In Pursuit of Honor

[n/a131]

I've just seen the movie "In Pursuit of Honor" and wanted to know if there was a resource where I could find out the real story. Thanks --Ed

[Philip S]

That is one of my favorite fictional cavalry movies too. The movie was intended to be an allegory of how badly veterans are often treated. This is a common theme in other Australian films (which this is). The actual story has no basis in fact. In truth, the horse cavalry continued for a number of years more and the last regiments were dismounted in 1944. The horse cavalry was officially abolished in 1948.

[Pat Holscher]

This movie is the topic of two threads in the archives to this forum, you may wish to look there for various opinions on the movie. Also, it is mentioned in a thread in the archives called "I'd Like To Thank The Acadamy", which concerns various movies. As Philip mentioned, there is no basis in fact to this movie.

Philip mentions the Australian films, which are excellent. On a cavalry theme, or related to the cavalry, there are "Breaker Morant" (Boer War) and "The Lighthorsemen" (WWI). Both are reviewed below. Breaker Morant is a much more cynical movie. Somewhat cavalry related is "Gallipoli", which involves Lighthorsemen, albeit dismounted, at that battle. Very cynical. I dimly recall, off topic, a Vietnam War Australian film which I recall as also of this type, that being, if memory serves, "The Odd Angry Shot".

Pat

[Rob Thomas]

Please!!!
That movie was made here but I can assure you the story came from your side of the pacific and the crew and directors as well as the main actors were all from there too!
I was involved in it from early on when it had the working title of Fiddlers Green. We even offered the services of a military historian from Ft Levenworth and the director declined because it would spoil a good story!

Similar to the lady corresponding with people here at the moment via the Light Horse Web site,,,, she is writing a book about a Waler that came home after WWI and got loose and bred with wild horses (brumbies),,,, she isnt interested in the fact that the only horse to come home was a gelding and he died at the Royal Military College in about 1925.

[Sam Cox]

Hey Rob you worked on that film!!cool
I have a few of the costume pieces from it(Don Johnson uniform)
Yes the film is fictional but for almost WW2 Cavalry its all we got(until they make MARSMEN IN BURMA)Check out my critique on amazon.com
The film is fiction,the only truth in it is that there was 12th cavalry regiment and the veterans camp on Anacostia Flats

[Rob Thomas]

Yes,,, the first few seconds were based on fact,,, the black and white footage of Washington that was spliced in with the real newsreel footage was shot at the back of the gold coast showgrounds, the mountain scenes were shot in New Zealand and the desert scenes were shot near Broken Hill, The camp was near Beaudesert. The 3rd Cav Standard hangs behind me in my study (were they at Anacostia?) and I used to ride in "Marsh Buxtons" gloves,,,,,,, till I lost one in Longreach 2 years ago. We also bought some of their cotton breeches,,, they are ok for Boer War uniforms. The saddle bags are great for trail riding too! They were Australian stock backs joined together with a 3rd strap added and US stamped in the flap.

You also have DJ's uniform,,,,,,, obviously he had more than one then,,,, I have one pair of his breeches and his hat,,,, breeches are marked with his name

[Pat Holscher]

I had to go back and re read the posts to realize that this movie was made in Australia. I had no idea. I should have noted that when I read Philips post the first time.

Anyhow, as you can see, it is fictional. I do encourage the original poster to read the old post on the archive forum. This movie comes up occasionally as it is about the only WWII, or 30s, cav flick around. Opinion is split on it, with Philip's positive opinion a good solid one, and my opinion on the opposite side of the fence (hopefully at least a somewhat solid opinion on my part). Costuming, anyway you look at it, was pretty good.

Pat


It looks like the archives are down right now. I guess I'll toss in my two cents, although I very much respect the opinions of others who disagree with me on this film.

The story on the jaded old soldier is appealing. Factually, however, the Army was not mowing down horses with machineguns as depicted. Additionally, MacArthur, in my opinion, was unfairly portrayed. MacArthur was a real odd ball, no doubt about it, but he was a good Army chief. He was also forward looking. The Army really owed MacArthur a debt of thanks for being able to keep the Army at least somewhat viable during the Depression, when Congress was unkind to it.

As a westerner, one of my problems with the film, frankly, is that it depicts an absolute impossibility. The west was hardly unsettled in the 30s, and it would simply be impossible to make a run that long. Indeed some parts of the rural west were flooded by desperate homesteaders, fleeing the economy, in an era in which the Homestead acts were still in force (having only prevented new entries in 1932). An additional fact is that at least some of the states in which the movie takes place had National Guard mounted units, and running down a unit such as this would have been perfectly possible.

Finally, in that era US troops riding across to Canada would not have met with a welcome from the RCMP, but rather an arrest, I am fairly certain.

The good part of the film is costuming, and the fact that somebody at least attempted to make a movie on this interesting era. I just wish a better film could have been made. The 20s and the 30s were, in some ways, a real horse era in the Army until mechanization finally won out in the early 40s. A film depicting what is set out in print, for example, in Truscott's "Twilight of the Cavalry" would be very much welcome.



Edited by - Pat Holscher on 05/02/2001 09:12:42

[Pat Holscher]

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>

. . . wanted to know if there was a resource where I could find out the real story. Thanks --Ed


<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I feel the best book on this era, but one which would be significantly different in tone, is Lucian Truscott's Twilight of the Cavalry. More information is available on it in the review and commentary section below.

Pat

[Sam Cox]

The Lucian Truscott story would make a hell of a read,starting with his Mexican border service and finishing with his 3rd Infantry Divisions provisional mounted recon troop.
I have turned up an issue of The Cavalry Journal with a nice article on them.
In Pursuit of Honour has no basis in history and HBO has done us all a great disservice by opening with BASED ON A TRUE STORY

[Philip S]

Three fiction books which give a good feeling for the last days of the horse cavalry are:

"Top Kick, U.S. Army Horse," by Helen Watson.
This follows the career of a horse from an Army Remount Depot to Ft. Riley and ultimately in the fighting withdrawal to Bataan in the Phillippines. The author was the wife of a cavalryman.

"Frog, The Horse That Knew No Master," Major S. P. Meek. This is based on the author's experiences while serving in the Panama Canal Zone.

"Cavalryman," Topliffe Sawyer. The story of a young officer who finds love and direction while attending the Cavalry School at Fort Riley. This is one of my favorites. It pulls few punches and deals with some surprising topics such as the problems with alcholism amongst the young officers. It (along with Top Kick) also offer some interesting insights into the colored cavalrymen stationed at Ft. Riley (9th Cavalry). The author attended the Cavalry School in the 30's as a National Guard officer.

[G.KUSH.UE]

Canada. The true north strong a free.

Why would Canada offer refuge to a herd of US Cavalry horses? That's because Hollywood's version of this country has always been that we all live in igloos, do our grocery shoping with dogsleds, and make love in canoes. I saw In Pursuit of Honor and the whole idea of this country being some sort of free-range horse heaven was beyond absurd.

Take Hollywood's recent production of The Untouchables, with Costner and "never bring a knife to a gunfight" Connery. All of those Mounties charging down on horseback to catch those nasty American bootleggers. When I saw it at a local theatre everyone in the audience broke out laughing, and I'm still laughing. A drama disguised as a comedy. But seriously, everyone knows that we Canadians weren't allowed to own automobiles until the great sleddog die-off of '74.

I'm so glad I live in the world's best kept secret.

Cheers,

George

[Sam Cox]

Well put George
Also absurd about In pursuit of honour is the Mounties patrolling inred
Thanks
Sam

[Joseph Sullivan]

Y'know, this stupid movie was based on a true story, in the dsame way that so many fradulent ebay "Civil War" saddles are based on real saddles ('04 trees).

AND, George, to the kind of folks who would make such a silly film, it might make sense that the country that would take in American "objectors" would take in American horses. The great northern free for all.

Joe



Edited by - joseph sullivan on 05/03/2001 12:14:23

[Pat Holscher]

Still, it would seem that this era would be fertile ground for some sort of excellent movie. It has a lot of elements going for it, movie wise. It is an end of an era, and equine end of era movies have already proven popular in other years about equally removed from their era of depiction from when they made. Take for example, "The Wild Bunch", "The Professionals" or "Buch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid". Sure, I'm pushing my point, but there is something of a romantic notion of a passing era, and the 30s was a passing era for the horse cavalry.

And the passing of the era is interesting. The horse passing for the gas fume belching war machine. The saddle for the scout car, and then the tank. The box kite like aircraft of WWI yielding to the beautiful, sleek, murderous, piston driven killers of WWII.

And there are a lot of interesting characters in the era too; cavalrymen Patton,and Truscott, chief MacArthur; future greats from the infantry Eisenhower and Marshall, not to mention interesting politicians. The drama of the Depression (only dramatic if you didn't have to live through it, I'm sure) is also there, as well as the looming clouds of war.

And the uniforms are even good looking, doggone it!

Yup, if any movie writers should ever happen to wonder through here, a really interesting film just has to be capable of being assembled out of all of this.

Pat

[Philip S]

I was asked to give this detailed information on the between the wars cavalry books I previously mentioned:

"Top Kick U.S. Army Horse," Helen Orr Watson, Illustrations by Bernard Garbutt, Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston 1942

"Cavalryman, A novel of peace-time army life with background of the United States Cavalry School at Fort Riley, Kansas," Topliffe Sawyer, The Penn Publishing Company, Philadelphia, 1939. This is a scarce book.

"Frog, The Horse That Knew No Master," Major S. P. Meek, Illustrated by Charles Hargens, Wm. Penn Publishing Corp., New York. This book has gone through a number of reprintings (mine is the seventh 1943).

[Pat Holscher]

In Pursuit of Honor.

This 1995 HBO film has been a constant source of discussion on this forum having been the source of multiple threads over the years. The film is marketed on occasion as representing a "true story", which more often than not causes a person to inquire as to what the true story is. Nothing in this film is factual, but the appealing visual quality it possesses continues to draw new viewers, some of them quite knowledgeable, all the time. It is probably second only to John Ford's Cavalry Trilogy as a source of myths about the cavalry, with the distinction between that series of films, and this film, being that Ford's myths were stylistic and did not detract from an otherwise superb effort, while this film is more or less correct in the physical items depicted, while wholly inaccurate as to the story told. In short, Ford's films are fairly creative and accurate as to the gist of what they portray, and harmless as to the myths, while the myths created by this film are destructive.

Having said that, I must emphasize that I do not intend to be throwing stones at anyone who may inquire here as to this movie, and it must be noted that several regular participants here like the film. Also, while I intend to pan the film for historical inaccuracy, I confess to like some other inaccurate films, such as Peckinpah's Major Dundee.

The story of the film is as follows. A squadron of old US cavalrymen, together with their young lieutenant (Matt Damon) are detailed to machinegun cavalry mounts in the late 30s. The US Army, in this depiction, is mechanizing, and there's no room for a living horse as the Army desperately rushes to mechanizes in the face of a looming Second World War, with the mechanization effort being lead by the ever-odd Gen. Douglas MacArthur (Rod Steiger). Dedicated to their mounts, the troops steals them and heads north from Texas, covering the empty expanse of the American West, while being chased by the newly mechanizing US Army. At the Canadian border, the troops manages to rush the horses across the river the separates the US from Canada (the Rio Grande, um, no the Seine, maybe Lake Superior, uh, the St. Lawrence, well never mind), into the waiting arms of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, who apparently are on their way back from a parade as they are all dressed in scarlet.

Okay, my description is somewhat sarcastic. But still, this is the basic gist of the plot.

So it's Hollywood, and what is the harm?

Well, inaccurate history is harmful, if portrayed as the truth. And this film is very far off the mark. Here's how.

The US Army, in the period of time depicted, was not dismounting. Rather cavalry remained a viable and valuable element of the Army at this time. The Army actually continued to operate a Remount service, and acquire mounts, well into World War II, and it continued to train cavalrymen at least up in to 1944. The Army never deployed cavalry as horse cavalry, outside of the Philippines, but it did actually mount various cavalry formations under various names throughout the war, with perhaps the most notable being the mounted recon element of the 10th Mountain Division. The last mounted charge occurred in 1945. Horse cavalry is typically regarded as having been dismounted in 1943, but the actual paper end came after WWII, not before. The Army itself participated in transporting European mounts back to the US with the goal of using them in the Remount Service after the war.

Moreover, when the Army did begin to mechanize in earnest, after the German invasion of Poland in 1939, it still did not result in the immediate dismounting of the cavalry, as so often imagined. The cavalry, under the leadership of General Herr, continued to press for the inclusion of mounted troops in the new Army. Indeed, Gen. Herr, and his adherents, did so to such an extent that they partially succeeded in preventing the cavalry branch from becoming the armor branch, and of course the separation remains today. As a late effort, the cavalry created the new horse-mechanized cavalry, which was tested in maneuvers early in the war. While horse-mechanized cavalry failed as a concept, its legacy became the mechanized cavalry of World War Two. At any rate, as can been seen, the cavalry branch was continuing to experiment with new methods of deploying cavalry in to, and during the early months of, the Second World War.

So much for getting rid of horses in the late 30s.

And the Army did not machinegun surplus mounts ever. When the end finally came, the Remount operations were turned over to the Department of Agriculture, and horses transferred accordingly, many into private hands. This may, indeed, be somewhat scandalous, potentially, but it is a far cry from machinegunning them.

Moreover, the concept of a mounted race across the West at this time is really absurd. Contrary to the Hollywood view of things, the West was not unpopulated in the 30s. The Great Depression actually resulted in a flood of late homesteaders onto the public domain prior to 1932, and the effort to prove up these claims continued on for an additional twenty years. So many people entered the public lands that there is actually a Wyoming Supreme Court opinion on a public lands dispute that holds the Court need not make a decision, as the public land involved would certainly be homesteaded by the time the Court could act. In addition, in the pre 4x4 era, ranches kept cowboys on many parts of the range they now would merely visit by truck, so there were many more people on many more small ranches than there are now. Added to the mix, sheep ranches in those days kept quite a few people in the high country as sheepherders and tenders. Finally, it is not as though the fence is a post World War Two invention. Any attempt to cross such an expanse would be pretty noticeable, and tedious, for all of these reasons. The point is that it would not have been possible to ride up across the continent unimpeded.

Additionally, more than one military installation exist on this route, and at least two of the states across which it is supposed to occur in the film had cavalry units in their National Guards. Tracking a fleeing band down would not have been difficult. If the point of the film, in part, is a romantic view of the abilities of horsemen in the face of modern machines, this would have been demonstrated when the much more numerous horsemen of State Guard units, sheriff's posses, and the actually mounted units of the US Army rapidly tracked down any small renegade band.

And the Canadian government and outlook of the 30s would not have been the same as it was during the 1960s. Canada, at this time, was a nation that had lost a significant number of men in World War One, and was well aware that it was about to enter a Second World War. It had, moreover, become sensitive to border crossings as a result of the smuggling operations headquartered in Canada during Prohibition. Harboring deserters with stolen US Army property would not have occurred.

As an additionally irritating inaccuracy, this film repeats the "MASH" like portrayal of Gen. Douglas MacArthur as either a meany, or a nut. MacArthur, who certainly had more than his fair share of eccentricities, really deserves a lot of credit for his leadership of the US Army during this period. By and large, however, his period of leadership was not one that saw a sudden increase in mechanization, but he did find the funds to allow the Army to purchase new equipment where it was feasible, the outstanding M1 Garand rifle being a good example. MacArthur's intervention in the project to see that it was developed as a .30-06 rifle, rather a smaller calibered rifle, probably insured that it was produced in an era when Congress would likely have cancelled a rifle that could not shoot up the supplies of WWI ammunition. Strangely, General Marshall, who really did oversee the rapid build up of the US Army, including mechanization, immediately preceding and during World War Two, and who was quite ruthless about eliminating older officers from the Army in favor of younger ones with younger ideas, always comes across in film as a gentle saintly soul.

So, with all this, it is clear that the film grossly misses the mark as far as accuracy is concerned.

Does the film have any redeeming qualities? Yes, a few, although they are greatly outweighed by its faults. The film nicely depicts the look of the cavalry of the 30s. The acting in it isn't all that bad either, particularly that of Don Johnson, whose career otherwise is fairly unremarkable. Johnson's portrayal of a worn out, worn down, sergeant is a good one. Perhaps, at a bare minimum, if marketing efforts admitted this was fictional story, it might have more merit, or at least its dismerits would not be so galling.

Still, all in all, this film is a poor one with negative effects on those who have an interest in the accurate portrayal of history. The sad thing is that, given the amount of interest this film has generated, that a better one involving the cavalry of the 1930s has not been done. Clearly the interest is there, and an accurate depiction would no doubt be at least as compelling. Given the pleasing visual qualities such a film would possess, combined with the attractive film elements of the end of an era, the beginning of World War Two, etc. surely a much better film could be made.




Pat

Other commentary on the film:

topic.asp?ARCHIVE=&TOPIC_ID=1117

topic.asp?ARCHIVE=true&TOPIC_ID=345

topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=811

[Philip S]

In general, I agree with the points Pat has made. I do feel, however, that he has missed the main point of the movie. It starts with a charge on the Bonus Marchers (WWI veterans) by horse cavalry. Some members of the troop feel that this is an improper way to treat fellow army veterans and refuse to participate. These same troopers feel that the army should also treat its retired army horses as honored veterans and refuse to participate in their slaughter. The film is Australian and this theme of the mistreatment of veterans after their services are no longer required is common in Australian cinema and literature.

While American veterans have no doubt been treated badly at times this doesn't translate accurately to the cavalry. There is a long tradition of cavalrymen honoring retired horses. A famous example is Comanche who after being found alive on the Little Big Horn battlefield was nursed back to health and kept as a mascot of the 7th Cav. He was held in such high esteme that he was mounted after a natural death and is still on view in Lawrence Kansas. Similarly, Stone Wall Jackson's and George Meade's horses were mounted after long retirements. Many other cavalry and horse artillery regiments either retired to pasture or retained as mascots favored horses (or mules).

[Pat Holscher]

One of the value of reviews is that, if the reviewer has done his job a person can use a review even if they disagree, and moreover, other points can be advanced on it, or in opposition to it. Perhaps we've managed to do that here, as Philip brings up an excellent point, which I really did not address in the same fashion or extent as he.

While I still do not recommend the film, as is obvious, Philip's point regarding the story surrounding the burnt out, jaded professional enlisted man is a good one. Indeed, I tried to think of other films touching on this topic, from this sort of angle, and it's tough to think of any.

Moreover, actually addressing this from the prospective of a career man of that era isn't a bad choice. While not really remembered now, there was a great deal of dissatisfaction towards military topics in the US, as well as in the UK, in the years between WWI and WWII. A friend of mine had a grandfather who had served in WWI and in the occupation of Germany in 1919 who had the principal recollection of being shabbily treated upon his return to the States, which was not uncommon. World War One, in the 20s and 30s, was strongly remembered in the US as a lost victory, scarring many who had served in it, and a lot that was associated with it was looked down upon. The reputation of the Army can probably be viewed as beginning a recovery in the 30s, but as a result of the Great Depression, as it was a steady source of work for those who could get in. WWI, on the other hand, was not looked upon in the current light until after the German invasion of Poland in 1939, or really until Americans began to fight the Germans again in WWII.

Anyhow, there is an appealing story that could be told of the jaded nature of professional ems, particularly from this era. This story does touch on that. Again, I don't care for the movie, and wish it'd be tackled in another fashion, but Philip is correct to point out that I basically missed that aspect of the story.

Branching out a bit, I tried to think of other films that address this topic. Burnt out ems is not an uncommon phenomina, and was undoubtedly more common in a previous era when it was possible to stay in for 20 years and never advance in rank (which could not occur now). And in a previous era ems were much less in society than now. It would seem to be furtile ground for some movie, but given as an aspect of the story is that civilians ignore or despise the military except in time of war, civilians avoid movies about soldiers unless they are war films. I suppose that helps explain it.

Anyhow, for films on the general topic, I suppose the ending of the Australian film The Odd Angry Shot might qualify, although it takes place during wartime (Vietnam). Some of Sam Fuller's films have a bit of that element, such as The Steel Helmet, but it is not as pronounced. Jones works that have been turned into films, principally From Here To Eternity and The Thin Red Line, touch on it a bit, but I don't care much for Jones' writing, so I'm sort of predisposed to dislike the films somewhat, although I try to be open minded about them.

Doggone, where's Sam Peckinpah when a guy has a project for him?

Pat

[Pat Holscher]

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Just a tenny-tiny note - Craig Sheffer played the role of the young lieutenant, not Matt Damon. (sorry, just thought I'd chip in with what *little* I do know - haha)

"A man without a horse is like a man without legs"
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

A worthwhile correction though, thanks for noting that.

Pat

[Pat Holscher]

Thanks again, as you can tell, it's been a while since I viewed it. I had the cast list and recalled that Steiger was in it, but misplaced him in his role.

As a movie buff, you might want to consider tossing in a review or two of films you either like or dislike down here. As you can see, the reviews are relatively limited in the number of posters. I'd like to see it broadened out. I don't feel that its important that there be consensus on any of these reviews, which would be dull after all, but I'd like to see more folks post on books and films they have an opinion on.

Pat