THE AMERICAN INDIAN IN THE AMERICAN FILM Thesis presented in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in American Studies in the University of Canterbury by Michael J. Brathwaite 1981 ABSTRACT This thesis is a chronological examination of the ways in which American Indians have been portrayed in American 1 f.ilms and the factors influencing these portrayals. B eginning with the literary precedents, the effects of three wars and other social upheavals and changes are considered. In addition t-0 being the first objective detailed examination of the subj�ct in English, it is the first work to cover the last decade. It concludes that because of psychological factors it is unlikely that film-makers are - capable of advancing far beyond the basic stereotypes, and that the failure of Indians to appreciate this has repeatedly caused ill-feeling between themselves and the film-makers, making the latter abandon their attempts at a fair treatment of the Indians. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface iii Chapter I: The Background of the Problem c.1630 to c.1900. 1 Chapter II: The Birth of the Cinema and Its Aftermath: 1889 to 1939. 21 Chapter III: World War II and Its Effects: 1940 to 1955. 42 Chapter IV: Assimilation of Separatism?: 1953 to 1965. 65 Chapter V: The Accuracy Question. 80 Chapter VI: Catch-22: 1965 to 1972. 105 Chapter VII: Back to the Beginning: 1973 to 1981. 136 Chapter VIII: Conclusion. 153 Bibliography 156 iii PREFACE The aim of this the.sis is to examine the ways in which the American Indians have been portrayed in American films, the influences on their portrayals, and whether or not they have changed. Where possible, the main sources have been the films themselves. Accordingly, quotes unaccompanied by footnotes are taken directly from the films. The other major sources of material on the films have been reviews of individual films, books, and a number of articles, an assessment of which follows. The first comprehensive history of the subject was "The Indian on the Screen" by Jack Spears. (Films in Review, January, 1959). Spears suggested that because Indians were largely limited to Westerns, a genre he perceived as being "addressed chiefly to juvenile and unsophisticated minds'', 1 it was natural that they should have been represented by stereotypes. Initially, he stated, there were both ''good" and "bad" stereotypes, but. during the silent period the "bad" stereotype came ·to be the dominant one and continued as such until "Broken Arrow" (1950) started a wave of sympathetic films. He concluded by saying that generally Indians had fared best in documentaries, and· he hoped that in these Hollywood might "find inspiration for a kindlier and more honest treatment of the American Indian. 112 The view expressed by Spears was virtually unchallenged until 1969, when the Film Library Quarterly published Ralph Friar's "White Man Speak With Split Tongue, Forked Tongue, Tongue of Snake" (Winter, 1969-70), which argued that since 1909 Hollywood films had rep~atedly and without exception misrepresented and ridiculed the Indians. For the next few years Friar was a lone voice crying in the wilderness, for the only other survey to come out at the time was "Hollywood and the Indian" by Robert Larkins (Focus on Film, March/April, 1970), which began with "Broken Arrow", and concentrated on the sympathetic films 1. Jack Spears, "The Indian on the Screen", in Films in Review, 10 January 1959), 18. 2. Ibid. , p. 35. iv that followed, while admitting that not all films on the subject had been sympathetic. Some of the films Larkins regarded as sympathetic have since been criticised by other writers for being anti-Indian. Evidently unprepared to accept defeat, Ralph Friar, this time with the aid of his wife Natasha, re­ grouped his forces and launched an all-out attack in 1972 with a·book on the subject, The Only Good Indian ••. the Hollywood Gospel. The main target of this book seems to have been "A .Man Called Horse" (1970), which is referred to with monotonous regularity, e.g. it is abused for three pages in the middle of a section on Catlin's paintings. Indeed, the book reads like an outsize "letter to the editor" written the day after seeing the film. Like Ralph Friar's article, this book claims that virtually every film on the Indians offers yet another example of Hollywood's perfidy towards the "Native American". While the first fifty years are well documented (the period since being dismissed with alarming brevity) and the book captains a wealth of useful information, the Friars fail to maintain an objective distance from their subject, and their efforts to appease their Indian readers make their conclusions of little value. This time Friar also received support from other quarters. Ralph Brauer's The Horse, the Gun and the Piece of Property: Changing Images of the T.V. Western (unpublished Ph.D. thesis, 1972) stated that while Indians were sometimes treated sympathetically, such portrayals were marred by the historical inaccuracies and the idea that for an Indian to be "good" he had to be like a white man. Dan Georgakas, in "They Have Not Spoken: American Indians in Film" (Film Quarterly, Spring_ 1972), criticised the inaccuracies in four recent films which gave the impression of being accurate portrayals of Indian life and customs. Subsequent works on the subject have not supported the Friars on Hollywood's intentions towards the Indians, although there has been little or no argument on the question of accuracy. The next work to appear was V John A. Price's "The Stereotyping of North American Indians in Motion Pictures" (Ethnohistory, Spring 1973), which was essentially an updating of the Jack Spears article. Like Spears, Price re-emphasised the value of some of the documentaries about Indians and named some recent films which had "approached the documentary quality of Flaherty' s Nanook of the North' ". 3 While this might have suggested that Spears's wish had come true, most of the films he listed have been criticised by other writers. Hedy Hartman's "A Brief Review of the Native American in American Cinema" (The Indian Historian, Summer 1976) argued that the current films were "steps in the right direction 11 , 4 and the 1977 edition of Philip French's Westerns supported this view. These, then, are the most well-known works on the subject apart from Georges Morin's Le Cercle Brise: L'Image de L'Indien Dans Le Western (1977), which was unable to be obtained for this study. Other articles and sections of more general works for the most part contain arguments found in those discussed above without adding anything to the debate. The first of the two viewpoints that emerge is that the Indians were treated reasonably well in the early silent films, but gradually became stock villains until 1950, when "Broken Arrow" started a series of sympathetic films which hqve dominated ever since. The second viewpoint is that Indians have always been unfairly treated and misrepresented, even in the so-called "sympathetic" films. It is hoped that the following chapters will convince the reader that neither of these views is an accurate assessment. The first chapter is in the nature of an introduction and is not intended to further the state of scholarship on the subject. This applies especially to the section on the Puritans and their treatment of the Indians. Indeed, it is far too brief and dependent on secondary sources to do so. Opinion on this hotly debated subject seems largely divided along political lines, with the conservative view exemplified by Alden T. Vaughan's New England Frontier and the liberal 3. John A. Price, "The Stereotyping of North American Indians in Motion Pictures", Ethnohistory, 20 (Spring, 1973), 170. 4. Hedy Hartman, "A Brief Review of the Native American in American Cinema", in The Indian Historian, Summer 1976, 28 vi view by Francis Jennings' The Invasion of America. Walter Lippmann has pointed out that when confronted by something with which was does not agree one sometimes dismisses "the contradiction as an exception that proves the rule, discredits the witness, finds a flaw somewhere, and manages to forget it. 115 Accordingly, a list of the flaws found in Jennings' work would serve little purpose other than to display the present writer's political preferences. An equally long list of minor flaws could doubtless be found in Vaughan's work.were one inclined to look. Indeed, it does contain one obvious one: whereas Jennings correctly states that scalping was of Indian origin, Vaughan suggests that it was invented by whites. However, it does not seem to be displaying an unscholarly political bias to point out Jennings' tendency to accuse the Puritan writers of lying every time he comes across something that does not fit his argurnent. 6 The section on the government's treatment of the Indians is primarily intended as background material for chapter four and also to give some indication of the historical context of events to which the filmed depictions are referred in other chapters. The second chapter also is little more than introductory because of the unavailability of the films or sufficient information about them apart from what is contained in the Friars' book, in which the information is selected to support a viewpoint not shared by the present writer. 7 The last thirty years, for which most of the major films were available for study, is discussed in rather more detail in the remaining chapters. Where terms indicating the relative quality of films are used the criteria are much the same as for any films, the writing, the direction, the acting being the main ones.