Taza, Son of Cochise

One might have expected a lot more from Douglas Sirk in this, his single Western. Beautifully shot by Russell Metty who worked extensively with Sirk, it's a very routine Western of no great interest.

Before Sirk hit his stride with the great melodramas he tried his hand at light romantic comedy and costume drama with pleasing if not spectacular results. He brought little if anything at all to the Western.

Perhaps more than anything it's an important rung in the ladder of elevating Rock Hudson towards stardom which would come with Sirk's next film "Magnificent Obsession".

Hudson is adequate in the role, but that's hardly difficult amongst some truly wooden performances. All in all something of a low point in the amazing 50's career of Douglas Sirk.

Beware folks, because you deal here with the only western that director Douglas Sirk will ever give to us. But he has for this western his fetish actor Rock Hudson, so he is not totally alone in unknown territory. This is an agreeable piece of work, not worse nor better than other Universal westerns of this period. George Sherman could have done it too, and in the very same manner. By chance, Jeff Chandler, who played Cochise in THE BROKEN ARROW - for Twentieth Century Fox - was in the meantime "transfered" to Universal Studios, so it was easy for the production to use him as a dying Cochise in the beginning. And this is not a spoiler !!!!! Rock Hudson is OK, it also could have been worse. Good western.

Not all 3d movies are filmed having in mind that 3d technique requires specific camera movements and well adjusted settings to shine. But Douglas Sirk, a consumated director did not make that mistake. Just watch the opening sequence with an indian on a horse standing in front of the deep immensity of the canyon at Arches National Monument Park in 3d and glorious technicolor. Breathtaking. The story -almost totally fictionized- turns pale before it but still is a nice entertainment. Jeff Chandler, who played Cochise in Broken Arrow and The battle at apache pass reprise the role uncredited at the beginning of the film, passing the leadership to his older son Taza. The story runs along to explain how indians are put aside in a reservation with many discontent trying to sublevate and others -guided by Taza- trying to preserve a peace difficult to mantain due to white man's rigid mentality. Imperative to watch it in 3d to enjoy the visual values of this film.

Don't get me wrong.I've always been a big fan of Deltlef Sierck (Douglas Sirk in America)and most of his melodramas are among my all time favorites : "A time to live and a time to die ","All that Heaven allows" "Magnificent obsession" " Tarnished angels" "Written on the wind" plus those with Zarah Leander in Germany not to forget his final effort ,the remake of "imitation of life".

THis remake was drastically different from Stahl's version:the black servant Delilah became Annie and the only thing she could expect in life was a beautiful funeral.In Stahl's version (and in Fannie Hurst's novel) she was a businesswoman's associate ,in Sirk's screenplay she stayed the good servant -not very far away from GWTW's Mamma-who knew her place.

Still with me?I do think that,in spite of Sirk's storyteller qualities and good scenes (the discovery of the bruises on Barbara Rush's back),"Taza" is also a reactionary work .Taza (who in real life died of pneumonia two years after his dad)predates Annie in "Imitation" :he is the good Indian,who knows his place ,who (this is amazing) dresses like them ,who rebels against his people's customs and even fights them;on the other hand ,Geronimo (and his allies) plays the role of the villain : "we were hunters, warriors,we won't be breeders ".After all ,the white men are taking their land and sending them to reservations:his rebellion makes sense.

Rock Hudson,who was Sirk's favorite actor (his best parts were certainly "All that Heaven allows" and "Magnificent Obsession" -another remake of a Stahl's work-) ,is not well cast as an Indian.And what about Barbara Rush as a squaw?Debra Paget was acceptable ("Broken Arrow"),she is not.

Rock Hudson, Jeff Chandler, Rex Reason, Ian MacDonald, Barbara Rush...all not exactly American-Indian sounding names! Yet, all these folks are all painted up in "Taza, Son of Cochise" to play just such roles--which represents the single biggest problem with this movie. Not only aren't they Indians, they hardly look like them and give the film a certain silliness you can't get past. And, even if the actors had done great jobs in their parts (which they hadn't), this isn't enough to overcome this problem. However, for me this is EXACTLY why I watched the film--because it was so unbelievably cast! Yes folks, I AM a glutton for punishment. And, is there something worth watching here?

The film begins with Chief Cochise's death. His son, Taza (Hudson), vows to keep the peace--whereas his hot-headed son, Naiche (Reason), is determined to destroy the white folks. However, after their big showdown in which Taza kicks the snot out of him, some other renegades sneak in and set Naiche free. So, it's up to our hero, Taza, to find his wicked brother and maintain the peace. But even when he does, it might be too late for him and his people--especially when Geronimo is sent to live on Taza's reservation.

As for the rest of the film, it's a real mixed bag. On one hand, the film is gorgeous--with a fantastic location shoot in Utah as well as terrific music. So the film clearly had a nice budget and it's obvious the studio gave director Douglas Sirk the go ahead to make a quality film. However, the film also suffers from some downright awful dialog--dialog that often makes the 'Indians' sound like idiots. The worst of this often occurred with love scenes--which were among the least romantic in film history. Overall, the film is watchable but silly--and certainly not among the best or worst of the genre.

By the way, I wonder if this film was originally planned as a 3-D movie. This is because often punches, spears, giant rocks and whips are tossed directly AT the camera--like you'd see in a 3-D picture. Considering it came out in 1954, this is awfully likely. Also, historically speaking the movie is a mish-mash of facts and pure bunk.