The Western List Discussion and Suggestions (Genre Project)

[tarpilot]

If you keep that up, you can forget about finding renewed interest on DVD.

[zedz]

In practical terms, I think all of the mini-series that have been voted for during the last lists project were quite different in their production from most television series: single director, single writer (or one writing collaboration), one big concentrated, finite production rather than an ongoing or hope-to-be-continued one

And yet The Day Today qualified for the 90s list?!

No, and nobody voted for it because it wasn't eligible.

And if you're going to use the 'multiple directors' charge then what about How the West Was Won? Would you strike that from contention too?

No, because it's a movie. What on earth does one film having multiple directors have to do with a television series made fifty years later magically not being a television series when that film is projected on top of it? Or this:

The fact is that, in modern television, the creator-executive producer is the driving force behind the show, the 'auteur' as it were, not the inividual directors or writers, who just conform to a certain expectation and perform a service essentially

Again, though true enough this is mere puffery. Still a television series. That's a historical fact, and even if you can find a genuine ambiguous example (we're still waiting) from somewhere amongst the billions of hours of television created all around the globe, it will still be a television series.

And then, conversely, what about The Kingdom? That's the work of a single writer-director, but there have been two seasons, so... In short: if it's a moving image then why not?

It's a mini-series, and then another mini-series was made, so it's two mini-series - i.e. a well-established and completely ordinary exception to the rule. But even that's not necessary, since both mini-series were shown in cinemas internationally, which is an even more straightforward exception.

[Nothing]

It's a mini-series, and then another mini-series was made, so it's two mini-series

Kingdom II features exactly the same cast as, and is a direct narrative continuation from, Kingdom I. And the intention had been to make a 3rd season as well, however the lead actor died. The only difference between this and Deadwood then is the use of multiple writer/directors, but you've said yourself that multiple writer-directors are perfectly acceptable on How the West was Won, so it becomes an irrelevent point. As to theatrical screenings, the fact remains that The Kingom premiered on television and I would imagine there have been some theatrical screenings of Deadwood since it was broacast too - so again, this is an irrelevent point. They're both TV series, they're also both audio-visual products and they should therefore both be eligible.

Anyway... Speaking of eligibility - Viva Zapata! I like this a lot, but it's a biopic / war movie, not a western. True, the film was a huge inspiration/source for a great many westerns in the 60s and 70s - including Gui La Testa!, The Wild Bunch and A Bullet for the General - but I would say that these films were appropriating elements of the Kazan and transferring them into a western context, which doesn't Zapata! itself a western make.

Taza, Son of Cochise - Good God... I generally love Sirk, but this has to be the most racist American picture since Birth of a Nation. Premise of the picture is that 'evil', warlike Native American factions, including those led by Geronimo, caused the persecution of their race by killing white women and then refusing to accept the peaceful terms offered by the US Army. The dasterdly moral character of the revolutionary-minded natives is underscored by the misogyny they express towards their own women throughout, whilst Rock Hudson's morally upright 'hero' is a kapo who righteously betrays his own people at every turn. Of course, all of the lead native roles are played by white actors in 'red face'. Ugh... :-&

[knives]

Isn't the horrific irony of the story kind of the point. It would be like complaining about Starship Troopers for being pro-American and fascist. Sirk is playing up these problems that are present in the previous two movies and the western genre in general as a way to show how horrible it is. If anything else I see a lot of moral ambiguity being played throughout.

[Nothing]

Starship Troopers is intentionally and clearly satirical. I can understand the desire to want to give Sirk a pass on this, but everything in the film that seems ridiculous and/or offensive today - the red face, the stereotyping of the rebellious Indians as dyed-in-the-wool misogynists and murderers, etc - would have been accepted at face value by white American audiences in 1952. So no, I don't see the comparison. Feel free to prove me wrong, however...

[swo17]

Kingdom II features exactly the same cast as, and is a direct narrative continuation from, Kingdom I. And the intention had been to make a 3rd season as well, however the lead actor died. The only difference between this and Deadwood then is the use of multiple writer/directors, but you've said yourself that multiple writer-directors are perfectly acceptable on How the West was Won, so it becomes an irrelevent point. As to theatrical screenings, the fact remains that The Kingom premiered on television and I would imagine there have been some theatrical screenings of Deadwood since it was broacast too - so again, this is an irrelevent point. They're both TV series, they're also both audio-visual products and they should therefore both be eligible.

Sigh. These are the relevant rules that have dominated the lists projects for years (though admittedly, they do not appear to have been posted before in this thread):

- Any feature film, documentary, experimental film, short film, music video, TV miniseries, TV movie or TV special is eligible.
- Television series or seasons / episodes of television series are not eligible.
- Two-part films released separately (e.g. Eisenstein's Ivans) count as one film. Trilogies (e.g. Ray's Apus) count as separate films.

Each Riget is a miniseries. Deadwood is a TV series. Are you debating this?

Incidentally, though this thread does not quote the rules cited above, it does say "your list must contain 50 films," not "50 audio-visual products."

If you are suggesting that the rules be changed, surely you have heard of the concepts of democracy or popular demand? I brought this issue up the other day in the lists project thread (which is where such issues really ought to be discussed anyway) but it didn't go very far. Of course, you are always welcome to start your own forum where you make your own rules.

[NABOB OF NOWHERE]

Kingdom II features exactly the same cast as, and is a direct narrative continuation from, Kingdom I. And the intention had been to make a 3rd season as well, however the lead actor died. The only difference between this and Deadwood then is the use of multiple writer/directors, but you've said yourself that multiple writer-directors are perfectly acceptable on How the West was Won, so it becomes an irrelevent point. As to theatrical screenings, the fact remains that The Kingom premiered on television and I would imagine there have been some theatrical screenings of Deadwood since it was broacast too - so again, this is an irrelevent point. They're both TV series, they're also both audio-visual products and they should therefore both be eligible.

Just to muddy the waters a tad. Kingdom 2 premiered theatrically. I queued up round the block to see it one Sunday morning. It is incidentally the only time I have heard a collective groan from the whole audience when the end music kicked in. I think it's that Jungian thing again.

[Gregory]

Starship Troopers is intentionally and clearly satirical. I can understand the desire to want to give Sirk a pass on this, but everything in the film that seems ridiculous and/or offensive today - the red face, the stereotyping of the rebellious Indians as dyed-in-the-wool misogynists and murderers, etc - would have been accepted at face value by white American audiences in 1952. So no, I don't see the comparison. Feel free to prove me wrong, however...

A lot of viewers (I would guess most) took Starship Troopers on face value as a typical action film where you root for the good guys as they wipe out the enemy.

What you describe in Taza, Son of Cochise is the way most Indians were portrayed in virtually all Hollywood westerns for decades on end. In rare cases, it's shown that Indians can overcome their Indianness by the grace of civilization and become almost fully human, but Indians on the whole were shown as animals who took sadistic pleasure in raping, killing, and torturing white women and children in all manner of twisted ways. To point this out is not to excuse it, but we should all be used to this by now. Why single out this one film? I can think of worse examples.

And you're crazy if you think the studio would've considered casting any Native actor as leading man rather than someone like Rock Hudson. Actually, it's rare that we get actual Native Americans playing supporting Indian roles and extras, and that Sirk was able to do this despite the added inconvenience of using interpreters with them all, etc. I believe he tried to make a some kind of authentic picture under the constraints of the conventions of the western with respect to Indians, incorporating Native lore that interested him, shooting almost the entire thing outdoors in the Upper Colorado Basin.

[knives]

The first two Man Called Horse films are great for totally different reasons, but as I've just finished the third I want to talk about that one first. It's really bad. The acting alone is amazing in how bad it is. The lead actor growls his lines in this hilarious way that I've never heard before and the Crow girl does this thing with her eyes when she's 'acting' that is so absurd I don't know how to describe it. No wonder why Harris wanted out early. The biggest loss though has to be that everything is in english which is such a lazy '80s move. That was what really gave the first two movies this tremendous flavour that without makes the proceedings generic and uninteresting. No wonder Warner has buried this one.

That said the first two movies are absolutely amazing even if they do everything different from each other. This is an absolute Alien/ Aliens situation and benefits the two films a great deal as a result. I liked the artificial silence of the first film more, but there is no wrong choice between the two. Kershner makes the film his own with a lot of great emotional strength and subversion. Any film really that has Richard Harris doing an impression of The Doctor is great automatically though. That whole bit with the umbrella and playing up his Englishness is just comedic gold.

Like I said though despite the advantages of the second one I think I prefer the first. I just love how it throws us into his point of view so powerfully that we can't even understand what's going on until the French speaker has a more prominent role. The smartest move though is having Horse be the only white guy in the film essentially. It takes a way all of the problems of your typical Indian centric western without needing to sacrifice the more entertaining aspects of the genre. it also prevents the sainting that a lot of liberal films do.

[Nothing]

Each Riget is a miniseries. Deadwood is a TV series. Are you debating this?

Absolutely, it's a completely arbitrary distinction. The decision to ban series television itself being just as arbitrary - no doubt an excuse to include highbrow titles like Dekalog, Berlin Alexanderplatz and Fanny & Alexander (and how convenient that Von Trier's similarly-arthouse Riget is also seen as a mini-series, despite running to two seasons of a planned three)... High culture in, low culture out. Which seems like a particularly silly distinction when discussing the western genre. And unless these 'rules' were established democratically in the first place, it's pretty irrelevent to start raising such a concept now. In any case, we've already agreed wth dom how to proceed...

A lot of viewers (I would guess most) took Starship Troopers on face value as a typical action film where you root for the good guys as they wipe out the enemy.

Some rednecks didn't get the joke, no doubt, but I was instantly aware of the satire and so was everyone I know (including also online discussion), and are we not the audience too? Honestly, you'd have been dumb to expect anything else from Verhoeven during his Hollywood period... Whereas I can't imagine ANYONE in 1952 watching Taza, stroking their beard and saying "ah yes, this is, in fact a satire on the Hollywood conventions of representation in the western genre..."

As you say, every western prior to 1950 that engages with the subject tends to portrays Indians as maurading savages who deserve to be exterminated (needless to say, none of these films will be making it onto my list either, Stagecoach included). This then shifts with films like Taza to the idea that some Indians are marauding savages, but others are nice folk who are very happy with their blue coats and reservation land and say "yes masser!" a lot in appreciation of all the good things the whitey has done for them, so maybe we shouldn't lump these guys in with the wife-beaters... In a strange way, this approach comes off as even more offensive, especially when you have a whole film dedicated to the subject.

But watch Aldrich's APACHE from just two years later (a film that may grace the bottom end of my list) and the approach is already far more progressive. Aldrich's hero (still played by a white actor, of course) is a genuinely firey Apache with righteous fury in his blood, and we cheer as he slashes and shoots his way through numerous white men and treacherous Indian kapos. He treats his woman pretty rough but, in true Aldrich fashion, she likes it (!), giving the relationship an unusual and entertaining D/s edge.. The exploitation and inhumanity of the reservation system is touched upon, although not fully explored, and there are still a few too many benign white guys hanging around trying to do 'the right thing'. The idea that the Indian can settle down and live 'on equal terms' with the white man, if only he gives up his warrior ways, unfortunately has not gone away entirely, although the film is ultimately quite ambiguous in its portrayal of Lancaster's final capitulation.

This then moves on in the 60s into the more realistic portrayal of the subject as an extreme injustice, if not a genocide, although perhaps swinging too far into moral simplicity and sentimentality in recent years. Instead of casting white men, it is now obligatory to cast Wes Studi... And it is still notable, I think, that after all this time very few great westerns have managed to engage effectively with the subject. Aldrich delivered again, times ten, with Ulzana's Raid. Bronson's avenging Indian in Once Upon a Time in the West has subtextual punch. The New World is probably the best film on the subject. Dead Man and Last on the Mohicans aren't bad (haven't seen the Man Called Horse films).

[knives]

Just because Sirk's audience is stupid doesn't mean Sirk is. He made a career out of presenting one thing with motivations of an other. You say we would be dumb to expect anything else from Verhoeven, but doesn't that statement also apply to Sirk who made a career out of turning empty headed weepies into thoughtful leftist works of satire? To suggest otherwise takes away everything his reputation was built upon.

[Mr Sausage]

And unless these 'rules' were established democratically in the first place, it's pretty irrelevent to start raising such a concept now.

They were. We had a big discussion on this point years ago and this is what we came up with. Not everything that doesn't go your way is a big conspiracy against you.

[Nothing]

Sirk's womens' pictures are beautiful, subtle, well-made films but I think it's really a stretch to label them "leftist works of satire", and not necessarily a complimentary either, given that the emotional directness and sincerity of these works is one of their major assets (not something that could be said of, say, Showgirls, as much as I admire it!).

Further, unlike Starship Trooper ("It's afraid!!!"), there's absolutely nothing in Taza to suggest it should be taken as satire or comedy. As I said, I'd be happy for you to prove me wrong, for you to come up with a close analysis which demonstrates these intentions, but I think the argument that 'it's directed by Sirk, therefore de facto it can't be racist/reactionary' is extremely weak, especially given that he was at that point in his career an immigrant studio director of limited weight who had yet to direct any of the pictures that would make his name.

They were. We had a big discussion on this point years ago and this is what we came up with.

But how many of the contributors to that discussion are still posting? Also, even if, say, 70% don't want put a TV series on their list that doesn't mean we should oppress the 30% who do...

[knives]

Nothing's argument for the television stuff is reminding me of that one episode of Curb Your Enthusiasm where Larry wants to change how the doctor does appointments depending on how it will benefit himself.

As to Taza I said it was satire, that doesn't automatically equal comedy though. I'm not sure if it's a term, but satire can be dramatic and I doubt anyone is falling out of their seats with laughter on a Sirk movie (though the double entendres and sly winks at Hudson's homosexuality could be considered plain dramatic). I think Sirk is, while having fun making a western, being reactionary though in a different way than what you mean. It's important to remember that this is the second sequel in a series of films where the previous two entries despite their best efforts were horrible politically coming across just as stupid and racist as those films that they were trying to balance out. While Sirk's commentary can apply for the whole western I think he's specifically looking at how those two films played out and pointing why they failed. Afterall your very complaints could apply to those two films more accurately (except the redface though as you said he was still young in Hollywood and needed a star). He takes those elements and plays them up to an extreme that is hopefully going to make the audience react in the way you did (in that sense I suppose you were played). He's exaggerating a racist portrayal to disturb people and to also show where social pictures fail at. In that regard the satire is pointed more at the Gentleman's Agreements than the Stagecoachs of the world. I think the term I was looking for earlier was Swiftian and you just thought Sirk asked you to turn to cannibalism.

It's also really important to remember that Sirk is very sympathetic to all of the natives. He understands why the ones who want to fight do, but at the same time he is condemning the circle of violence. I'm reminded of what we're talking about in the Books thread with Woody Allen and it appears that Sirk is saying the same thing though with the natives in the Palestinians situation this time.

[Nothing]

He takes those elements and plays them up to an extreme that is hopefully going to make the audience react in the way you did (in that sense I suppose you were played). He's exaggerating a racist portrayal to disturb people and to also show where social pictures fail at.

Oh come on, this is reaching desperately! As you just said yourself, all of these elements were present in the previous two films - so what precisely makes Sirk's picture any different or any more extreme? And since audiences in 1952 were so accustomed to these elements, why would anyone react against it in the way you are suggesting? The fact is, he needn't have perpetuated these stereotypes at all, as Aldrich's immeasurably superior Apache demonstrates.

[swo17]

They were. We had a big discussion on this point years ago and this is what we came up with.

But how many of the contributors to that discussion are still posting?

Again, I just recently tried to renew the discussion among current participants in the lists project thread, even sort of taking your side. There was some interest but many of the same concerns were raised again. You're welcome to carry on with the discussion there though.

Also, even if, say, 70% don't want put a TV series on their list that doesn't mean we should oppress the 30% who do...

This isn't a question of "should we let a mosque be built in our neighborhood?" but rather "should we put chlorine in the community pool?" In other words, if anyone is discussing or voting for TV series at all, even if not everyone does it, then our discussion thread and the final list are no longer just about films anymore. And this is a film site and this is overwhelmingly what people want the lists projects to be about. So we have to draw the line somewhere. The compromise about TV has been and continues to be that miniseries resemble films enough to be worth considering for the lists, but that TV series (many of which are of course worthy of praise) do not mesh well enough with films to be considered alongside them in the context of these projects. In the link posted above, I had proposed the idea of separate lists projects exclusively related to TV, but again, not much interest there.

[knives]

If your argument for Verhoeven is that's just what he does, why can't that be my own in regards to Sirk? Anyways there is more complexity to the film than just exaggeration as I pointed out in my second paragraph of the last post. There is a definite sense of how to put on a proper revolution. The white people are relegated to a status of other for which the revolution pivots against. Sirk does seem to choose a side, that of peaceful resistance, but he also leaves the table open to other opinions. The fighters aren't wrong as de facto.

[domino harvey]

the Hired Hand (Peter Fonda 1971) Sorry, zedz. Or, in Hired Hand-speak: "Sssssss-ss-ss-ss-ss-ss-ss-sssssorry ..... ..... ..... sor-ss-ss-sorry ..... sorry" (and no "zedz," because that'd be too much plot)

Django (Sergio Corbucci 1966) From a distance, I can see why this one has a reputation. The individual elements of novelty certainly stick in the mind, but the execution is everything, and, well, this movie is too ridiculous to take seriously but not ridiculous enough to have much fun with. Good theme song, though.

Buffalo Bill (William A Wellman 1944) It was bound to happen with the pace I've been at, but I'm so burnt out on westerns at this point that I can barely be bothered to keep my eyes on the screen during trifling malarky like this.

the Proposition (John Hillcoat 2005) I don't know what's worse, this film or that Nothing was right. This is a vile exercise in ugliness, filled with more "Look at me"-isms than you can shake a spear at. As the gentile opening credits played out, I said to myself, "I bet the film cuts immediately to graphic violence" and of course I was right, and that needy hand-holding on the part of the filmmakers sticks with the film 'til the very end. Oh, how clever, you've made Australia look like literal shit and CGI blown off an Aborigine's head with a shotgun and decapitated some guards and raped a woman who protested the lax punishment of a rapist-- you are just the living end, film!

the Man From Snowy River (George Miller 1982) A passable cookie western, one that barely makes use of anything identifiably Australian (Wallaby stew, anyone?), but tells a pleasant enough story of wild horses and gold mines and feuding twin Kirk Douglases-- you know, your typical western. I suspect the reason my ranching relations hold this one in such high esteem is the film's heavy plot focus on horses and, well, if that's a selling point, you could do worse. Also, the female lead here looks so much like perennial '80s movie qt Elizabeth McGovern that I'm not sure why they didn't just hire her.

Lonely Are the Brave (David Miller 1962) The only good thing to come out of the recent spate of viewings for this project. A smart portrait of a dying breed, a frontiersman fighting madly and defiantly against a changing world. This can join Hud as modern day representatives on my list.

Last Train From Gun Hill (John Sturges 1959) A good premise ruined by Sturges' turgid pacing and bland mise-en-scene. How can the same man responsible for the tight entertainment of Backlash be accountable for all these misfires? The film has one good scene, a monologue from Kirk Douglas detailing the slow death afforded by a hanging sentence, and I'm sure that's on YouTube.

the War Wagon (Burt Kennedy 1967) Nothing YouTubeable here, however, unless the idea of John Wayne and Kirk Douglas walking around in their underwear with gun holsters on is enough to get your motor running.

[Cold Bishop]

You'd think a Western Wages of Fear with the Duke and Douglas would be worth watching... but nooooooooo. It's one of the films that always pop up in my head when I think of the word "mediocrity".

Like Django, but it's never been a top-tier SW to me. Prefer the "sequel" (although if you're trying to avoid "ugliness", it may be wise to stay away; even I admit there are a few touches that I find unsettling, such as the requisite height-of-decadence homophobia).

I "like" The Proposition, even if I'm not convinced it isn't a shallow film. I understand why his "apocalyptic" vision is off-putting, but it's at least a cohesive vision. If he can find a way to wring real poignancy out of his stories, and to quit being so humorless, I think Hillcoat could eventually make a great film. Looking forward to The Wettest County in the World.

[domino harvey]

Wages of Fear didn't have the foresight to include an indian chugging nitroglycerin, though, or Keenan Wynn barking orders at his teenage bride

[knives]

Like Django, but it's never been a top-tier SW to me. Prefer the "sequel" (although if you're trying to avoid "ugliness", it may be wise to stay away; even I admit there are a few touches that I find unsettling, such as the requisite height-of-decadence homophobia)

I just love the silliness of the original too much for it not to place for me, though Dom not finding it cartoonish enough is a passable reason for disliking it I suppose (it's definitely far more understandable than the opposite). It has just the right level of over the top for me and it's paced amazingly especially when compared to Fistful. The Great Silence is clearly the better movie though and I hope Dom has time to check it out as it might hit the right balance for him (since that balance seems to be his main issue).

[Nothing]

If your argument for Verhoeven is that's just what he does, why can't that be my own in regards to Sirk?

b/c Sirk hadn't made a name for himself in Hollywood at that time and he was clearly just following orders, making a stupid, racist picture for money.

There is a definite sense of how to put on a proper revolution. The white people are relegated to a status of other for which the revolution pivots against. Sirk does seem to choose a side, that of peaceful resistance, but he also leaves the table open to other opinions. The fighters aren't wrong as de facto.

There is? They are? He does? They aren't?

The film pulls out every Hollywood trick in the book to demonise the rebellious Indians. They fire an arrow into the heart of an unarmed young settler woman, they take the lash to the leading lady at every opportunity, whom their leader wants to rape/marry against her wishes, they also disobey the wishes of their dead chief, Cochise, they mock and torment the hero... On what level is Sirk 'leaving the table open'?

Meanwhile, Taza, the hero, doesn't resist, he collaborates, joining the Indian kapo/police, informing on the other Indians when they try to mount a war party - and ultimately taking up sides against his own people in battle. He's the real villain of the piece, yet the film pulls every trick out of the bag to make him into the hero (compare this, as I say, to Aldrich's far more enlightened Apache).

Speaking of racism, The War Wagon really shows Burt Kennedy's hand doesn't it - that scene where they trick the alcoholic Indian chief into drinking nitroglycerine and then blow him up (ugh...) Of course, this also comes across in Ride Lonesome, one of the many reasons I find this to be the worst of the Ranown 7.

So, I managed a True Grit double bill yesterday... Well, sort of... The Hathaway looked like a school play following the Coen film, so I have to admit the finger reached for fast-forward on occasion... Not that I was entirely enamoured with the Coen either. It's watchable, well-executed and well-acted, but rather soft and insubstantial (eg. hard to believe that the outlaws wouldn't have raped the girl, but this is presumably a problem with the populist source material). The cod-'profound' ending (typical of the Coens) also comes off as somewhat cheap. Would have preferred to see them adapting McCarthy again, or adopting a McCarthy-esque tone. A bit of a missed opportunity.

Oh, and there's nothing 'cohesive' about The Proposition, indeed quite the opposite. The film is torn between, on the one hand, a shallow attempt to draw comparisons to Peckinpah through the use of violence and, on the other, a complete capitulation to the pathetic PC demands of the British civil servants who provided the funding, most obviously through the grating and superflous Emily Watson character. Add to that the dreadful score + shooting and cutting the thing ike a music video and the result is one of the worst, most overrated films of the past decade.

Seconded recommendation for The Great Silence, although this one is a no-brainer, surely (but the crown of 'best non-Leone spaghetti' still must go to A Bullet for the General!)

[knives]

If your argument for Verhoeven is that's just what he does, why can't that be my own in regards to Sirk?

b/c Sirk hadn't made a name for himself in Hollywood at that time and he was clearly just following orders, making a stupid, racist picture for money.

I'm sure Zedz can phrase this better, but your argument is stupid. When making Robocop did Verhoeven have a name as a Hollywood director? Again what is the difference here? Is it entirely impossible for you to believe that he nodded his head at the meetings and handed over what appears to be an obedient film while actually making it subversive, i.e. what Verhoeven and Sirk has made a career out of?

There is a definite sense of how to put on a proper revolution. The white people are relegated to a status of other for which the revolution pivots against. Sirk does seem to choose a side, that of peaceful resistance, but he also leaves the table open to other opinions. The fighters aren't wrong as de facto.

There is? They are? He does? They aren't?

The film pulls out every Hollywood trick in the book to demonise the rebellious Indians. They fire an arrow into the heart of an unarmed young settler woman, they take the lash to the leading lady at every opportunity, whom their leader wants to rape/marry against her wishes, they also disobey the wishes of their dead chief, Cochise, they mock and torment the hero... On what level is Sirk 'leaving the table open'?

Meanwhile, Taza, the hero, doesn't resist, he collaborates, joining the Indian kapo/police, informing on the other Indians when they try to mount a war party - and ultimately taking up sides against his own people in battle. He's the real villain of the piece, yet the film pulls every trick out of the bag to make him into the hero (compare this, as I say, to Aldrich's far more enlightened Apache).

Look to the above for most of my response to this, but to further one point the white people are so foreign within the film that they take on the role of the Indians. The emotional effect of the fire arrow you mention is crowd pleasing. An adrenaline rush occurs from the action which isn't hit with sadness since the women was so abstracted within the context of the film that it's like the shooting of an Indian. While hitting all of the marks of convention with the script the point of view and much of the direction leads to a reversal of that convention. It's a perfectly normal western, but one where the roles are reversed.

[matrixschmatrix]

If your argument for Verhoeven is that's just what he does, why can't that be my own in regards to Sirk?

b/c Sirk hadn't made a name for himself in Hollywood at that time and he was clearly just following orders, making a stupid, racist picture for money.

This doesn't really make any sense- the whole idea of the subversive, secretly ironic movie thing is that a director can work within the system, follow orders, and still express something different. That doesn't having a name that you've made for yourself, and the artistic freedom that follows from that, in the least.

[Nothing]

When Verhoeven moved to Hollywood he was an independent contractor with a number of considerable European successes under his belt (Soldier of Orange, Turkish Delight, Spetters), which meant that he could still pick and choose his scripts and exert a certain amount of control as a director, at least within reason. Sirk on the other hand was an unknown asylum-seeking immigrant director of B-Pictures under contract to Universal Studios - the propositon that he would have had the same control over his material during this period as Verhoeven is ridiculous. But, again, I think to categorize even Sirk's later films as "subversive" or "satirical" is both incorrect and snobbish, possibly also sexist, assuming as it does that the audience that made these films successful was unable to understand them - also assuming that the films don't operate on a frank emotional level, which they do. And all this talk of Verhoeven is just a distraction from actually having to defend the indefensible racist trast that is Taza itself, with your argument still not stretching far beyond the dunderheaded auteurist proposition of "Douglas Sirk directed it so it must be good."

the white people are so foreign within the film that they take on the role of the Indians... It's a perfectly normal western, but one where the roles are reversed.

Sounds great, except you're describing some idea that you have in your head, not the film as it actually exists. There are no bad whites in Taza, only the good and the misguided, with the latter (the general) eventually admitting the error of his ways and deferring to the good judgement of Taza and the Captain. Meanwhile, the "role of the Indians" is taken by... you guessed it, the Indians who run around killing, whipping, beating and threatening to rape every female in sight.

So... Was Birth of a Nation 'satirical' as well?