The MoFo Movie Club Discussion: Little Big Man

Tools    





RIP www.moviejustice.com 2002-2010
You're right, of course. One could discuss the book or history without reference to the film. But I wouldn't say that the book and history are irrelevant to the film experience. Don't know how it is with you, but for me, films do not exist in a vacuum. When I go see a film, I truck along all I've seen in other movies, things I read in novels and histories, opinons, prejudices, everything that makes up life. Can't help it. I just can't shut down all other knowledge and feelings and concentrate solely on a film. If it's not relevant to my larger life, my real life, why watch it.

That's a good point. I think mark got tired of the whole bit examining General Custer instead of the film. I think it's interesting, but I don't watch movies for historical significance or integrity. Little Big Man does point Custer out to be brave. Never is he shown at all to be a coward. For example when Hoffman sneaks behind him to kill him, he approaches that situation bravely. Also during the Battle of Little Big Horn, he never cowers down... though you could say he's completely insane at that moment. So yes Little Big Man shows him as brave, which historically he was, but maybe his bravery was a symptom of his insanity, at least in the film.
__________________
"A candy colored clown!"
Member since Fall 2002
Top 100 Films, clicky below

http://www.movieforums.com/community...ad.php?t=26201



I watched this the other day but am still trying to wrap my head around it a bit more and may watch it again tonight or tomorrow... I read somewhere the other day though that Chief Dan's character, Old Lodge Skins, was supposed to be patterned, to a degree, after Crazy Horse... which I find a little interesting considering the title of the film... One of Crazy Horse's guards and rivals was named Little Big Man... and was one of the two Indian guards present when Crazy Horse was stabbed in the back...
__________________
You never know what is enough, until you know what is more than enough.
~William Blake ~

AiSv Nv wa do hi ya do...
(Walk in Peace)




I watched this the other day but am still trying to wrap my head around it a bit more and may watch it again tonight or tomorrow... I read somewhere the other day though that Chief Dan's character, Old Lodge Skins, was supposed to be patterned, to a degree, after Crazy Horse... which I find a little interesting considering the title of the film... One of Crazy Horse's guards and rivals was named Little Big Man... and was one of the two Indian guards present when Crazy Horse was stabbed in the back...
It's hard to see a simularity between Crazy Horse who was known for his prowness as a warrior, and Old Lodge Skins who is never seen in the whole film to do a single warlike thing. If anything, Old Lodge Skins with his dreams and visions seems to me more like Sitting Bull who envisioned the pony soldiers falling headfirst from the sky into the village, signifying an Indian victory over the soldiers. Like Old Lodge Skins, Sitting Bull did not participate in the fight against the soldiers as Crazy Horse did.

Moreover, Sitting Bull warned the Sioux not to take anything from the soldiers' dead bodies, especially no guns or knives or cookware or any of the metal and other items that the Indians prized and that were obtainable only from the "whites." Sitting Bull's point was that the Indians had to break their dependency on the superior goods of the "whites" and return to the stone and wooden weapons and equipment of their forefathers. I think he may also have warned them not to mutilate the bodies, but maybe not. At any rate, the Indians disobeyed Sitting Bull and gathered up the spoils of the battlefield, stripping and mutilating the soldiers' bodies. That broke the "medicine" that had brought the victory, the camp split up on the run and eventually the different bands were hunted down and put back on the reservations or killed out.



Saw this last week. I haven't posted yet because I find myself startlingly indifferent to most of it. It's fine, I suppose...I don't have strong feelings in any direction, for whatever reason. So, that means random lists!



Things I Liked
  • Hoffman's makeup is still impressive after all these years. His performance is quite good. And I have to give him props for doing the goofy old man voice without it coming off as too absurd. He struck a nice balance.
  • Some of the humor was kind of fun, and some of the symmetry between the characters he meets early on, and the ones later on, was nice. Never takes itself too seriously. The episodic nature of things makes it far more watchable, as well.
  • Obviously, the play on "Human Being" made for some well-layered dialogue later in the film.
  • Not as sermonizing as you might expect a film of this type to be. Had the good sense to differentiate between good and bad people on both sides.
  • Doesn't do many predictable things (with some exceptions, listed below). I actually found myself very, very curious as to what would happen in the end.
  • Lovely symbolism with Jack Crabb passing his story on verbally, like Native Americans do.



Things I Didn't
  • I think the juxtaposition of comedy/lightheartedness and violence/seriousness came off as confused. Each scene was like some weird emotional rollercoaster. This isn't an inherently bad thing, but I didn't like it all that often here.
  • I'm not going to play a game of moral equivalence with wild west misdeeds, but I find it hard to take films seriously if the evil white men get too comically bad. As I said, I think Little Big Man is far better on this point than most films set around this time, but some of the characters were a little over-the-top.
  • Very cynical. For example, the religious woman who becomes a whore. I get the impression I was supposed to find these sorts of reversals as comical, but I suppose I didn't. By the end, when it became clear we were going to see EVERY character again, it started to feel obligatory.
Decent movie. The obvious comparison, for me, is Forrest Gump, which I think nailed the rhythm between drama and comedy in a way that Little Big Man couldn't quite. But its a gutsy film that shouldn't work quite as well as it does, and Hoffman's really impressive in it.





Haven't read some of the other posts earlier in the thread yet, so I'll have a look and probably toss up a response to some of them soon.



OK, in a continued effort to elicit discussion about the movie itself, did anyone notice that, except for Jack's sister's early insistence that it's just a matter of time before the Indians rape her and Jack's frightened German wife, none of the "white" civilians in Little Big Man ever express fear or hatred of the Indians? Oh, the reverand's oversexed wife voices some "horror" at what Jack must have suffered among the savages, but that's just talk with no real compassion or feeling about what it must have been like for the young boy. Compare that with the naked fear and hatred of Indians among civilians in films like The Unforgiven (the 1960s film with Burt Lancaster and Audrey Hepburn in which Indians are referred to as "red n-----s"), Major Dundee, and The Searchers. In the book, The Searchers, the John Wayne character is killed during a raid on an Indian village in which he chases after a woman who might have been his niece but who instead is an Indian squaw who fatally shoots him. The Jeffrey Hunter character says in the book he doesn't know if Nathan thought it was the Natalie Wood character and was trying to save her or was trying to kill the woman whether she was white or Indian. I always thought that was a more fitting ending for Nathan than the sudden change of heart at the end of the movie when he sweeps up a very un-Indian-looking Natalie Wood and decides to take her "home," after suggesting all through the film she'd be better off dead than red-skinned.

Despite their willingness to shoot down women and children, none of the soldiers in Little Big Man seem all that angry at the Indians although they must have seen their comrades and others killed by the Indians in battle and found friends and civilians tortured to death by their common enemy. Mostly, they just act like killing Indians is just another job. Had they been cowboys, they would be driving cattle to market; instead they simply drive surviving Indians back to their reservations.



Bright light. Bright light. Uh oh.
Saw this last week. I haven't posted yet because I find myself startlingly indifferent to most of it. It's fine, I suppose...I don't have strong feelings in any direction, for whatever reason. So, that means random lists!

Very cynical. For example, the religious woman who becomes a whore. I get the impression I was supposed to find these sorts of reversals as comical, but I suppose I didn't. By the end, when it became clear we were going to see EVERY character again, it started to feel obligatory.



I think you're looking at Miss Pendrake completely backwards. She was a "whore" married to a so-called religious man at the beginning who reverts back to her nature at the end. Silas Pendrake is a preacher in name only, unless you consider an average televangelist today to be a true preacher. He's mostly concerned with eating and beating the "sin" out of his adopted son. I realize that you don't get much time with these characters but it's obvious to me the way Miss Pendrake talks about Jesus and Moses that she has no understanding of the Bible. She does seem to enjoy putting Jack's hand up to her chest though and giving him the best bath he ever had in his life.

I'm surprised you didn't mention Chief Dan George. I'm going to date myself again and simply say that he is AWESOME! The man could do no wrong in that movie and should have taken the Oscar which was awarded to John Mills. I'm also surprised how you can feel ambivalent about a film with so much in it. Did you think the film was sending mixed messages or did you have a problem with it from a political standpoint?

I'll wait for some more comments before continuing.
__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page



I find myself startlingly indifferent to most of it.
Gawd, I love it, Yoda!!! It was not the response I was expecting, but how refreshing to have someone look at a classic film and say, "So what?" Way to go, guy!


I'm not going to play a game of moral equivalence with wild west misdeeds, but I find it hard to take films seriously if the evil white men get too comically bad. As I said, I think Little Big Man is far better on this point than most films set around this time, but some of the characters were a little over-the-top.
You're right. Look at Costner's Dances With Wolves for example--every one of the soldiers who later show up at the abandoned fort is a complete dirtbag, all of whom deserve to die in some nasty manner. In Costner's film, all the Indians are brave and noble, all the "whites" but Costner are cowardly scum-buckets. Little Big Man does handle that better.

The obvious comparison, for me, is Forrest Gump, which I think nailed the rhythm between drama and comedy in a way that Little Big Man couldn't quite. But its a gutsy film that shouldn't work quite as well as it does, and Hoffman's really impressive in it.
Now this does surprise me! In assessing Little Big Man, Gump wouldn't have been the film that would leap to my mind, although that "rhythm between drama and comedy" does make sense upon reflection--just wouldn't have popped to my mind.

I strongly recommend you read the book in that it fleshes out some of the characters a little more and drops in some not included in the movie.



I think you're looking at Miss Pendrake completely backwards. She was a "whore" married to a so-called religious man at the beginning who reverts back to her nature at the end. Silas Pendrake is a preacher in name only, unless you consider an average televangelist today to be a true preacher. He's mostly concerned with eating and beating the "sin" out of his adopted son. I realize that you don't get much time with these characters but it's obvious to me the way Miss Pendrake talks about Jesus and Moses that she has no understanding of the Bible. She does seem to enjoy putting Jack's hand up to her chest though and giving him the best bed he ever had in his life.
Oh, no, this is exactly how I looked at her: like she was living a lie and trying to convince herself it was true. By "religious woman" I just meant that she was, technically, religious, not that she was actually pious.

Anyway, I just found her character a bit hammy and the reversal a bit obvious. Just a matter of taste, I expect, there. I might have liked it more if it wasn't one of 3 or 4 such reversals (contraries!), because after the first the rest feel telegraphed.

I'm surprised you didn't mention Chief Dan George. I'm going to date myself again and simply say that he is AWESOME! The man could do no wrong in that movie and should have taken the Oscar which was awarded to John Mills. I'm also surprised how you can feel ambivalent about a film with so much in it. Did you think the film was sending mixed messages or did you have a problem with it from a political standpoint?
Hmm, I honestly can't say I thought he was awesome. Perhaps I was unable to appreciate his performance because it is, by definition, supposed to be fairly understated. He certainly gets points for saying some of his lines with a straight face, and I guess you could say some of the gags are setup better because he seems to be on an even keel all the time, so that when he says something funny it's all the more surprising. It's as if he himself doesn't realize it's funny, or doesn't care.

Gawd, I love it, Yoda!!! It was not the response I was expecting, but how refreshing to have someone look at a classic film and say, "So what?" Way to go, guy!
I think this happens to me with films that contain a lot, but don't always have the clearest message (or, at least, the clearest to me). They start to jumble together. I think if I sat down and sorted through the elements this would probably change a bit, but I dunno.

Now this does surprise me! In assessing Little Big Man, Gump wouldn't have been the film that would leap to my mind, although that "rhythm between drama and comedy" does make sense upon reflection--just wouldn't have popped to my mind.
Well, label me surprise that you're surprised! The comparison was so obvious to me that I figured everyone else would have made it long before I joined in. Granted, Crabb isn't a simpleton, but he's certainly quite naive at points. Both have frame stories for the majority of the film, lots of voiceover narration, drama and comedy smushed together into close quarters, both protagonists find themselves on every side of every issue and woven all throughout the events of their day, and both have a number of elements that seem to embody the phrase "tall tale."

Anyway, it'd probably be fair to say I'd have liked Little Big Man a Little Bit More if I hadn't seen Forrest Gump first.



will.15's Avatar
Semper Fooey
I actually like Little Big Man more than Forrest Gump because I had a problem believing a nitwit like Gump could achieve so much while Jack is more everyman thrust into unusual circumstances, but many of the things Yoda points out are flaws in the movie. It's been so long since I read the book, but I think most of the changes the movie makes, which aren't a lot but still significant, are mistakes that simplify the story and creates even more coincidences than in the novel.



Bright light. Bright light. Uh oh.
Yoda, I don't really know if this has something to do with taste, age or the fact that I'm completely out of touch, but I have a hard time accepting that Little Big Man is less-successful, less-entertaining and somehow more-confusing than many of the present-day films which you give much higher ratings than a weak
. I think I had a similar problem with your reaction to Elmer Gantry. Now, I realize that these films are old but I don't actually believe they're dated (unless I'm also dated as in out-of-touch). I also want to clarify that I don't have a personal problem with you here Yods; it's just that I'm having a problem grasping what your problems are with the film(s). It's some kind of filtered interpretation that escapes me, but then again, I've seen Little Big Man somewhere around 30-40 times. The only thing I can tell you is that when I first saw it at the drive-in about 37 years ago, I completely loved it and KNEW it was a great film, full of both intense humor and tragedy. I also knew it was a very personal film for both the filmmakers and for me. As far as Chief Dan George goes, I immediately related to him and wanted him to be my grandfather. He was just so dignified and honest yet had such a sly sense of humor. I can maybe understand somebody hating Little Big Man although I would think it was for wrong-headed, non-cinematic reasons, but it's difficult for me to grasp the ambivalence.

By the way, I've compared/contrasted Little Big Man and Forrest Gump all over this site. Since I love both films, it's only natural. But I do love Little Big Man more.



Oh, no, this is exactly how I looked at her: like she was living a lie and trying to convince herself it was true. By "religious woman" I just meant that she was, technically, religious, not that she was actually pious. Anyway, I just found her character a bit hammy and the reversal a bit obvious.


I agree the Mrs. Pendrake character was a little over the top, and apparently neither Jack, you, or I were surprised when she showed up later in that whore house. On the other hand, I really couldn't tell what was motivating that character since it's never really developed. I mean, why did a lovely and somewhat sensitive woman--at least a woman with sensitive airs and pretensions--wind up married to a hardline parson like Mr. Pendrake? Did he rescue her from life as a saloon girl (not likely since she claims she didn't know whoring could be so boring)? Did he woo her away from some frontier pig farmer in a sod shanty where she was working her fingers to the bone trying to make a go of a bad homestead? Guess Mr. Pendrake would look like a savior if he could provide her a nice house and dresses and a form of respectability. Maybe her ma and pa with more kids than they could feed gave or sold her as a girl to the older Pendrake thinking she might have a better life but mostly it was one less mouth to feed. And who was Mr. Pendrake--Baptist, Methodist, Mormon? Was he ordained by any church or just started calling himself reverend? Was he maybe a con-man who got religion and went straight? Or a con-man who used religion to fleece the gullible? Did he even have a congregation? No outsider visits the house. In fact, the only outsider we see other than Jack is the storekeeper she's getting it on with. When and why did both Jack and Mrs. Pendrake part company with the old reprobate?

So there's lots of ways to look at Mrs. Pendrake--maybe she's a basically good woman who is bored out of her skull and looking for a sexual outlet other than that toad of a husband. Certainly she has a healthy interest in sex, but also some limitations--she feels Jack up while giving him a bath, yet as both say later their mutual lust remains unrequited. Is the storekeeper with whom she has an affair just a slick ladies man who's bedding several women in town and seduced Mrs. Pendrake? Or is she cutting a swathe through the men in town so the merchant is not her first, not her last, and not even her only one at the moment? Is she a good woman gone bad, or a bad woman who can only pretend so long to be good? When she uses Bill's dying gift to go back home to her family, will she resume a good life and land a wealthy husband, or will she still be a whore? And when it comes right down to it, does she really influence Jack's life all that much? Certainly not to the extent of his Indian wife and her 3 sisters!

Hmm, I honestly can't say I thought he [Chief Dan George] was awesome. Perhaps I was unable to appreciate his performance because it is, by definition, supposed to be fairly understated. He certainly gets points for saying some of his lines with a straight face, and I guess you could say some of the gags are setup better because he seems to be on an even keel all the time, so that when he says something funny it's all the more surprising. It's as if he himself doesn't realize it's funny, or doesn't care.


Although I enjoyed Chief Dan George's role and performance, I didn't think it was the greatest I've ever seen. To paraphrase Jack's statement about growing up with the Cheyenne, George "wasn't just playing Injun, he was living Injun." After all, Hoffman has to stretch some to portray a man raised by Indians. On the other hand, George's biggest stretch is he's a member of a tribe on Canada's Pacific coast playing a Cheyenne in Midwestern US. Knowing he played a very similar role in much the same way in The Outlaw Jose Wales also makes me wonder how much of the part in Little Big Man was acting and how much was it just Dan George being Dan George? I guess there may be some who marvel that a 71-year-old Indian could give such a good performance in such a good role, but that's kind of an ageist, racist way too look at it. Also, how does Dan George's performance stack up against Iron Eyes Cody who for decades had Hollywood and movie audiences thinking he was a real Indian? Remember that anti-litter TV ad he was in?



I've seen Little Big Man somewhere around 30-40 times.
Wow, Mark, I don't know which amazes me most--that you've watched a movie 30-40 times or that you kept sort of a ballpark figure on the number of viewings! And I bet there are other films you've seen even more often. Wow, "fan" hardly covers that kind of dedication. You must have buttocks of steel from sitting in movie theaters that many hours--and the whitest skin in California. Anyway, my hat's off to you, pard, I am impressed.

. . . when I first saw it at the drive-in about 37 years ago, I . . . knew it was a very personal film for both the filmmakers and for me. As far as Chief Dan George goes, I immediately related to him and wanted him to be my grandfather.
Wow, again. The whole concept of wanting to adopt a movie character/actor is new to me--I really don't think I've ever heard anyone say anything like that before. Not trying to flame you or anything. I know you and I travel in different circles, sometimes in different worlds, but I'm only beginning to comprehend the degree of some of our differences. My first impulse was to ask what your real grandfathers were like, but that's too personal and you don't need to defend or justify to anyone what you like or don't like.

I do wonder if Dan George and his character were what made it so personal to you, assuming you must have been awful young at your first viewing, or if there were other factors. Sounds like this goes way beyond being just a very good movie to you as you obviously have an emotional investment in this film. I agree it's a good film. I've always enjoyed it. And believe me, my questions about some of the characters are not meant as a personal slam against you. I would like to hear your opinon on what I replied to Yoda about Mrs. Pendrake and Old Lodge Skins--if it doesn't upset you too much, that is.



I actually like Little Big Man more than Forrest Gump because I had a problem believing a nitwit like Gump could achieve so much while Jack is more everyman thrust into unusual circumstances, but many of the things Yoda points out are flaws in the movie. It's been so long since I read the book, but I think most of the changes the movie makes, which aren't a lot but still significant, are mistakes that simplify the story and creates even more coincidences than in the novel.
One thing I remember from the book that wasn't in the film was that Jack as a boy was running around in the all-together with the other boys when he comes upon a broken arrow. So he grips one part of the arrow--the end with the shaft with the feathers on it, say--between his buttocks and then takes the other part of the shaft with the arrowhead in his belly-button, sort of bending forward to hold it in place, and walks up to the other boys who immediately assume he's been shot through with an arrow. As Jack tells his interviewer, there's no blood and the two halfs of the arrow don't even line up with each other, one being at a lower angle. But the boys and even some of the grown up warrors who they summon marvel that Jack is still walking around with an arrow "shot" right through him! At which time in the book, Jack makes a remark to the interviewer something to the effect of Indians being so dumb and believing anything, which explains their religion, superstitions, and even why they keep falling for the promises of the whites. I think the book makes it a little plainer that, although he generally prefers Indians to whites, he kinda looks down on the Indians too. Maybe it's just the freedom of their life he enjoys and not the Indians per se.



Good-Natured, Film-Loving Fellow
Any chance I get to see (but especially hear) the great Bill Hickey is something I will grab at with both hands, and I did here in a class by the name of "The Native American Experience." Great class, great flick. I love Mr. Dustin Hoffman, of course, and I was hot for Faye Dunaway's seductive character.



RIP www.moviejustice.com 2002-2010



Things I Didn't
  • I think the juxtaposition of comedy/lightheartedness and violence/seriousness came off as confused. Each scene was like some weird emotional rollercoaster. This isn't an inherently bad thing, but I didn't like it all that often here.
  • I'm not going to play a game of moral equivalence with wild west misdeeds, but I find it hard to take films seriously if the evil white men get too comically bad. As I said, I think Little Big Man is far better on this point than most films set around this time, but some of the characters were a little over-the-top.
  • Very cynical. For example, the religious woman who becomes a whore. I get the impression I was supposed to find these sorts of reversals as comical, but I suppose I didn't. By the end, when it became clear we were going to see EVERY character again, it started to feel obligatory.
Decent movie. The obvious comparison, for me, is Forrest Gump, which I think nailed the rhythm between drama and comedy in a way that Little Big Man couldn't quite. But its a gutsy film that shouldn't work quite as well as it does, and Hoffman's really impressive in it.


I agree with you about the over-the-top moments with certain characters. I didn't much care for the portrayal of Jack's sister. I thought she was the weakest link in the film because she completely hams it up. Her acting comes across like someone who's too clearly trying to force an accent they learned by watching reruns of The Gene Autry Show y'all. It reminds me of something you'd see in a Chuck Wagon Steak dinner show.

I disagree with you on the mix of comedy and drama. I think for the most part the film pulls it off very well, and replaces sentiment and preaching with hyperbole and ridiculousness. I do think Martin Balsam as Merriweather is good. Also Custer works well for me too.

Hickcock tries to play it straight to contrast with the hilarity, but in my thoughts doesn't play it straight enough. The actor who played Custer pulled it off perfectly as did Chief Dan George.

I'm bumping this thread again because I thought of the film as my American Lit I class is now watching it.



RIP www.moviejustice.com 2002-2010
. I also knew it was a very personal film for both the filmmakers and for me. As far as Chief Dan George goes, I immediately related to him and wanted him to be my grandfather. He was just so dignified and honest yet had such a sly sense of humor. I can maybe understand somebody hating Little Big Man although I would think it was for wrong-headed, non-cinematic reasons, but it's difficult for me to grasp the ambivalence.

By the way, I've compared/contrasted Little Big Man and Forrest Gump all over this site. Since I love both films, it's only natural. But I do love Little Big Man more.
Excellently said about Chief Dan George. I think he elevates the film from very good to great. He also does the same for The Outlaw Josey Wales.



Yeah he does. So many terrific lines.
__________________
We are both the source of the problem and the solution, yet we do not see ourselves in this light...



Excellently said about Chief Dan George. I think he elevates the film from very good to great. He also does the same for The Outlaw Josey Wales.
OK, serious question for you and Powdered Water as you both rightly and justifiably praised Chief Dan George's performances in Little Big Man and The Outlaw Jose Wales--how did his portrayal of the two roles differ and which was the best performance? Not trying to flame you or pick on an actor you two like and enjoyed; just trying to explore whether there was all that much difference in the two roles and how he played them, other than he played a Cheyenne in the first and a Cherokee in the second, in which he probably got more screen time.

Having seen both films several times plus an earlier performance by him in a film (maybe made for TV) called Smith in which Glenn Ford plays a modern rancher friendly to Indians persecuted by a prejudiced lawman played by Keenan Wynn and involving a young Indian on trial for murder, I just can't see any difference in Dan George's performances or his portrayal of the three extremely similar roles. Seems to me Dan George simply played Dan George, which makes him an interesting character, perhaps, but not necessarily an "actor" in the true sense, in that his pace, delivery, tone of voice, body language, facial expressions rarely change.

Nothing personal. I'm sure you disagree and I look forward to your (and others') discussion about his ability as an actor and what you like best about his performances.

I don't mean to "pick on" George, except that his performance has been cited several times in this discussion. I see little difference in Jay Silverheel's many performances as Tonto and as one of two Seminole Indians on the run from the law in Key Largo. Iron-Eyes Cody, who actually was a Canadian with no Indian heritage at all, always was essentially the same in his many Indian movie roles as opposed to say Anthony Quinn and J. Carrol Nash who played Indians from both the US and India, Mexicans, Greeks, Jews, Italians, Eskimos, Eastern Europeans, you name it, always exercising a wide spread of acting abilities that made each of their characters different.



will.15's Avatar
Semper Fooey
They wouldn't be the only actors who didn't differ their acting from movie to movie. John Wayne who did a million movies occasionally did a little acting, but was usually John Wayne. Chief Dan George had great presence and like you said played Chief Dan George very well



They wouldn't be the only actors who didn't differ their acting from movie to movie. John Wayne who did a million movies occasionally did a little acting, but was usually John Wayne. Chief Dan George had great presence and like you said played Chief Dan George very well
Yeah, I certainly didn't mean to limit the people playing themselves simply to Indians or supposed Indians. Steve McQueen was great mostly at playing Steve McQueen although he sometimes stretched further. And Wayne, of course--the sad thing about Wayne was in his later years when he just walked through formula films that often included one teen singer and one sports figure and one beauty queen model and one established longtime star, with comedy relief from someone like Walter Brennan or Jack Elam. His best films were when he broke out of his usual mold in something like The High and the Mighty, playing someone his real age without the hairpiece or as a romantic lead. Two of his best roles were in films where he played violent men who had sworn off violence: The Quite Man and The Angel and the Badman. But he also deserved his Oscar nomination for Sgt. Ryker in Sands of Iwo Jima, although he played an awful lot of war heroes for a man who took a draft deferment for being married with children.