Duel at Diablo

• Directed by Ralph Nelson
• June 15, 1966
• Based on the 1957 novel Apache Rising by Marvin H. Albert

In Apache territory, an Army supply column heads for the next fort while an ex-scout searches for the killer of his Indian wife and a housewife abandons her husband in order to rejoin her Apache lover’s tribe. That is quite a bit going on.

James Garner and Sidney Poitier in a Western together? Sure. Garner was a man made for Westerns and Sidney Poitier was a fantastic actor. With both being directed by Ralph Nelson who helmed Lilies of the Field with Poitier, Father Goose, and Charly? Sounds like a good idea but while not a train wreck it certainly never gets to where it should.

Jess Remsberg (Garner) is a man with a lot of emotional baggage. His wife was Apache and murdered largely because of that and now after getting her scalp back he is seeking revenge. When we meet Toller (Sidney Poitier) initially he’s a bit of a charmer seeking to make a buck having just left the army. He runs afoul of Remsberg by trying to get the scalp so he can make some easy money. Then that really goes nowhere because it gets settled quite easily. So easily the incident is completely forgotten about by the credits.

Generally there’s some friction amongst the characters, but they are not necessarily at each other’s throats. They just have personal issues that are at play in the story. Not everybody needs to be pals, but there’s no need to go to the extreme and have so much animosity towards each other that everything should fall apart the moment they start up. That is something Duel at Diablo gets right. This film understands tension is good and dysfunction is bad.

The story is largely about a dangerous journey from Point A to Point B that goes from bad to worse. It becomes a struggle for survival against a superior force. That is all mixed in with a Western that addresses bigotry while also giving an African-American character a prominent role that does not defer to any of the white characters.

When the situation hits its worst, Toller essentially takes command from the white commanding officer Lieutenant Scotty McAllister (Bill Travers) even though he’s no longer in the military. He just has experience fighting Indians and the commanding officer while competent and a good man is wounded and losing blood and starting to become a touch delusional. That there is interesting and goes along with what was social commentary on the time given a Western veneer.

Director Ralph Nelson does a good job of giving you the feeling that people could die and failure is certainly possible. But despite this it never gets to where it could. There are clear issues with the script and the direction and the characters never get to the point you will be bothered if they die even though it gets to where you feel any could die.

I wanted to care about things but with the story taking a casual pace and little coming into focus the film never is able to do that. Is this a film about racism using the Western genre to talk about it? Is it about general bigotry? Is it about Remsburg getting revenge? Is it a Western action film? It never quite decides.

There are a few shots though not many that are clearly spliced in from other films. Action scenes cost money so I guess it was a cost cutting measure. I’m curious what film they borrowed from and if it went on to be better known than this. I’m also bothered during some of the action scenes when members of the cavalry stand out in the open and fire their guns. I know 100% realism is not always possible but fighting in the open is a dumb idea.

As cavalry Westerns go Duel at Diablo is okay. It’s exciting enough and entertaining enough. It tackles a few topics but not deeply. If you like older Westerns this might appeal to you but only because of what might have been.