Belle Starr (1941)

Fresh and Exciting

Fantastic!

if their story seems completely bonkers, almost like a feverish work of fiction, you ain't heard nothing yet.

If you like to be scared, if you like to laugh, and if you like to learn a thing or two at the movies, this absolutely cannot be missed.

Copyright 12 September 1941 by 20th Century-Fox Film Corp. New York opening at the Roxy: 31 October 1941. U.S. release: 12 September 1941. Australian release: 4 March 1943 (sic). 7,834 feet. 87 minutes.SYNOPSIS: A heavily romanticized account of a Missouri-Oklahoman horse thief and companion of outlaws. Belle Starr never lived in any sort of mansion, grand or otherwise, and was too busy stealing and low- living to have any truck with the South. She didn't even meet Sam Starr until long after the Civil War had ended. Starr himself was a bandit. When he was shot to death, she married Blue Duck.NOTES: One of the most popular films Fox ever released in Australia. Although it came in at 6th spot for Australia's top ticket-sellers of 1943, Fox kept the film in constant re-issue throughout the 40s and 50s. It even played four or five times at Greater Union's revival flag-ship, the Lyric.COMMENT: Beautifully photographed Civil War Saga, handsomely mounted, sympathetically scripted, directed with insight and acted with flair. Although Randolph Scott receives top billing, his role is comparatively small. It is Gene Tierney who captures most of the audience's attention with her spirited portrayal of the title role. Also, she is superbly costumed and she figures prominently in all the plot's most memorable incidents. The pace is fast and the Civil War atmosphere comes across strongly.OTHER VIEWS: It's easy to distinguish the work of the two photographers. Rennahan did all the beautiful and meticulously-lit studio work with its lustrous close-ups and luminous shadows, while Palmer did the less interesting exteriors (one marvelous shot with the riders coming against the lightening sky) . Cummings' direction is more stylish than usual (RR's influence?). Though the film presents some laughable racial stereotypes and a plot that allows nothing to chance so far as the viewers' intelligence is concerned. Every explanatory point is underlined thrice (and thus the movie is inclined to be over-talky), but it's lavishly costumed and staged. Parallels with GWTW are obvious. Though a spin-off from that film, it was itself to spawn a whole host of imitators in which Belle was not quite the goody-two-shoed victim of history as depicted here.Tierney's performance lacks the conviction that her looks inspire and Scott makes too charming a villain, but Shepperd Strudwick is surprisingly convincing, while Dana Andrews has a made-to-order role. Support cast headed by Olin Howland (of all people) also scores strongly.The film has an ironic denouement which is rather unique (doubtless it influenced Steinbeck's Viva Zapata). — John Howard Reid writing as George Addison.Unusual action story filmed in Technicolor tells extraordinary exploits of woman bandit of American post Civil War period — the female Jesse James of her day. This film gives star rating to up- and-coming personality Gene Tierney. Randolph Scott, John Shepperd, Dana Andrews, Louis Beaver (sic), Elizabeth Patterson head the cast, and Irving Cummings directs. — Fox publicity.

That's an actual line of dialog from the script. Really.The Belle Starr story, never actually told in the movies (partially because the real story isn't that interesting..) is told here in early Hollywood color and all the vim and vigor with which they revered the South. The plot hook is that one of the aforementioned "darkies" actually tells the fable as the narrator. Without spoiling the movie, Belle and her husband continue fighting after the War Against Treason, using those traditional Civil War Southern values of robbery, assassination, treason and protecting known criminals to keep Missouri safe for, well,the same people it was safe for before the War. Hey, it works in the movie.The point made by vitaleralphlouis in his review is well taken. How dare we criticize Hollywood for showing how a loving mammy would help keep Belle safe, or that another "darkie" (their word, not mine) shows Belle's antagonist how disgusting he was. We all know that negroes formerly held as slaves had nothing but love for their former (or in this case present) slaveowners.This is a classic example of a movie obviously made with care, but looked at today 99% of its viewers would wonder what was in the coffee they served at the story-pitching conference. Because even as a joke, this kind of movie could never be made again, and if there's one good thing you can say about Hollywood, that's it.Oh, and by the way: a moment of silence for black actors like Louise Beavers who could only find work like this in her era.

This film is technically very up to date even though it is from 1941. It is an expensive color production, trying to stay on the wake of Gone With The Wind. Where the film aged considerably is on the script which is either patronizing in relation to Afro Americans or downright racist like when it shows Randolph Scott scaring carpetbaggers out of Missouri. Gene Tierney with a heavy southern accent is very good as Belle and so is Randolph Scott as Sam Starr. It is very rare to see Scott in a romantic part and he comes out great. It is curious that they show the three Younger brothers with a different surname, Cole. That is quite a direct reference to Cole Younger, yet they changed the names. Dana Andrews is the Union Major Grail who is in love with Belle but places duty above everything. "Belle Starr" has aged but it is still an interesting film to see.

Scarlett diminished away from Tara. The red earths of the farm was from where she drew her strength.Therefore, the pale, fickle imitation of "Belle Starr" cannot thrive off Margaret Mitchell's legendary story. It takes every crumb it can scavenge off David O. Selznick's story, and possibly every frame that ended up on the cutting room floor. The film stoops to terribly low lengths. Belle loses her brother, Scarlett lost her Mother. The Mammie character. Southern determination. It's civil war setting is enough to make the entire laughable production, conceived in a studio bound setting definitely not one to be watched. Although the "Gone With the Wind" novel, brilliant but appalling racist, manages to steer clear of the controversial offence it may have triggered, "Belle Starr" seems to relish in it. Trimmings, interior sets, costumes, Gene Tierney or no Gene Tierney, seem to save it. The colour cinematography is no doubt pretty, but Randolph Scott and Dana Andrews acting like hams in the background certainly provides no aid to Belle's crusades. Hundreds of Scarlett O'Hara hopefuls did better away from the splendour in different roles, but Gene Tierney's attempt to reprise some of the 1939 glory, falls overwhelmingly and pathetically flat.Stay away from this one...far, far away. Minor, unfriendly, unconvincing FOX Westerns do terrible things to the stomach. Rating: 5/10