• Ride with the Devil:
    Apocalypse Then

    By Godfrey Cheshire

    Just over halfway through Ang Lee’s masterful Civil War drama Ride with the Devil, the small group of men at the story’s center, young, Southern-sympathizing Bushwhackers fighting in divided Missouri, meet up with other ragtag bands of rebels. Coalescing under the command of Captain William Clarke Quantrill (John Ales), these freelance warriors are arresting—and more than a little frightening—in their suddenly massed numbers and in the fact that some of them are, unmistakably, psychotically murderous. Lee visualizes their menace in precise, unnerving detail: in the dry sunlight of an August day, they look as unforgiving and combustible as gunpowder.

    Something has to blow, and it does. Quantrill has assembled the men for a deadly purpose. After he gives them their orders, words that smolder with an implacable, Old Testament rage, they ride their horses to a ridge overlooking a town. When they begin to descend, it’s like one of those moments in Seven Samurai or Apocalypse Now when the approach of battle sends the viewer’s stomach into free fall. The film cuts to the town, where we see isolated, defenseless Yankees look up, as if at clouds of swarming locusts. The thundering horses bear down on them with an overwhelming fury. It would be a breathtakingly vertiginous moment even if you didn’t know the town’s name—Lawrence, Kansas.

    The Lawrence Massacre is aptly named. It wasn’t a battle or a siege but a vicious, methodical slaughter. Quantrill’s Raiders stormed into town at dawn and, over the course of four hours, murdered every male citizen they could find. They dragged men in nightshirts from their beds and blew their brains out in front of their wives and children. They gunned down young soldiers in their tents and killed terrified boys as young as fourteen. When it was over, more than 180 were dead and the town had been ransacked, pillaged, and set on fire.

    This is not your military textbook Civil War, and it didn’t seem so at the time. Coming a month after Gettysburg, and serving in a way as its evil doppelgänger, the Lawrence Massacre shocked Americans Northern and Southern, outraging their sense of who they were: God-fearing people trying to live, and fight, morally in a war that seemed designed to test the stoutest Christian’s self-restraint.

    The scene of the crime, though, could hardly be called surprising. From well before the outbreak of war, “bleeding” Kansas and Missouri had been breeding grounds for the conflicts and animosities that would lead to the conflagration. And when war hit their soil, it did so in a particularly savage and anarchic form.

    As historian James M. McPherson has written, “The guerrilla fighting in Missouri produced a form of terrorism that exceeded anything else in the war. Jayhawking Kansans [Union sympathizers] and bushwhacking Missourians took no prisoners, killed in cold blood, plundered and pillaged and burned (but almost never raped) without stint. Jayhawkers initiated a scorched-earth policy against rebel sympathizers three years before Sheridan practiced it in the Shenandoah Valley . . . The motives of guerrillas and Jayhawkers alike sometimes seemed nothing more than robbery, revenge, or nihilistic love of violence.”

    The invocation of terror and nihilism, of course, makes this tragic episode seem chillingly modern. As an act of terrorism committed against American citizens on U.S. soil, the 1863 Lawrence Massacre had no equal until the 1995 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Building in Oklahoma City, which killed 168 people, and the attacks of September 11, 2001, which claimed nearly 3,000 lives. (Lee’s 1999 film appeared between these two events, in the decade that also saw the civilian slaughters of Bosnia and Rwanda.)

    If the summer of Gettysburg and Lawrence was a key moment in the Civil War, and thus in American history overall, the massacre proves equally pivotal to Ride with the Devil’s protagonist, teenage Bushwhacker Jake “Dutchy” Roedel (Tobey Maguire). In the raid’s violent frenzy, he commits his share of thievery and mayhem. But, in a crucial moment, against orders and in direct defiance of one of his most psychotic comrades, Pitt Mackeson (Jonathan Rhys Meyers), Jake spares the lives of two male Lawrencians. At the time, the act seems more impulsive than principled. Its significance as a symbolic and spiritual turning point is best discerned in the context of the movie as a whole.

    In adapting Daniel Woodrell’s novel Woe to Live On, Lee and screenwriter-producer James Schamus created one of the great Civil War films, which stands in relation to the likes of Gone with the Wind much as Sam Peckinpah’s The Wild Bunch does to classic westerns. This is the messy, bloody, revisionist version, stripped of all illusions of nobility and high purpose: a visceral film, alive to adrenaline-pumping danger, sudden catastrophe, and the cruelties (or mercies) possible in every change of fortune.

    In a sense, though, Ride with the Devil simultaneously belongs to another genre entirely: the coming-of-age film. You might even say that the two nominal genres, as used by Lee and Schamus, effectively intertwine, mirroring each other: just as Jake must discover his character in the crucible of war, so does the nation itself attain a new maturity through its ordeal of division, violent conflict, and eventual reunification.

    Woodrell’s novel begins with a gang of Bushwhackers cruelly attacking a hapless family of German immigrants and Jake shooting their young son in the back as the boy tries to help his father. The point is not Jake’s innate savagery but his need to prove himself to his rough cohorts, some of whom are suspicious of his ancestry: Germans, like Jake’s own father, are commonly taken to be ardent Unionists.

    Schamus’s script omits this grim episode and commences earlier, at a bright and bucolic country wedding, after Lincoln’s election but before Missouri explodes in partisan violence. As neighbors who will soon be enemies trade testy banter, Jake jokes to his best friend, Jack Bull Chiles (Skeet Ulrich, perfectly cast), that matrimony is worse than slavery. Soon, the young men watch Jack Bull’s father being gunned down in his yard. A year later, they are riding with a gang of death-dealing Bushwhackers, wearing shoulder-length hair, flowing shirts, and, sometimes, blue jackets as a deadly disguise.

    Jake’s reasons for defying his father to fight with the South have less to do with political conviction, quite obviously, than with pure youthful rebelliousness, and the fact that his friends—especially Jack Bull—are on the secessionist side. The gang’s life is hard and constantly perilous but also full of breathless excitement, and its personalities are varied. Besides the snakelike, implacably cruel Mackeson, they include the aristocratic George Clyde (Simon Baker) and his cohort, the former slave Daniel Holt (Jeffrey Wright), who fights alongside him.

    Holt grew up near Clyde, and the two are close from childhood. After Clyde bought Holt and gave him his freedom, Holt followed his friend to war. The quiet intensity of this friendship is one of the film’s richest touches, and the phenomenon of a black man fighting for the South is more true to history than simplistic notions of the war would suggest. Indeed, such details are essential to Lee and Schamus’s strategy (following Woodrell) of showing us the Civil War at its fractious geographic and human margins, no matter how much this might jar against latter-day pieties.

    In the standard picture of the war, armies fight season after season. In this chaotic theater, guerrilla bands split up and hibernate over the winter. Thus does the film move from episodes of fierce and frenetic action into a section of surprising closeness and calm. Breaking off from their comrades, Jake, Jack Bull, Clyde, and Holt hole up in a bunker they dig in the woods, where new intimacies emerge. As Jake and the stoic Holt begin a grudging friendship, Jack Bull romances a young widow from a nearby farm, Sue Lee Shelley (Jewel, in a wonderfully authentic performance), who brings the men food and feminine warmth.

    The quasi-familial complexities here reflect career-long concerns for Lee and Schamus, one of the most remarkable partnerships in American cinema. The two artists have always been interested in the tensions and struggles inevitable among intimates. Often considered a trilogy, their first three films—Pushing Hands (1992), The Wedding Banquet (1993), and Eat Drink Man Woman (1994)—were from original screenplays focused on contemporary Taiwanese or Chinese-Americans (reflecting Lee’s own background). Their next three films might also be regarded as a trilogy: Sense and Sensibility (1995, the only one involving Schamus as producer but not writer), The Ice Storm (1997), and Ride with the Devil are all large-canvas period pieces based on well-regarded novels. In these films, the trials within individuals and groups inexorably reflect the tumultuous historical world beyond.

    In Ride with the Devil, the collaboration reaches a new level of ambitious excellence. While preserving the caustic, idiomatic flavor of Woodrell’s dialogue, Schamus’s script adds nuance to the characters and scope to the historical setting. And Lee, for the first time bringing to mind the trenchant American visions of John Ford, crafts a film distinguished by its terrific performances, lyrical appreciation of landscapes and faces, and remarkable degree of historical accuracy, qualities supported by the contributions of cinematographer Frederick Elmes, production designer Mark Friedberg, and costumer Marit Allen.

    When the forces set in motion early in the war reach the cruel crescendo of Lawrence, the film’s fierce vision attains a dazzling, chilling apex. And it is here that Jake Roedel crosses his personal Rubicon. In sparing two inconsequential lives, he makes the existential choice that will soon separate him from his fellows and war itself.

    Later, reflecting on their respective sorrow over losing Jack Bull Chiles and George Clyde, Jake and Holt will realize that they have been brought low, as low as either could have imagined, but that they have been set free too. The intimacies and wild freedom of youth now give way to the opportunities and challenges of maturity. Marriage to Sue Lee, who has borne Jack Bull’s child, may at first strike Jake as a trap forced on an unwilling prisoner. But here, too, the appearance of loss signals a strange new form of liberty. When Jake, Holt, and Sue Lee turn their eyes west, they face a fresh set of dangers, surely, but also a country that has been reborn in union and rededicated to the elusive goddess of freedom.

    Godfrey Cheshire is a critic and filmmaker based in New York City. His documentary Moving Midway deals with the legacy of his family’s plantation and the Civil War in North Carolina.

11 comments

  • By Darrell
    April 28, 2010
    04:25 PM

    Excellent overview of the film as well as the historical context within which the film takes place. I have been eager to see this film for ages and would like to offer thanks to Criterion for offering the film as Ang Lee originaly intended for us to see it. I'm ordering it ASAP!!
    Reply
    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Stephen
    April 28, 2010
    08:38 PM

    Me too! Thanks for getting Ang Lee on Criterion. Maybe SENSE AND SENSIBILITY next?
    Reply
    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Oni
    April 28, 2010
    08:58 PM

    Criterion also released Lee's "The Ice Storm".
    Reply
    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By sheila king
    April 28, 2010
    11:03 PM

    When I first saw this, I thought it was a brilliant film and about as truthful as anything on the civil war that I'd seen from a filmmaker. Usually sentiment wins out and you have something along the lines of Gone With the Wind, although I must admit, even it has a moment or two that rings true. However, this is a completely different film and I can remember that at early test screenings audience members actually walked out over the fact that a black man was fighting alongside southerners and former slave owners. The fact that his kinship with the man who had bought his freedom was the only real kinship he'd known didn't seem to dawn on them. This is a true fact -- some slaves or former slaves actually did fight for the south and not all were treated cruelly -- some actually were close to being members of a family. The most moving moment of the film is when Holt leaves Jake to go search for his own people in Texas. And Jeffrey Wright is absolutely wonderful as Holt.
    Reply
    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Joe Leydon
    April 29, 2010
    12:39 AM

    Very fine essay on a movie that deserved far more enthusiastic response from critics and audiences a decade ago. Glad to see some praise for Jewel, whose performance has been sorely under-rated. A couple years ago, while interviewing Jewel for Cowboys & Indians magazine, I asked why she hadn't done more movie work. She responded that, while she enjoyed her experience on "Ride with the Devil," she felt she couldn't devote sufficient time to chasing movie roles and still pursue her music. Maybe. Still, I can't help thinking that if she'd been given just a bit more encouragement...
    Reply
    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Stephen
    April 29, 2010
    10:50 AM

    I own THE ICE STORM too ; )
    Reply
    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Frederick J. Chiaventone
    April 29, 2010
    05:33 PM

    29 April 2010 Dear Mr. Chesire; I should like to congratulate and applaud you on your very insightful review of Ang Lee's 'Ride With The Devil' a most original film and one which I fear was badly handled at the time of its release. By way of explanation, I was the Historical Advisor / coach to principal cast (uncredited) during pre-production and production. Ang Lee, a most thorough and enlightened filmmaker, wanted to ensure historical accuracy while at the same time producing a film which would 'reach' the contemporary audience. The principal actors, Jim Caviezel, Jonathan Rhys-Meyers, Toby, Skeet, Simon, and the remarkable Jeffery Wright were real troopers in that they took their roles very seriously and worked hard to portray real, human characters in a very uncertain and dangerous environment. All, I felt, did exceptional work. The trouble with this film lay not in its production or cast but rather at the studio (Universal) when it came to editing and distribution. Quite a bit of the actual raid on Lawrence, which was quite well done and terrifying in its impact, was cut from the final version. Most disturbingly however, was the case of 'cold feet' by which studio management decided to underplay the film (it was finally released on but 40 screens nationwide) due to their belief that Jeffery Wright's performance (as a Black man fighting for Confederate guerrillas) would alienate viewers. Jeffery, for one, was outraged by this decision as he had studied the historical environment extensively and felt certain that the role of Holt was perfectly accurate. Which in fact it was. With your very thoughtful review and endorsement of Ang's superb efforts it is now remotely possible that 'Ride With The Devil' will finally begin to be recognized for the very daring and moving bit of filmmaking that it is. Thanks for your comments. Sincerely, Frederick J. Chiaventone Colonel, US Army (Ret) (Now become a novelist and screenwriter)
    Reply
    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Nick Anno
    May 01, 2010
    03:34 AM

    Frederick, I should most sincerely like to inform you that you misspelled Jeffrey Wright's name. Nick
    Reply
    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By William H. Funk
    May 05, 2010
    04:20 PM

    Mr. Cheshire's lovely critique of this important film is perhaps most notable for the following statement: "The quiet intensity of this friendship is one of the film’s richest touches, and the phenomenon of a black man fighting for the South is more true to history than simplistic notions of the war would suggest. Indeed, such details are essential to Lee and Schamus’s strategy (following Woodrell) of showing us the Civil War at its fractious geographic and human margins, no matter how much this might jar against latter-day pieties." In today's paranoid political realm, with myopic thought sentries policing our speech and our media for the slightest deviations from "correct" views of history, Lee's film should be mandatory viewing for both educators and students of American history. The fact the blacks, Jews, and Northerners fought and died for the Confederacy is as unimaginable to many as the idea of owning another human being is to us all. But Civil War history, when one dares to dig a little deeper, is something much more than the bland blasé recital of an evil South being gloriously defeated by a federal government operating under what Robert Penn Warren termed the "Treasury of Virtue," a facile belief in pre-ordained, God-driven victory. Kudos to James Schamus and Ang Lee for the courage it takes to tell the truth in our increasingly neurotic polity.
    Reply
    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Luke
    May 07, 2010
    01:31 AM

    Ang Lee on Criterion! So, "Hulk" next?
    Reply
    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

  • By Wes
    April 29, 2012
    07:08 PM

    I have a question about a change that was made in the director's cut from the theatrical version. Why was one of the voiceovers removed? In the theatrical version, Jake Roedel (Tobey Maguire), Jack Bull( Skeet Ulrich), and their friends bushwack a group of federals at a roadside general store one year after Jack Bull's parents were murdered by Jayhawkers in the beginning of the film. After they bushwack these Federals, Jake Roedel writes a letter to Jack Bull's mother Mrs. Chiles telling her that the killers of her husband are now dead. Why was this removed from the director's cut? The writing of that voiceover was great because of the period-accurate diction and because it informs the audience who those federals were at the store. That is my one disappointment with the director's cut. Otherwise, it is a fantastic release. I'm so glad Criterion took this film and gave it the Criterion treatment. If anyone who worked on the director's cut knows why that voiceover was removed, I would be very curious to know. Thanks.
    Reply
    • Or using your Criterion.com account.

      You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.

Or using your Criterion.com account.

You are logged in to your Criterion.com account as . Log out.