Many people, like myself, are interested in accuracy in historical dramas, and this leads to much debate in evaluating films done in the "epic" fashion. Should the protagonists be portrayed as heroes, villains, idealists, pragmatists, bumblers, egomaniacs? There is often room for interpretation. May I bring out The Alamo Director John Wayne himself in "The Green Berets," set in Vietnam? Were Americans more like the idealistic, well-spoken, and noble heroes in Vietnam as Wayne portrays, or were they drug-infested people who called the enemies "gooks"? The truth, as Oscar Wilde said, "is somewhere in between."
In the siege of The Alamo, however, the defining essentials are clear. I do not care whether Jim Bowie was in many ways a louse in his life before dying at the Alamo. What is relevant is his role at the Alamo. Was Davy Crockett actually captured before being killed? Again, I do not care (besides, the weight of evidence is that he was not captured).
The fact is that these two and Alamo commander Colonel William Barret Travis, along with the others who died at the Alamo, were patriots concerned with freedom for Texas. They were willing to sacrifice their own lives, knowing that they would likely be killed by a much larger force, for an ideal. I do not see any way to say anything else.
Davy Crockett is idealized in American folklore, but John Wayne as Davy confesses to a Spanish lady companion that he has not always been idealistic. Yet he is finding idealism in Texas, in events leading up to the siege. Colonel Travis (Lawrence Harvey) can be seen as nothing other than idealistic, history bears that out. Here, his accent seems like a combination of British (Harvey), New Orleans like in the movie "JFK," and Southern, but it is clearly an educated person's aristocratic drawl, like Travis in real life almost surely had. He is well dressed and groomed, a formal military man. And what the hey, Bowie (Richard Widmark) is here statuesque, like Harvey, clean-shaven, and blond, in comparison to Bowie's real-life dark-haired ruffian looks. Wayne as director draws out well the clash of egos between Travis and Bowie, and Bowie's drinking and partying excesses. But when the chips are down, when Travis draws the line to tell people they can leave if they want, Bowie stays. Has to be accurate, correct?
The cinematography is very well done: the organization and colored uniforms of the Mexican soldiers, the different areas and angles of the Alamo itself, the battlefield surrounding. The musical scores, the majestic background singing, are melodramatic and effective. There is little in terms of excess in scenes despite the film's length. Perhaps something could have been added to portray the point of view of Santa Anna and the Mexicans, but that is not done here; Santa Anna has virtually no time on the screen. The intent of Wayne was to portray the Texas point of view.
The Alamo is one of John Wayne's finest moments.
In the siege of The Alamo, however, the defining essentials are clear. I do not care whether Jim Bowie was in many ways a louse in his life before dying at the Alamo. What is relevant is his role at the Alamo. Was Davy Crockett actually captured before being killed? Again, I do not care (besides, the weight of evidence is that he was not captured).
The fact is that these two and Alamo commander Colonel William Barret Travis, along with the others who died at the Alamo, were patriots concerned with freedom for Texas. They were willing to sacrifice their own lives, knowing that they would likely be killed by a much larger force, for an ideal. I do not see any way to say anything else.
Davy Crockett is idealized in American folklore, but John Wayne as Davy confesses to a Spanish lady companion that he has not always been idealistic. Yet he is finding idealism in Texas, in events leading up to the siege. Colonel Travis (Lawrence Harvey) can be seen as nothing other than idealistic, history bears that out. Here, his accent seems like a combination of British (Harvey), New Orleans like in the movie "JFK," and Southern, but it is clearly an educated person's aristocratic drawl, like Travis in real life almost surely had. He is well dressed and groomed, a formal military man. And what the hey, Bowie (Richard Widmark) is here statuesque, like Harvey, clean-shaven, and blond, in comparison to Bowie's real-life dark-haired ruffian looks. Wayne as director draws out well the clash of egos between Travis and Bowie, and Bowie's drinking and partying excesses. But when the chips are down, when Travis draws the line to tell people they can leave if they want, Bowie stays. Has to be accurate, correct?
The cinematography is very well done: the organization and colored uniforms of the Mexican soldiers, the different areas and angles of the Alamo itself, the battlefield surrounding. The musical scores, the majestic background singing, are melodramatic and effective. There is little in terms of excess in scenes despite the film's length. Perhaps something could have been added to portray the point of view of Santa Anna and the Mexicans, but that is not done here; Santa Anna has virtually no time on the screen. The intent of Wayne was to portray the Texas point of view.
The Alamo is one of John Wayne's finest moments.