Lead Spencer Tracy had recently led an exploration expedition into darkest Africa, in "Stanley and Livingstone". Now, with similar bravado, he leads a military expedition through the wilderness, from Crown Point, on Lake Champlain, to the French Canadian- Abanaki village of St. Francis, whose warriors had been raiding settlers in the New England frontier. The screenplay is based upon the novel of the same title, which was based on history. It was filmed in gorgeous Technicolor: the first Tracy film given the color treatment. Part was filmed in the MGM studio and part in the mountains of Idaho.I noticed something unusual in the main characters included. Tracy was the dramatic lead, while Robert Young was the fictional romantic lead: with an aristocratic bearing, who had spent some time at Harvard before being kicked out. He was a painter, made maps for Rogers during the expedition, and was probably one of the few literate members of the expedition. In the film "Hudson's Bay", released the following year, we have a very similar situation. The screenplay is mostly about traveling around in the Canadian wilderness in the 1600s, collecting furs. Paul Muni is the roguish historical dramatic lead, while John Sutton, as his fictional aristocratic companion, is the romantic lead. In both films, a fictional female lead is present. Why was a fictional romantic lead teamed with the man of action? In both cases, the actor playing the romantic lead was in his early 30s vs. 40s for the man of action, and was more handsome. Thus, by reason of age, looks, and lack of aristocratic bearing, the dramatic lead was deemed a poor match for the beautiful, aristocratic, female lead. Also, the man of action was too restless, moving around in the wilderness most of the time, to settle down with a wife. Another interesting tidbit I discovered: The female lead's character was named Elizabeth Browne, which was also the maiden name of the wife of the real Robert Rogers!While on the subject of women, there were 2 European women captives in St. Francis. The older one, who hadn't been there so long, was glad to be rescued, while the younger one, who had been captured when a girl, and was now a teen, thought of herself as an Abanaki, thus resisted being "liberated". This was a typical contrast among females captured by 'Indians'.In St. Francis, we see many Abanaki warriors killed. Rogers claimed abut 200 Abanaki were killed. But the French reported that only about 30, all women and children were killed, as the men were all out on a raid. Since Rogers reported losing about 100 men on the expedition, if the French information is close to correct, this was a pyrrhic victory, although the number of settlers killed in raids did decline after St. Francis was burned. Reportedly, Rogers often exaggerated his accomplishments. Otherwise, the screenplay is remarkably faithful(for a Hollywood film) to the historical details.Rogers was next assigned to the mid-Great Lakes region, where he captured Detroit, as well as other French outposts. Later, he did send several parties to look for a northwest passage to Asia. But, he gradually spiraled into debt and alcoholism, thus played only a very minor and chaotic part in The Revolutionary War, mostly siding with the British. I have to wonder whether, at the subliminal level, the Abanaki are supposed to represent Nazi Germany, as I have proposed is relevant to several Errol Flynn films of this era. This one differs from the Flynn films, in that it is tightly based on a historical incident.The anticipated telling of Roger's adventures in the mid and western Great Lakes region in a sequel film was cancelled. Thus, the title given to this film makes no sense. The title of this review would have been much more appropriate, perhaps shortened to Roger's Rangers.I give this film a high rating for historical accuracy, quality of presentation, and entertainment value. See it. You will never forget it. I think Tracy should have received The Best Actor Oscar, but he had already taken home several Oscars in the last few years. Perhaps the film should have taken home an Oscar, as well.

Northwest Passage is directed by King Vidor and adapted to screenplay by Laurence Stallings and Talbot Jennings from the Kenneth Roberts novel of the same name. It stars Spencer Tracy, Robert Young and Walter Brennan. Music is by Herbert Stothart and cinematography by William V. Skall and Sidney Wagner."This is a story of our early America….of the century of conflict with French and Indians….when necessity made simple men, unknown to history, into giants in daring and endurance. It begins in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, in 1759…." Hurrah! What with the film having a reputation as one of the greatest adventure films of all time, that opening salvo for Vidor's movie doubly whets the appetite.What follows is more a case of a visually great picture, dotted with action, that is more about actual heroes than heroic deeds. Certainly the first hour of the picture leans more towards the slow burn than anything raising the pulse. However, characters are well drawn by Vidor and his team, with quality performances to match from the leads, and when the action dose come, such as the excellent battle at the Abenaki village, they more than pay back the patience of the viewer. We need to be forgiving for the overtly racist fervour that permeates the plot, so instead just rejoice in men triumphing over many obstacles, both of the mind and the body. 7/10

Northwest Passage is one of the few films about the Seven Years' War that isn't based on a James Fenimore Cooper novel, and in that sense, it's a welcome lesson in how that important period has come to be mythologized in popular culture. I've never read the Roberts books, so I can't comment on how faithful the film is to its source material. I can only make a few comments on how movies have their own sensibilities and cultural rules. Like most films, this one tells us more about the era in which it was made than the time period in which the film's events take place. It's certainly an exciting story, but it has a number of cringeworthy elements (and they would have elicited just as many cringes back in the 1930s, I assure you.)Here's a few comments:Jeffrey Amherst and Sir William Johnson: As anyone who has read any of the fine studies of this era can attest (I recommend the works of James Axtell, Gregory Evans Dowd, Daniel Usner, Daniel Richter, Richard White, and many others as fine introductions to Indian-White relations in the 17th and 18th centuries), this film takes a rather interesting view of these historical figures. Amherst is here depicted as the realistic good guy, who is in tune with Rogers's vicious sentiments. Johnson, on the other hand, is seen as part of the problem because of his private relationships with several Indian groups, especially the Mohawks. Johnson's Mohawk allies are here shown as lazy, duplicitous, suspicious interlopers. In fact, Johnson and his many Indian allies throughout Iroquoia and the Ohio country were indispensable to the British victory in the Seven Years' War, while Amherst, a capable officer but a virulent anti-native racist, instituted policies that helped start the 1763-64 Indian uprising ("Pontiac's War") and actually approved using germ warfare on Indians near Fort Pitt (he approved a plan to give them smallpox-infected blankets.)Uniforms: If you squint, Roger's Rangers look like they should be in the Confederate Army. This may be a Technicolor issue. In fact, Roger's men often dressed as Indians and other backcountry residents did. It is the demands of movie convention that put them all in blue buckskin uniforms -- just as Japanese and German soldiers always wore particular shapes of helmets, so you can tell them apart from the other guys. Even the Mohawk and Abenaki Indians wear similar "uniforms," i.e. matching loincloths. The Indians in this movie look like they belong in the Southwest or the plains -- not in the Eastern Woodlands, especially late in the year.Rogers himself: Well, his anti-Indian rants probably do illustrate something of the man himself. It should be noted that Rogers's sensationalized exploits made him a problematic celebrity during his life. He was always distrusted by his British superiors, who nevertheless bowed to public acclaim and gave him important positions after the war, including a brief command of Fort Detroit, and his disastrous tenure commanding Fort Michilimackinac after the Indian uprising. Like many outpost commanders, Rogers let his personal greed take over in the relative freedom of the pays d'en haut, and ended up being arrested and returned to Niagara in irons. Amherst gave him guarded trust, but Amherst's successor, Thomas Gage, and Indian Supervisor William Johnson, considered him a villain. As for the native Americans, everyone knew about Rogers's Indian killing, and he had few Indian friends and many enemies. Everywhere Rogers went became a tense place of interaction between Indians and Europeans.Indian issues: Well, it's true that Indians, Abenakis and others, used brutal tactics in war. But this movie, like other movies such as Drums Along the Mohawk, definitely take the settlers' side in their confrontations with native Americans. In one scene, Rogers tells his men how the Abenakis should be killed for brutally hatcheting innocent settlers, who were just trying to make lives for themselves and weren't bothering anyone. It should be noted that settlers were often a great bother to Indians, just by their presence alone. Indians who lived in transitional regions resented the encroachments of white settlers more than anything else, including the presence of forts and soldiers. Settlers used land for farming, which was an exclusive operation. Unlike the skin trade, which used native residents as partners, farmers viewed Indians as being in the way. All Eastern Indians knew that farming was the one operation that turned Indian country into European territory exclusively, and did everything they could to oppose it. And as far as relative levels of brutality go, backcountry settlers and soldiers were capable of all the worst kinds of viciousness. Reference the Gnadenhutten Massacre during the Revolutionary War if you want to read about some really vicious behavior by America militiamen.This movie is a great mirror on its time. Americans looked to their settler past, mythical or otherwise, whenever they wished to differentiate their national identity from the "bad old" Europeans, or the brutal state of nature. The rugged, idealistic frontier settler, hacking a life out of the wilderness but imbued with democratic virtue, was a popular model for Depression-riddled Americans who felt that their agency and power was slipping away. People today might like these movies for the same reasons!As for me, I think the film is well-acted and filmed, and somewhat exciting, but too laughable to take very seriously. That is, it's laughable when it is not deplorable. This is the most virulent anti-Indian movie I know, worse even than most westerns. Some of the comments here label this as a "family" film. The hero of this film repeatedly labels all Indians as brutes, thieves, and cowards. I wouldn't let any child see this movie.

The location was a poor choice, and this ruins the movie right off the bat. I live near the area where Roger's Rangers once roamed. Fidor should have done a little research. Most of the trees are deciduous...maple, birch, oak, beech, alder...with some evergreens mixed in. Nice views in the movie, but there are no snow-capped peaks in Vermont during the summer(the retreat depicted in the movie took place in Vermont). For that matter, the historical retreat did not take place in summer, but in fall (October). The part that made me laugh the hardest was the pile of lizards for the wilderness stew. There aren't any lizards in the Vermont woods...lots of snakes, but no lizards. Major Rogers would not have let an unbalanced comrade in arms run off into the woods to die. He was fiercely protective of his men, and this nonsensical scene is not historical and does Major Rogers a disservice. Perhaps Fidor meant to convey the harshness of the life, but this scene reveals his complete misunderstanding of who Rogers was and of the brotherhood that characterized the Rangers.