"The Alamo": DEFINING HEROISM DOWN

The Right Report ^ | April 12,2004 | Patrick Rooney

[abigail2]

"The Alamo": Defining Heroism Down

Rather than depict them as alabaster saints, we wanted to show them as complete human beings. --Stephen Hardin, historical advisor, “The Alamo”

In 1960, American icon John Wayne starred as Davy Crockett in “The Alamo”, a heroic, if sanitized portrayal of the infamous siege where some 200 Americans held off Mexican General Santa Anna’s army of several thousand for 13 days before being wiped out to a man.

Nearly 45 years later, a new unwashed “Alamo” is upon us, brought to us by Disney, and starring American anti-hero Billy Bob Thornton as the larger-than-life frontiersman. America has obviously changed, and the new “Alamo” reflects that change—but is it a good one?

Thornton’s legendary Indian fighter Davy Crockett is portrayed as a man of hyped abilities who was only involved in a single skirmish with Indians—an unsavory massacre at that—and considers escaping over the Alamo wall but doesn’t due to vanity. Renowned knife fighter Jim Bowie is a heavy drinker and slave trader of questionable morality; and the man who engineered the subsequent defeat of Santa Anna, Sam Houston, is a quick-tempered drunk. Bowie, Houston, and others were supposedly motivated by cheap land in Texas, not freedom.

I believe both the old Wayne portrayal and the new Disney portrayals have their value, yet miss the mark in their own way.

Wayne’s movies mirrored the times they were made in. His was a World War II era of heroes. Character flaws were generally not discussed, nor were family secrets often exposed.

One of the positive aspects of the “modern era” has been an increasing openness about our flaws. This openness has allowed a great deal of personal and family conflict to be worked out in the sweet air of reason.

But the devil is always lurking, ready to use any situation to his advantage. While he is able to control us with the shame of secrecy, on the flip side he is able to fan the flames, so that modern openness too often becomes accusation that needlessly ruins reputations and relationships.

The unwillingness to forgive is the Achilles heel of this generation. In judging the faults of former generations, many have done all they can do to “never be like that.” But they have not succeeded.

Former generations were closed in comparison—this generation attempts openness, yet is closed to anyone who disagrees with it. Former generations smoked—this generation stamps out cigarettes yet tolerates pot smoking. This generation saves rainforests—yet kills unborn children. The former generation allowed Jim Crow laws. This generation attempts to show color blindness, yet daily demonstrates its race obsession.

But in its unforgiveness, this generation also judges that which is good in its parents’ and grandparents’ generations. The World War II generation was undoubtedly heroic in facing down Adolf Hitler and Emperor Hirohito. But admitting this heroism is hard for many in the present generation.

So what to do in portraying heroism on the screen? Bring it down to your level. Highlight the flaws of the heroes. Show they were “just like us.” But Thornton’s too-vulnerable portrayal ultimately proves he’s no Davy Crockett.

The fatal flaw of this generation’s judgment of the preceding ones, is that true enemies are not seen for what they are. For instance, there’s nothing redeeming about General Santa Anna. He was a vicious, bloodthirsty tyrant, nothing more. Yet “The Alamo” attempts to be “even handed”, praising the fact that he was interested in his country’s “territorial integrity.”

And in seeking “humanity” in its characters, the filmmakers mistakenly look for human faults as evidence of it. But faults don’t make us more human, they make us more inhumane! And conversely the filmmakers “humanize” evil characters like Santa Anna by showing their supposed good points!

“The Alamo” is not a bad movie, and certainly not unique in advertising its generation’s flaws. But ultimately a movie whose greatest asset is its heroism, yet feels constantly compelled to undercut that heroism, is on shaky ground.

I don’t want to see a whitewash of history. But neither can I be truly inspired by a movie that suggests unblemished heroism is unheard of—or worse, somehow undesirable.

Patrick Rooney is the Director of Special Projects at BOND, the Brotherhood Organization of A New Destiny, a nonprofit organization dedicated to “Rebuilding the Family By Rebuilding the Man.” Contact Patrick at patrick@bondinfo.org.</>

[abigail2]

I haven't seen it. But I didn't want to. I knew they would make the good guys bad and the bad guys good.

[gilliam]

This country yerns for heros. Disney missed the mark on this one. #1 rule in the business: know your audience.

[BenLurkin]

"Walt Disney Co. (NYSE:DIS - News) shares fell 34 cents to $25.70 as its costly feature film "The Alamo" took in a disappointing $9.2 million at the box office during the holiday weekend" http://biz.yahoo.com/rf/040412/markets_stocks_22.html

[Viking2002]

That fact that Disney has jettisoned everything it stood for in the last 50 years in order to market revisionist propaganda, is just more proof that it fell pray to Hollyweird's Dark Side. They need to be boycotted on all fronts until that moron Eisner is made to walk the plank.

[YaYa123]

John Wayne's "Alamo" was on television tonight on TCM. The host explained the movie was John Wayne's baby. That Wayne wanted to make the movie because he thought Americans had forgotten how hard fought our freedom was.

John Wayne's "Alamo" has been described as a "labor of love", and it got 7 Oscar nominations. It's possible this new Alamo is going to be Eisner's swan song.

[longtermmemmory]

The second that the disney name was attached to the movie with BillyBob Thorton made this a ho-hum movie. I don't hate such movies which are an obvious attempt to be "cutting edge" by finding flaws in legends, I simply don't care. Don't care to buy tickets, don't care to rent, don't care to buy the DVD.

I knew "The Patriot" was fiction but that was good enough to see in the theater and buy.

Disney knows their audience as the far left. This is why they shunted the Michael Moore next anti-Bush movie to their Miramax division. Disney's name no longer is a safe name to be trusted.

It is not just Disney, its the "suits" who have no concept of morality or manhood. They have no reference point and thus we get the left demeaning American heroes as the default position.

[drjimmy]

I haven't seen it. But I didn't want to. I knew they would make the good guys bad and the bad guys good.
I have seen it, and you don't know what you think you know. There is certainly no "even handed" portrayal of Santa Anna, and if he did have any good points, they aren't shown in this movie. While not a great flick, it is a good one. There is no doubt from this movie that Crockett, Bowie, and Travis are heroes; they just aren't the kind you find in cartoons, but rather the kind you would probably find right now in places like Iraq.

[BenLurkin]

"Republic. I like the sound of the word.
It means people can live free, talk free,
go or come, buy or sell, be drunk or sober, however they choose.
Some words give you a feeling. Republic is one of those words that makes me tight in the throat.

"The same tightness a man gets when his baby takes his first step, or his first baby shaves, and makes his first sound like a man.

"Some words can give you a feeling that make your heart warm. Republic is one of those words." - John Wayne, 'THE ALAMO'

[txzman]

And like 9-11, what is lost is the massacre at Goliad - after the Alamo, when the Texan force surrendered.

"After a delay of about five days following Houston's order, Fannin finally began his retreat. It was not long, however, before the Texans found themselves surrounded on open prairie. Several attacks by Urrea resulted each time in the Mexicans being repulsed by the deadly fire of the Texans. By dusk, the Texans had lost about sixty men killed or wounded against some 200 of the Mexicans.

Still heavily outnumbered and with no water and few supplies, the Texans waved the white flag of truce the following morning. Believing that they would be taken captive and eventually returned to their homes, the Texans surrendered the morning of March 20. The were escorted back to Goliad as prisoners.

When news of their capture reached Santa Anna, however, he was furious that the Texans had not been executed on the spot. Citing a recently passed law that all foreigners taken under arms would be treated as pirates and executed, Santa Anna sent orders to execute the Goliad prisoners.

Santa Anna's orders were followed. On Palm Sunday, the 27th of March, the prisoners were divided into three groups, marched onto open prairie, and shot. Thus, all of Fannin's command except a few that managed to escape and several physicians and others deemed useful by the Mexicans, were massacred, collected into piles, and burned.

[Always Right]

I am surprised all the heros of the Alamo were not portrayed as gay

[Always Right]

And like 9-11, what is lost is the massacre at Goliad - after the Alamo, when the Texan force surrendered.

You mean they failed to show that in the movie. Wow, what a bunch of PC wimps.

[okie01]

Disney missed the mark on this one. #1 rule in the business: know your audience.

John Wayne's "Alamo" debuted in Texas, to huge crowds.

If there is an audience for Disney's film, it is in Texas. Yet, the first I've heard of this film's release is in FR threads. I live in Texas and, so far as I can tell, there hasn't been a farthing spent marketing the film here. I didn't even know it was in theaters...

So, one could legitimately say, for sure, they didn't know their audience...

[jordan8]

One of the positive aspects of the “modern era” has been an increasing openness about our flaws

This line of argument is a lie. Hollywood would never make a movie about, say, Martin Luther King, Jr., that wasn't absolutely reverential. Even for lesser stars of PC they would at least clean them up the best they could if they felt they couldn't get away with a hagiographic treatment. There would be no talk of a "new honesty" or the freeing aspects of exposing their flaws. Flaw exposure is reserved for the enemies of the left: political enemies, religious enemies, and, more often than not, racial enemies. Movies like this are a specific attack on a specific culture. The author shifts the argument to the theoretical and general in order to avoid the truth and the ugly confrontations it might produce.

For instance, there's nothing redeeming about General Santa Anna. He was a vicious, bloodthirsty tyrant, nothing more

See what I mean?

[longtermmemmory]

there is no need to boycott Disney movies. It is more than enough to simply not care. Indifference is death to Eisner's Disney. If people stop renting and stop buying their movies then they will continue their financial woes.

Disney has had TWO recent animated movies. They did not even make a blip on the public radar. (seriously Rosane Bar in a children's movie? someone at Disney is smoking crack)

Sadly the Disney name now means the movie is stupid.

[abigail2]

Mel Gibson understands that we yearn for heroes and that they don't have to be perfect, just rise above their nature to do great deeds. Most of his movies are about flawed men, Ransom, Patriot, Braveheart. We need to see that we can rise above our baseness to do great deeds.

[abigail2]

Yeah, I saw that. It makes me sad to see what 'Disney' has become. Once it stood for something.

[Let's Roll]

Their "defining heroism down" - dropped their box office in the same direction.

[longtermmemmory]

Isn't the surrender of the men at the Alamo not accepted? The history channel did a documentary where the "surrender" is more a product of mexican revisionism to avoid the notion of the "grigos" dying defending the Alamo.


Disney is not the only group engaged in revisionist history.

Even the NEA has a school project which encourages students to change the face on the 20 dollar bill.

[abigail2]

Is that a Viking?

[abigail2]

I haven't seen it in years (Waynes version). I will have to give it another look.