Buffalo Soldiers

Picking this movie up from the library shelf, I didn't read anything on the box about it being historically accurate or factual so I didn't expect to get a history lesson by watching it. For a one hundred minute made for TV movie I wasn't at all disappointed, and felt entertained for the time I invested in it. Besides being filmed on location, it appeared a good effort was made in the uniform and prop department and it did not have a Hollywood look or feel to it. I would recommend this movie to those who like westerns; and don't have an eye and ear for knowing it all, or watch movies for their political or social messages. I did notice that their 1873 Colt's had the wrong frame for the time period, and the cylinders weren't beveled as they should have been, but I guess we all have to find fault somewhere, even us simple mined folk. Watch it, and enjoy it for what it is.

The story line offered with the movie, "Buffalo Soldiers," starring Danny Glover, describes the film as fact based. With the apparent noble intention of illustrating and informing their audience of the important contributions made by African American soldiers in the invasion, occupation and settlement of the southwestern United States, writers Jonathan Klein and Frank Military weave a tale of Company H, Tenth Cavalry and its attempt to capture an "Apache warrior named Vittorio" who slaughters settlers in New Mexico. Directed by Charles Haid, the film further promises to reveal "the truth about the Indian invaders." "Buffalo Soldiers" is a major disappointment. The great cinematography delivers misinformation at best and definitely sets back the education of the public with its false narrative.

In 1997, I saw this movie and shook my head. Because a number of people have mentioned it to me this year (2012) with praise, I saw it again last week. This time, I was appalled.

Black cavalrymen and infantrymen of Buffalo Soldier fame were well respected by their Indian adversaries. They earned grudging recognition from fellow white soldiers and genuine praise from their white officers. And, they certainly did not commit the repugnant crime purported near the end of the movie. Civil War hero Colonel Grierson was not the wimp portrayed in the movie, nor was he wounded by Indians during his twenty plus years as the commander of the Tenth Cavalry.

Chihenne Chief Victorio (not "Vittorio") is known to scholars as well as buffs. Between 1970 and 1991, authors Eve Ball and Dan Thrapp wrote scholarly and complete volumes about Chief Victorio and why he led his Mimbres Apaches (sometimes called Warm Springs Apaches or Eastern Chiricahua Apaches) in a fourteen month war against the United States. Called America's greatest guerrilla fighter, Victorio was certainly not a Mescalero Apache as he was called in the movie, though a few Mescalero warriors joined his band.

At Rattlesnake Springs in West Texas, the movie makers missed a chance to depict the actual dramatic showdown. It was Grierson versus Victorio. The two generals deployed their troops expertly and with aplomb. That day, Grierson used his Companies A, B, C, G, and H – each a company of Buffalo Soldiers. Find the factual and exciting outcome in readable story form here along with a recommended bibliography for your reading pleasure. https://bobrogers.biz/Page_per_Book/First_Dark.html "Buffalo Soldiers," in addition to being an instrument of misinformation, is a teaching opportunity squandered.

All the usual whiners about "political correctness" are, of course, missing the point. Buffalo Soldiers doesn't suffer for showing the truth about racial disparity. It suffers for only showing some of that truth while at the same time being dramatically weak.

For instance, it's obvious the Whites are for the most part either outright hostile to the Black and Native Americans -- which is historically accurate -- or else treating them as invisible -- which is also historically accurate. The whiners may not like that, but maybe they need to take that up with their culture.

Where the story falls down is in not fully examining the combined racism toward the Native Americans. Now, it's historically true that there was less animosity among the minorities toward each other in the old west, including the Black, Asian, and Native Americans stuck there. That doesn't mean there was universal peace, but minorities were allowed to marry one another, for instance, while they were shunned or forbidden to marry someone who was not a minority. But this film, in focusing on the racial tensions between the Whites and Blacks, generally overlooks their combined hostility toward the Native Americans.

The other problem is the script is wildly uneven, lacking much dramatic weight. Oh, yes, there are some tense scenes, but they're also frequently undermined by melodramatic dialogue that reminds you you're watching a TV movie. The pacing is not like a film but more like a few episodes of a TV series hastily patched together.

As with a lot of film and television of the past 40 or so years, more attention is paid to the technical aspects than the artistic ones. So, for instance, they get the uniforms and weapons basically right. They film on location. If as much time and effort were spent on polishing the script and editing the finished product, it might have been much better.

In the post-Civil War world, Texas Rangers track Apache war chief Victorio across the border to the federal New Mexico Territories. Sgt. Washington Wyatt (Danny Glover) leads the all negro US Cavalry H Troop. He arrests the Rangers for trespassing and murder. Commander Gen. Pike looks down on the colored troops and their command abilities. He puts southerner Maj. Robert Carr (Timothy Busfield) in charge despite his unwillingness to lead them. Col. Benjamin Grierson is a more supportive officer. John Horse (Carl Lumbly) is the native guide. Victorio is on the loose and on the attack.

This is an interesting and little told American history. There are compelling stories to be told. It would have been more interesting to have more diverse personalities in the colored troops. They are almost all stoic which leaves the group rather flat. I would also love to see the other side of the story from Victorio's point of view. Of course, that may make it too complicated. This is still a very compelling TV movie.

Can't understand why so many dislike and are genuinely appalled at this incredible movie. It's not meant to be 100%factual. Its meant to show the spirit of these incredible men back then,their relentless courage, bravery and some of the moral dilemmas they no doubt faced. Great cast,well directed,,a must see,in my humble opinion.