<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
I just might do that! I can think of a couple movies off the top of my head featuring military horses, I'm sure I've seen several over the years...
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
In regards to the films about 20th Century Cavalry, one that comes to mind is a 50's Gary Cooper movie about the punitive expidition. It was called "They came to Cordura". It was roughly about the charge at Ojos Azules, and the charge is spectacular. The rest of it deals with a fictious search for courage by thugs and cowards, and needed help badly. I would be intersted in Pat's appraisal of it. I saw it a a real little kid, then found a video of it in a Hastings Book Store.
This forum is one of the places where that time frame in mounted history has any following. The competition at Ft. Sill is good place to prove my point, out of 42 competitors, no more than 6 were depicting the 20th century. This same imbalance is in the film industry. Creating an impression of the 20's, 30's, and 40's is expensive and hard done. A ACW uniform can be put together for about $500.00 less weapons. A 20th century uniform will see 2/3 of that in boots alone, if done properly.
That's quite true, and in an odd way the popularity of Civil War and Indian War topics probably make a film makers life easier now. From what little I know of it, film makers with 19th Century military topics seem to draw on reenactors for extras, given as they come equipped, as I understand it, with uniforms and gear. Perhaps some of you who have experienced this can relate more.
Still, I think there is an interest in this era, but the movie industry just isn't tapping into it. Latter day westerns of one kind or another always seem to do more or less well, based on the quality of their scripts. TNTs Spanish American War effort, less than sterling in my opinion, the Rough Riders seems to have been fairly popular, and it is almost a 20th Century story. The few films that do touch on the cavalry in the 20th Century seem to do okay as well. Paul has mentioned "They Came to Cordura", which I have not seen, but which retains a following. The non-military movie "The Wild Bunch", which takes place in the Mexican War and feature some (inaccurate in uniform) depictions of US Cavalry, or cavalry imposters, just prior to WWI has been elevated to the level of a classic. I confess guiltily to liking that one. And then there's The Professionals, in which at least two of the mercenary band is supposed to have been in the US Army at one point, and which also takes place during the Mexican Revolution. Other than In Pursuit of Honor, however, I can't think of any other post WWI cavalry movie.
A good topical 20th Century plot might get things rolling, however. Hmmm. . ., how about this one. A charismatic, enigmatic, scary zealot turned terrorist, leading an inspired but finatic group of men, crosses the US border and attacks US property, taking American lives. The President, who has formerly declared his intention to avoid foreign entanglements to the maximum extent possible, finds himself, to his surprise, in need of sending the US Army, on a hurried basis, into the dry desert land where the zealot takes refuge.
Pat,
Below is a review I wrote of this film some time ago, last year I believe. I originally penned this for the "epinions" website. I think I summed up the film pretty well. By-the-way, in spite of it being unrealistic, innaccurate, and really far-fetched, I still thought it was a very entertaining movie.
In reading this review you may think that I hate this film. Let me assure you that such is not the case. I very much like this film and I have seen it many times. However, having said that, I must admit that this is a very flawed movie. Of course, as with so many films, eliminating the holes in the plot would mean that you have no story. Let's look at it shall we?
It is 1932 and the Bonus Marchers, WWI vets, are marching on Washington demanding their promised 'Soldier's Bonus'. The Army, under Gen. Douglas MacArthur(James Sikking), is dispatched to disperse the marchers. Sergeant Libbey(Don Johnson) is a cavalryman under the command of Major Hardesty(Bob Gunton). Hardesty orders an advance with drawn sabers against the marchers. Libbey, and three others, refuse the order because, "It goes against my conscience. We served with these men in France. They're only asking for what they were promised." Libbey is arrested, the marchers are dispersed, and Libbey, et al. are exiled to a distant Arizona post. Fast forward two years. Lieut. Buxton(Craig Sheffer)has also been exiled to the wilds of Arizona because he, though an expert soldier, "..has a problem with authority." He arrives at the post having hitched a ride with Jessica Stuart(Gabrielle Anwar), a smart-aleck, know-it-all reporter who just happens to be daughter to Col. Owen Stuart(Rod Steiger), commander of the 12th Cavalry. The 12th is not only Lt. Buxton's unit, but also Sgt. Libbey's. The depression is on and Congress is cutting military budgets with a fervor not seen since the 1870's. Chief of Staff Gen. MacArthur fights back but with only limited success. He initiates some cost cutting measures of his own. Cavalrymen turn their beloved sabers. All personell take a hefty pay cut. Different types of units find themselves merging. Excess horses are to be 'disposed' of. These orders arrive at the 12th Cavalry accompanied by a new commanding officer. Col. Stuart retires and now full Col. Hardesty takes over. Some 500 horses are herded over the Mexican border to be machine-gunned and buried in huge pits. Herding the excess horses are Lt. Buxton, and Sgt.s Libbey, Mulcahey(John Dennis Johnston), Shattuck(Robert Coleby), and Quinlan(Neil Melville). They actually watch the first hundred animals being killed. Unable to take any more, Buxton and the Sergeants hijack the remaining horses and race northwards. Col. Hardesty, infuriated, pursues in a mechanized column. Buxton consults with retired Col. Stuart and Stuart goes to Washington to see Gen. MacArthur, but to no avail. In the end, Buxton and Libbey just make it over the border into Canada with most of the horses. Though there were some casualties among both horses and men, the story ends happily.
To paraphrase a famous commentator, now for the rest of it. If you can suspend disbelief you'll really like this flick. But suspend disbelief you must, for the story itself is pretty far fetched. It claims to be based on a true story, but from what I've heard that's not the case. You first have to believe that long service NCOs(i.e.-Sergeants), trained for years to strict obedience, would do such things. Civilians don't realize just how much the Army emphasizes and over-emphasizes obedience, even at the cost of your life. Consider the classic example: How many Nazi soldiers went to the gallows bleating that they were only following orders? Many no doubt. Military obedience comes into its own not when soldiers are following orders they approve of, when they're doing something they really dislike. Hollywood doesn't see it this way, thus this story. Once you accept that Libbey and friends would violate orders based on a twinge of conscience, the rest of the story is easier to take.
The horses are to be herded into a pit, 100 at a time, and machine-gunned. Then 100 more and so on until all 500 are dead. That's the plan. Whoever dreamed this one up didn't know anything about horses! This is hard to believe, even for trained cavalry mounts. Does anyone think the rest of the animals will calmly stroll into a pit filled with the corpses of their dead herd-mates? Unlikely. I can understand Mexican cooperation if the Mexican Army was buying the animals. But since when did Mexico become the U.S. Cavalry's personal dumping ground? Once again, unlikely. Moreover, there are many ways the Army could've 'disposed' of these animals. They could've been sold to the public or to rendering plants or used as remounts for units that were short of horses. Even if the money received was but a fraction of what the animals were worth, it was still extra cash the Army could use for other purposes. Of course all this deprives the film maker of a dramatic story to tell.
Buxton and Libbey race northwards with 400 horses pursued by Col. Hardesty in a mechanized column. By-the-way, I have yet to figure out how Hardesty, in only two years, went from Major to full Colonel, at a time when nobody, not even men like Patton or Eisenhower, was getting promoted. He must've been someone's fair-haired boy. The journey north to the Canadian border had to take weeks! Yet the mechanized column didn't catch up to the horses until near the Canadian border. You wonder what they were doing in all that time. The route was through Arizona, Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, and Montana. Even given the lack of a decent road net and the unreliability of vehicles at the time, we have another unlikelyhood on our hands. Hollywood has generally abandoned the impossible only to embrace the extremely unlikely. However, a case can also be made that, then as now, the world's best all terrain vehicle has a mane and a tail.
Having panned the living hell out of this film let's look now at what I did like about the movie: the acting. Generally I don't care for Don Johnson, but he made me believe he was Sgt. Libbey. I hate to use this expression but you feel his pain when Libbey says to Lt. Buxton, "There's nothing left. No horses, no cavalry, and no honor. And I hate what this world's becoming." Bob Gunton's Col. Hardesty is such a cold hearted SOB for much of the movie that you'd expect to look up "cold hearted SOB" in the dictionary and see his picture. But Hardesty is softened by movie's end. Gabrielle Anwar is the vehicle for these revelations. We find that Hardesty, despite his devotion to 'orders,' doesn't really want to destroy the Army's own horses or pursue his own men. Gabrielle Anwar's part in all this is the noteworthy low point in the film. Her character is little more than an irritant for much of the time and should've been left on the cutting room floor. We wouldn't have missed her. The real heavy of "In Pursuit of Honor" is not Col. Hardesty, but Gen. Douglas MacArthur. In spite of appearing in only two scenes, MacArthur's presence dominates the piece. James Sikking projects MacArthur's hauture and arrogance. Of course calling Douglas MacArthur arrogant is like calling the Pope Catholic. It shows an instinctive grasp of the obvious. When Col. Stuart finally sees MacArthur everything is explained. Talk about bearding the monster in his lair! MacArthur says that the cavalry was obsolete(it was) and that the U.S. Army is unready for modern war(also true). Stuart can only say that the public will devour MacArthur when they learn of his actions. The General's response; "No, they won't, because I'm General Douglas MacArthur. The country needs me and they know it." Arrogant? Certainly. True? Galling, but correct. The confrontation between MacArthur and Stuart was the most powerful of the film. It was the contrast between the old and the new. It was, in essence, what the whole film was about.
"In Pursuit of Honor" is worth a look. It's exciting. It's powerful. Most people probably won't have a problem with the plot's premise or the minor inaccuracy's of uniform or equipment in the film. In a few parts it'll tug at your heartstrings. At least it did with mine. I only gave it three stars because of the unlikelyhood of the basic story line. I have the honour to remain,
Your Most Humble Obedient Servant,
Kevin J. Mansfield,
Adkins, Texas.
While you like the movie for its good points, and I dislike it for its bad, it seems we emphasized many of the same points. I suspect, however, that readers will get a lot more out of your review, than they did out of mine. Thanks for contributing your review.
HOLLYWOOD!!!
I like this movie for the same reasons mentioned before. But I also hate it.
My favorite scene is when the lame horses must be shot. An X is marked on each steeds forehead. Don Johnson takes out his 1911 and racks the slide. A shot rings out. The slide is racked again. A shot is taken. The slide is racked again and again after each round. All the horses are dispatched. Why does one have to rack after each shot? I thought a 1911 would do this by itself.
That's quite true, and in an odd way the popularity of Civil War and Indian War topics probably make a film makers life easier now. From what little I know of it, film makers with 19th Century military topics seem to draw on reenactors for extras, given as they come equipped, as I understand it, with uniforms and gear. Perhaps some of you who have experienced this can relate more.
Pat, I have some little experience in this area, so I suppose I'm duty-bound to address the issue for you.
Hollywood has been using Reenactors as extras since the film series "North and South" was filmed in 1984 or '85, and caught on with the production of "Gettysburg" by Turner some years later. Unfortunately, with that production, there were so many guys who just "Wanted to be in a Movie" that they were willing to work their tails off for lunch and a T-shirt. So the Big Boys got the impression that Reenactors are A.) cheap to use, and B.) stupid enough to do it. Also, enough are actually interested enough in the period to equip themselves authentically enough to pass inspection, so the producers save a LOT of money and time by hiring these fellows. They DO tend to want to argue the authenticity of every little detail of the film, though, and the production people are always having to say "It's only a movie, guys!" i.e., the producers, Director and most of the folks down the line really don't care all that much. SOME do, to be sure, but to most film industry folks "below the line", it's a factory job, and they enjoy having a bit of colour in their lives by being able to say they work in the movies.
The way it generally works is the Producer hires a reenactor coordinator, who hopefully has LOTS of good contacts in the reenacting world. He calls LOTS of people to see who can, and will, come work, and for how long. Usually they have dates where they need a ton of guys, say for a two-week shoot for a big battle scene, but only need a quarter or so as many (or fewer) for the day in, day out shooting of the film. These guys, who can get away for a few months, and usually have some history of working with the coordinator, become the "core-group". If you are dealing with cavalry, then most of the fellows have their own mounts, but enough do not, so the coordinator usually arranges for someone to be there to rent a good number of fairly decent horses out to guys who don't have their own, and other fellows will bring a spare horse on spec. They DO have to have their own saddles and tack, however, and often uniforms and weapons. Some films, however, prefer to issue their own uniforms out (to ensure actual "Uniformity" [usually wrong]...how novel!) as well as some of the weapons if they are in an unusual historical situation. But by hiring out your army, rather than simply asking for wranglers, stuntmen and extras, the producers not only get a far cheaper product, but one that actually may have some degree of knowlege about the drill of the period, and as far as cavalry goes, horses trained to not only the drill, but gunfire as well (AND having decent, period tack, rather than some dusty junk the head wrangler or props managed to scrounge up.)
Infantry obviously show up with uniforms, arms and accoutrements, Artillery with Guns and implements, though seldom horses, limbers and harness (some do!). All usually are provided with a camp site of a large pasture or some such to bivouac on, with the Cavalry of course getting sufficient room for their horses. The troops are fed generally two meals a day (Breakfast and Dinner), for Supper they are on their own, but the dinner is usually big enough to keep you full.
So far, as far a major Hollywood productions using reenactors go, they have managed to visit the Revolutionary War more than once, the Texas Revolution a few times, the Mexican War a couple of times, the Civil War a bunch of times, the Indian Wars innumerable times, and the Spam War once. I don't know if they used any WWI reenactors in the Rick Schroeder "Lost Battalion", or in any MAJOR WWII films, but I do know that there were a number of reenactors used as "pre-enactors", as it were, in the Kevin Costner film "The Postman". There may well be many, many more that I am unaware of.
I'm sure that this is WAY more information than you were barganing for, Pat, so I hope that I managed to answer your question in there somewheres...
I've heard some odds and ends, but couldn't claim to have any detailed knowledge. I believe that one or more of the other participants may have had some experience with this as well. Interesting to know how it works.
I can think of a couple movies off the top of my head featuring military horses, I'm sure I've seen several over the years...