Americas 250th Birthday Cinemathon #14: The Alamo (2004)

 

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 19^th 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.

The reason I chose this version of The Alamo is that it’s by far the most accurate. For example, the battle happened at night, but it was much easier to film battle scenes in the day, so we had to wait for 2004 to get actual night time action. It looks great. The realization that all of these men are doomed to die, no matter how hard a fight they put up, is felt much more when we’ve got shadowy lighting from fires and rockets. The violence is also much more impactful, though at a PG-13 level. Earlier ideas were for a gritty R-rated film in the vein of other big historical films at the time. Absent is the moment when a good part of the defenders streamed over a seemingly uncovered part of the wall and ran for it, only to be ambushed and slaughtered by cavalry. This moment really undercuts the mythic proportions assigned to the battle, but was still excised, showing that the filmmakers still wanted a traditionally heroic last stand.

Despite the further attention to accuracy, the movie, much like John Wayne’s Alamo and other adaptations, boils down to a trio of main characters. In fact their dynamics are largely borrowed from Wayne’s movie. Colonel Bill Travis (played by James Wan’s favorite actor Patrick Wilson) is the more refined commander of the Alamo garrison who tries to run things in an official manner. The movie does, however, show us the disaster that was Travis’ real life. Heavy in debt whilst in Alabama, he abandoned his wife and child to escape the creditors and start anew in Texas. His first scene is him getting divorced. I suppose a criticism is that this doesn’t play much into his character for the rest of the film.

He has friction with Colonel Jim Bowie (Jason Patric) a rough frontiersman infamous for winning a big knife fight. Bowie and his militia disdain Travis’s attempts at leadership and show a disregard for authority in general. Bowie has a better defined personal arc in this film. As in real life he married into an aristocratic Mexican family and had pretty good relations with Mexicans in general. Thus his idea of Texan freedom, while never outright stated, has more meat to it than simply wanting more land. The movie, however, does fail to mention he was involved in slave trading on the Gulf Coast.

Left to Right: Patrick Wilson as Sam Travis, Billy Bob
Thornton as Davy Crockett, and Jason Patric as Jim Bowie

As in the Wayne movie their relationship is mediated at the start by Davy Crockett, and he’s the best part of this movie. Billy Bob Thornton’s Crockett peels away some of the mythic imagery associated with him (he barely wears a coonskin hat). In fact, his major arc is that even though he just sees himself as a regular guy who was rejected by the voters back in Tennessee, the other Texans still see him as the big legendary hero. Throughout the movie he somehow managed to live up to the legend, bolstering the defenders’ courage while remaining down to earth. Unfortunately the awesome moment where he awes the Mexicans by playing counterpoint to the deguello with his fiddle could not have happened in real life, as sound would travel too slow to harmonize for the Mexicans’ ears.

While actually playing it safe in many areas, the movie does make an attempt to bring other aspects of the defenders to the forefront. We get a more honest portrayal of the black slaves. Unlike the old faithful slaves of previous films who die with their masters, these are not too keen to die for the cause. Mexico had banned slavery (they still managed to practice it in several ways, just look up some of the things they did with captured Apaches) and a Texan victory would have ensured slavery’s survival in the territory (which it did). Travis’ slave hunkers down in a room, waiting to be freed.

I should note how the deaths of the main trio are handled in comparison to other Alamo films. Instead of dying late in the battle (and sometimes even getting some swordplay in), Travis is shot dead suddenly while leading the firing from a wall, which is very accurate. I actually think it’s a better cinematic death, as it shows how suddenly a notable life can be snuffed out. It’s also a turning point, as it’s when the Mexicans stop being cannon fodder and actually break through.

Jim Bowie’s death is wonderfully handled. As everyone knows he was too sick to get out of his bed. Most movies have Mexicans literally falling clumsily over his bed so he can kill a few with the Bowie knife. In reality he may have been too sick to do anything at all, his death only notable because he was a frontier legend. The movie makes a compromise. He dresses himself for death and fires off two pistols when the Mexicans storm in, taking down two. Realistically, however, he doesn’t get to his knife in time as the enemy simply mobs and bayonets him from a safe distance.

Crockett faces execution (he's the little kneeling figure in white). Although using the idea that Crocket was captured alive instead of dying in battle, the movie does try to make him come off as badass anyways.

The moment that generated the most controversy at the time was Crockett’s death. Everyone grew up with the image of Crockett going down swinging, killing a large number of Mexicans all by his lonesome. One Mexican source by Jose Enrique de la Pena, an anti-Santa Anna partisan, disputes this idea, saying Crockett was actually captured alive and then executed despite moral protests by some of the officers. This source, though heavily debated as to its legitimacy thanks to the author's bias, got significant attention in the press and at least made it into one History Channel documentary. The movie has Crockett captured alive, but softens the blow by having him overwhelmed and taken against his will. Crockett also gets to defy Santa Anna’s demands to grovel before getting bayoneted.

There is also more emphasis on the Tejanos, Mexicans on the Texan side. They have legitimate grievances against Santa Anna and the current central Mexican government, but have their doubts about their white allies, who seem land hungry to a fault. The most prominent of these characters is Captain Juan Seguin (Jordi Molla), who actually survives because he rushes to Sam Houston for help. Infamously, a subplot with the Dickinson family was largely cut out. As a result Almaron Dickinson (who worked with the artillery) and his wife Susanna keep showing up with barely any dialogue, instead exchanging wordless loving looks. Susanna’s actress Laura Clifton was really ticked off, because this was her chance to get attention in a major Hollywood role.

Santa Anna (on the right) with some of his officers)

I should get into the Mexican side of things. The Mexicans are often only shown as nameless adversaries, with even Santa Anna not getting screentime in some depictions. The 2004 movie rectifies this. Those hoping for a nuanced portrayal of Santa Anna as with the Texan leads will be disappointed. Played by Emilio Echevarria, the 2004 Santa Anna is a bloodthirsty tyrant who is shown brutally massacring rebels of another revolt (there were three going on at the same time) and show disregard for the lives of his men. To be fair the latter characteristic was true. The movie even has his famous line about soldiers’ lives being comparable to chickens. Counterbalancing him are a couple minor Mexican rank-and-file characters and more prominently General Manual Castrillon (Castulo Guerra). Castrillon is the moral and strategic voice of reason, but is always put down by Santa Anna.

Sam Houston (Dennis Quaid) on horseback at the Battle of San Jacinto

Finally I should mention that unlike other Alamo flicks, we actually go past the famous last stand to the Battle of San Jacinto. The concern is that this would create another third act. After all, how can you top the Alamo? The movie actually succeeds. It spends just enough time to build up tension for another battle while not dragging things further than they need to. The Battle of San Jacinto is known for having been ridiculously fast and lopsided. By showing it, director Hancock provides us with more resolution, showing why the Alamo mattered. The massacre galvanized the Texans so that when Sam Houston (Dennis Quaid with top billing) finally allowed them to cut loose, they really tore the enemy apart. Oddly, the massacre at Goliad, which was far worse in how it was conducted and how many revolutionaries were slaughtered, gets only the barest hint of a mention.

Overall, I really like this movie. I feel it does a good job with most of the characters and the battle itself is worth it. I also liked the expansion on historical topics compared to earlier depictions, with more of the Mexican view and a bit more moral gray area (but not too much that we can't get those emotions from the last stand). I actually didn’t think much of Hancock’s Alamo the first time I watched it. There seems to be a strange phenomenon with this movie where somebody thought it was okay or bad the first time, then loved it when they did a rewatch years later. It definitely doesn’t reach the top tier of war movies, but I recommend it.

Rating: 7/10