I like movie set later than the cowboy/outlaw era (19th Century), and yet before the great progress (1920 -). An example of one of these films is Bruce Dern in Harry Tracy. This movie was set in 1909. It was at the time that Indians were most vulnerable. There was no certainty they would even survive as peoples. The racism was very clear. Opportunistic white whiskey merchants sell booze to the Indians, but contemptuously mutter racist things about the Indians.
It is probably hard seeing an Italian-American (Blake) play an Indian, and Ross (Irish-American?) playing a half-breed. However, they both pull it off fairly well. Blake plays a character who shoots the white father of Ross's character, and ends up on the run. The ambiguity of everything is pretty good. It is self-defense, because the father sneaks up on him and is raising his gun. But, the impression one gets is one is not sure whether Blake's character is prone to violence or just on the defense. There is a better scene when the sheriff (Redford) finds Ross's character shot dead. But no one knows whether it was murder or a self-inflicted suicide.
Redford's sheriff is ambiguous, too. You don't know whether to like him or not. Most importantly, though, one is aware that he is just barely in control. It is very clear that in a few months, the powers in the jurisdiction may change and make him useless as a sheriff. He is only through his bravery and action oriented personality that he keeps his underlings under control.
The desert as a great hiding place is put to use. This was California, when large towns today were just spots in the desert. The rocks are great hiding places for a person on the run. I was even surprised to find wooded and watery areas, which you won't expect to find in the desert.
I was a little confused by the ending. The sheriff shoots the runaway shooting suspect when he raises his gun. It was ambiguous. Yet, why does Redford's character say that 'he had no bullets'? Blake's character was shooting at him. Was this to mean that the runaway was expecting his death as a fate? I wasn't sure what to conclude.
It is probably hard seeing an Italian-American (Blake) play an Indian, and Ross (Irish-American?) playing a half-breed. However, they both pull it off fairly well. Blake plays a character who shoots the white father of Ross's character, and ends up on the run. The ambiguity of everything is pretty good. It is self-defense, because the father sneaks up on him and is raising his gun. But, the impression one gets is one is not sure whether Blake's character is prone to violence or just on the defense. There is a better scene when the sheriff (Redford) finds Ross's character shot dead. But no one knows whether it was murder or a self-inflicted suicide.
Redford's sheriff is ambiguous, too. You don't know whether to like him or not. Most importantly, though, one is aware that he is just barely in control. It is very clear that in a few months, the powers in the jurisdiction may change and make him useless as a sheriff. He is only through his bravery and action oriented personality that he keeps his underlings under control.
The desert as a great hiding place is put to use. This was California, when large towns today were just spots in the desert. The rocks are great hiding places for a person on the run. I was even surprised to find wooded and watery areas, which you won't expect to find in the desert.
I was a little confused by the ending. The sheriff shoots the runaway shooting suspect when he raises his gun. It was ambiguous. Yet, why does Redford's character say that 'he had no bullets'? Blake's character was shooting at him. Was this to mean that the runaway was expecting his death as a fate? I wasn't sure what to conclude.