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.

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.

Thornton is a lewd bastard but he is sure a good actor. He is quite good as Crockett. As dar as the story of the indian massacre is concerned, it is true, and Crockett lost his seat in Congress because he bucked that old pirate Andy Jackson on the Cherokee question. As far as the land-hunger was concerned, every westerner felt the same way. But the Anglo-setttled were brought in because neither Spanish nor the Mexicans could defeat the Comanches, and the "Texians" were suppose to act as a buffer between the Mexican colonies and the Comanche. The Comanches have to have been the meanest indians God every created, because not even the Texians could do more than fight them to a standstill. It took an American general as mean as any Comanche, Phil Sherman, to defeat them.

There is one reason and one reason only that I will not pay to see this movie: Crockett did NOT surrender at the Alamo. The diary has been proven a forgery. Susanna Dickinson and Joe the Slave both reported seeing his body lying at the exact spot he was assigned to defend. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Santa Ana attempted to use the flag of the New Orleans Grays as proof the insurrection was the work of the U.S. If he could have captured Crockett and executed him later he could have "claimed" that Crockett confessed to working for Jackson. Santa Ana lived to be 84 years old and spoke of the Alamo often. He never claimed that Crockett surrendered. To put that crap in the movie is to me, a Texan, unforgivable. Add to the fact that my wife is a direct descendent of Crockett.

Well, the movie makes Crockettt look pretty damned good. He not only nearly shot Santa Annas head off, he geets to mock him to his face. But, as far as the facts are concerned, it seems unlikely that the Mexican soliders were in any mood to take prisoners that night. They were in a blood fury like the Texians at San Jacinto

'Hidalgo', another disney bomb they tried to pass off as 'based on a true story' (it wasn't) is almost as bad as 'the alamo' in the box office department. Both 100 million dollar production budgets, marketing budgets of $20 to $35 million - and they're not even recouping their production costs.

Is it wrong to feel good when disney tanks???

Crockett is not shown "surrenduring" in the new Alamo film. He is shown with 4 or 5 others as the last Texans standing. The film fades out as they make their last stand. At first, the viewer assumes that's it (a la Fess Parker's Davy Crockett). A couple of scenes later, Crockett is revealed as having been captured (if you look closely, you will see the bound and dead bodies of the other guys who were captured with him).

As an armchair historian, I have read the many accounts of how Crockett may have died. The De La Pena diary has not been satisfactorily proved IMO as a fake. I think any of the plausible accounts of Crockett's death should be taken seriously, and a film-maker gets to choose only one. A writer can include an appendix recounting the various versions (and most Alamo histories do). If you notice, in the movie, Crocket is killed in the area where Mrs Dickinson described seeing Crockett's "mutilated body". She only saw his body, remember-she did not see him go down.

One thing we do know-Crockett did not blow the powder magazine (and himself) up as was depicted in John Wayne's epic. I don't see any Texans complaining about the innacuracy of that.

Funny you should mention Indians.

Just the other day, I was talking to a friend who portrayed a certain Mexican officer in the movie, "The Alamo".

Honest!! I really do know this guy. NICE man, really.

Anyway, he said that Disney also cut the parts from the film about the Cherokee Indians serving with the Texicans and quite a lot about the camplife of the Mexicans.

I have not seen the film, but I plan too. I have been a little under the weather of late and that is why I have not seen it as yet. I cannot stand Touchstone but I do want to see my friend in the film.

None of America was American soil until it was either bought or won in a war...Your point isn't very substantial. There was a statehood movement of enough substance that the Mexican army was defeated and Texas did become part of the US. I mean based on your logic we all overlook the fact that the Adams boys were sitting on British soil while deciding on how to engage in revolution...not real meaningful is it?

Actually, Crockett lost his seat in Congress partly because he opposed Jackson's removal of the Indians from their lands (the Trail of Tears is still remembered here in Oklahoma)...

However, one doubts he would have said that, since he was an old Indian fighter. He probably would have said "you think Santa Anna is bad? Well what about the way the Indians treated their prisoners?

Yup, in the Indian wars, the settlers killed and scalped Indians, but the Indians tortured their prisoners to death...

But if it was a good movie, then why did it bomb?

According to fan sites on the Internet, it was long and boring...PC has nothing to do with it.

As for Gods and Generals, it put me to sleep...I kept waiting for humor or a good R rated scene of "vertical manuvers" to cut the boredom...

A good film must "rewrite" history to give a good story...you want history? Go to the History channel. A film needs to balance action, pathos, humor and human relationships. And you need to build it on the great themes, so that it resonates with the present

Heck, even "hellboy" has a deep theme: That a demon, conceived by the Nazis to fight for hate, if raised by decent human beings, can fight for good.

In The Alamo, they could have improved the movie by showing that even "flawed" men have such dreams, but they chose to "humanize" without showing depth...

G&G had boring, pretentious dialogue because the book, by Jeff Shaara, had boring, pretentious dialogue. Jeff Shaara tried to follow in his father's footsteps (his father, Michael Shaara, was a very good writer), but as so often the case, the son only ends up being a shadow of the father, and an embarassment, to boot. Jeff Shaara is a lousy writer, and should never have attempted to ape his father. It's as if Larry McMurtry's son wrote a sequel to "Lonesome Dove", that was equally powerful and well-written: It can't be done.

I blame the dirctor for not setting up his battle scenes more skillfully. And since the Vallley campaign made Jackson's military reputation, surely he could have suggested how Jackson's quick movements befuddled the Union's amateurs. Jackson's foot cavalry was amazing. I tried to copy their march in the flank attack at Chancellorsville, and wore myself out after a couple of miles. And many of those guys were barefoot! BTW, few of the reenactors in this movie looked much like his "lean-marchers."

Sorry, Robby, but I am more than fed up with films that "Accentuate the negative" when it comes to our country...and judging from this post, THE ALAMO certainly qualifies.

The best way to show my displeasure is not to patronize the scumbags who put out this garbage!

Travis' speech was a moving scene. I was impressed with the guy who played Travis...(Patrick?) Wilson. He and Billy Bob Thornton did a much better job than did Dennis Quaid and Jason Patric, though they certainly weren't bad.

I think what the flap over The Alamo demonstrates is that the Left doesn't have a lock on knee-jerk stupidity. I have been, and still am a reader of WND, but my opinion of Joe Farah has definitely been downgraded based on his criticism of the film, apparently without having seen it first. I guess some folks would rather see the heroes of the Alamo elevated to comic-book status, not unlike Hellboy and The Punisher, which sadly drew much, much larger audiences this weekend. Personally, I found it more inspiring to see Crockett, Travis, Bowie and Houston as regular men, who overcame their shortcomings and fears, and did what had to be done. That's real courage, not the larger than life image that Thornton's Crockett spent the entire film trying to come to grips with.

Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!

Sorry, but I didn't see the negative, and I was profoundly moved by "Travis' speech to the men," which was much more true than the old story about the line in the sand. He says you all are free to go, or you can stand with me and make them pay dearly for our lives, and know you are doing it for Texas. I would play it for the Arabs who hate us,so they will know what kind of people we really are.

I was surprised and pleased by Wilson's performance. He catches the type of man whom Travis was and how he managed to win over the rough westerners he was leading. Yankees can't distiguish between the true Southerners, like Travis from South Carolina and the Southwesterns, like Bowie, Crockett and Houston but Wilson sure does.

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.