Ceux de Cordura

This is in response to comments on 'They Came to Cordura' regarding its dramatic weakness and flawed camera work and editing.

The flaws may be real, but they might not be the fault of the filmmaker (writer-director Robert Rossen).

Reportly, the film was taken out of Rossen's hands by the studio and drastically cut and re-cut. The director's original version, about 1/2 hour longer, was apparently much better, making much more dramatic sense.

Further, the movie was shot in CinemaScope, and comments on its poor cinematography and editing are likely based on viewing a crude pan & scan video copy. Such artificial flaws are common with panned & scanned widescreen movies.

.

On the night of March 18th, 1916, a large mounted force of Mexican rebels under Pancho Villa crossed the American border and attacked the town of Columbus, killing both civilians and soldiers. As a result of this action, the United States Army sent an expedition into Mexico with orders to capture Villa and disperse his forces. It was during this campaign that one man, a United States Army officer, was forced to come face to face with two of the great fundamental questions that affect mankind.

What is courage? What is cowardice? This is the story of his search for an answer.

That summary is the opening text from this oddly {to me} divisive picture from Robert Rossen and Ivan Moffat. Divisive because there are conflicts about it's technical aspects, its length {which cut is original?}, it's talky nature, and if it's splendid cast did the material justice? Well the dispute about the technical aspects being poor certainly don't stand up to the version I saw of the picture, lovely widescreen CinemaScope with Burnett Guffey's photography astutely and rightly oppressive as the story unfolds. As for its length, the version I viewed was two hours long, is this a restored cut or is there still another half hour of Rossen footage lurking somewhere? Either way, the complaint about there being gaps in the film are not evident in this two hour cut. All characters are fully fleshed and every minute of this picture was engrossing and perpetually watchable. The cast are also on fine form, Gary Cooper is perfectly cast as Maj. Thomas Thorn, the man who's moment of weakness hangs heavy round his neck like a curse. Van Heflin, Rita Hayworth, Dick York, Richard Conte and Tab Hunter all help to make this a fine character driven piece.

Above all else it's the story that works the best, Thorn is carrying around a burden as he strives to take these heroes to safety and ensure they receive their medals of honour. But the perilous journey proves to alter each man's attributes, be it despicable or otherwise, something that to me personally makes this a thematically excellent picture, the kind we could do with more of in the modern era. It may well be cynical at times, but really that is no bad thing in my eyes, it's a cop out of sorts I know, but this film isn't for everyone. After a fine battle sequence has been and gone, the film shifts in tone and becomes a picture about the complexities of man and his own personal hang ups, the result of which left me very much rewarded. 8/10

What exactly is courage? How can a man know if he will act bravely when the supreme test comes? These are the questions occupying the mind of Major Tom Thorn as he escorts a detail of medal-winning troopers out of Mexico and back to the USA. "What made you do it?" is Thorn's repeated question to the heroes. He once lost his nerve in combat, and his subsequent life has been one long meditation on the nature of bravery, and how a man comes by it. In the wilderness of Mexico, Thorn's moral fibre is put to the sternest of tests.

Set in 1916, the film centres on a US military expedition deep into Mexico, a punitive response to Pancho Villa's raid on American territory. Gary Cooper plays Thorn, and though he invests his character with a certain quiet dignity, he can hardly be accused of acting.

Thorn is despatched back to the USA with a small group of men, each of whom is to be decorated for valour. As the Cavalry's Awards Officer, Thorn will have to prepare citations, and he obsessively quizzes the men about why they did what they did, how they felt at the time, and so forth.

Typically for a film of its era, "Cordura" assembles a melange of ethnic tokens, throws them into a difficult situation, then concentrates on the tensions and confrontations which result. Richard Conte is Truby, the crafty latin type, and Van Heflin plays Chawk, the angosaxon brute. Dick York is Renziehausen, the German American from (where else?) Wisconsin. Thorn is hoping to learn the secret of courage from his motley crew, but discovers that the answer to his question can only be found within himself.

Nice angles are developed to open out the plot's basic premise. A cavalry charge against the Mexicans looks like dashing American heroism, but might be no more than cynical fakery on the part of medal-hunting Colonel Rogers. Chawk might be an unfeeling ruffian rather than a hero. The arrival in the group of Mrs. geary (Rita Hayworth) complicates the issues, because the presence of a beautiful woman causes the men's interests to diverge.

The Mexican terrain is spectacular, and the film's central proposition is an interesting one, but the end product is so-so. It is difficult to warm to Cooper as an actor, or indeed to his character. Tab Hunter (as Lieutenant Fowler) goes way over the top. Thorn's sudden perking-up beside the rail track is a ludicrous event.

Verdict - Would-be essay on the wellsprings of human courage peters out into humdrum adventure yarn.

Take Gary Cooper and Rita Hayworth, surround them with a core of actors who are still well-known today, add beautiful scenery, tackle a very interesting philosophical question. What's not to like? As it turns out, there's a lot not to like. Coop's role is to portray a world-weary, duty-bound officer, obsessed with heroism. Diappointingly, "wooden" would best describe his take on the role. Hayworth, as tequila-drinking, cigarette-smoking, comforter-of-America's-enemies is, at times, over the top. She's still got the sexy sizzle she's known for, but the sexual tension between her and the men isn't compelling. The supporting members of the cast are supposed to devolve from heroes to louts, but their hand is tipped so early in the movie, that their later actions are expected--not deplored. It's a dark western that would appear to be yin to "The Magnificent Seven"'s yang. Heroes become brutes--brutes become heroes. The later is a lot more entertaining and--a lot more satisfying.

Angered by the US President Wilson's increasing support the rising Mexican political leader General Carranaza, the former US darling Francisco Villa sends his group of rebels to raid a town in New Mexico before coming back over the border. Enraged by the audacity of the man, Wilson orders his troops across the border to catch and/or kill Villa. Part of the group he sends is Major Thomas Thorn, who has been given the job of assessing the men for possible awards – a comfortable job given to him by Colonel Rogers, a friend of his father. Fascinated by the nature of heroes, Thorn finds himself given command of a small group of them when he refuses to put Rogers forward for a citation. Thorn is keen to get to know more of the men but, with a captured woman in tow, the men are not as simple as their proposed medals would suggest.

Despite pretty much ignoring the interesting history that serves as a backdrop to this film, this is actually still quite an interesting film that was a lot rawer than I expected it to be, given the period in which it was made. In the early stages it was too basic and I worried that the whole thing would be as clunky as Thorn's early questioning of some of his "heroes", but gradually it got better as it went on and simple lines such as hero and coward were eroded away. This is not to say it is brilliant because it most certainly is not but it is certainly interesting for what it tries to do. It doesn't help that the script really labours the surface but lacks the ability to go significantly deep to really make an impact. However even with this, it was still interesting enough to hold me and I did enjoy the solid if simplistic moral debate that it delivered.

Rossen and his cinematography do great work with the wide-open landscapes but the former must also carry the can for not bringing more emotion out of the script consistently. As a result the cast do well without really excelling – with nobody guiding them deeper, this is really what I could have expected. Cooper is as solid as usual with what I suppose was a brave role for him to take. He deals with it well but perhaps wasn't good enough to really convince in layers – although he is superficially good enough. Hayworth doesn't have that great a character and her delivery occasionally gets a bit too over-the-top when asked to deliver more emotionally charged material, she has impact but I was looking for more pain and fear. The support cast work well with what they have been given to do. Conte, Heflin, Keith and Hunter are among those giving solid turns in support of Cooper and the raw story.

Overall then this is not a great film but it is an interesting one. Despite being over 45 years old it is surprising raw and willing to turn away from the simple lines of courageous and cowardly towards something that is much realer and well conceived. It doesn't go deep enough but it is strong on the surface – could easily have been tighter and dropped 20-30 minutes from the running time but is still worth a look for what it does do well.