Sam Houston, life-size.
Posted on 04/13/2004 1:32:02 AM PDT by goldstategop
I was a little discouraged last week when I urged a boycott of Disney's new revisionist, politically correct picture "The Alamo."
I was concerned because few seemed to pick up the cry.
I was beginning to think Americans just didn't care about heroism any more. I was beginning to think Americans had been brainwashed to believe their forebears were all just a bunch of crooks, cheats and criminals as Hollywood and too many of our government schools would like them to believe. I was beginning to think Americans would believe anything the entertainment cartel shoved down their throats.
But then I looked at the box-office results on the movie's opening.
"The Alamo," which cost $100 million to make, pulled in a meager $9.2 million in its opening weekend.
That's not "bad," by Hollywood's standards for a big production with lots of promotion. It's a disaster. It's a mega-flop. It's a dud.
Worse yet, the movie didn't just open on any weekend. It opened on Good Friday – a holiday weekend. In other words, the movie had every advantage it could have for an opening day. It failed. It failed miserably. And I have to believe the American people showed some good judgment.
What's so bad about this movie?
Well, as I said last week, "Remember the Alamo," was an American battle cry for generations.
And with this movie, Disney is consciously trying to get Americans to forget the real history of heroic fight.
No, I haven't seen the movie. Nor do I intend to see it.
Many will jump down my throat with that statement and demand, "How can you know the movie is so bad without even seeing it?"
The answer is simple: The script has been reviewed by historians. I've read enough to know the intent of this film is deconstruction of American heroes.
This is a propaganda effort to turn Davy Crockett and Jim Bowie into a couple of dead, white guys who got what was coming to them, rather than American heroes who "died with their boots on."
"The movie reads more like a Disney fairy tale and promotes a politically correct revisionist agenda aimed at destroying a traditional American hero," said B. Forrest Clayton of Freedom Alliance, who reviewed the script.
Clayton says he found it to be "full of inaccuracies." He says Davy Crockett is portrayed as a "frightened wanderer" who wanted to escape "over the wall" in the dark of night during the historic battle, but felt paralyzed and trapped by his own underserved heroic reputation.
Clayton says the film has Crockett captured, bound and executed on his knees after the battle was over, "even though the historical evidence shows that he was killed fighting, in the thick of combat, during the battle."
Is that how you want to remember Davy Crockett? Is that how you want your kids to know him?
A statement by Freedom Alliance said: "The movie makers ignored these witnesses that corroborated Crockett's heroic death in combat and based his capture and execution in the film on a suspect portion of Jose Enrique De La Pena's supposed diary-memoir which handwriting expert Charles Hamilton proved was a forgery by John Laflin, aka John Lafitte, a prominent American forger of papers on American pirates and frontier heroes."
Disney also is criticized for portraying Gen. Sam Houston as a "venereal-diseased drunkard" and Col. William Barret Travis, commander of Texan forces at the Alamo, as a "deadbeat dad and serial adulterer."
In addition, says the group, Bowie, the Alamo defender famous for his knife-fighting skills, is portrayed as a land-swindling slave trader. The film reportedly has Crockett participating in a My Lai-style massacre in the Creek Indian War.
Freedom Alliance says in contrast, Manuel Castrillon, a Mexican general who attacked the Alamo, is portrayed as a "flawless, noble and brave hero."
A recent Variety article confirmed the film's perspective.
"'Alamo' is expected to deal with many of the historical complexities – including the Mexican point of view – that were glossed over in John Wayne's 1960 film," Variety reported. "Alamo heroes William Barret Travis' serial marital infidelities, Jim Bowie's slave trading and Davy Crockett's overall political incorrectness will also be addressed."
Richard Bruce Winders, curator of the Alamo museum, said movie viewers who expect a close remake of the classic John Wayne film will be disappointed.
When I first saw the trailers for the new Alamo film, I got excited momentarily. Here was a chance for a new generation of young Americans, I thought, to get a glimpse of a piece of American history – history that could make them proud of their heritage of freedom.
Disney needs to continue to hear from Americans. This film needs to die a quick and unmerciful death at the box office. Don't go see this movie. Don't let your kids see it. Don't rent it. Don't buy the DVD or the video.
Better to rent the 1960 classic.
When Sony makes Dick Clarke's work of fiction into a movie, will they address Bill Clinton's serial marital infidelities?
Haven't seen the movie and don't intend to but have read the many various critical comments on its (lack of) historically documented accuracy for months now. That's more than enough for me. I'll just keep my money in my pocket on this one.
Another rule, even more important is that the moviegoer views the movie with some knowledge of the subject. If both are not followed, the end result is a 2 hour waste of time.
Given the back seat that history has been assigned in our public schools for over 30 years one might ask... why bother trying.
At least the guy's honest. He criticizes a movie without having seen it. (This may even be the norm for critics.)
I have to believe the average American movie-goer these wouldn't know what the Alamo was unless Britney Spears gave a concert there. They probably thought the movie was about a breed of dog from Alaska. ;)
Sam Houston, life-size.
My relatives died in the battles for Texas Independence. There was NO doubt there were a FEW mexicans fighting for Texas Independence too. However, not the way I've heard Disney portrayed them.
Thank God this movie is a real bust.
The movie is told in a very good way and is not a cartoon of these men. Hey face it these guys fought and killed people in bars (Bowie), left their wives (Travis), and were politicians who were also legends (Crockett). They were what they were but this movie portrays every one of them as heros.
The only part that someone might not like is that Crockett is portrayed as an ex-congressman who is ready to retire to Texas with his militia aquired 640 acres of his choosing, given by the Texas gov't. He winds up at the Alamo and the situation becomes something he was hoping not to have to deal with. He never allows the men to see it and he fights to the death. He goes out in style, as does Bowie.
A little word of advice, pay attention to the actor who plays Crockett in the PLAY at the begining. He is practicing his lines and he says something that the real Crockett refers to later. I missed it the first time but caught it when I went back to see it again.
Apparently, half the people not seeing it are avoiding it because it is "too patriotic", and some misguided freepers are avoiding it because it's "not patriotic enough"!
I've read a lot of posts on various message boards by people condemning this movie, while they heap praise on John Wayne's hokey version from 1960. That was easily the least accurate Alamo movie ever (though it had moments of great spectacle).
The only problem I had with the movie is that it is apparently truncated from a 3 hr running time to a little over 2 hrs. It never struck me as cut, but apparently, a fuller version would have fleshed out a few characters and details a little better.
Yes, Bowie and Travis each have a slave in the movie, but little is made of the fact that they are slaveholders. It's just depicted as something that happened in those days. The idea of Crockett attempting to start over in Texas after his recent failed congressional campaign seemed perfectly plausible to me, and from what I have read, is basically what happened. the Mexicans are not made out to be heroes, and Santa Anna comes off as cruel and arrogant. A few of his officers are depicted as noble, and resistant to Santa Anna's cruelty, but apparently a few of his officers were gallant and brave and merely cursed with serving under and odious dictator (it reminded me of how it would have been for officers under Stalin). The now-revealed Crockett death was powerful, and the audience I saw it with reacted favorablly to it (though Crockett is bound and on his knees, he is defiant and heroic).
You guys can boycott it if you want for whatever reason (Quaid being too short has to be the lamest one I've heard yet). I think Eisner is an arsehole, too, but I'm not boycotting a movie because of him.
Or better yet, dredge up The Last Command -- a 1955 film starring Sterling Hayden (as Jim Bowie). It was a low budget "B" movie -- by Republic Pictures, as I recall.
But damned if it I don't remember it more favorably than the John Wayne epic.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.