UNLIMITED STREAMING
WITH PRIME VIDEO
TRY 30-DAY TRIAL
Home > Drama >

Soldier Blue

Soldier Blue (1970)

August. 12,1970
|
6.9
|
R
| Drama Action Western

After a cavalry group is massacred by the Cheyenne, only two survivors remain: Honus, a naive private devoted to his duty, and Cresta, a young woman who had lived with the Cheyenne two years and whose sympathies lie more with them than with the US government. Together, they must try to reach the cavalry's main base camp. As they travel onward, Honus is torn between his growing affection for Cresta.

...

Watch Trailer

Cast

Similar titles

Reviews

chreghan
1970/08/12

This film seemed to bridge the epic cinematics of the 60's with the grit of the 70's. It was a portrayal of a stupid love interest wrapped in historical context... However, this film's dialogue is incorrect.In the beginning scenes with Cresta and Honus (after the "socks" scene), Honus mentions that his father was killed at Little Bighorn. Cresta's reply mentions Custer. The Little Bighorn massacre happened in 1876. This film is based on events in 1864. No one caught this?

More
Wuchak
1970/08/13

Released in 1970 and directed by Ralph Nelson, "Soldier Blue" is a Western starring Peter Strauss and Candice Bergen as a soldier and Native sympathizer, the only two survivors of a cavalry group Massacred by the Cheyenne. As they travel together to get back to the soldier's unit he struggles with his affection for the woman and a revulsion for her anti-US government outlook. Then he sees the awful truth.This controversial Western showcases the atrocities of the US Army against Native Americans wherein the average US Cavalry solder is depicted as a shifty, droop-eyed, unwashed, stupid cracker idiot with flies buzzing around his head. The opening Indian attack is set in order to align the audience's sympathies with Honus (Strauss, the 'Soldier Blue' of the title), so that the viewer travels on the same journey as him, starting by regarding the Indians as murderous barbarians, and ending up forced to confront the idea that maybe his kin are just as barbaric when the occasion is 'right' (or, should I say, wrong).The final massacre is shocking, but hampered by the film's insistence on stacking the deck so completely in terms of depicting the US military as savages dripping with ee-vil. In other words, it loses its impact because it's so overdone.In reality, utterly barbaric attacks applied to both uncivilized Natives and the civilized Europeans, but more so with the former, which is documented. Since the 60s-70s there has been an overemphasis on the injustices committed by the US Army or settlers and we get a handful of examples: Wounded Knee, Bear River and Sand Creek (the latter being what "Soldier Blue" is based on). Yet we never hear the other side of what caused these events nor do we hear of the atrocities of Natives committed against New Americans. For instance, we never hear of the Dakota "War" of 1862 (Santee Sioux went on the war path and murdered between 600-800 white settlers, which constituted the largest death toll inflicted upon American civilians by an enemy force until 9/11), The Ward Massacre, The Nez Perce uprising which killed dozens of settlers in Idaho and Wyoming, and the Massacre at Fort Mims. We never hear of the countless innocent settlers who were murdered by roaming bands of young "warriors": While a chief was signing a peace treaty on the tribe's behalf they were out robbing, raping and murdering.I'm just saying that it's easy to be pro-Native sitting on the comfort of your sofa, but not so much when you and your loved ones are threatened with torture & slaughter.The Europeans wanted the Native's land and resources while the Indians wanted the technology of the Europeans. Both sides used treaties to make peace while still trying to get what they wanted when war was too expensive. Both sides made war when they felt no other option.I love Native American culture, but the whitewashing of Native atrocities and this revisionist history stuff is dishonest and unbalanced. "Soldier Blue" is guilty of this but, as a movie, it's entertaining and its message is necessary in light of all the movies that depict Indians as sub-human savages to be gunned down on the spot.The film runs 114 minutes and was shot in Mexico.GRADE: B

More
rightwingisevil
1970/08/14

Killing 500 some peaceful Indians is no big deal, just like a bag of peanuts if compares to the merciless killing of millions in Iraq today. Guess by watching this movie, you'd understand and realized that killing innocent civilians is the tradition and trade mark of our American forces, cavalry in the 1800s or military forces today. Invading an Indian tribe reservation who raised American flag and a piece of white cloth to show the obedient surrender and totally harmless intention of the Indians just didn't change the massacre, exactly like the bombings and house-to-house searching so-called terrorists in most of the civilian residence areas in Iraq. Kick in doors then throw in the grenades and then sweep with assault weapons, killing everybody inside, women, kids, old grands...even goat and chickens, are the common scenes no different from burning the tents, scalping the Indians, raping their women in the early time. It's how America was won, American West was won. Now thank God, all the Americans seem suddenly got conscience, so they so kindly and generously gave the almost extinct Indians another kind of reservation and sovereignty, CASINOS plus No Tax run by a new generation of the Indian politicians and syndicates, American driver licenses and passports. God bless America and Americans, we are all brothers and sisters.

More
euricosilvestre
1970/08/15

I first saw Soldier Blue some thirty five years ago, in a cheap exploitation theatre, and i was perhaps as shocked as the makers intended. I have distinct memories of leaving the theatre with an unpleasant taste in my mouth. Here was a film that not only didn't fear the displaying of extreme graphic violence, but indeed used it to the point of being exploitative.Perhaps some of the musical score, or the paralels with the Vietnam war are now dated, but generally it remains a powerful film that also makes you think.It is at this point that i must diverge with the great majority of the reviews here. Sometimes it seems like i have watched an entirely different film, for the film shows bluntly and brutally that the Native Americans were also capable of massacres or gang rapes, for instance. Not that it justifies genocide, but it is true nevertheless. They are not portrayed as the noble savages, that most people now like to consider them.Take the case of the Comanches, for instance. They came to the Southern plains from the north, and displaced and almost completely exterminated the plains Apaches. For two hundred years they raided Northern Mexico, and committed genocide over the population. The point is that seeing Native Americans merely as victims does not respect the historical truth. A film such as this one can make people see the bigger picture, and stop trying to rewrite History.

More