I start this review with trepidation. It is known in critical circles that certain fan groups can be more...demonstrative in their displeasure with anyone who breaks with their opinions about their object of desire. Don't knock Star Wars or you'll never see the end of angry emails flooding your inbox. Don't suggest The Lord of the Rings trilogy is highly overrated, or you'll get blogged out of your skull. And most importantly, don't tick off Shirley Temple fans. Those sweet natured goons will crease you over your top plate without a second thought.

Of course, I jest (or as Don Rickles used to say, "I kid, because I love."). I'm sure of all the fan groups (with the possible exception of those Nelson Eddy/Jeanette MacDonald freaks), that the Shirley Temple crowd are probably the best behaved of the lot. Actually, I'm joking because I'm not really sure where the Shirley Temple canon rests today in audiences' affections. Does she still have a huge following? I don't know. I can only speak of when I was a kid, and how she was perceived then. We were able (through my old man's amazing TV aerial) to pick up on a regular basis, TV stations from Detroit (we lived in Maumee, a suburb of Toledo). On Channel 7, there was a regular Sunday morning Abbott & Costello film festival (heaven if you didn't want to watch "Mass for Shut-Ins"). When they ran out of A & C titles, they would move on to the Bowery Boys. And when they ran out of those, you might see some Joe E. Brown or even a Ritz Bros. title or two. And when they ran out of those, you got the Shirley Temple films. Honestly, for a young boy who loved any old movie (praise be to Detroit TV host legends Bill Kennedy and Sir Graves Ghastly), I couldn't hang with Shirley's films. Nothing personal; I just didn't find her interesting. Too cloying, too mechanical, too artificially sweet, she reminded me of a ghastly wind-up automaton, clicking and whirring her way through one artificial set up after another.

I know that today, that sounds very mean. Viewing her now, I can see the professionalism that does shine through. She is an amazingly intuitive little actor. She has an uncanny ability to connect with her Depression-era audience, and get right to the basic emotion of the scene. Now, how much of that performance was either drilled into her through rote memorization, either through the director or relatives, or whether it comes naturally from her, it's still hard to tell. She's such a little "pro" by the time of Susannah of the Mounties, such a consummate professional, that's it's hard to see what may or may not have been natural or unsophisticated in her talent. As she stands in Susannah of the Mounties, she's an affecting performer going through the ropes of an expensive studio product.

It's the late 1880's, and the Canadian Pacific Railway is making its way westward from the Red River toward the Foothills, bringing along many white settlers, who clash with the native Indians. Standing in the middle, trying to keep the peace, are the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. After a wagon train is massacred by Indians, the lone survivor, Susannah (Shirley Temple), becomes the mascot of the local Mounted fort, while falling in love with handsome Mountie "Monty" Montague (Randolph Scott). Due to misunderstandings from both white settlers and Indians, tensions erupt, and it's up to little Susannah to breach the gap between civilizations, and reach an understanding that brings peace to both groups.

Right. There's an admirable attempt in Susannah of the Mounties to clearly lay blame for racial tensions squarely on the shoulders of disreputable members of both cultures: blowhard whites who feel it's their right to subjugate the Indians, and Indian warriors who reject the honorable conventions of their culture to lie and steal. However, any redeeming attempt at even-handedness is totally undercut by a failure to address real problems of clashing cultures, as well as ill-conceived humor that essentially degrades the very Indians that the film wishes to elevate in the audience's eyes.

Now, it's a tall order to ask a Shirley Temple film to be socially responsible, particularly when you consider the time period in which it was made. But this is an older Shirley than most people think of when they picture her in their minds, and the studio obviously wanted to see if they could move her into more adult features. So if the film brings up these issues, it should be judged with those criteria, not just from the standpoint of whether or not she's still cute. I'm not one of those critics who feel it's necessary for actors to racially match their roles; if that racist notion was carried to its logical conclusion, only Danes would be allowed to play Hamlet and only Moors would be allowed to play Othello. So it doesn't bother me that major Indian roles are portrayed by Maurice Moscovitch and Victor Jory. Actors act, and they're fine in their roles. That being said, it's tough to get a feel for where the film stands on its more serious subplot -- culture clash -- when it hedges its bets with humor that today would be called insensitive (as well, I can imagine some non-smoking fanatics wanting the movie banned for shots of little Shirley taking a hit of that Indian peace pipe. Sound ridiculous? Talk to Turner Broadcasting, which is eliminating all smoking references in Tom and Jerry cartoons in the U. K.).

Political considerations aside, Susannah of the Mounties is a fairly entertaining shoot 'em up with some good action scenes, and pretty scenery (courtesy of some nice matte work). Built with classic Hollywood feature construction, Susannah of the Mounties moves confidently through its story, with top technical credits that only studio craftsmen could provide. The actors are professional and entertaining; Randolph Scott easily takes the acting honors here, working well with little Shirley. He's an adept actor, with a feel for taking any scene at exactly the right pace. And Shirley does well with the one or two scenes where she really needs to act (her initial discovery after the massacre is well played, with her screaming realistically, "Don't touch me! Don't touch me!"). However, the pushy little girl that charms people doesn't play so well now that she's older; at times she comes off as grating and frankly, annoying. I suspect that's one of the reasons she didn't translate her enormous earlier popularity into a career as a young adult. On a small, small note, I must say I was disappointed in the Mountie costumes (which I assume were historically accurate); I was expecting the big brimmed hats that Sergeant Preston of the Yukon used to wear (there's a great idea for a period remake, or Rin Tin Tin, for that matter). The little pill boxes the police wear more resemble the ushers at the Rivoli, than Canadian Mounties -- at least in my mind.

The DVD:

The Video:

Susannah of the Mounties is presented full frame in a super-sharp resorted black and white print. In many shots, it looks like it was filmed yesterday. As well, this disc offers a colorized version for the viewer. I want to discuss this because my knee jerk reaction to colorizing has always been -- ban it from all existence. However, I must say I was impressed with the colorization process here. I would imagine that advancements have been made in the computer process since the first crude, awful colorizing took place back in the 1980's, because this print certainly looks fine. As I've stated before in other reviews, I'm a purist. I don't think you should mess with works of art after they've been received by the public. Widescreen films should be seen correctly, music scores that you don't like should be left alone, even if you think a better one fits the movie (my sincere apologies to DVD Savant and Major Dundee), and as well, black and white movies should be left alone. That being said, obviously colorizing seems to be here to stay -- at least for minor titles such as this one, which might appeal to children. And let's not forget -- colorizing (in the form of "color correcting") is being utilized in restoration processes for many classic films that purists swoon over. Do I think children like color more than black and white? Obviously. Does that mean that you should only show color movies to kids, or that they cannot enjoy a black and white film? Absolutely not. I just want to point out that if you don't care about colorizing, this print is pretty amazing. It's not Technicolor, but it's a vast improvement over earlier experiments that made everyone look like green-skinned ghouls. With that being said, I still prefer the silky black and white print here. And it's important to note that 20th Century Fox had the respect for the original version, to include the black and white print.

The Audio:

The Dolby Digital Stereo playback is strong and clear, but the Mono works just as well, and more correctly duplicates the original presentation experience. There is an optional Spanish mono track. Close captioning is also available, but someone needs to really watch what's being printed there: there's a hilarious moment in the film, where Shirley is very upset with Little Big Chief, where the closed captioning translates into "Oh, you think I'm a freak, do you? It should have read, "friend." You could read a lot into that if you wanted.

The Extras:

There's an interesting/terrifying little short subject included, called The Hollywood Spotlight with Jimmie Fidler: Shirley is given a pony for her 8th Birthday. Check out Shirley's terrified face as the pony threatens to bolt (despite the narration that she's an expert rider), as well as her obvious nervousness when the pony wants to bite her. But of course, she's a real trooper when she thanks the bearer of the gift. It kind of gives you the creeps when you see how well she was trained to be "on" whenever the cameras were around. There's also a trailer for Susannah of the Mounties that expressly includes Shirley in the Holy Trinity of little girl heroines, joined with Cinderella and Snow White.

Final Thoughts:

Susannah of the Mounties is an old-fashioned entertainment with a seriously compromised message of racial unity. It's professionally done, and expertly manages to get across its Depression-era message -- courage can lick anything -- to the receptive audience it was intended for. Viewed today, there are admirable attempts in the screenplay to treat all parties concerned in a fair way, but the depth of the argument is laughable. Viewed strictly as entertainment, it manages to do so, but not memorably. If you're already a fan, this beautifully restored version is a must have. Otherwise, rent it first to see if you enjoy little Shirley. I suspect most will.