Western Revisionism

Hollywood's historical revisionism has often been called out with regard to the histories of non-US countries, be it the dubious portrayal of William Wallace as Scottish freedom fighter in Braveheart or the wholesale rewriting of World War Two naval history in U-571,  but, to be fair it has been doing the same thing with regard to US history since the dawn of the feature film.  Indeed, much of what we like to think we know about the Old West has been learned through the filter of countless Hollywood movies, most of which give us the myth rather than the reality of events.  The mythologising of the West, of course, long predates Hollywood and motion pictures - even before their advent, it was busy mythologising itself through Dime Novels and the like, even as it happened.  The key historical figures themselves deliberately falsified their own stories, both at the time and later, when writing their memoirs.  Wyatt Earp, most notoriously, shamelessly conflated his alleged exploits, taking credit for the actions of others and over-inflating his role in those events he did participate in.  To be fair, he was a lawman at times and he really was a key player in the Gunfight at the OK Corral, but much of the rest of his alleged adventures as he related them to his biographer Stuart N Lake shortly before his death in 1928, were pretty much fabrication.  But the resulting book, Wyatt Earp, Frontier Marshal, has formed the basis for the majority of the films subsequently based on his life, (and particularly the Gunfight at the OK Corral).  

So, I shouldn't have been surprised when, today, I stumbled into a fifties technicolor Western programmer Jack McCall, Desperado, which took my breath away with the sheer audacity of its historical revisionism. In the opening minutes alone, we see the title character (played by handsome George Montgomery) ride into Deadwood and shoot dead 'Marshal' Hickok as he played cards.  At first I thought this might just be a coincidence of names, but no, it immediately becomes evident that these are meant to be the historical characters of 'Wild Bill' Hickok and his real life assassin Jack McCall.  We then go into a flashback sequence as McCall defends himself at an impromptu trial, where we learn that his actions have their roots in the American Civil War, where he was a Southerner fighting for the Union, with Hickok as his sergeant.  McCall is unjustly accused of being a Confederate spy and Hickok conspires to deprive him of his rightful inheritance, before becoming a general bad 'un and winds up.post-war, in Deadwood, conspiring to rip off gold mining rights from the Indians.  Believe me, this represents a spectacular perversion of established historical fact.  While Hickok did indeed serve in the Union army as a sergeant during the Civil War and, later, became a lawman, he was most certainly never the marshal of Deadwood.  By the time he wound up there, he was living on his reputation and effectively working as a professional gambler.  McCall's history is less clear, but it seems certain that he and Hickok had never met before Deadwood.  His motivation for killing 'Wild Bill' was unclear - alcohol and resentment over the fact that, the previous day, Hickok had offered him money for food after McCall had lost heavily in a poker game they had both participated in, probably played a part.  Unlike the film, McCall gave Hickok no warning and wasn't facing him when he opened fore - 'Wild Bill' was shot in the back of the head at point blank range.

Now, while it is true, as depicted, that McCall was acquitted of murder at his 'trial', this was subsequently decreed, by the local Federal court, (Deadwood was in Dakota territory, which didn't have Statehood, meaning that the only law there was Federal law and only Federal courts had jurisdiction), to be invalid, as the local 'court' had no legal standing.  At a new trial at the Federal court, he was found guilty and hanged, despite his claims that he was, in fact, avenging the murder of his own brother in Abilene at the hands of Hickok.  (While a man named McCall had been shot dead by an unknown lawman in Abilene, there was no evidence that he was McCall's brother, or that Hickok had been in Abilene at the time).  I don't know why Jack McCall, Desperado surprised me so much - it isn't the only film to try and portray McCall as victim and Hickok as villain, I recall the awful Arch Hall cheapie Deadwood '76 doing something similar, creating an entirely fictional story to lead up to the death of Hickok.  Yet, far from being a poverty row independent production like Deadwood '76, Jack McCall, Desperado was a studio film with decent production values and recognisable actors and director, so it seemed strange to see it going against the grain of mainstream westerns of its era, which generally portrayed Hickok as a hero.  (In reality, while he was no angel, he was still closer to the sort of good guy frontiersman portrayed in the moves - although not as competent: his law enforcement career ended when he accidentally shot and killed one of his own deputies).  

While it is common to see out and out outlaws like Jesse James, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid and Billy the Kid portrayed as heroic, (in truth, only Billy the Kid might have some claim to such a role, originally becoming a killer to avenge the death of his employer William Tunstall in a range war), it is less common to see historical 'good guys' depicted as villains.  (Wyatt Earp, one of the most complex of historical western icons, is an exception, sometimes being portrayed as a highly dubious, amoral, character).  Which, perhaps, should be surprising, as a significant number of lawmen in the Old West started their careers as outlaws.  But Jack McCall, Desperado, really does go to extreme lengths in terms of revisionism, by inventing an entirely fiction life of crime for 'Wild Bill' Hickok.  Still, when compared to the way in which Hollywood westerns traditionally portrayed Native Americans and their treatment at the hands of European settlers, I suppose it pales into insignificance.