Was listening to Jerry Goldsmith scores at work (“The Ghost and the Darkness,” “The Wind and the Lion,” — great stuff). Ran across “100 Rifles,” which I watched on Netflix a couple of years ago.
“100 Rifles” hit theaters in 1969 amid a trend of Mexican Revolution-era settings for Westerns. Like “The Wild Bunch.” Now, this ain’t no Wild Bunch, but it’s got its charms. Namely, Raquel Welch as Sarita, a soldadera fighting for Yaqui Indian rights. Oh, my. She really was all that.
The movie drew some controversy due to an interracial sex scene with Welch and football great Jim Brown. One of Hollywood’s first.
Anyway, it’s an OK Zapata Western. Beautiful, austere landscapes filmed in Spain. And did I mention Raquel Welch as Sarita, a soldadera…
Jim Brown played a lawman sorta like Bass Reeves. A sex scene with Raquel Welch was controversial in 1969.
Jim says
Raquel Welch, what a babe. To paraphrase Rowen and Martin. Martin ” I boxed Rocky Welch once”. Rowen” Raquel Welch isn’t a boxer, she’s a beautiful lady.” Martin” that’s why she was so great in the clutches.” Old memory popped right in my head when I saw her name.
Jim says
You Mentioned The Ghost and the Darknest. Another African hunting tell based on actual events is Jock of the Bushvelde, pubished around 1903 and made into a movie in late 70’s early 80’s. A young Englishman starts a freighting operation with oxen pulled wagons. There is alot of very good hunting scences in the African bush ushing large bore percussion rifles , pre Bell times, shows alot the dangers and hazards of the African bush. The title is a bit Disneyish but not a Disney type storie. By the way Jock is his dog and hunting partner doing what dogs where bred to do before dog shows and USHS.
Lane Batot says
Ha! Frontier Partisans must have a collective conscience fer shore–I just ordered a DVD copy of this movie(MAINLY because of Raquel!!) recently myself! I also always keep a copy around of her early early effort “10 Million Years B. C.”. Hey, don’t laugh! That 1960’s dinosaur/caveman movie is as “frontier” as you can get!….And I have “The Ghost And The Darkness” too, of course(I DO like your misspelling “DarkNEST”, however, Jim! Ha!)–and though I love the movie and think they did a great job, I always have to grit my teeth and whine at some of the historical and animal behavioural inaccuracies throughout(but I still love it). Having read and reread Patterson’s own account, and kuhzillions of cases of man-eating big cats, it’s natural I’d be nit-picky about it. The elaborations and comments made to make the lions more sinister, in my opinion, were totally unnecessary(and inaccurate), and yet the MOST BIZARRE things they portrayed that most people who didn’t know the real story would think were the exagerrations and unbelievable, DID actually happen! Nothing for it but for the uninitiated to get a copy of Patterson’s “Man-eaters Of Tsavo” and read for themselves!….And HOW I LOVE “Jock Of The Bushveld”!!!!! I have an old copy of the book with SUPERB illustrations throughout–one of THE BEST dog-and-man adventure stories ever! Back when bull terrier types were thought of as HEROES in our society, instead of vilified! I saw the low budget South African film made of the book–I thought they did a GREAT job, and followed the book very well! There is another purty bad American film version, the less said about, the better. Sadly, this book is vilified itself now, because of certain racist attitudes prevalent at the time. But if you can read and understand it is a product of the times, and not get yer panties in a wad about it(just enjoy the DOG/Hunting/Wilderness/ Adventure story!), it is a CLASSIC!
JimC says
Synchronicity pleases me.
TG&TD is a favorite of mine, overlooking some of the stuff you mention. Some of it was necessary — you couldn’t do the lions as maneless males; it would have confused and distracted the audience. Agree that some of the effort to make the lions more “sinister” was unnecessary.
••••
It always frustrates the crap out of me to have to defend works of literature now deemed “racist” and therefore somehow untouchable. To me, that’s the opposite of actually grappling with racism. It’s much more interesting to me to really engage with, say, H. Rider Haggard’s racial attitudes, which were not simple. His Allan Quatermain stories are an excellent window into what were much more complex and fraught racial (and sexual) attitudes than we tend to recognize in the late Victorian era.
Sensitivity toward matters of race is a good thing — but it can be carried to absurd extremes, such as acting as if reading a vintage book that contains outdated racial attitudes will give you racist cooties. James Ellroy noted that some people (I think he was slamming “liberals”) can’t accept that racism is a secondary characteristic, not a defining characteristic, and seeing racist attitudes displayed by a sympathetic character freaks them out.
That kind of pearl clutching strikes me as grandstanding (see what a good person I am; 60-to-100-year-old racial attitudes OUTRAGE me!) and does nothing substantial to advance a culture that judges people by the content of their character. In fact, it may have the opposite effect, keeping everything focused on race. But then I’ve been told more than once that I’m disqualified to have an opinion on the subject because I’m white and male. Curiously, I’ve been told that by other white males.
Lane Batot says
….well, since we’re discussing it–I agree that the MAGNIFICENT maned lions in “Ghost” film were probably necessary for general public consumption–although the whole phenomenon of maneless(or nearly-so) male lions around Tsavo is a unique and fascinating subject–I have a book about a modern study that attempts to decipher WHY they are(among all their other natural behaviours)–they still came to no definite conclusions despite the study. And irritating though it was that Michael Douglas had a fictional character written in for him to play(well, he WAS one of the producers!) from the “historically accurate” point-of-view, it WAS a neat character, and at least he had the decency to get himself et before it was over, and not steal ALL the thunder from Patterson! But the scene that aggravates me the most is the finding of the man-eaters’ cave. Which they DID in real life. And it WAS full of human bones and copper bracelets, etc. strewn about. But wasn’t THAT frikkin’ sinister enough, without them commenting that “lions don’t do this!”, and alluding to the lions killing them for “sport”? Ridiculous! Lions have been doing just THAT to people since there have been people and lions! And tigers! And leopards! In fact, though Patterson really believed he HAD stumbled on his two man-eating lions’ den, it has since been theorized this WASN’T the lions’ den at all, but more probably a leopard’s or hyenas’ lair–lions don’t normally drag kills off to dens to eat–they eat right on the spot, or only drag them a little way. As those two lions did ALL the people they killed during Patterson’s employment. And this den was many MILES away! Anyway, regardless, the collection of bones and jewelry were hardly TROPHIES, just the inedible parts of the kills! And they killed SO MANY people simply because those wretched Indian coolies and local Africans didn’t have much meat on them, and two grown male lions had little trouble totally devouring a person-a-night! Combine that with the fact that they were young males out on their own without an established pride(with experienced females to hunt for them), and most of the big game in the area shot out, it is perfectly natural and logical lion behavior–what occurred. Which SHOULD be scary enough! But perhaps that isn’t a “politically correct” view of wildlife anymore!
Lane Batot says
….self-correction–Raquel’s unequaled performance in a fur bikini is titled “ONE Million Years B. C.”, not TEN….and yeah–picking apart past literature as “racist” and trying to BAN it irritates me no end, too. One of my biggest pet peeves is the criticism of all the original old Edgar Rice Burrough’s “Tarzan” novels, that I was weaned on growing up. Yes, there ARE some what would be considered “racist” comments in a few–although some are PURPOSEFULLY tongue-in-cheek, about the “superior white race” that proceeds to be outwitted and humbled continuously by wild beasts and primitive savages throughout the course of the tale! And FOR THE TIMES, old Edgar had some of THE ONLY positive, heroic portrayals of various races. In “discussions” with the critics on this subject, it is COMMON to find out they’ve NEVER actually read any of the books themselves! Just heard a quote or two from them perhaps, taken totally out of context! The same sort that denigrates Mark Twain’s “Huckleberry Finn” for using the “N” word! My gosh, that is an ANTI-SLAVERY novel written before the Civil war, for Christ’s sake! Do critics not realize that? To me, even REALLY TERRIBLE racial slurring should be preserved and read, if only to remind ourselves how far we HAVE come!