The Squaw Man
Tags: murder

Plot synopsis:
James Wynnegate (Dustin Farnum) and his cousin, Henry (Monroe Salisbury), are upper class Englishmen and have been made trustees for an orphans’ fund. Henry loses money in a bet at a derby and embezzles money from “the fund” to pay off his debts. When war office officials are informed of the money missing from “the fund," they pursue James, but he successfully escapes to Wyoming. There, James rescues Nat-U-Ritch (Lillian St. Cyr), daughter to the chief of the Utes tribe, from local outlaw Cash Hawkins (William Elmer). Hawkins plans to exact his revenge on James, but has his plans thwarted by Nat-U-Ritch, who fatally shoots him. Later, James gets into an accident in the mountains and needs to be rescued. Nat-U-Ritch tracks him down and carries him back to safety. As she nurses him back to health, they fall in love and later have a child. Meanwhile, during an exploration of the Alps, Henry falls off a cliff. Before he succumbs to his injuries, Henry signs a letter of confession proclaiming James’ innocence in the embezzlement. Before Henry's widow, Lady Diana (Winifred Kingston), and others arrive in Wyoming to tell James about the news, the Sheriff recovers the murder weapon that was used against Cash Hawkins inside of James and Nat-U-Ritch's home. Realizing their son was not safe, the couple sends him away, leaving them both distraught. Facing the possibilities of losing both her son and her freedom, Nat-U-Ritch decides to take her own life instead. The movie ends with both the chief of the Utes tribe and James embracing her body.

Review: As all film buffs know Cecil B.
DeMille's first version of The Squaw Man was the very first film done in what we now call Hollywood.
He did a second silent version and for his third film on his MGM hiatus from Paramount he did it once again.Third time was not the charm.
Although the actors, especially Warner Baxter as the disgraced English Earl who goes to the American west and meets, weds, and beds an Indian maiden, Lupe Velez are competent and sincere the film is terribly dated.
Depression audiences simply were not interested in a Victorian morality tale with a dose of the British stiff upper lip.It all sounds so quaint and ridiculous.
Baxter is accused of embezzlement and he knows who the culprit is, but won't inform because he doesn't want to disgrace the other guy's family.
So with admirable rectitude he heads west and make a new life in America.He also manages to make an enemy of Charles Bickford who was another rancher who covets his land.
But Baxter finds love with Lupe, as did most of Hollywood in real life, and he has a son who will in fact inherit his title.Cecil B.
DeMille was a child of his time.
Melodramas like The Squaw Man was the stuff that the legitimate theater did when he grew up and learned his trade from David Belasco.
But audiences weren't buying it in 1931, people had real issues about where the next meal was coming from and could they find work.
A story about some Victorian honor code just wasn't marketable.It's a sincere film though and it might be worth a look to judge what public tastes were at the turn of the last century and before the Roaring Twenties..
DeMille's Desert Saga.
An English aristocrat becomes 'THE SQUAW MAN' after leaving Britain under mysterious circumstances and marrying an Indian maiden in the American West.At the end of the Silent Era, famed director Cecil B.
DeMille signed a deal with MGM to produce three pictures over three years.
For the first two--DYNAMITE (1929) and MADAM Satan (1930)--he pulled out all the stops to present lavish photoplays of New York high society, with a mine cave-in and a dirigible disaster to liven things up.For his third film at MGM DeMille returned to his favorite story, which he'd already filmed twice before as a silent.
For this talkie version he kept the story simple, without special effects or unnecessary melodrama.
He also made outstanding use of filming on location in Arizona.
The result is a well-made film with a poignant storyline and an emotionally gripping conclusion.While Warner Baxter's American accent makes him rather unbelievable as an Englishman, this can be easily overlooked because of his fine performance.
But acting honors go to Lupe Velez, who strips away all unnecessary technique & mannerisms to deliver an uncomplicated, heartbreaking portrayal of a primitive woman wholly devoted to the man she adores and their son.
Without even trying, she completely dominates the film.The rest of the cast also make their mark in much smaller roles: beautiful Eleanor Boardman as the titled Englishwoman Baxter loves; owlish Roland Young as Baxter's best friend; shifty Paul Cavanagh as the feckless Earl of Kerhill; and Julia Faye as a fox hunting American widow.Out West, the cast includes angry Charles Bickford as a murderous rancher intent on grabbing Buzzards Pass from Baxter; bullying DeWitt Jennings as the corrupt sheriff of Maverick; J.
Farrell MacDonald as Baxter's loyal ranch hand; and little Dickie Moore, one of the OUR GANG kids, as the lively son of Baxter & Velez.
Wizened old Luke Cosgrave gives a few humorous moments as the cantankerous driver of a desert jalopy.DeMille's sojourn at MGM was not a commercial success for the Studio.
His contract wasn't extended and he returned to Paramount, where he would soon commence on some of the most popular films of his career..
DeMille perfects his noble tale.
I really enjoy films from around 1931.
I like the "early talkie" aesthetic, with gritty black & white photography, sparse (if any) musical scoring, and slightly edgy pre-Code content.
DeMille's THE SQUAW MAN (1931) is clearly not one of them.
DeMille was an auteur and THE SQUAW MAN is something special.
A cut above the usual Hollywood fare of the time.This 1931 film is actually DeMille's third adaptation of the story, following his 1914 and 1918 silents.
The third time's the charm for DeMille, who crafts an involving tale with a fine cast and the added dimension of sound.Jim Wyngate nobly leaves England to live in self-exile in America for the sake of his cousin's marriage to the beautiful Lady Diana.
At the same time, he nobly volunteers himself to take the blame for his cousin's embarrassing mishandling of charitable funds.
He settles out West and takes up ranching under an assumed name.
He makes friends and enemies amongst the cowboys and becomes attached to a young Indian woman.
(Native American, that is.) After years of living as a cowboy in Arizona, will Wyngate return to England and resume his past aristocratic lifestyle?
Warner Baxter, three years removed from his Oscar-winning turn as the Cisco Kid (IN OLD ARIZONA - 1928), stars as Jim Wyngate, the selfless hero.
The lovely Eleanor Boardman (THE CROWD - 1928) plays Lady Diana, who loves Wyngate but is married to his cousin (Paul Cavanagh).
Charles Bickford is great as the heavy and DeWitt Jennings does a good job as the villainous sheriff.
Roland Young (TOPPER - 1937), a personal favorite of mine, has a nice supporting role.Sexy Mexican spitfire Lupe Velez is Naturich, the "primitive-minded" Indian girl who is chivalrously defended by Wyngate and repays him by saving his life a couple times.
There's a connection between the two that transcends cultural barriers and, half a world away from Diana and his past life, the white man takes Naturich as his wife.
Velez is heartbreaking in a scene where she fashions a crude toy horse as a birthday gift for her half-breed son (Dickie Moore), who is more interested in his model train.This film is a vast improvement over C.B. DeMille's own landmark 1914 version.
Although the basic plot line is the same, there are several differences in the stories.
I don't know which film is closer to the original "Squaw Man" play, but I found this talkie version more effective.
(In fact, the 1914 film might not have made as much sense if I wasn't already familiar with the story from this later version.)The key to this version is the emotional ties between the characters.
Jim loves Diana, but nothing can come of it.
So he moves thousands of miles away, but we see his face when he sees her picture in the society section.
He learns to move on while living with Naturich, but Diana makes a surprise visit and expects things to be just as they were.
Jim is excited at the prospect of returning to England, but there's no place for Naturich in English society.
And noble Jim wouldn't walk out on poor sweet Naturich.
Half white man, half Indian.
Jim struggles to decide his son's future at a crucial point.
It may sound melodramatic, but viewers are invested in the characters and must know how things turn out.The characterizations in the 1914 silent film lack heart..
Great Performances But Not Quite As Good as the 1914 Version.
The Squaw Man (1931) ** 1/2 (out of 4) This here was Cecil B.
DeMille's third attempt at telling Edwin Milton Royle's play.
This time out it's Warner Baxter who plays Jim Carston, a British man who is ran out of his country so he heads to the United States and out West.
Once there he crosses a rival landowner but things take a turn for the worse when he falls in love with an Indian woman (Lupe Velez), which is a big no-no.
This version from DeMille offers up a terrific cast and I think the racial issues are a lot more out front here but I really can't say that this was any sort of improvement over the 1914 version, which I've seen.
I think the film's biggest problem is the pacing because at times it moves along at a very slow pace.
This includes the early stuff in Britain, which could have been completely left out and I think it would have helped.
I also thought some of the stuff in the West dragged during spots but there's no question that the film is still worth viewing for the performances alone.
Baxter was extremely good and believable in his part and there's certainly no doubt that he fit the tough guy role just fine.
Charles Bickford is excellent as always and we get nice support from Roland Young, Paul Cavanagh and a young Dickie Moore.
Velez easily steals the show as she's terrific in each scene she's in.
Her beauty is on full display and while I'm sure some might be offended by the way the Indian is played, I thought the performance itself was very good.
DeMille delivers a decent picture but at the same time one can't help but wish he had left this alone and attempted something else..
Considering that this film was made in 1931, it sure looks more like a silent film with words rather than a more modern looking film.
In 1931 we had films like "Frankenstein", "Cimarron", "Mata Hari", "City Lights", "Dracula", "M", "Public Enemy", "Dr. Jekyl and Mr. Hyde", and "Monkey Business".
All of these films had better acting, camera work and better use of sound, and they all had a more modern script.
"The Squaw Man" was the third filming of the play, all of them by Cecil B.
DeMille.
The play was written in 1905 and starred future famous silent film cowboy William S.
It ran for nearly a year and was revived several times, then spawned a novel.
But all 3 versions held steady to the Victorian plot, and even by 1931 it seems dated..
Watch For Lupe Velez.
This is the worst film that DeMille ever made ( at least those that I saw).
Perhaps if the scenes in England were cut and more Lupe Velez were shown I would like it better?
Speaking of Lupe although she played an Indian (Naturich), she looks more gypsy then anything else, but she was much better then anyone else.
Especially Warner Baxter who was better as a Mexican ( In Old Arizona) then an Englishman in this movie ( sort off like William Powell in 'The Key' does not work).
Although I am no fan of this movie, it is worth watching because of Lupe Velez and because all three of his ( DeMille) movies at MGM ( Dynamite and Madam Satan are the others) are rarely shown.3 of 10 stars..
Lupe Vélez proves that a Mexican playing a Native American in the United States isn't necessarily any less insulting than a white person taking the part.
Here, Vélez doesn't even dress the part--wearing traditional Mexican-looking clothes.
I would overlook the racism inherit in "The Squaw Man" melodrama--cloaked in the selling point of miscegenation--if there were anything more to the picture.
DeMille was shot at while making the 1914 version of the hackneyed stage soap opera, and this time he lost his job.
If anyone finds the 1918 version, I'll pass.
Why did DeMille bother?
I suppose, then, that it made sense for DeMille to try a talkie remake of his first box-office success.
The acting and dialogue are atrocious.(There's also a scene where Vélez undresses.).
This story is a bit hard to swallow.
A British noble leaves England to save the family name - his cousin, actually - who has embezzled and bankrupted the family fortune, leaving the woman he loves (who is married to the embezzler).
He then turns up as a rancher in Texas (honest, I'm not making this up), takes up with an Indian girl who bears him a son.
Seven years later, the embezzler dies but confesses, freeing the benighted couple to marry, she in England and he in Texas.
Well, I couldn't, but the principals are so in earnest and the mood so solemn that you give it a break - a rating of six, to be exact.I am into acting performances and this picture has many good ones; Warner Baxter (extremely in earnest), Eleanor Boardman and Roland Young (somewhat in earnest) and Lupe Velez, who really doesn't fit and, to my mind, nearly sinks the picture with a catatonic performance.
She got better in the "Mexican Spitfire" series in the 40's.
As I say, the preposterous plot is played with a straight face, so I gave this head-scratcher the benefit of the doubt..
It's amazing how racist this film is considering that DeMille was trying to promote understanding and improve the view of the American Indian--still, it is very enjoyable..
I enjoyed this film far more than I expected--especially since I usually hate DeMille films and the film comes off as very patronizing towards American Indians.
DeMille favored huge spectacular films that featured rather cardboard characters and so for that reason I had little interest in seeing the film.
Second, while it's obvious that DeMille is trying to say something positive about respecting and giving equality to our Indian brothers, the film often comes off as paternalistic and racist.
It's obvious that DeMille is trying to say something profound about American Indians but it just backfires.The film begins in England and oddly Warner Baxter is cast as an upper-class Brit despite his Columbus, Ohio origins.
While he was an amazingly underrated actor and did this role well for an American, it seemed odd that everyone in "Old Blighty" sounded like a local but Baxter.
Despite this, I really liked this portion of the film.
Baxter has fallen in love with his slimy cousin's wife, but being a decent man he's decided to leave the country because if he stays he knows that a romance between them is inevitable.
At about the same time, it turns out that the cousin has embezzled some funds and Baxter tells the cousin to blame this on him!
After all, he reasoned, he's leaving the country and won't come back and blaming Baxter will get the cousin out of a jam.
While it seemed like a very unlikely plot, the writing and execution of it was so good that I managed to suspend disbelief.
And, for once, DeMille seemed to do a decent job with characterizations--at least in this part of the film.
There were no huge scenes and the film was very character-driven.Later, after Baxter leaves England, he inexplicably relocates to the most desolate and godforsaken part of the United States.
The place is all dirt and cacti and the idea of an English lord living there is stretching things a bit!!
However, this also worked thanks to great acting.
The conflict between the evil and land-crazy Charles Bickford and Baxter was interesting as was Baxter's coming to a young Indian girl's defense when Bickford is abusing her.
I though that Baxter's treating the girl like a human being was a very positive statement and having this Indian fall in love with a White man was a great plot element.
After all, Americans (and most others throughout the world) probably would have not approved of this "miscegenation".
DeMille allowing them to slowly fall in love and marry was a great stand against racism--too bad the final portion of the film undid a lot of the positive strides such a plot might have made.
By the way, the lady was played by Lupe Valez--who doesn't exactly look Indian although all the other Indians in the film are authentic.
Plus, her talking and acting like a child through the film made the whole thing seem paternalistic after a while.Out of the blue, the cousin is killed and he admits that it was he and NOT Baxter who embezzled the money.
This allowed the cousin's wife to seek out Baxter and renew their love.
However, when she realizes that in the seven years that have passed that Baxter has married, this plan cannot be.
From this moment on, the film starts to slide downhill...and fast!
First, since the cousin is dead, apparently Baxter is the lord of the family estates and they want him to return to England.
However, he loves Lupe too much to leave Arizona so he proposes to instead send their cute little son (Dickie Moore) instead!!
This made no sense, as you wonder how a man can love his wife yet send away their three year-old son!
Why not try moving the family to the UK or perhaps spend part of the time in America and part of the time at the family estate?!
Second, and this is a bad example of script writing, although it's been seven years since Lupe murdered Bickford (and it was VERY justified), at the exact same moment the folks from England visit, the sheriff has just obtained new evidence to implicate Valez for murder!!
Now, at her death, Baxter would be available to move back to England with his kid and his old flame!!
This is just too much coincidence to seem like anything other than sloppy writing.
Plus, it seemed to say that Baxter's marrying an Indian was more of an inconvenience than anything else.
You would have thought that since the original SQUAW MAN came out in 1914 that DeMille could have done something to fix this plot element.Overall, it's an entertaining film that should have been a very positive statement about interracial love and understanding.
Instead, the Indians seemed rather stereotypical and Valez's character seemed amazingly one-dimensional.
Oddly, after seven years of marriage, she still talked a bit like Charlie Chan and an American Indian rolled into one!
A nice try and this is a film that would be great to remake today--after making the characters more believable.