Reedmalloy In the opening scene of They Came to Cordura we are introduced to all the historical context in the script. First is an Army aviator grabbing a hot meal. Next a headquarters type mentions to the reporters that after winning a fight over Mexican government troops at Carrizal, a large group of Villistas under a couple of "generals" has taken refuge at a ranch called Ojos Azules. Gary Cooper's character Major Thorn enters the scene and we are given a hint of the scorn held for him due to his behavior during Villa's attack on Columbus, New Mexico. Colonel DeRose (Edward Platt) snubs his attempt at a handshake. The reporters are perplexed that a major is an "Awards officer" after being executive officer of the regiment commanded by a 63-year-old colonel. We find out that there was another battle the day before at Guerrero, and that his nomination of one of the participants for the Medal of Honor had been approved. Finally, Colonel DeRose reads a recent dispatch about the bombardment of Verdun in the real war dated "April 17, 1916." Working backwards from "April 17, 1916", pretty much all of this is in error in some context, but just like World War II films that depict every Marine as having seen action on "Guadalcanal, Tarawa, and Iwo Jima," it is just name-dropping in an effort to sound authentic. Apparently either novelist Glendon Swarthout, director Robert Rossen, or both read a thing or two about the "Punitive Expedition," jotted down a few dates and names, and then set their book/movie in it. While the errors are nothing in themselves—not one person in a thousand knows the difference any more, and probably not too many more even in 1959—they do make the context of their theme of the nature of courage and cowardice ring hollow to me.I have the novel and wondered long ago why Swarthout chose the Punitive Expedition to begin with. It seemed a bit of a cop-out not to use his personal experiences in WWII as a basis, except that perhaps he was wary that, WWII being a recent conflict, many might not buy his premise that heroes in combat are the craven when it comes to needing "real" courage: i.e. dealing with "real life," while those who shun danger (in his case, those relieved from potential combat duties because they have such exceptional skills as "writing") are actually the real heroes. His story raises the question that since he depicts Thorn's assignment as an "awards officer" (despite being senior in grade) as a form of subtle punishment, maybe Swarthout perceived being assigned that duty himself as being for the same reason? Okay, maybe that's a tad cynical, except I defy anyone to determine that four out of any five recipients of the Medal of Honor were criminal brutes with no other redeeming characteristics. Don't yell at me—Swarthout and Rossen put forth the premise.So let's start there with our quick review of goofs. No Medals of Honor were awarded or even considered in the Punitive Expedition. In fact the expedition was remarkably free of medal awards until the Silver Star was created in 1932, post-awarded to a number of senior leaders of the expedition. Regiments didn't have executive officers in 1916—they had lieutenant colonels. The only "major" noteworthy at the battle in Columbus was Maj. Frank Tompkins, who collected a troop of cavalrymen during the fight and pursued a force ten times their size into Mexico.A battle occurred at Guerrero on March 29, a notable American success against Villistas led by a 63-year-old colonel. A mounted charge was even attempted by part of the 7th Cavalry but their mounts were worn out by an all-night 55-mile march through a mountain snowstorm. The Villistas fled anyway when they observed the approaching column—something they did in every engagement of that campaign. The Villistas never made a Cordura-like stand anywhere nor inflicted heavy casualties on haughty Americans foolish enough to charge fortified walls on horseback. A mounted charge against a high wall is so pointless (there is no shock power against a solid 12-foot obstruction) it's tantamount to a libel.There was a mounted charge at Ojos Azules on May 5, however, the last by a US Army unit until January 1942, but it was hastily improvised by two troops of the 11th Cavalry after their dawn advance into the ranch was detected. Unlike Cordura, it was a resounding American success with no casualties. The battle at Carrizal took place June 21, the last engagement of the campaign. It was not only an embarrassing bloody nose for the US Army but an actual defeat, when 400 Mexican government troops (not Villistas) repulsed an ill-conceived dismounted attempt by 90 Buffalo Soldiers of the 10th Cavalry to force their way through town after being told by both sides not to. Finally the aviator might be an anachronism, because the expedition had run out of flyable airplanes by April 20, but I guess that at least was plausible.Long story short, Swarthout and Rossen could have set this in World War I to make their point (well, maybe not with Rita Hayworth), but then nobody could make all those snide little innuendos about macho heroes and elderly superannuated colonels, could they? The cinematography is pretty to look at, so there's that.

Wuchak The setting for this ambitious 1959 film is the 1916 U.S./Mexican border conflict. Entrance into WWI is imminent and Gary Cooper plays a major who escorts five men to the the New Mexican base town of Cordura (which means "courage"). The five men are candidates for the Medal of Honor; they've proved themselves courageous in battle and the government wants heroes to promote military recruitment. Cooper is chosen for the job to shame him since he acted cowardly in his last (only) battle. Along for the ride is Rita Hayworth, an alcoholic American expatriate charged with aiding the Mexicans.Cooper's character is in incredible agony throughout the picture. Courage is the one thing he believes he lacks and so he marvels at the trait, even if the person possessing it is a scumbag in every other way. He perceives courage as the noblest human quality, redeeming a person from all other flaws, no matter how bad. His past cowardice naturally compels him to over-compensate as the leader of the group, which doesn't win him any friends, if you know what I mean."They Came to Cordura" is a Western, I suppose, but it's more accurately a lost-in-the-desert/survival story (e.g. "The Flight of the Phoenix," "Sands of the Kalahari"). The entire film takes place in the desert wilderness. The group experiences hardships and set-backs on the journey. Four of the men become increasingly hostile toward the major, propelled by the authority-hating, rivalrous sergeant (Van Heflin).The film will appeal to anyone who, like me, is into lost-in-the-wilderness type stories. Unfortunately, although the screenplay and subject matter (What is courage?) are ambitious and highly thought-provoking, the execution is less than satisfactory. The dialogue/delivery is dated and the acting, at times, less than authentic. Still, the material is taken seriously by all involved.One highlight of the film is redhead Rita Hayworth. This is the first and only film I've ever seen her in. My only previous exposure to her was that famous WWII era photo of her in a nightgown with her hand in her hair. As far as I'm concerned that picture doesn't do her justice. She looks and is completely different than the image that picture conveys. At the time of filming she was almost 41 years old. Her character in the film compassionately relates to Cooper's character for reasons revealed in the story.I've heard that the film was originally a 2.5 hour piece; unfortunately it was taken out of the director's hands and about 30 or so minutes were cut. Director Robert Rossen was in the process of putting together a director's cut when he unexpectedly died in 1966.BOTTOM LINE: Yes, the film's reach exceeds its grasp and, yes, it is dated, but I really appreciate this film. I can see why some would give it a low rating while others consider a near-masterpiece. Cooper's torturous performance is potent and Rita Hayworth is splendid. The ending wherein Cooper endeavors to move a train cart or die trying is a moving image. The film does succeed in provoking the viewer to consider the nature of courage, despite its flaws.GRADE: C+

James Hitchcock On March 9, 1916, the Mexican revolutionary leader Pancho Villa, angry at American support for his rival, President Venustiano Carranza, ordered more than five hundred of his men to attack the border village of Columbus, New Mexico which was garrisoned by a detachment of the U.S. 13th Cavalry Regiment. The attackers seized 100 horses and mules, burned the town, killed 14 soldiers and 10 residents, and took much ammunition and weaponry before retreating back into Mexico. President Wilson ordered a retaliatory invasion of Mexico, and General John Pershing led 10,000 men across the border in what has become known as the Mexican Punitive Expedition. The aim of the expedition, ultimately unsuccessful, was to capture Villa and bring him to justice."They Came to Cordura" is set during this now little-known episode from American history. The central character is an American officer, Major Tom Thorn, who takes part in an attack on a hacienda defended by Villa's men. Thorn has been designated his regiment's "awards officer", charged with nominating deserving soldiers for military decorations. After the enemy position has been captured, Thorn nominates five men for the Congressional Medal of Honor. This may seem a large number for what was only a minor skirmish, but the Army high command, foreseeing that America will soon be dragged into World War I, need plenty of well-publicised acts of heroism in order to stimulate recruitment. Thorn is ordered to lead these five back to the expedition's headquarters at Cordura, where they will await confirmation of their awards by Congress. He is also ordered to escort as a prisoner Adelaide Geary, the American-born owner of the hacienda, who is suspected of collaboration with the enemy.What seems a relatively simple task turns into an arduous and dangerous one. The small party come under attack from Mexican rebels, are forced to abandon their horses and run short of supplies and water. Adelaide, knowing she is likely to be put on trial for treason, attempts to escape. The greatest threats to the group, however, come from internal dissensions. Although the five men may have displayed courage during the engagement at the hacienda, none of them are otherwise particularly admirable, and they start to show their true colours during the journey. Two of them, Sergeant Chawk and Corporal Trubee, are particularly despicable individuals, Chawk having originally joined the Army to escape a murder charge. During the journey he and Trubee attempt to rape Adelaide. Moreover, Trubee has discovered that Major Thorn has a secret of his own- that he was guilty of cowardice during the raid on Columbus- and uses this to blackmail him. When Thorn's guilty secret becomes more widely known, it undermines his authority over the group.The film is essentially an examination of the question "What is courage?" (The word Cordura, significantly, is not only the name of a fictitious town, but also the Spanish for "courage"). Its central thesis is that one act of cowardice does not necessarily make a man a coward, just as one act of bravery does not necessarily make him a hero. Thorn is obsessed with proving that he is no coward and thus redeeming his lost honour, while the men under him seem equally obsessed with proving that they are no true heroes.I have never understood what "Quinlan's Film Stars" meant when it said of Rita Hayworth that "her beauty faded with the decade" (meaning the 1940s), as she still seemed very glamorous in films from the early fifties, such as "Miss Sadie Thompson" and "Salome". Here, as Adelaide, she shows that she was still strikingly attractive even at the end of that decade. Unfortunately, this is really a male-dominated film, and the presence of a woman is needed largely as a plot device, to act as the cause of dissension among the men. There is therefore relatively little for Hayworth to do, although the presence of such a glamorous major star must have helped the film at the box office.Gary Cooper, as Thorn, plays his part reasonably well, although I would agree with those who would have preferred a younger man in the role. Thorn is supposed to be a career officer who has never before seen active service; in 1916 any 58-year-old major would probably have fought in the Spanish-American War of 1898, and possibly in the Indian Wars as well. Probably the best acting performance comes from Van Heflin as the coarse, brutal Chawk.The main problem with the film lies not with the acting but with the pace. Although it is a war film about the nature of heroism there is a good deal of talk and, apart from two brief sequences, not much in the way of action. The result is a rather static, slow-moving, talky film which at times seems more like the proceedings of a debating society than an exciting war film. 5/10

horsegoggles I couldn't get over the fact that a lot of this film was "Sahara" as a western. I have read some negative comments, but I don't think it was too bad. Gary Cooper was definitely too old for the part. The characters were not very real. A lot of the dialog seemed forced and out of place. I got the impression that money was available to make a movie and someone decided that Gary Cooper was a good box office draw. Like I said, it's an OK movie, it didn't look like anyone was actually directing it. A trek across the desert will always appeal to me, and most of the desert scenes were convincing. It's good enough to have on while you're doing something else, like cruising the internet or cleaning your Glock.