Posted on 04/18/2004 8:02:22 PM PDT by Vigilanteman
There are episodes in America's history that deserve to be retold to each generation as examples of the patriotism, heroism and the sacrifices made to keep us free - Valley Forge, Gettysburg, Bataan, D-Day, Iwo Jima and The Alamo. Of these, the Alamo is perhaps the most tragic, and the most inspiring - doomed men who willingly went to their deaths for the cause of liberty.
Some day, a movie may be made which does justice to their struggle - some day, not now. The Disney remake, released on Friday, is a disappointment in every way imaginable.
It is as inauthentic and foolish as the 1960 John Wayne-version. But, while the earlier film at least tried to deliver a pro-American message, the updated "Alamo" is both marred by political correctness and devoid of even a hint of patriotism.
It's as if those associated with the film (Ron Howard, among others) couldn't bear the thought of portraying a group of pioneers nobly, and so had to throw in the standard litany of America's sins.
Thus we have Jim Bowie's slave telling another black man, when the hopelessness of the situation is grasped: "It's enough that we have to fetch their water; we don't have to die for them!" Hollywood could make a movie set in fourth century Bulgaria and still find a way to insert a message on the unparalleled evils of American slavery. For the record, a freedman fought and died with the other Alamo defenders.
There's also a scene where Tejano (Spanish Texan) volunteers survey a group of rowdy Texians (AKA, white men behaving predictably). One of the former comments in Spanish: "Santa Anna just wants to rule Mexico, these disgraces want to take over the world."
But if the Tejanos felt that way, what were they doing inside the Alamo? Among those who died defending the old Spanish mission were men with names like Juan Badillo, Carlos Esparza, Antonio Fuentes and Jose Maria Guerrero. I doubt any of them thought their comrades-in-arms were rapacious SOBs.
As they face the final assault, Davy Crockett (improbably portrayed by Billy Bob Thornton) recounts a massacre of defenseless Indians during the Creek War, as if to say, "You think Santa Anna's bad? Well, what about the way we treated the Indians?" In this latest Disney revisionism, the Alamo is besieged by political correctness and multiculturalism.
Equally inevitable, given Hollywood's politics, is the absence of a discernible message in the midst of this blood and bravery.
Nearly 200 men chose death over surrender. Why? The film is silent on the subject - other than offering travelogue commentary on the scenic wonders of Texas and some last words expressing familial devotion.
As Disney demonstrated with its preposterous "Pearl Harbor," Hollywood has a pathological aversion to expressions of patriotism. Because it finds America (both in history and today) unlovable, it can't imagine anyone loving America enough to die for her.
Thus, while it's easy for Hollywood to deliver tedious lectures on the evils of slavery or mistreatment of the Indians, it's impossible for screenwriters to make a case for America. (Like the scene in "Sgt. York," where Gary Cooper decides to fight after reading a book of American history on a mountainside during a thunderstorm.)
Even recent films about some of the most inspiring moments in our past - "Pearl Harbor," D-Day ("Saving Private Ryan") and "The Alamo" - are cleansed of patriotism - no talk of freedom, democracy, representative government or love of homeland is allowed. (The sole exception is Mel Gibson's 1999 movie "The Patriot," which was unabashedly pro-American.)
John Wayne's "The Alamo," which suffered from its own flaws (namely that it was a standard-issue John-Wayne Western that happened to be set in the Texas war for independence), at least tried to say something from the heart.
The critics savaged it, in part because they loathed Wayne's anti-Communism, notably manifested in his support for the House Un-American Activities Committee and his refusal to shed tears for the Stalinist Hollywood Ten.
Wayne, who was president of the Motion Picture Alliance for the Preservation of American Ideals in the late '40s (a group started by Hollywood conservatives like Ward Bond and - ahem! - Walt Disney), never did penance for his supposed transgressions.
"I never felt I needed to apologize for my patriotism," Wayne confessed. "I felt that if there were Communists in the business (show business) - and I knew there were - then they ought to go over to Russia and try enjoying freedom there."
Mention of The Duke, or memories of his films, still provoke snickers from the establishment.
In his New York Times review of the new "Alamo," Elvis Mitchell can't resist getting in a dig at Wayne's "hilariously simple-minded 1960 'Alamo' which he directed and in which he seems to be looking for Khrushchev." Oh, haw, haw.
In an interview for his book, John Wayne: The Man Behind the Myth, Michael Munn asked Wayne if his Alamo movie was a vehicle for his anti-Communism. The actor replied: "It was, in part. But it was more than that. I hoped to convey to people all over the free world that they owed a debt to all men who gave their lives fighting for freedomS I was always inspired by the story because I don't know of any other moment in American history which portrays the courage of men any better." In the movie he also produced and starred in, Wayne made the connection between the heroism of the Alamo's defenders and Americanism, with dialogue - delivered by The Duke, naturally - about the eternal fight for freedom and the meaning of a republic.
Unfortunately, as noted earlier, what could have been a fine film got bogged down in nonsense - comic brawls, unlikely forays outside the Alamo's walls and buddy-movie humor.
The new "Alamo" also has its share of silliness - with Crockett/Thornton shooting an epaulet off Santa Anna's shoulder and serenading the besieging Mexican army with his fiddle from the Alamo's battlements. All that was missing was Billy Bob delivering karate kicks, a la Jackie Chan, in the climactic battle scene.
The most interesting element in the new film is Mexican actor Emilio Echevarria's portrayal of the self-styled Napoleon of the West, Gen. Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna, as a strutting sadist - Juan Peron meets Saddam Hussein. Pity Hollywood can't portray good as aptly as it delineates evil.
Like most Hollywood epics of today, "The Alamo" is all show and no substance. In its dogged determination to deliver no message (other than fashionable political correctness), the entertainment industry once again offers a spectacle that fails to inspire.
As I left the theater after enduring two hours and seventeen minutes of this, I couldn't help but reflect on the Americans who died in Iraq that very day. In vain, some would say.
At the time, some thought the same of the deaths in San Antonio. At San Jacinto, Sam Houston proved them wrong, when he overwhelmed the remnants of Santa Anna's army in 18 minutes (due in no small measure to the time bought for him by the Alamo's defenders).
Monday morning quarterbacking is always easier than fighting for your country. Making a movie full of sound and fury is easier than explaining why it all matters.
To be perfectly honest, two facts should be remembered.
After their rejection of the first call to surrender, they were no longer given the option. Santa Ana decreed that no quarter be given.
About 350 men who surrendered at Goliad were executed anyway. The men at the Alamo didn't know this, of course, but they were certainly aware that they couldn't count on chivalrous treatment if they did surrender.
"Rounding out the top ten was Buena Vista's expensive bomb The Alamo which collapsed 56% in its second weekend to an estimated $4.1M. With a production budget hovering in the $100M range, the historical war drama has taken in only $16.3M and is set to conclude its run with an embarrassing $23-25M."
It looks like yet another embarrassment for Michael Eisner's politically correct Disney entertainment empire. One suspects the stockholders will not tolerate too many more missteps. Imagine if Mel Gibson could take charge of Disney by aligning with the disgruntled shareholders and leveraging his "Passion of the Christ" profits to topple Eisner and his associates. This is probably unrealistic, I suppose, but it would be wonderful were it to happen.
State and national authorities would have no option but to accept the surrender of the insurgents and then treacherously massacre them?
Somehow I doubt that.
Nothing even vaguely similar to Goliad happened during the entire WBTS, an enormously greater and more bitter conflict.
What happened at the Alamo can be justified by the laws of war, if just barely. Goliad cannot.
All in all, what disappoints me most is that the cineplex had Hellboy and Kill Bill 2 playing in two theaters each, and they were packed. There may have been 8 other people watching The Alamo when I was there. Sad.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
It appears that among some conservatives it is prohibited even to mention that fact that atrocities were committed against the Indians. Heck, the Indians committed atrocities against the whites, too. Human beings of any race are capable of doing awful things. That does not mean that one is forbidden to mention something that is a part of history.
Goliad was filmed but cut from the movie, I think....original cut was 3 1/2 hours long, (understandably) Disney made him cut it.
Yep, I saw the movie and I frankly think the people behinf the various conservative lets-bash-the-Alamo-movie didn't even see the same film. (Of course, some of the bashers, like Mr. Idiot Joseph Farah, actually DIDN'T bother to see the movie at all.
It had flaws, not a "Great" movie, but I felt it showed flawed but heroic people. And it was moving. Shed a tear during Travis' speech.
However, it's clear people were simply just waiting and drooling and hoping to bash this film as PC and Leftist and be outraged by it, and it had to fit that "expectation", regardless of what the movie was ACTUALLY like.
And they were fighting for their rights - under the mexican constitution of 1824. Santa Ana was the usurper of freedom, more like a hitler than a clintoon.
"G&G" failed primarily because the liberal critical media will not permit a favorable portrayal of the South and the Southern cause, and eviscerated the film in their reviews. "Master and Commander" was a gorgeous film. I know nothing about the sea, nothing about the Aubrey and Maturin novels, but I sat transfixed, unaware that time was passing. So did my friend. So did my ten-year-old son. So did everyone I know. I can hardly wait 'til the DVD comes out. And I am a chick. If you think that movie was a disappointment, I can't even imagine what it would take to thrill you.
Yep, particularly pre-WWI ones...will be interesting to see how "Troy" and "Alexander" turn out.
Also you have to remember this movie had NO appeal to women WHATSOEVER, and NO appeal to anyone under 30, as basically nobody outside of Texas under 30 has the foggiest idea of what the Alamo was, and NONE of the actors are popular among young people.
You'll notice if you look at all of the Alamo threads that almost EVERY FReeper replying on the thread that ACTUALLY SAW the Alamo liked it, or at least didn't hate it.
The people bashing it are simply me-tooers who didn't see the film and just assume all the propaganda about it is true.
I LOVED Master & Commander, I failed to include "box office" before "disappointment"...I meant it was disappointing at the box office.
(Only problem is I know SO much about sailing ship combat, having helped to design and test age of sail wargames, I'm a bit too good at picking out the historical inaccuracies it did have :-)
It will be lucky to break even financially. Maybe with really strong DVD sales. I'll be first in line Tuesday to buy the DVD.
And I've run into many people and remember a variety of posters on internet boards claiming it was "Boring" which I find incomprehensible.
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.