson is that historical fiction is often best, as inconvenient facts can't get in your way. And classic Hollywood directors had no monopoly on putting myth before truth. Look at contemporary directors like Oliver Stone and Michael Bay, who put the older Hollywood folks to shame. Stone, in particular, takes almost psychedelic flights of fancy in his films, and any relation to true events seems very tenuous. As many have pointed out, John Ford addressed this issue of myth-making versus truth-telling, in his film "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance." It should come as no surprise that the myth often wins out. And even when true stories are told fairly accurately, as in "Glory," small liberties are taken with things like contemporary language, and events are often compressed or moved around. A classic movie like "The Great Escape," while basically telling a true story, fictionalized large aspects of it (not many, or any, Americans involved; it's the wrong season, etc.), something that no doubt irritated the men who were really there. Another great prison camp movie, "The Bridge on the River Kwai," was guilty of the same things.

Anyway, Raoul wasn't immune to any of that, as this film clearly shows. If one looks at it as pure fiction, and if one buys the scenes of Mounties trying to be inconspicuous, in the woods, while wearing bright red uniforms, it's a pretty entertaining movie. Those more knowledgeable than I can point out the geographical and historical errors in this film. I'm sure that anyone with proximity to Saskatchewan can find many things to chuckle over.

In 1945, Alan Ladd played the title role in a film called "Salty O'Rourke," directed by Raoul Walsh. Ladd's character's name in this film is O'Rourke, too. An in-joke, perhaps? It does seem like more than coincidence, considering that the two men didn't work together often. Also, does the plot remind anyone of other Walsh "chase" films, like "Objective Burma," and "Distant Drums," where army units are being pursued through hostile terrain, often by an unseen enemy (in this film, the pursuers are shown very clearly)? A nail-biting plot, but one which does get repetitive. Also, what's with the jungle bird sounds that the Sioux make? Not your usual Canadian bird calls.

No, I've never been to the province. But a quick look at a relief map will show that all but the very southwest corner of Saskatchewan is prairie. Nevertheless mountains loom in the background in every shot of this film which is supposed to take place in the central part of the then-territory. The film is not alone in this; there are no mountains in western Oklahoma either, contrary to "True Grit." Alan Ladd plays O'Rourke, a RCMP officer with a progressive bent who must battle his mutton-headed commander as well as the Indians. Shelley Winters, here in her brief Marilyn Monroe-competitor period, is an American fugitive in a low cut dress. Unless you don't see many movies, you can probably surmise complications arising between the two. Jay Silverheels, later of "Lone Ranger" fame, is O'Rourke's Cree companion who angrily leaves him when the RCMP insist on confiscating the tribe's rifles and who must later confront his former friend.

A previous post noted that the RCMPs are wearing "Smokey Bear", not the correct "sepoy" hats. More noticeable to me was the dress of the Indians, who always look to be gussied up for a powwow. Photographs of the time show that by the late 1800's Indians usually dressed in manufactured (i.e. white) clothes with a some Native touches. Common sense also makes me doubt leaders wore the heavy, conspicuous headresses into battle, although again this film is not alone in this.

The plot involves the entry of the Sioux into Canada in the aftermath of Little Big Horn. In reality, the fragmented Sioux could hardly attempt a takeover of Western Canada, but merely hoped to find refuge from the vengeful U.S. Army. But here the setup is for a spectacular mass battle at the end, showing Indians charging en masse into white firepower the way they almost never did in actual history. Noticeably missing from depiction, by the way, are the Sioux women and children who trekked into Canada along with the warriors.

Because of the spectacular backdrops in Technicolor, this is not too terrible an oater if only to see the conventions of the period.