Man of Conquest

The only reason why I watched this film is because Joan Fontaine is in it. She disappears within the first twenty five minutes of the film and then you're left with the journey towards the Alamo meeting characters like Davy Crockett and Bowie. This would be done better in John Wayne's 'The Alamo' and in an episode of 'The Time Tunnel' that focuses on the Alamo siege. This offering is an early attempt to tell the story of the Alamo twenty-one years before John Wayne would tell a better story. It's not a good film, but you can't condemn the effort. If you've got no film about the Alamo then it's better to have a film (even if it's bad) rather than no film. I would say to Joan Fontaine fans to stay away from this film.

The dynamic and colorful life of Sam Houston is one of those epics stories that truly deserve a mini-series. Hopefully one day, one will be done for him. My guess is that his background as a slave owner works against having Houston honored in that way. One of the most glaring omissions of Man Of Conquest is the lack of black people and the issue of slavery which is one of the darker parts of the Texas story.

The film resembles D.W. Griffith's Abraham Lincoln biographical film in format. A quick passage through Houston's youth and military service with Andrew Jackson and he's governor of Tennessee. Then the story continues until the Battle Of San Jacinto with a brief epilogue. Another error mentions Houston was at the Battle Of New Orleans, he was not. He did however do some considerable Indian fighting, but also developed a great respect for the native people. In fact he moved in with his adoptive tribe, the Cherokees after the scandal of his divorce wrecked his political career in Tennessee.

Richard Dix makes a solid and heroic Houston and his wives are played by Joan Fontaine as Eliza Allen and Gail Patrick as Margaret Lea. And Houston did not even meet Margaret Lea until after Texas was a republic on a visit to the United States.

Mexico by not populating its territory north of the Rio Grande left it pretty much open to whomever would settle and for awhile it was only Comanches, Arankawas, and Kiowa tribes. The bulk of settlers from the USA came from the south and some brought slavery and their slaves with them. Eventually East Texas became a cotton growing region like the rest of the cotton culture south. This is the part we don't talk about in this film.

The rest of the characters of Texas history are there, popularized by Walt Disney and John Wayne later on. Robert Armstrong, Robert Barrat, Victory Jory, Ralph Morgan, play Jim Bowie, Davy Crockett, William B. Travis, and Stephen F. Austin respectively. Edward Ellis plays a thinner and more subdued Andrew Jackson than you saw Lionel Barrymore do in The Gorgeous Hussy. Did you know Andrew Jackson took a secret trip to Texas while in the White House? I didn't either until I saw this film.

Two of Republic Pictures cowboy sidekicks got roles in this film. Max Terhune, minus his ventriloquist dummy, plays famed scout Deaf Smith and Gabby Hayes has an all purpose fictional sidekick role.

The Battle of San Jacinto isn't even played right. In fact it wasn't much of a battle because of the complete surprise that Houston got on General Santa Anna at dawn. The whole thing was over in about 20 minutes and more Texans lost their lives on the screen in Man Of Conquest than at the real battle.

This was Republic Pictures big budget item for 1939 and got Oscar nominations for Best Art Direction, Best Sound, and Best Musical Scoring. Herbert J. Yates really laid a lot of loot out from Republic for this film. The budget of about 10 Gene Autry and 10 Roy Rogers films went into Man Of Conquest.

The best treatment of the Sam Houston story is in TV film Gone To Texas which starred Sam Elliot as Houston. Man Of Conquest has not worn well over the years and its glaring historical inaccuracies will make any true Texan wince.

As is often the case, Hollywood played fast and loose with the facts in this biopic. Often the true story just isn't interesting, or so the prevailing thinking was, so they'd change facts, omit others and try to tell a good story instead of good history. Unfortunately, with "Man of Conquest" it isn't even all that good a story.

The story begins in 1814 when Sam Houston joins the US Army to fight in the War of 1812. It then follows Houston from the governor of Tennessee to eventually landing in Texas where he successfully led an army to victory against the Mexicans.

There are so many problems with the history in the film, I don't want to spend all my review discussing all of them. However a few things the film got wrong include never mentioning that Houston was a congressman from Tennessee, never mentioning one of Houston's marriages, making him best buds with Andrew Jackson when in reality they clashed bitterly when Jackson ordered the Cherokee nation moved to Oklahoma, making it appear as if the war for Texas independence was fought over Indian attacks, and much more. The bottom line is that the writer of the film never seemed to care what facts were right and which ones were omitted.

While I am a big Richard Dix fan, I must say this is one of his more dull performances...mostly because the film is big on cheering for America, Texas and the like but terrible when it came to the actual lives of Houston and the rest. Overall, a forgettable film that SHOULD have been very exciting. Just read a wikipedia article on the man and you'll learn a lot more!