In 1803, Meriwether Lewis and William Clark were ordered by President Thomas Jefferson to lead an expedition surveying the territory that the United States had recently acquired by the Louisiana Purchase. Their expedition, which lasted several years, played an important role in increasing Americans' knowledge of the continent on which they lived and in opening it up to white settlement, but "The Far Horizons" is to date the only film on the subject.
Although it is based upon a real-life event, many of the details are heavily fictionalised. A fictional love-triangle is introduced with Lewis and Clark in love with the same woman, Julia Hancock. (Julia was a real person who became Clark's first wife). The triangle becomes a quadrangle when Clark falls in love with an Indian maiden named Sacagawea, even though he is engaged to Julia. Sacagawea was also a real person, who acted as a guide to the expedition, although the love between her and Clark was an invention of the scriptwriters for which there is no historical evidence, just as there is no evidence for Lewis's love for Julia. Their relationship becomes the main focus of the film, which means that the first part of the journey, across the Great Plains, is ignored in favour of the later part through the Pacific Northwest. (Sacagawea was from the Shoshone tribe, who lived in what is today Idaho).
I felt that the film would have been better, in a dramatic sense, if it had followed its own dramatic logic and ended with the marriage of Clark and Sacagawea, leaving Julia free to marry Lewis who has always loved her faithfully. (I know that would have made it even more historically inaccurate than it already is, but historical accuracy was clearly not the film-makers' priority). Instead, it ends with Sacagawea leaving Clark to return to her own people, even though she is in love with him, and him marrying Julia. It has been suggested that this ending was dictated by a Production Code which tolerated interracial love but not interracial marriages, but this cannot be correct as in "Broken Arrow", made five years earlier, the white Tom Jeffords and the Apache maiden Sonseeahray become husband and wife.
Of the male leads Charlton Heston as Clark is the better, although this is far from his best performance. Fred MacMurray, who impressed me in some of his other films such as "Double Indemnity" and "The Caine Mutiny", seems particularly stiff and wooden as Lewis, so much so that I wondered whether the director had deliberately instructed him to play the role in that manner, perhaps to explain why Julia was so uninterested in him despite his devotion to her.
Sacagawea is played by the white actress Donna Reed, something which has given rise to adverse comment in recent years, even though in the fifties it was certainly common for white actors to play characters of different ethnicities, generally with the help of appropriate make-up. The reason in this case was probably financial- the producers needed a well-known leading lady to act as a box-office draw, and in 1955 nearly all famous Hollywood actresses were Caucasian- but it is also possible that this particular piece of casting might have helped overcome any prejudices the audience might have felt about a mixed-race love affair. (Sonseeahray was played by another white actress, Debra Paget). Today, however, the casting of Reed seems unfortunate. Leaving questions of political correctness aside, she looks about as convincing as a Native American as the Black and White Minstrels did as black people, even with the assistance of what looks like dark brown boot-polish smeared all over her face.
Sacagawea may be depicted as a sympathetic character, but the film's depiction of the Indians, portrayed as violent and treacherous, is a generally negative one. This was by no means unusual in the fifties, but even then some films such as "Broken Arrow" took a more liberal view of racial issues. The film certainly does nothing to challenge the nineteenth-century concept of America's "manifest destiny" - the idea that the West was virgin territory inhabited only by "savages" and therefore ripe for colonisation by white Americans- and this view of history can make for uneasy viewing today. The film has its virtues; it can be a rousing adventure with some decent action sequences set against the magnificent scenery of the Northwest. Its attitudes, however, mark it out as very much a product of its time. 6/10
A goof. We are informed that in 1803 all the land lying west of the Rocky Mountains was "unknown territory", and it is even marked as such on a map. In fact, the Spaniards had been colonising California since the 1770s and New Mexico since the 1590s, so this land was hardly "unknown" even to Europeans. I will, however, let the film-makers off as regards the White House. Admittedly, the first written reference to the Presidential Mansion as the "White House" dates from 1811, a few years after the years during which the action takes place, but it is within the bounds of possibility that the term could have been used colloquially prior to this date.
Although it is based upon a real-life event, many of the details are heavily fictionalised. A fictional love-triangle is introduced with Lewis and Clark in love with the same woman, Julia Hancock. (Julia was a real person who became Clark's first wife). The triangle becomes a quadrangle when Clark falls in love with an Indian maiden named Sacagawea, even though he is engaged to Julia. Sacagawea was also a real person, who acted as a guide to the expedition, although the love between her and Clark was an invention of the scriptwriters for which there is no historical evidence, just as there is no evidence for Lewis's love for Julia. Their relationship becomes the main focus of the film, which means that the first part of the journey, across the Great Plains, is ignored in favour of the later part through the Pacific Northwest. (Sacagawea was from the Shoshone tribe, who lived in what is today Idaho).
I felt that the film would have been better, in a dramatic sense, if it had followed its own dramatic logic and ended with the marriage of Clark and Sacagawea, leaving Julia free to marry Lewis who has always loved her faithfully. (I know that would have made it even more historically inaccurate than it already is, but historical accuracy was clearly not the film-makers' priority). Instead, it ends with Sacagawea leaving Clark to return to her own people, even though she is in love with him, and him marrying Julia. It has been suggested that this ending was dictated by a Production Code which tolerated interracial love but not interracial marriages, but this cannot be correct as in "Broken Arrow", made five years earlier, the white Tom Jeffords and the Apache maiden Sonseeahray become husband and wife.
Of the male leads Charlton Heston as Clark is the better, although this is far from his best performance. Fred MacMurray, who impressed me in some of his other films such as "Double Indemnity" and "The Caine Mutiny", seems particularly stiff and wooden as Lewis, so much so that I wondered whether the director had deliberately instructed him to play the role in that manner, perhaps to explain why Julia was so uninterested in him despite his devotion to her.
Sacagawea is played by the white actress Donna Reed, something which has given rise to adverse comment in recent years, even though in the fifties it was certainly common for white actors to play characters of different ethnicities, generally with the help of appropriate make-up. The reason in this case was probably financial- the producers needed a well-known leading lady to act as a box-office draw, and in 1955 nearly all famous Hollywood actresses were Caucasian- but it is also possible that this particular piece of casting might have helped overcome any prejudices the audience might have felt about a mixed-race love affair. (Sonseeahray was played by another white actress, Debra Paget). Today, however, the casting of Reed seems unfortunate. Leaving questions of political correctness aside, she looks about as convincing as a Native American as the Black and White Minstrels did as black people, even with the assistance of what looks like dark brown boot-polish smeared all over her face.
Sacagawea may be depicted as a sympathetic character, but the film's depiction of the Indians, portrayed as violent and treacherous, is a generally negative one. This was by no means unusual in the fifties, but even then some films such as "Broken Arrow" took a more liberal view of racial issues. The film certainly does nothing to challenge the nineteenth-century concept of America's "manifest destiny" - the idea that the West was virgin territory inhabited only by "savages" and therefore ripe for colonisation by white Americans- and this view of history can make for uneasy viewing today. The film has its virtues; it can be a rousing adventure with some decent action sequences set against the magnificent scenery of the Northwest. Its attitudes, however, mark it out as very much a product of its time. 6/10
A goof. We are informed that in 1803 all the land lying west of the Rocky Mountains was "unknown territory", and it is even marked as such on a map. In fact, the Spaniards had been colonising California since the 1770s and New Mexico since the 1590s, so this land was hardly "unknown" even to Europeans. I will, however, let the film-makers off as regards the White House. Admittedly, the first written reference to the Presidential Mansion as the "White House" dates from 1811, a few years after the years during which the action takes place, but it is within the bounds of possibility that the term could have been used colloquially prior to this date.