MovieChat Forums > The Undefeated (1969) Discussion > Just a Couple Problems

Just a Couple Problems

posted 16 years ago by guelphever
9 replies | jump to latest

All in all, I liked this movie. It wasn't great, but I thought it was good, just a nice, entertaining little western about a time and place that is not often covered. However, I have to point out two things that really bugged me. The first is the Confederates inviting the Federals to a 4th of July party. I find that a little far-fetched considering that the 4th of July was when the Confederate fortress-city of Vicksburg surrendered and it was not until like world War I that southern states started celebrating the 4th again.

Probably more than that though is the warm & friendly ending with the Juarista General Rojas. Am I the only one that finds it a little absurd that after this general kidnapps Langdon and all his people, threatens to massacre them all, soldiers and civilians alike, and then extorts Thomas into giving up his entire fortune of horses that they would all gather round and join in a friendly toast to the Juarista cause?! I know the movie was trying to reiterate that the Juaristas were the "good" guys and Juarez was America's choice for ruler of Mexico, but considering everything Rojas had just put them through I can't accept that Langdon and Thomas would want to have a drink with the guy.

"I AM Jerusalem"

[–] Zamlata 16 years ago

Probably more than that though is the warm & friendly ending with the Juarista General Rojas. Am I the only one that finds it a little absurd that after this general kidnapps Langdon and all his people, threatens to massacre them all, soldiers and civilians alike, and then extorts Thomas into giving up his entire fortune of horses that they would all gather round and join in a friendly toast to the Juarista cause?! I know the movie was trying to reiterate that the Juaristas were the "good" guys and Juarez was America's choice for ruler of Mexico, but considering everything Rojas had just put them through I can't accept that Langdon and Thomas would want to have a drink with the guy.

I've just finished watching it after long time (enjoyed it just as much as I was kid) and I absolutely agree with you on this one. That would just be way out of their characters.

That being said, I liked that Rojas wasn't portrayed in totally negative way, like a typical Hollywood villain. You could see that he was relived when Thomas arrived with horses and he didn't have to go through with his threats.

I think they tried to portrait him as a basically positive character with some tough choices to do, but I don't think they have done it in most satisfactory manner.

[–] Bob-45 11 years ago

When I was a much younger man, the idea of ransoming prisoners was so distasteful to me that I shunned "The Undefeated" for nearly 40 years. Now I understand. War makes great men do terrible things. Each of these men fought for a cause or in a manner at least one of the others hated. Yet they respected each other's commitment to that cause and courage to do what each felt had to be done to accomplish his goal. General Rojas was certainly no better off than either Wayne's or Hudson's characters. In fact, he was facing an even more uncertain future. Wayne's loss of his fortune was by choice, unlike Hudson's, which was the consequence of losing a war. Nonetheless, all three men parted on equal ground, victors in remaining true to themselves.

[–] BoyScoutKevin 15 years ago

If you look at your Civil War history, Confederate General John C. Pemberton, who commanded the Confederate forces at Vicksburg, deliberately picked the day of July 4th to surrender to Union General Ulysses S. Grant, who was commanding the opposing forces, because Pemberton knew he could get better conditions on surrendering from the Union, if he chose that day to surrender, then almost any other day in the year.

[–] ShadowsGathered 14 years ago

My guess is, while leaving their country behind to live in Mexico, they wanted to keep anything going that reminded them of home and hearth... and there wasn't much to amuse them on their 3,000 mile trip... hence the Independence Day celebration.

... the hardest thing in this world is to live in it...

[–] bari2525 14 years ago

Guelphever - I don't disagree with the second part of your post, but your assertion that the "southern states" didn't celebrate July 4th until "like" WWI is erroneous.

By the end of the 1870's (after reconstruction for the most part), the majority of the confederate states were back in the Union fold - in most outward appearances, anyway. There were hold-outs for "the old ways" to be sure, but most people wanted to put the war (and all it's carnage) behind them.

I know there were July 4th celebrations throughout the region all through the 1880's, and by the time of the Spanish American War (1898), there was very little of this "us vs them" attitude regarding north/south relations.

Again, there WERE pockets of anti-Union sentiment in some southern states well into the 20th century, but it wasn't the prevailing attitude.

I don't act...I react. John Wayne

[–] bhilburn 13 years ago

From what I've read, the only place down South that didn't celebrate the 4th of July after the Civil War was Vicksburg, since it was surrendered on the 4th. They didn't start celebrating it there until the latter part of WW2. Old times there are not forgotten you know.

[–] Traianus 11 years ago

From what I've read, the only place down South that didn't celebrate the 4th of July after the Civil War was Vicksburg, since it was surrendered on the 4th. They didn't start celebrating it there until the latter part of WW2. Old times there are not forgotten you know.

What you've read is a popular myth that isn't true.

I don't know if there was some hesitation for a few years, but it really didn't take that long for informal celebrations of the holiday to begin and large ones by the turn of the 20th century.

[–] spookyrat1 11 years ago

Probably more than that though is the warm & friendly ending with the Juarista General Rojas. Am I the only one that finds it a little absurd that after this general kidnapps Langdon and all his people, threatens to massacre them all, soldiers and civilians alike, and then extorts Thomas into giving up his entire fortune of horses that they would all gather round and join in a friendly toast to the Juarista cause?

A lot of posters have commented on this on other threads.

It wasn't really a problem for me though I can understand why a lot of people were scratching their heads.

In its defence the film had already been going for almost 2 hours and had to end somewhere and IRL that's the way it arguably would end up. If Duke, Rock and the rest went up again against the rebels, a lot more of their group would be killed off. The way it was resolved was blood-shed free and every one including the Duke heads off to make a new post -war life with the strong possibility of a new girlfriend for the Duke. He seemed happy to me.

[–] phillipsdan83 11 years ago

Langdon is getting off lucky that Rojas didn't shoot him anyway or jail him and his followers, as his reason for being in Mexico in the first place is to fight for Maximillian. John Henry Thomas was trying to sell his horses to Maximillian for a fair price, but doesn't really think over that he's not only going against his own government but as he says later, getting mixed up in someone else's war. The film's weakness is that other than the bandits, there are no real villains once everyone gets to Mexico. Most of the film was shot in Durango, Mexico, the government would never have allowed a Juarista general to be shown as a villain, and the Maximillian supporters never really give the audience a reason to root against them, either