I am a fan of all 3 of this film's principals - Jean Arthur, William Holden and Warren William. This film is not the premier vehicle for any of their talents, however, it is a very entertaining western. First, if you have read some of the other comments, I want to provide a few corrections. William Holden is NOT a drifter - he is in the United States Cavalry. He does not appear and disappear. Early in the film he returns rather expediently (just like the Cavalry!) to save Jean Arthur when Porter Hall has turned the tables on her (so to speak) and has her at gunpoint. Holden then pops in and out of Arthur's office a time or two, while stationed in Tucson. (Presumably he is on duty from time to time!) Jean Arthur does not become feminine whenever Holden is around. To the contrary, she is in her usual, untidy, "male" garb whenever he is around - even when he proposes to her! The first time she dons a dress is on the eve of Holden's trip back to Nebraska to acquire feedstock for the ranch they are building - which is the reason he "disappears!" The dress, she makes clear, is new for the occasion - intended to remind him of what's waiting for his return! (It may well be her only dress - "special" for the occasion, and in anticipation of her married life!) She rides out to meet him with their new herd in her same- old breeches and hat! Oh yeah - she wears a dress on their wedding day!
Many negative comments have been made about the difference in age between Arthur and Holden. Actually, I completely disagree with the criticism - on several levels. First, from a technical standpoint, I find it fascinating that in this film the customary casting technique is reversed! Male leads are usually old enough to be the fathers of their co-stars! But when I look at Arthur in this movie, I fail to see a woman who is obviously older than Holden. I think Jean Arthur's age is always difficult to determine in film - if you are inclined to speculate on such matters. She seems rather ageless to me - and she certainly doesn't "show her age" in this movie. Even more to the point, however, I suspect that people who criticize the film on that basis are more influenced by other depictions by Hollywood of the Old West than by the reality, itself. Women lived extremely hard lives in the Old West. Plus, I have no doubt that the climate of Territorial Arizona would have rapidly aged a hard-working woman. Without modern moisturizers and astringents, I suspect a woman's skin began to look twice its age after a very short time in that harsh environment. Thus, if you do think that Arthur looks older than (an admittedly very young-looking) Bill Holden, I suspect that's just about what you should expect of a female in that environment when compared with a recent arrival from less harsh environs further east. (For a perfect illustration of this, just check out Barbara Stanwyck in So Big. The use of hands as a symbol in that movie is wonderful!)
The story is a little uneven. Just how the arrival of the herd on the very day Arthur is to pay off the debt will help her circumstances is not made clear. No prospective buyer is ever identified. Nor has Warren shown any willingness to accept cattle in payment. AND, After all, the herd was intended to be the basis of their ranch stock. But never mind! The cast is stellar. Warren William stands out as the villain. Holden is good in his first starring role. Arthur always looks and sounds good, even if she seems a little out of place in dusty Tucson - as opposed to an office on Capitol HIll! This is not a great western, but it is a good example of a TYPICAL western. THAT is its strength.
Many negative comments have been made about the difference in age between Arthur and Holden. Actually, I completely disagree with the criticism - on several levels. First, from a technical standpoint, I find it fascinating that in this film the customary casting technique is reversed! Male leads are usually old enough to be the fathers of their co-stars! But when I look at Arthur in this movie, I fail to see a woman who is obviously older than Holden. I think Jean Arthur's age is always difficult to determine in film - if you are inclined to speculate on such matters. She seems rather ageless to me - and she certainly doesn't "show her age" in this movie. Even more to the point, however, I suspect that people who criticize the film on that basis are more influenced by other depictions by Hollywood of the Old West than by the reality, itself. Women lived extremely hard lives in the Old West. Plus, I have no doubt that the climate of Territorial Arizona would have rapidly aged a hard-working woman. Without modern moisturizers and astringents, I suspect a woman's skin began to look twice its age after a very short time in that harsh environment. Thus, if you do think that Arthur looks older than (an admittedly very young-looking) Bill Holden, I suspect that's just about what you should expect of a female in that environment when compared with a recent arrival from less harsh environs further east. (For a perfect illustration of this, just check out Barbara Stanwyck in So Big. The use of hands as a symbol in that movie is wonderful!)
The story is a little uneven. Just how the arrival of the herd on the very day Arthur is to pay off the debt will help her circumstances is not made clear. No prospective buyer is ever identified. Nor has Warren shown any willingness to accept cattle in payment. AND, After all, the herd was intended to be the basis of their ranch stock. But never mind! The cast is stellar. Warren William stands out as the villain. Holden is good in his first starring role. Arthur always looks and sounds good, even if she seems a little out of place in dusty Tucson - as opposed to an office on Capitol HIll! This is not a great western, but it is a good example of a TYPICAL western. THAT is its strength.