The Squaw Man (1931) User Reviews (11)

Old fashioned for Depression tastes

[bkoganbing · 5/10 · 4 September 2007]

As all film buffs know Cecil B. DeMille's first version of The Squaw Man was the very first film done in what we now call Hollywood. He did a second silent version and for his third film on his MGM hiatus from Paramount he did it once again.

Third time was not the charm. Although the actors, especially Warner Baxter as the disgraced English Earl who goes to the American west and meets, weds, and beds an Indian maiden, Lupe Velez are competent and sincere the film is terribly dated. Depression audiences simply were not interested in a Victorian morality tale with a dose of the British stiff upper lip.

It all sounds so quaint and ridiculous. Baxter is accused of embezzlement and he knows who the culprit is, but won't inform because he doesn't want to disgrace the other guy's family. So with admirable rectitude he heads west and make a new life in America.

He also manages to make an enemy of Charles Bickford who was another rancher who covets his land. But Baxter finds love with Lupe, as did most of Hollywood in real life, and he has a son who will in fact inherit his title.

Cecil B. DeMille was a child of his time. Melodramas like The Squaw Man was the stuff that the legitimate theater did when he grew up and learned his trade from David Belasco.

But audiences weren't buying it in 1931, people had real issues about where the next meal was coming from and could they find work. A story about some Victorian honor code just wasn't marketable.

It's a sincere film though and it might be worth a look to judge what public tastes were at the turn of the last century and before the Roaring Twenties.

It's amazing how racist this film is considering that DeMille was trying to promote understanding and improve the view of the American Indian--still, it is very enjoyable.

[planktonrules · 7/10 · 15 March 2009]

I enjoyed this film far more than I expected--especially since I usually hate DeMille films and the film comes off as very patronizing towards American Indians. Let me explain both of my complaints. First, too often Cecil B. DeMille favored huge spectacular films that featured rather cardboard characters and so for that reason I had little interest in seeing the film. Second, while it's obvious that DeMille is trying to say something positive about respecting and giving equality to our Indian brothers, the film often comes off as paternalistic and racist. It's obvious that DeMille is trying to say something profound about American Indians but it just backfires.

The film begins in England and oddly Warner Baxter is cast as an upper-class Brit despite his Columbus, Ohio origins. While he was an amazingly underrated actor and did this role well for an American, it seemed odd that everyone in "Old Blighty" sounded like a local but Baxter. Despite this, I really liked this portion of the film. Baxter has fallen in love with his slimy cousin's wife, but being a decent man he's decided to leave the country because if he stays he knows that a romance between them is inevitable. At about the same time, it turns out that the cousin has embezzled some funds and Baxter tells the cousin to blame this on him! After all, he reasoned, he's leaving the country and won't come back and blaming Baxter will get the cousin out of a jam. While it seemed like a very unlikely plot, the writing and execution of it was so good that I managed to suspend disbelief. And, for once, DeMille seemed to do a decent job with characterizations--at least in this part of the film. There were no huge scenes and the film was very character-driven.

Later, after Baxter leaves England, he inexplicably relocates to the most desolate and godforsaken part of the United States. The place is all dirt and cacti and the idea of an English lord living there is stretching things a bit!! However, this also worked thanks to great acting. The conflict between the evil and land-crazy Charles Bickford and Baxter was interesting as was Baxter's coming to a young Indian girl's defense when Bickford is abusing her. I though that Baxter's treating the girl like a human being was a very positive statement and having this Indian fall in love with a White man was a great plot element. After all, Americans (and most others throughout the world) probably would have not approved of this "miscegenation". DeMille allowing them to slowly fall in love and marry was a great stand against racism--too bad the final portion of the film undid a lot of the positive strides such a plot might have made. By the way, the lady was played by Lupe Valez--who doesn't exactly look Indian although all the other Indians in the film are authentic. Plus, her talking and acting like a child through the film made the whole thing seem paternalistic after a while.

Out of the blue, the cousin is killed and he admits that it was he and NOT Baxter who embezzled the money. This allowed the cousin's wife to seek out Baxter and renew their love. However, when she realizes that in the seven years that have passed that Baxter has married, this plan cannot be. From this moment on, the film starts to slide downhill...and fast! First, since the cousin is dead, apparently Baxter is the lord of the family estates and they want him to return to England. However, he loves Lupe too much to leave Arizona so he proposes to instead send their cute little son (Dickie Moore) instead!! This made no sense, as you wonder how a man can love his wife yet send away their three year-old son! Why not try moving the family to the UK or perhaps spend part of the time in America and part of the time at the family estate?! Second, and this is a bad example of script writing, although it's been seven years since Lupe murdered Bickford (and it was VERY justified), at the exact same moment the folks from England visit, the sheriff has just obtained new evidence to implicate Valez for murder!! Talk about a convenient coincidence!!! Now, at her death, Baxter would be available to move back to England with his kid and his old flame!! This is just too much coincidence to seem like anything other than sloppy writing. Plus, it seemed to say that Baxter's marrying an Indian was more of an inconvenience than anything else. You would have thought that since the original SQUAW MAN came out in 1914 that DeMille could have done something to fix this plot element.

Overall, it's an entertaining film that should have been a very positive statement about interracial love and understanding. Instead, the Indians seemed rather stereotypical and Valez's character seemed amazingly one-dimensional. Oddly, after seven years of marriage, she still talked a bit like Charlie Chan and an American Indian rolled into one! A nice try and this is a film that would be great to remake today--after making the characters more believable.

Dated even for 1931

[drjgardner · 5/10 · 9 July 2016]

Considering that this film was made in 1931, it sure looks more like a silent film with words rather than a more modern looking film. In 1931 we had films like "Frankenstein", "Cimarron", "Mata Hari", "City Lights", "Dracula", "M", "Public Enemy", "Dr. Jekyl and Mr. Hyde", and "Monkey Business". All of these films had better acting, camera work and better use of sound, and they all had a more modern script. "The Squaw Man" was the third filming of the play, all of them by Cecil B. DeMille. The play was written in 1905 and starred future famous silent film cowboy William S. Hart. It ran for nearly a year and was revived several times, then spawned a novel. But all 3 versions held steady to the Victorian plot, and even by 1931 it seems dated.

DeMille perfects his noble tale

[jimjo1216 · 17 August 2015]

I really enjoy films from around 1931. I like the "early talkie" aesthetic, with gritty black & white photography, sparse (if any) musical scoring, and slightly edgy pre-Code content. In those days of the studio system, Hollywood studios would churn out lots of inconsequential 72-minute quickies. But Cecil B. DeMille's THE SQUAW MAN (1931) is clearly not one of them. DeMille was an auteur and THE SQUAW MAN is something special. A cut above the usual Hollywood fare of the time.

This 1931 film is actually DeMille's third adaptation of the story, following his 1914 and 1918 silents. The third time's the charm for DeMille, who crafts an involving tale with a fine cast and the added dimension of sound.

Jim Wyngate nobly leaves England to live in self-exile in America for the sake of his cousin's marriage to the beautiful Lady Diana. At the same time, he nobly volunteers himself to take the blame for his cousin's embarrassing mishandling of charitable funds. He settles out West and takes up ranching under an assumed name. He makes friends and enemies amongst the cowboys and becomes attached to a young Indian woman. (Native American, that is.) After years of living as a cowboy in Arizona, will Wyngate return to England and resume his past aristocratic lifestyle? Can he?

The cast is great across the board. Warner Baxter, three years removed from his Oscar-winning turn as the Cisco Kid (IN OLD ARIZONA - 1928), stars as Jim Wyngate, the selfless hero. The lovely Eleanor Boardman (THE CROWD - 1928) plays Lady Diana, who loves Wyngate but is married to his cousin (Paul Cavanagh). Charles Bickford is great as the heavy and DeWitt Jennings does a good job as the villainous sheriff. Roland Young (TOPPER - 1937), a personal favorite of mine, has a nice supporting role.

Sexy Mexican spitfire Lupe Velez is Naturich, the "primitive-minded" Indian girl who is chivalrously defended by Wyngate and repays him by saving his life a couple times. There's a connection between the two that transcends cultural barriers and, half a world away from Diana and his past life, the white man takes Naturich as his wife. Velez is heartbreaking in a scene where she fashions a crude toy horse as a birthday gift for her half-breed son (Dickie Moore), who is more interested in his model train.

This film is a vast improvement over C.B. DeMille's own landmark 1914 version. Although the basic plot line is the same, there are several differences in the stories. I don't know which film is closer to the original "Squaw Man" play, but I found this talkie version more effective. (In fact, the 1914 film might not have made as much sense if I wasn't already familiar with the story from this later version.)

The key to this version is the emotional ties between the characters. Jim loves Diana, but nothing can come of it. So he moves thousands of miles away, but we see his face when he sees her picture in the society section. He learns to move on while living with Naturich, but Diana makes a surprise visit and expects things to be just as they were. Jim is excited at the prospect of returning to England, but there's no place for Naturich in English society. And noble Jim wouldn't walk out on poor sweet Naturich. But what of their son? Half white man, half Indian. Should he be taught to rope cattle and beat tom-toms, or should he receive the fine education to which the Wyngate family is accustomed? Jim struggles to decide his son's future at a crucial point. There are no simple solutions for anyone. It may sound melodramatic, but viewers are invested in the characters and must know how things turn out.

The characterizations in the 1914 silent film lack heart.

Director Cecil B. DeMille goes to this well for the third time...

[AlsExGal · 6/10 · 13 May 2023]

... courtesy of MGM. Warner Baxter stars as English gentleman Jim Wingate. He's in love with Lady Diana Kerhill (Eleanor Boardman), only Diana is the wife of Jim's cousin Henry (Paul Cavanaugh). When Henry steals some pensioner funds, and the theft is discovered, Jim gets the blame. Instead of clearing his name, he heads to the US, where he changes his name and becomes a cattle rancher out West. His problems are just beginning though, as fiendish rival rancher Cash Hawkins (Charles Bickford) wants Jim's land, and local native girl Naturich (Lupe Velez) falls in love with Jim. Will Jim return her affection and risk being called a "squaw man" by the other townsfolk?

I'm not sure why DeMille was so enamored of this story, but the audiences of the day apparently weren't, as this proved to be a costly failure at the box office. Baxter, with his pencil mustache and greasy hair, doesn't sound or act British, nor does he seem to fit in the Western setting. Velez, as pretty as ever, and getting a titillating scene where she undresses before an embarrassed Baxter, also has professional-grade movie makeup in most scenes, which is not quite the look of a poor native woman. Most of the film isn't actively awful, really, just unexceptional.

It was three and out for DeMille at MGM - the experimental sound film Dynamite, the bizarre precode musical Madam Satan, and finally back to basics with The Squaw Man. Fired from MGM, he took a cruise to decide what to do next, and went back home to Paramount for the rest of his career. He had started out there, and except for his brief stint as an independent filmmaker and then as a director at MGM, it really was his cinematic home.

Problematic in some ways, but a nice role for Velez

[gbill-74877 · 7/10 · 24 June 2019]

It's not exactly perfect that a Mexican-American actress, Lupe Vélez, is plugged in as a Native-American in the third and final version of this film, but it's better to see her than someone like Myrna Loy (no offense Myrna, you know I adore you). And in addition to seeing a person of color in a dramatic and romantic role, the side benefit is that unlike most of her other films, Vélez's character is not some high-strung Latina who has to have a scene or two of animated screaming. Here her character is quiet, doleful, determined, strong, and caring, giving us another side of her as an actress, and her performance is at least as good as the other films I've seen her in, if not better. After being saved by a transplanted Englishman (Warner Baxter) from being assaulted in a saloon, something that would likely have led to rape, her character returns the favor with steely resolve by saving him not once but twice. Vélez has several fine scenes, one of which is when she's in front of the fireplace on a stormy night, radiating soft sensuality. Later she has a perfect reaction to her young son wanting to play with his new train set more than her traditional, handmade horse. It reflects the timeless clash of cultural assimilation, and immigrant parents with kids more drawn to the newer culture they are surrounded by may identify. In several moments throughout the film, Vélez's emotions are conveyed silently through her eyes, and they're all pretty compelling.

Unfortunately, there are also aspects of the character that are harder to like, starting with the broken English she has to speak. It may have been the reality for such a character, but here it's so slow and awkward, and not accompanied with enough other nuance that might help us see that she's just as intelligent despite not being fluent in a second language. And that's at the heart of the issue - the film puts her in a positive light, but it's in a condescending, paternalistic way. She can be attractive, strong, faithful, and a great wife and mother - but she can't be just as smart or the equal of her husband. This culminates in the film's absolute worst moment, when he decides to send their son off to England to get a better education and to have more opportunity, essentially ripping the boy from his mother over her objections. It would be too easy and simplistic to equate this to the heartless and cruel policies of the current American administration at the border, but I have to say I thought of it, and that's not exactly a selling point for the movie. As he talks about this to his friend, he mentions his wife is "primitive" and simply can't understand the British Empire, which was disgusting. It's a white man's world, and as Vélez is neither, she is two steps down in it.

At least the film shows the emotional impact this has on her (in another fine scene from Vélez), and sympathizes with the happy life she's lost in the final images. I also liked how her husband stands by her and refers to her as Mrs. Jim Wingate despite challenges from bothersome locals, and the reappearance of his old (Caucasian) flame (Eleanor Boardman). The film is actually showing us a happy interracial marriage, something that was dangerous and still illegal in many states.

Overall though, it's a little rough going because of the racism and sexism, even if they are milder forms of it, and I debated a lower rating. However, the film scored enough points with me, and exceeded the expectations that I had formed based on its awful title. If you're disenchanted early on, have patience; the only saving grace to a creaky start in England which suffers from a slow pace and poor audio quality is Boardman, who plays her earnest but conflicted role well, and is also quite pretty here. Once the action moves to the American West, Director Cecil B. DeMille tells a good story, one with inevitable conflicts for this couple, and gets some nice shots on location in Arizona. I also loved seeing Dickie Moore, who is just adorable as their son.

DeMille's Desert Saga

[Ron Oliver · 10/10 · 20 December 2004]

An English aristocrat becomes 'THE SQUAW MAN' after leaving Britain under mysterious circumstances and marrying an Indian maiden in the American West.

At the end of the Silent Era, famed director Cecil B. DeMille signed a deal with MGM to produce three pictures over three years. For the first two--DYNAMITE (1929) and MADAM Satan (1930)--he pulled out all the stops to present lavish photoplays of New York high society, with a mine cave-in and a dirigible disaster to liven things up.

For his third film at MGM DeMille returned to his favorite story, which he'd already filmed twice before as a silent. For this talkie version he kept the story simple, without special effects or unnecessary melodrama. He also made outstanding use of filming on location in Arizona. The result is a well-made film with a poignant storyline and an emotionally gripping conclusion.

While Warner Baxter's American accent makes him rather unbelievable as an Englishman, this can be easily overlooked because of his fine performance. Steadfast & strong, he makes a sturdy hero. But acting honors go to Lupe Velez, who strips away all unnecessary technique & mannerisms to deliver an uncomplicated, heartbreaking portrayal of a primitive woman wholly devoted to the man she adores and their son. Without even trying, she completely dominates the film.

The rest of the cast also make their mark in much smaller roles: beautiful Eleanor Boardman as the titled Englishwoman Baxter loves; owlish Roland Young as Baxter's best friend; shifty Paul Cavanagh as the feckless Earl of Kerhill; and Julia Faye as a fox hunting American widow.

Out West, the cast includes angry Charles Bickford as a murderous rancher intent on grabbing Buzzards Pass from Baxter; bullying DeWitt Jennings as the corrupt sheriff of Maverick; J. Farrell MacDonald as Baxter's loyal ranch hand; and little Dickie Moore, one of the OUR GANG kids, as the lively son of Baxter & Velez. Wizened old Luke Cosgrave gives a few humorous moments as the cantankerous driver of a desert jalopy.

DeMille's sojourn at MGM was not a commercial success for the Studio. His contract wasn't extended and he returned to Paramount, where he would soon commence on some of the most popular films of his career.

Repeating Mistakes

[Cineanalyst · 2/10 · 13 February 2005]

Lupe Vélez proves that a Mexican playing a Native American of the United States isn't necessarily any less insulting than a white American taking the part. Here, Vélez doesn't even dress the part--wearing traditional Mexican clothes. To a degree, I would overlook the racism inherit in "The Squaw Man" melodrama--cloaked in the selling point of miscegenation--if there were anything more to the picture. Cecil B. DeMille was shot at while making the 1914 version of the hackneyed stage soap opera, and this time he lost his job. If anyone finds the 1918 version, I'll pass. Why did DeMille bother? In 1914, he was learning the craft; by 1931, he was a competent filmmaker, who had since surrendered his ambitions for artistic innovation in favor of lowbrow commercialism. I suppose, then, that it made sense for DeMille to try a talkie remake of his first box-office success. The plot is slightly more coherent this outing, but remains very contrived. The acting and dialogue are atrocious.

(There's also a scene where Vélez undresses.)

Watch For Lupe Velez

[davidjanuzbrown · 3/10 · 3 April 2016]

This is the worst film that DeMille ever made ( at least those that I saw). It is boring, and simply does not work as a Western ( the Coca Cola placement came to mind). Perhaps if the scenes in England were cut and more Lupe Velez were shown I would like it better? Speaking of Lupe although she played an Indian (Naturich), she looks more gypsy then anything else, but she was much better then anyone else. Especially Warner Baxter who was better as a Mexican ( In Old Arizona) then an Englishman in this movie ( sort off like William Powell in 'The Key' does not work). Although I am no fan of this movie, it is worth watching because of Lupe Velez and because all three of his ( DeMille) movies at MGM ( Dynamite and Madam Satan are the others) are rarely shown.3 of 10 stars.

Great Performances But Not Quite As Good as the 1914 Version

[Michael_Elliott · 13 September 2012]

The Squaw Man (1931)

** 1/2 (out of 4)

This here was Cecil B. DeMille's third attempt at telling Edwin Milton Royle's play. This time out it's Warner Baxter who plays Jim Carston, a British man who is ran out of his country so he heads to the United States and out West. Once there he crosses a rival landowner but things take a turn for the worse when he falls in love with an Indian woman (Lupe Velez), which is a big no-no. This version from DeMille offers up a terrific cast and I think the racial issues are a lot more out front here but I really can't say that this was any sort of improvement over the 1914 version, which I've seen. All but the last reel is lost from the 1918 version so it's impossible to compare all three but this third version features quite a few problems. I think the film's biggest problem is the pacing because at times it moves along at a very slow pace. This includes the early stuff in Britain, which could have been completely left out and I think it would have helped. I also thought some of the stuff in the West dragged during spots but there's no question that the film is still worth viewing for the performances alone. Baxter was extremely good and believable in his part and there's certainly no doubt that he fit the tough guy role just fine. Charles Bickford is excellent as always and we get nice support from Roland Young, Paul Cavanagh and a young Dickie Moore. Velez easily steals the show as she's terrific in each scene she's in. Her beauty is on full display and while I'm sure some might be offended by the way the Indian is played, I thought the performance itself was very good. DeMille delivers a decent picture but at the same time one can't help but wish he had left this alone and attempted something else.

British Buckaroo

[GManfred · 23 November 2016]

This story is a bit hard to swallow. A British noble leaves England to save the family name - his cousin, actually - who has embezzled and bankrupted the family fortune, leaving the woman he loves (who is married to the embezzler). He then turns up as a rancher in Texas (honest, I'm not making this up), takes up with an Indian girl who bears him a son. Seven years later, the embezzler dies but confesses, freeing the benighted couple to marry, she in England and he in Texas. Think you can go with it? Well, I couldn't, but the principals are so in earnest and the mood so solemn that you give it a break - a rating of six, to be exact.

I am into acting performances and this picture has many good ones; Warner Baxter (extremely in earnest), Eleanor Boardman and Roland Young (somewhat in earnest) and Lupe Velez, who really doesn't fit and, to my mind, nearly sinks the picture with a catatonic performance. She got better in the "Mexican Spitfire" series in the 40's. As I say, the preposterous plot is played with a straight face, so I gave this head-scratcher the benefit of the doubt.