Among the more filmed moments of American history is the Battle of the Alamo. To those who don’t know the story, Mexico, trying to popular their largely unsettled northern territories, invited Americans to depart the United States and come to Texas. Naturally, letting thousands of Protestants, many with their own unique beliefs of what a society should be, flood into a Catholic held land caused many social problems. I can’t claim to understand the dizzying Mexican political scene of the 19th Century, which was constantly shifting and saw frequent revolts and revolutions. However, the United States best remembers the Texas Revolution of 1836, which featured the legendary last stand of under 200 men at the Alamo in San Antonio. With no option for surrender, they fought to the last man and inflicted over thrice their number in Mexican casualties.
If I include Disney’s Davy Crockett series, I’ve seen only three of the Alamo adaptations. I considered trying a new one, but decided to rewatch the last of them, the 2004 effort directed by John Lee Hancock and produced by one of Disney’s many production companies. The movie was a big bomb. While I can see how it might not connect with audiences, I think the cause was the historical debate about the event that was happening. There was some revision going on, some of it well-researched and credible. I remember people in right-wing media and in my social circles thinking the movie was going to be a left-wing retelling that would paint the Alamo defenders in a negative light or worse vilify them. Actually, while the movie gets rid of some of the admittedly ludicrous glorification (I’ll discuss a couple aspects of this) it still paints the Texan Revolution in a fairly positive light. In fact it removes a couple facts that would undercut the heroism. On the other hand, production issues led many people to decide it was a bad movie before it even came out, so that didn't help.
