|
|
Rating:  - Despite some flaws, one of the best
Of Hollywood's efforts to produce a great Alamo movie, John Wayne's 1960 production remains out in front. Yes, it has its historical and technical flaws, but these do not detract from the overall portrayal of the situation and main events. Its scope and its "you are there" feeling clearly stand out.
The film's general tone is quite in contrast to that of the recent (2004) movie of the same name with Billy Bob Thornton as Crockett, of which another reviewer has aptly noted: "Where the battle, as depicted in the new film, shows scared men doing the best they can to stay alive, the 1960 Wayne film shows a more heroic stand, men selling their lives dearly." In a word, the newer version is more "politically correct" according to some currently popular worldviews, with its portrayal of the main heroes with "warts and all" often distracting from their decisive roles as defenders of Texas independence and individual liberty. (See my Amazon review of that movie.) Nonetheless, in both films the 183 Alamo defenders are shown as having made the fateful choice to remain and fight despite the hopeless odds -- each having been given the chance to leave when Colonel Travis frankly described to them their dire situation in what turned out to be the third day before main the attack, and all fell as a result -- an American Thermopylae indeed!
Many criticisms of the Wayne film by some reviewers are misplaced even where, strictly speaking, correct. Actually, the final assault on the Alamo took place in the darkness well before dawn. Still, its being portrayed here in broad daylight does allow the unfolding of some of the most impressive battle scenes ever filmed. Among other criticisms that have been leveled, many are trivial and shallow. In the end, what real difference does it make whether Crockett habitually wore a coonskin cap or not, whether he preferred being called "Davy" or "David," or whether the pre-battle sorties to sabotage a big enemy cannon, or heisting and stampeding cattle into the Alamo for food, were invented for the film or not? (A cattle raid of sorts did take place, but sooner, much nearer the walls and netted about 30 head, not the couple of hundred or so filmed.) These two scenes add interest and in a larger sense well portray the defenders' resourcefulness and determination which, from all we do know, were certainly not lacking. After all, this is a MOVIE, not strict history, and a bit of pictorial and dramatic license is not amiss; those wanting "just the facts" (known, that is) can easily find them elsewhere.
Similarly, Crockett's brief liason with the beautiful and cultured young Mexican widow is more than just entertaining but points out early that a significant number of political aware Mexicans in Texas were determined opponents of Santa Anna's dictatorship: Some "Tejanos" in fact supported the mostly Anglo "Texicans," even as leaders who fought alongside them -- most notably Juan Seguín, whose heroic role in bringing the Alamo's appeal for help to Houston through Mexican lines, however, is rather misleadingly usurped by the engaging teenager "Smitty," played by Frankie Avalon. (Although in fact a brave teenager named James Allen did gallop away with Travis's last plea to Fannin at Goliad to the south, it was Juan Seguín who earlier brought Travis's message east to commander-in-chief Houston -- the film conflates the two, with Seguín's more consequential role lost.) The film portrays Mexicans with respect throughout, even as adversaries.
Principles of freedom are portrayed frankly and without apology in Crockett's and others' remarks. Such principles really were held very widely and fervently at the time -- however much they are so often downplayed and even lampooned today.
Bowie's incapacitating illness is rather conspicuously missing, however (his only "ailment" being shown as a fractured leg suffered in the bombardment, hastily splinted so he could carry on). As convincingly played by Richmard Widmark, Bowie's prickly disputes with Travis, however, are appropriately emphasized. Lawrence Harvey's portrayal of Travis is simply superb on all counts, as is Richard Boone's brief portrayal of Houston.
Since the film ends at the Alamo's fall, the subsequent defeat of Santa Anna at San Jacinto some six weeks later by Houston, made possible in large part by the unyielding stand at the Alamo, is not shown. In dramatic terms this makes sense, as covering the aftermath, although informative for the uninitiated, would be rather anticlimactic and reduce the full impact of the film's main event. (Note that the recent movie of the same title, with Dennis Quaid as Houston, does briefly cover this. For further observations on San Jacinto, see my review of that film.)
A real standout in the movie is the wonderful music provided by Dimitri Tiomkin, by turns stirring and inspiring. It draws one into the story to an extent few scores have been able to do. In this setting "The Green Leaves of Summer" is one of the most moving songs ever committed to film, especially its choral background rendition in the scene during the evening before the final assault.
Of all his films I've seen, I believe this is John Wayne's most convincing performance, despite -- or maybe partly because of -- his taking on the demanding and perhaps excessive burdens of producing and directing as well. And also, despite his inexperience in the latter two departments (as noted in the DVD's accompanying documentary on the making of the movie), the overall result is still a deeply satisfying and basically true drama. Wayne quit his association from his longtime studio, Republic, and sunk much of his personal fortune into making this film, for which we owe him profound thanks. Those who wish to probe more deeply and straighten out the known details of the story (though many will never be known since no defenders survived) can delve into books such as Walter Lord's excellent, consise and readable "A Time to Stand", which includes both background and aftermath; it also outlines major areas of contention concerning disputed points. Also, Albert A. Nofi's "The Alamo" is well worth a read as it highlights many fascinating aspects often not dealt with elsewhere.
Since I have not as yet seen the "Director's Cut" on VHS and Laserdisk (compared to which many reviewers have declared the present DVD is flawed on account of scenes cut for theater release), I cannot comment on that. But I can say that despite those cuts, the DVD nonetheless presents a sweeping and mostly coherent impression of the events portrayed. A point of interest is that the included documentary on the film's production happens to show, very interestingly, how much the original celluloid film has faded in picture quality in the nearly half-century since being shot -- the restoration of both color and sound for the DVD's main content is magnificent. Digital technology came along just in time to save many classic films. One hopes that a similarly restored full Director's Cut will be made available in this widescreen format in the future.
The film's flaws such as those noted above are enough to deny it 5 stars here, but if a full 10-point scale were allowed I'd unhesitatingly give it a 9.
Rating: - The Alamo John Wayne's view
This movie was a life long dream of John Wayn. He had wanted to make it for many years and finally in 1960 he was able to give the world his vision. It has great action sequences and the battles are among the best you can find. Detail in the costumes is great. It does have a large part of the movie being used as a platform for Mr. Wayne's political views but it is worth a watch.
Rating:  - It's another DVD con
Such a great movie completely ruined by Warner/MGM issuing a badly cut version of this classic film. Originally running at 196 minutes with Overture and Intermission plus 26 minutes of footage. This full version has already been issued on both VHS and Laserdisc so why do we have to put up with a cut version on DVD. The breaks in narrative ruin the continuity of the movie completely. Ever since this DVD was released I have been hoping for a "Director's Cut" but this does not appear to be in the forseeable future. The releas of the new version with Billy Bob Thornton would have been an ideal time for Warner to bring out THE ORIGINAL.
Rating: - A LOOOONG labor of love
Hollywood history, but pretty accurate as far as the real events go. John Wayne directed and starred as Davy Crockett; Richard Widmark is Jim Bowie; and Laurence Harvey is the stiff-backed Col. Travis: their clash of personalities becomes the central theme of the movie. Wayne, as always, is just John Wayne. How the men end up at the Alamo in the first place is what the first half is all about: "freedom" has been challenged and a band of Tennessee ruffians comes to meet the challenge. The second half is all about the battle itself, and it's done up Hollywood style, no holds barred. The movie was a flop when it first came out; much has been written about why that was so but I imagine the biggest reason was that the movie was just too long, despite the crackling dialogue in places and the generally excellent acting by the principals. Quite a few academy award nominations went to the movie, mainly for technical things (cinematography, editing, sound, etc.). Not a movie that remains long in one's memory banks, it's still way better than the 2004 remake starring Dennis Quaid and Billy Bob Thornton.
Rating: - The Epic Story of the Battle
You deserve a better introduction than what the film lacks. The Mexicans revolted against Spanish rule in 1821. The Monroe Doctrine, and the British Navy, kept Spain from reconquering Spanish America. The 1824 Mexican Constitution was similar to the US Constitution in its democracy and freedom. But the big landowners and bankers objected to democracy. They found an ambitious military man who would lead a coup to create a centralized dictatorship. After independence Mexico allowed immigrants from America to enter as long as they followed the rules. They were allowed the lands that were claimed by Indians like the Comanches. The Alamo was a mission compound miles outside of San Antonio de Behar. It served the Indians, and had adobe walls for protection against marauders.
The state of Zacatecas first stood up to Santa Anna's dictatorship. They were attacked, defeated, and their militia slaughtered. The "1824" on the Texican's tricolor meant they supported the 1824 Constitution for democracy and against the dictatorship. For the American settlers it was like another War of Independence. Most of the Americans were from the South, and brought their "peculiar institution" with them. The Mexican Constitution outlawed slavery. The film showed the Texicans complaining about the restrictions on trade; political oppression always results in impoverization of the people. [Richard Henry Dana's "Two Years Before the Mast" described life in California around that time.]
The conversation between Crockett and Bowie probably wasn't based on historical records. This is drama, not history. The attack on the Texans was started in the winter of February 1836; Santa Anna knew the value of a surprise attack. This caused many to flee towards the Louisiana border. The fortifications of the Alamo could not stand up against a regular army with cannon. Colonel Travis decided to hold the fort against superior forces. Colonel Bowie wanted to destroy the fort and attack Santa Anna's forces with guerrilla tactics. [This method has been proven correct from Concord and Lexington down to the present day. Davy Crockett knew that when a bear sought refuge in a cave it was doomed.]
A sortie at night destroyed a large enemy cannon. Colonel Travis explained his plan: the Alamo will hold off Santa Anna's army until General Sam Houston could raise a Texan army; they will buy time. The promised relief forces from Goliad never arrived. Another sortie captured cattle for fresh meat. When Santa Anna arrived he allowed the women and children to leave. Then the Mexican army began its assault; it failed. A rider reported that Colonel Fannin's men had been defeated; help would not arrive. The final assault began. The defenders of the Alamo were outnumbered and outgunned; their adobe walls were no match for cannon and a mass attack that overwhelmed the defenders. The survivors were executed, their bodies burned. The women and children were set free.
[This film would be better if it contained the rest of the story.] Santa Anna's army pursued the Texans; a victory seemed near. While camped at the San Jacinto river a surprise attack by the Texan army avenged the defeats at the Alamo and Goliad. Sam Houston extracted a Treaty of Independence from Santa Anna to establish the Republic of Texas. A decade later Texas joined the United States.
|
|