Don't Mess With Texas!
I finally watched the Alamo movie. Not the 1960 John Wayne epic, but the more recent one filmed last year outside of Austin, starring Billy Bob Thornton as Davy Crockett, and Dennis Quaid as Sam Houston.
I didn't bother trying to see it during its theater release. The Ron Howard directorial bailout and the 3 month postponement of the initial release date for a re-edit convinced me it was gonna be a dog of a film.
I was really concerned about seeing it once it came out on DVD. No, not for the time and money wasted on watching bad films. I make that mistake all the time!
It was the thought of possibly having to sit through a postmodern retelling of the Alamo story, filtered through a revisionist lens, and lit with politically correct lamps. No doubt some liberal Hollywood director would browbeat me with a tale of horrible oppressive racist capitalistic white people stealing the land from the poor-but-noble hardworking Mexican peasantry, who only want to lose their chains and join the joyful Revolution! (while simultaneously ignoring the fact that the Mexicans stole it from the Karankawa, Tonkawa and Comanche, who in turn invaded Caddo tribe lands, repeat ad infinitum)
I also didn't want to see my favorite legends disposed of casually. I tend to be fairly rationalist in my outlook on life, but there's just a few historical inconsistencies that I've grown accustomed to. As an amateur historian, I can accept the fact that William Barrett Travis drawing a line in the sand with his sword is likely a myth; that Jim Bowie didn't really rise from his sickbed to kill 15 Mexicans with a Nock Volley Gun and his fearsome blade; that Davy Crockett might actually have been captured alive and executed later, instead of falling dead after using Ol' Betsy to brain dozens of invaders before being overwhelmed by bayonets.
Nevertheless, I don't want some DamnYankee crapping all over our Texas folk heroes. I don't go up to Illinois and tell people that Johnny Appleseed stuffed Pippins & Winesaps up his dookie-chute. (Sorry, I stole that term from Acidman, and couldn't wait to use it...) Nor do I wander around NASCAR events spreading tales of Dale Earnhardt getting his butt waxed for race day, and the resulting lowering of the ass/seat friction coefficient caused him to slide forward faster than normal, leading to his death. For one, it's not respectful of the dead; two, that kind of talk will get your ass kicked repeatedly; and three, whether it's true or not, the circumstances of the death do not alter the significance of the actions performed during that person's life.
As it turned out, the movie was not nearly as bad as I feared. Not the greatest ever made, but far from the worst.
The things they got right:
1) The terrain (mostly) - It was good to see caliche soil and cedar trees instead of the alkali dirt and manzanita that you always get when they film in California. I doubt there was that high of a hill so close to the fort the Mexicans were lined up on. Usually you need to go a few miles north up into the Balcones Heights for a hill like that. Still, it coulda been graded down over the last 168 years, so I'll give 'em a pass.
2) The fort - Excellent job on the Alamo, including the unfinished (and roofless) chapel, the Long Barracks and the palisade. The wall ramps were properly done, and it showed just how large an area had to be defended by the small group of Texians and volunteers.
3) The sound FX - When they fired a load of canister (or 4 lbs of horseshoe nails) against the oncoming Mexican battalions, it sounded like it should have. A big bang, followed by that bee-buzzing sound, then the scattered rattle of the bits & chunks of metal slamming into skulls and rifle stocks. They didn't try to overdo the muzzleloader rifle sounds, either. A .36 cal squirrel rifle stoked with 40-50 grains of powder is sufficient to kill a man at 200 yards, but actually has quite a modest bang compared to a modern rifle. Now, I'm somewhat infamous for playing "chicken" with a .50 cal Hawken, seeing how much powder you can cram down a barrel and still survive, and believe me, they can make quite a bang, but you certainly don't shoot loads like that in battle. The sound FX crew kept it reasonable, which was nice to hear.
4) The Mexican Army. Trained in Napoleonic-era tactics, and dressed in the style of the period, they looked good and acted as they should. Contrary to popular belief, Santa Anna's force wasn't a ragged bunch of peons in white pantalones and a sombrero. They were disciplined troops, and led by capable officers. The uniforms were suitably flashy, and the tactics suitably efficient.
Things they didn't quite get right (IMHO):
1) General Santa Anna - This might come as a shock to my fellow Texans, who (like myself) were trained from birth to regard Santa Anna as just to the bad side of Satan, Hitler and Geraldo Rivera. Santa Anna is a remarkable character in history, it just happens that most folks never hear past his abortive jaunt into Texas. This movie portrayed him as some sort of arrogant lecher. Of course, this might well be true, but I thought they laid it on a little thick. Don't miss Crockett's comment regarding Santa Anna at the end.
2) C'mon, at least stick someone with that gigantic Bowie knife! My god, you show off this knife big enough to split an ox from asshole to appetite in one swing, and then it just lays there for the whole movie? Dammit!
3) Crockett - I don't want to say that Billy Bob Thornton performed the role poorly. He was perfectly acceptable, if just a tad bit bland. It was nice to see some subtlety in the role this time around. John Wayne's version was just John Wayne with a dead raccoon on his head. Still, Crockett was a legend in his own lifetime. I don't doubt there are people who can deal with international fame with perfect humility, but 1836 was a different era. Crockett came to Texas looking to be a leader. I think he would have been a touch less somber, and more willing to embrace his fame and use it as best he could.
4) The story didn't set the stage very well. We aren't really told why Texas was breaking away from Mexico, nor do we know why Santa Anna was so fired up to take it back. No mention of Stephen F. Austin, hardly a mention of Washington-on-the Brazos, and fergoshsakes, you gotta mention the Massacre at Goliad in more detail! All that could have been accomplished in 10 minutes or less.
5) Rockets? I'll have to do some research into the Mexican TO&E, but I'm fairly certain they didn't haul a bunch of Congreve rockets all the way from Mexico. Congreve rockets were still a part of the British military inventory until 1850 or so. I doubt they would license them out to other countries, much less one closely allied (at the time) with their age-old enemy, France.
There were the usual movie cliches as well, that I feel detracted from the overall experience. Making sure the married soldier had one last night with the wife; the young soldier, terrified and fearful before the battle, makes the lucky shot that kills the enemy leader; "It's quiet... TOO quiet..."; and so on. No war movie is complete without 'em.
The director also couldn't resist bludgeoning the audience with the Message Hammer, either. Every single scene with the two slaves captured in the Alamo... here comes the Message. SLAVERY IS BAD!!! Whups, don't think they got it that time... Hit 'em again! SLAVERY IS BAD!!! ...and again! SLAVERY IS BAD!!! SLAVERY IS BAD!!! SLAVERY IS BAD!!!. OK, enough already! They did accurately reflect the zeitgeist, though. Jim Bowie's slave asked if he was to be freed before the final battle. Bowie responded with essentially, "Hell, no! You're mine until I die, then I'm giving you to someone else in my will!"
Overall, I'd give The Alamo a thumbs up for accuracy, and half a thumb up for storytelling. I'm glad I didn't pay $8 to see it, but it's well worth a $3.49 rental fee.
I didn't bother trying to see it during its theater release. The Ron Howard directorial bailout and the 3 month postponement of the initial release date for a re-edit convinced me it was gonna be a dog of a film.
I was really concerned about seeing it once it came out on DVD. No, not for the time and money wasted on watching bad films. I make that mistake all the time!
It was the thought of possibly having to sit through a postmodern retelling of the Alamo story, filtered through a revisionist lens, and lit with politically correct lamps. No doubt some liberal Hollywood director would browbeat me with a tale of horrible oppressive racist capitalistic white people stealing the land from the poor-but-noble hardworking Mexican peasantry, who only want to lose their chains and join the joyful Revolution! (while simultaneously ignoring the fact that the Mexicans stole it from the Karankawa, Tonkawa and Comanche, who in turn invaded Caddo tribe lands, repeat ad infinitum)
I also didn't want to see my favorite legends disposed of casually. I tend to be fairly rationalist in my outlook on life, but there's just a few historical inconsistencies that I've grown accustomed to. As an amateur historian, I can accept the fact that William Barrett Travis drawing a line in the sand with his sword is likely a myth; that Jim Bowie didn't really rise from his sickbed to kill 15 Mexicans with a Nock Volley Gun and his fearsome blade; that Davy Crockett might actually have been captured alive and executed later, instead of falling dead after using Ol' Betsy to brain dozens of invaders before being overwhelmed by bayonets.
Nevertheless, I don't want some DamnYankee crapping all over our Texas folk heroes. I don't go up to Illinois and tell people that Johnny Appleseed stuffed Pippins & Winesaps up his dookie-chute. (Sorry, I stole that term from Acidman, and couldn't wait to use it...) Nor do I wander around NASCAR events spreading tales of Dale Earnhardt getting his butt waxed for race day, and the resulting lowering of the ass/seat friction coefficient caused him to slide forward faster than normal, leading to his death. For one, it's not respectful of the dead; two, that kind of talk will get your ass kicked repeatedly; and three, whether it's true or not, the circumstances of the death do not alter the significance of the actions performed during that person's life.
As it turned out, the movie was not nearly as bad as I feared. Not the greatest ever made, but far from the worst.
The things they got right:
1) The terrain (mostly) - It was good to see caliche soil and cedar trees instead of the alkali dirt and manzanita that you always get when they film in California. I doubt there was that high of a hill so close to the fort the Mexicans were lined up on. Usually you need to go a few miles north up into the Balcones Heights for a hill like that. Still, it coulda been graded down over the last 168 years, so I'll give 'em a pass.
2) The fort - Excellent job on the Alamo, including the unfinished (and roofless) chapel, the Long Barracks and the palisade. The wall ramps were properly done, and it showed just how large an area had to be defended by the small group of Texians and volunteers.
3) The sound FX - When they fired a load of canister (or 4 lbs of horseshoe nails) against the oncoming Mexican battalions, it sounded like it should have. A big bang, followed by that bee-buzzing sound, then the scattered rattle of the bits & chunks of metal slamming into skulls and rifle stocks. They didn't try to overdo the muzzleloader rifle sounds, either. A .36 cal squirrel rifle stoked with 40-50 grains of powder is sufficient to kill a man at 200 yards, but actually has quite a modest bang compared to a modern rifle. Now, I'm somewhat infamous for playing "chicken" with a .50 cal Hawken, seeing how much powder you can cram down a barrel and still survive, and believe me, they can make quite a bang, but you certainly don't shoot loads like that in battle. The sound FX crew kept it reasonable, which was nice to hear.
4) The Mexican Army. Trained in Napoleonic-era tactics, and dressed in the style of the period, they looked good and acted as they should. Contrary to popular belief, Santa Anna's force wasn't a ragged bunch of peons in white pantalones and a sombrero. They were disciplined troops, and led by capable officers. The uniforms were suitably flashy, and the tactics suitably efficient.
Things they didn't quite get right (IMHO):
1) General Santa Anna - This might come as a shock to my fellow Texans, who (like myself) were trained from birth to regard Santa Anna as just to the bad side of Satan, Hitler and Geraldo Rivera. Santa Anna is a remarkable character in history, it just happens that most folks never hear past his abortive jaunt into Texas. This movie portrayed him as some sort of arrogant lecher. Of course, this might well be true, but I thought they laid it on a little thick. Don't miss Crockett's comment regarding Santa Anna at the end.
2) C'mon, at least stick someone with that gigantic Bowie knife! My god, you show off this knife big enough to split an ox from asshole to appetite in one swing, and then it just lays there for the whole movie? Dammit!
3) Crockett - I don't want to say that Billy Bob Thornton performed the role poorly. He was perfectly acceptable, if just a tad bit bland. It was nice to see some subtlety in the role this time around. John Wayne's version was just John Wayne with a dead raccoon on his head. Still, Crockett was a legend in his own lifetime. I don't doubt there are people who can deal with international fame with perfect humility, but 1836 was a different era. Crockett came to Texas looking to be a leader. I think he would have been a touch less somber, and more willing to embrace his fame and use it as best he could.
4) The story didn't set the stage very well. We aren't really told why Texas was breaking away from Mexico, nor do we know why Santa Anna was so fired up to take it back. No mention of Stephen F. Austin, hardly a mention of Washington-on-the Brazos, and fergoshsakes, you gotta mention the Massacre at Goliad in more detail! All that could have been accomplished in 10 minutes or less.
5) Rockets? I'll have to do some research into the Mexican TO&E, but I'm fairly certain they didn't haul a bunch of Congreve rockets all the way from Mexico. Congreve rockets were still a part of the British military inventory until 1850 or so. I doubt they would license them out to other countries, much less one closely allied (at the time) with their age-old enemy, France.
There were the usual movie cliches as well, that I feel detracted from the overall experience. Making sure the married soldier had one last night with the wife; the young soldier, terrified and fearful before the battle, makes the lucky shot that kills the enemy leader; "It's quiet... TOO quiet..."; and so on. No war movie is complete without 'em.
The director also couldn't resist bludgeoning the audience with the Message Hammer, either. Every single scene with the two slaves captured in the Alamo... here comes the Message. SLAVERY IS BAD!!! Whups, don't think they got it that time... Hit 'em again! SLAVERY IS BAD!!! ...and again! SLAVERY IS BAD!!! SLAVERY IS BAD!!! SLAVERY IS BAD!!!. OK, enough already! They did accurately reflect the zeitgeist, though. Jim Bowie's slave asked if he was to be freed before the final battle. Bowie responded with essentially, "Hell, no! You're mine until I die, then I'm giving you to someone else in my will!"
Overall, I'd give The Alamo a thumbs up for accuracy, and half a thumb up for storytelling. I'm glad I didn't pay $8 to see it, but it's well worth a $3.49 rental fee.
posted by El Capitan | 3:37 PM
<< Home