The Left Siezes "The Alamo"

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.

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.

"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.

I went to see it with great anticipation. I have probably never been more disappointed by a flick in my life. It had boring pretentious dialog, and managed to make the Battle of Chancellorsville boring, which I would have given long odds wasn't possible. It was also at least an hour too long. Decent editing would have improved it immensely.

Ditto your review and I agree with the others who suggest the movie has been unfairly criticized. It still gets me when I remember the scene where Houston yells, "Remember the Alamo!" in a gravelly kick-ass voice and waves the flag. I found it an unabashedly patriotic moment. Some of the reviews and comments by people who haven't seen the movie leave me dumbfounded and...well, frankly, remind me a little too much of the rancor surrounding The Passion--a lot of noise by a lot of people who had not seen the movie.

Guy who played Bowie could have lost about 20 lbs. though. I don't think a guy that sick with TB would look that hale and hearty and a bit chubby :-)

Billy Bob Thornton was quite good as Crockett.

Based on a Fabricated diary as it might be, the scene where Crockett is captured and executed actually involves Crockett mouthing off to Santa Anna and cracking jokes, not Crockett groveling in fear as one of the anti-Alamo smear campaign articles alleged before the movie came out.

It seems to be a routine now on FR that the mear mention of slavery in connection with anything causes people to flip out; there's a whole group of people who will throw and apopaleptic fit on any FR thread where someone suggests the Civil War had anything to do with anything other than tariffs.

But, in a battle symbolic of freedom, I mean, you have to address the fact that several of the key players owned slaves..and admit that slavery is bad. However, they didn't make the slaveowners at the Alamo look like pure evil or anything....

The movie DID depict the Tejanos fighting inside the Alamo, and it would not have surprised me, though, if some of them at some time may have questioned who they were fighting with..I didn't have a problem with that scene. And Juan Seguin did end up fighting for the Mexicans in the Mexican-American War, right?

I must confess to not being as much of an Alamo expert as I am in a lot of other eras of military history.

Santa Anna is depected as the pure sack of s*** he was in reality, in the entire movie...that certainly wasn't PC. There's one Mexican general who argues with Santa Anna that it would be illegal to execute anyone captured in the Alamo...not sure if that really happened.

But at San Jacinto instead of being a Coward like Santa Anna, that general stands his ground and gets killed like a man, which I believe one of the generals actually did. But it doesn't bother me that every Mexican or member of Santa Anna's Army isn't shown badly...I'm sure there were some honorable men.

I just don't get the whole PC angle of the bashers. I guess they wouldn't have accepted anything other than Travis, Crockett, Bowie, and Houston depicted as saints with little halos over their heads..

Yep, apparently, historical movies have seen their day. This film was sabotaged from day one. The left panned it for the same reasons they panned Wayne's-it extols the virtues of men who believed some things are worth dying for. The right (as evidenced in this thread, and in Joseph Farah's ignorant ravings) also panned it (mostly w/o seeing it) because they assumed it would be leftist PC revisionism.

The failure of Master and Commander at the box office is an indicator of where the movie-going public (apparently 14-25 year olds) stands on historical epics. With M & C, we had Russell Crowe, and a best-selling book series as the source for the movie, and largely positive reviews, and M & C still flopped.

Despite what has been said about cuts to The Alamo, the cuts are not that apparent. I could tell certain things were missing, because I know the story backward and forward. But I could not tell the cuts had been made. The movie just felt as if they chose not to cover certain areas.

We Texans do not really need a movie to remind us to Remember the Alamo. Those of you in other states, who only know the story via John Wayne and Disney's Davy Crockett series could learn a lot from this movie. It'a shame the ctitics went gunning for this movie (as they did The Passion). Heck, aside from the The Passion, there has not been a bona fide hit this year.

Eh, Ebert and Roper liked the Alamo.

My criteria for historical inaccuracy in movies is asking myself "Does someone who knows nothing about what actually happened historically, come out of the movie knowing MORE or LESS about what happened."

There are some movies that are so wildly inaccurate a movie goer knows LESS about history when they leave the theater; the film subtracts knowledge.

Some 18 year old who knows nothing about "The Alamo" will leave the movie knowing a lot more about what actually happened than before they went into the theater; same for Master and Commander; people will know more about sailing ship combat when they leave the theater, despite the fairly clear historical inaccuracies in some places both films have.

The Patriot....I don't know. I think it was much worse in terms of inaccuracy (though they attempted to get around it by transparently tweaking the names so they could claim they weren't ACTUALLY making a movie about Marion and Banastre Tarleton.)

"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.

Well, it depends on where you're at of course. At our government funded propaganda centers of higher learning, it is now an article of faith that whitey is the proximate cause of all the ills in the world, both in the past, now, and undoubtedly in the future. I'm not making this up. It's not even debateable if you want to make it through college unscathed. Just more of the "post modern" era of deconstruction, everything is viewed through the lens of white "racism"; it is especially endearing to hear cute young twenty-somethings regurgitate the hateful screed against their ancestors.

The incident referred to in The Alamo, about an Indian Massacre is well documented. Crockett even tells about it in his autobiography. It was a prime reason Crockett became disenchanted with Indian Wars and Andy Jackson. Crockett's disagreements with Jackson led to his eventual failure to return to Congress, and Crockett's declaration that "they could all go to hell, he would go to Texas".

Crockett tells the story in the film as a way of debunking part of the myth that had grown up about his exploits.

"After their rejection of the first call to surrender, they were no longer given the option. Santa Ana decreed that no quarter be given."

Actually, that is simply not true. Ordering no quarter be given is different than enforcing the decree. Members of the Alamo garrison that chose to leave could have done so up until the night of the actual assualt. Until then, Santa Anna's siege was pretty porous, allowing men both in and out.

At least six members of the garrison left at different points in the siege, mostly as messengers. But at least one (Louis Rose) hopped over the wall during the night and walked away.

Had they wanted to -- or had Travis ordered it -- the garrison could have successfully slipped away. Over the wall at intervals, over the space of three nights would have worked best. Individuals could have emulated Louis Rose -- if they wanted to. Departure would have been even easier for individuals than for the entire garrison, because there would have been less chance of detection.

One of the biggest lies that non-Texans throw at Texans is that "If there had been a back door to the Alamo, there never would have been a Texas." The back door was there -- and open. The garrison -- with one exception (Rose) -- chose to stand and fight, knowing that they would die in doing so. *That* is the remarkable aspect of the Alamo.

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.

I got to this part and then quit. Crockett really was man enough to admit he didn't care for his role in the Creek War and did not think hightly of the conflict. This stance was an honorable one and a brave one at the time. It doesn't reflect poorly on Crockett at all.

The failure of Master and Commander at the box office is an indicator of where the movie-going public (apparently 14-25 year olds) stands on historical epics. With M & C, we had Russell Crowe, and a best-selling book series as the source for the movie, and largely positive reviews, and M & C still flopped.

Master and Commander also extolls the values which makes Western civilization great, but was so outstanding that the critics forgot to condemn it (I suspect it didn't do as well as it should have because of the LotR hype which has a lot of potential viewers saving their tickets for the third installment of that trilogy). In Aubrey, you have a man who is willing to do what it takes to defend Western civilization; in Mauritus, you have a man who personifies what makes Western civilization worth defending.

Master and Commander was a terrific film (IMHO, better than Return of the King) and I will buy the DVD when it is released on Tuesday. I think the problem is that the over-25 crowd has simply gotten out of the habit of going to the movies, except when accompanying their children. They normally wait for the video/DVD, cable or even free network tv. One exception is The Passion, which attracted many viewers who rarely, if ever, go to the theatres.

It's a closed circle: For the most part, the studios create brainless entertainment for the very young, which doesn't interest adults. The adults have lost the habit of attending the movies, so when the studios do create something intelligent, such as Master and Commander, they shrug their shoulders and figure they'll wait until the DVD is released. So the film fails, which further encourages the studios to only cater to the kids.

I like historical epics and nowadays almost all of them are created for TV.

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.