Posted on 05/02/2003 10:17:01 AM PDT by Gladwin
Heroes. Every nation, in every time, seems to need them. Some heroes who often were regarded harshly in their lifetime – e.g., George Washington – gained luster in later years. Others, hailed in their day, have fared less well with the passage of time.
Cases in point: William F. "Buffalo Bill" Cody, whom history reviles for his part in stripping our western plains of bison. U.S. Grant betrayed a weakness for whiskey, Charles A. Lindbergh for the appeal of Naziism.
One hero whose halo remained fairly fixed has been Davy Crockett, the 19th century frontiersman who's revered among 189 brave souls lost at the Alamo nearly two centuries ago. Crockett's life and times became the stuff of legend, nurtured in gung-ho style by John Wayne and TV's onetime serial star, Fess Parker.
Who can forget the jingle "Davy, Davy Crockett, king of the wild frontier?" Or the man's perceived martyrdom in the cause of freedom.
But soon the bloom may be off even this rose. The Walt Disney Co. is filming a new version of the Alamo story. It promises to be radically different from all that have gone before – and doubtless displeasing to Daughters of the Republic of Texas, whose own depiction of this event dominates the historic shrine in downtown San Antonio.
"People worldwide remember the Alamo as a heroic struggle against overwhelming odds," the Daughters' guide there proclaims, " A place where men made the ultimate sacrifice for freedom. The Alamo remains hallowed ground, the shrine of Texas liberty."
Correct, sure enough, about the overwhelming odds – fewer than 200 Texas rebels defending the place against a 5,000-man Mexican army. But Disney's planned Christmas release is expected to raise questions about the nature of that "sacrifice for freedom."
Though himself a Texan, Producer John Lee Hancock intends asking, whose freedom? Nowhere in the Alamo's proffered literature would a tourist learn that some of its defenders on that fateful March day in 1836 may have fought for the right to own slaves – a practice then, as now, prohibited in Mexico.
But a chief concern for Daughters of the Texas Republic is what Disney's version may do to the reputation of Col. Crockett. Tentative scripts have weighed several different theories concerning the hero's death. In one of these, Crockett seeks to surrender the garrison by pretending to grovel before Mexican Gen. Antonio López de Santa Anna.
Will they dare outrage the Daughters with such revisionism as this? "I don't like the word 'surrender,' " warned Kathleen Milan Carter, who chairs the organization's Alamo Committee.
If the Daughters hoped Disney would call the whole thing off, it's too late for that. The studio has invested a considerable amount in erecting a 40-acre set at Dripping Springs, southwest of Austin. Recreated there are the original Alamo mission and parts of San Antonio itself as a bustling town of 4,000 (and named Bexar) at the time of the historic battle.
Legend's Crockett has remained unsullied through earlier stage, film and TV ventures depicting him as a nationalistic and assuredly non-groveling warrior. In contrast to John Wayne's Crockett of 1960 (Wayne's "Alamo" earned seven Academy Award nominations) Disney will give us a frightened wanderer in the person of one Billy Bob Thornton. Crockett becomes a quasi-mental case striving to live up to his reputation for deeds perhaps never performed.
Oh my. And that's not all. Daughters of the Texas Republic could be equally offended by the studio's portrayal of their revered Sam Houston as a notoriously heavy drinker. And some will doubtless quibble over the insertion of a character named Juan Seguin. Although no one by that name is listed among the real-life Alamo defenders, Juan Seguin in the Disney script doesn't give a darn for Texas independence (horrors!) but longs to live under a Mexican democratic constitution.
In addition to what might seem a commendable commitment to historic truth, there is a sound commercial reason for casting Crockett and, indeed, the Alamo story itself in – er, a fresh light. Disney knows that budget-busting epics like this cannot "cut the nut" in U.S. distribution alone. If appealing to foreign audiences in Mexico and elsewhere, it is no longer smart to present major historical events as seen through American eyes alone.
A throwback, this, to Hollywood's recent "Pearl Harbor," in which the version shown in Japan deleted the term "Japs," as well as Admiral Halsey's reference to them as "bastards."
Hmmm. And just how will our war in Iraq be sweetened for film-goers among the minarets?
I figure he passed 40,000 RPM years ago.
Amen. Anyone who knows about Texas historians knows better than to mess with Texas history. I'm a DRT and you can bet lots of folks here will boycott the movie if it is not accurate.
I seem to recall that there was some kerfuffle over the medal, something like Lindbergh was snookered into accepting it, but I can't find my Lindbergh biography so I can't say for certain.
As for the comments you quote, it's only in retrospect that they look foolish or sinister. In 1938, they were reasonable enough.
Just the other night I was at a singer/songwriter competition in Dallas. The winner was an obvious, exuberant, funny as hell conservative from Oklahoma named Joe Tidwell who, in an admitted and shameles act of pandering, sang a stirring song about the Alamo. Unfortunately I can't find the lyrics or anything about Tidwell on the net.
Anyway, he made a point, both in his introduction and in the song itself, of the fact that ALL of those in the Alamo fought under the Mexican flag of the Constitution of 1824, representing the Republic destroyed by the vicious and puffed up dictator Santa Anna. He also took a swipe at the producers of this film, making a joke (that I didn't quite catch, so maybe it wasn't a joke) about the World Socialist Party being involved.
Billy Bob Thornton?!??
Chamberlain was generally seen, at the time, to have done the right thing.
T'would make sense. And if anyone's got the connections to find out, t'would be you. (Thou goest, Lady.)
The rest of this sounds like utter nonsense. As to slavery being banned in Mexico, I would argue that with the Supreme Leader for Life, El Presidente, The Magnificent Generalissimo Santa Ana, you have a nation of slaves. Such seems true for every nation ruled by a dictating butcher.
I didn't know Buchanan could fly a plane.
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.