The Saga of Hemp Brown

After a botched robbery, an ex-cavalry lieutenant struggles to regain his good name by catching the real robber.

The first part—the robbery and the cashiering—made me think this would be a superior western. But then Brown (Calhoun) meets up with Mona (Garland) who falls for him immediately Hollywood style, and it's murky time from there on, especially when it's trying to figure out who's on what side and why. One thing about these Universal oaters of the 50's—they're always well photographed in Technicolor. So when the story flounders, as it does here, there's still lots to look at. I'm just sorry that two of the best B-actors of the period, Garland and Larch, don't get to do more. I was looking forward to Garland's hoochie-koochie before she wrapped herself in a cloak. Anyhow, if you can figure out the latter part of the plot-line, you might enjoy this otherwise routine oater.

The Saga of Hemp Brown is directed by Richard Carlson and written by Bob Williams and Bernard Girard. It stars Rory Calhoun, Beverly Garland, John Larch, Russell Johnson, Fortunio Bonanova and Allan Lane. A CinemaScope/Eastman Color production, the music is by Joseph Gershenson and cinematography by Philip Lathrop.

Plot finds Calhoun as Hemp Brown, an army officer who loses the army payroll to a gang led by Jed Givens (Larch). Being the only survivor of the robbery and with no proof of what really happened - especially since Givens had a while back been reported as killed in action - he is dishonourably discharged from the army. With his good name in tatters and the odds stacked up against him, Brown sets about tracking Givens down.

Fascinating Oater this one, it's undone a touch due to the finale being a fizzle out damp squib, but still enough here for the genre fan to enjoy. The narrative contains some smart threads that lift it above average. The concept of Brown having his name severely tarnished by the army instead of putting him on trial for his life, and thus the whole country looks down on him, is improbable but a good plot device.

Better than that though, is the fact that both Brown and Givens need each other alive! Brown has to prove Givens is alive and well to prove his innocence, and will have to fight to keep his nemesis alive, while Givens needed Brown alive so he could take the blame for the robbery. Add in that Brown's only companions worth the name are a quirky travelling salesman (Bonanova) and his lovely assistant (Garland), then it's a nice frothy hot pot of plot ideas.

This could easily have been a boorish revenge piece, but there's a complexity about Brown's journey to redemption. Everyone and everything he believed in has gone sour, and yet he seeks not bloody vengeance, but justice so he can once again hold his head high in a society that was quick to shun him. The things he witnesses, such as a violent brother over protecting his sister, or a mob rule mentality late in the play, these stack up to paint the society Brown is ostracised from as hardly ideal! Remembering that he had already been cruelly misjudged by his army peers.

Not high on action quota, what we do get is well staged by Carlson, who had starred in enough lively scenes himself during his acting career. Calhoun is ever watchable, perfectly playing out Brown's various emotional beats with ease, while he also gets some sparky dialogue to deliver. Garland looks lovely and is costumed accordingly - especially when she's able to show off her glorious legs, and she finds tidy chemistry with her leading man. Larch is a wonderfully oily villain, but his big scene in the finale is a show of over acting, while Johnson as a hook handed criminal leaves a favourable mark.

Nicely photographed out of Conejo Valley, Thousand Oaks, Calif by Lathrop (though we yearn for more for sure), and a nifty foreboding based score by Gershenson (Herman Stein uncredited) seals the deal for this as good Oater viewing. Not one for those seeking wall to wall shoot outs etc, but one for those who like to see a narrative offering meaty substance. 7/10

An army officer (Rory Calhoun) is blamed and is dishonourably discharged from the army wrongly after gold from a stagecoach is robbed. He goes after the man really responsible.

An indistinguishable low budget western that looks cheap, but fairly mature material.

The Saga of Hemp Brown is a satisfactory western with great characters, good visuals and the usual solid performance from Rory Calhoun.

But...

Rory has a mission to clear his name. Ok nothing wrong with that...unless the movie presents about 10 different ways that this could occur before reaching its conclusion?

It ends up giving you the feeling of 'what's the point'. The plot totally destroys what is otherwise a good presentation.

I can usually overlook plot holes but The Saga of Hemp Brown keeps smacking you over the head with them.

Its a real shame and this was allowed to happen and it feels like they pumped out a movie treating the audience with contempt :)

Lieutenant Rory Calhoun is in charge of making sure the payroll and the wife of the commanding officer gets to the fort. He runs into ex-sergeant John Larch, who robs the payroll. Charges are brought for theft; Larch is believed dead. The only thing the court can make stick is cowardice, which gets him cashiered, of course, and infamy. So he goes in search of Larch to prove his innocence.

There are lots of nice details in this Shaky A western, one of many made by Calhoun in the 1950s. Director Richard Carlson seems particularly good in directing the women, particularly Beverly Garland, the star of a traveling show that succors him. But there's something about this movie that strikes me as odd. It seems to lack any subtext whatsoever, with all of its points lying on the surface, a story that is well told, but has nothing at all to say about anything else.

And it should. The direst B western has something to say about the coming of civilization. This seems to be a story about Calhoun's character and nothing more. Perhaps that's the subtext: things happen, and there's no meaning to them beyond the individuals involved. That's rather nihilistic, isn't it?