"The Movie"

[Greg Carter]

Ok. Nobody else has so I will bite- Did you see "The Alamo"? What did you think?

My synopsis- clothing details beat the crap out of the John Wayne version and Fess Parker, but much was left to be desired.

San Jacinto happened in the middle of the afternoon apparently.

David Crockett surrendered alone, not with several of his men.

Those exceptions noted, I thought the film was pretty darned good!

GMC

[Greg Carter]

Forgot one thing- after watching the movie- I am seriously thinking of sending back my gun to John Zimmerman, because it is painfully obvious that EVERY Texian that didn't bring a Kentucky rifle was in fact armed with a Napoleonic-era "Corrige An Neuf" musket, straight out of the box, straight from Dixie Gun Works.

Still- better than I expected by a darned sight!

GMC

[Robert Braun]

I agree. Saw it twice on opening weekend. Unfortunately, there were exactly 31 people in the theater duing the 6:30 p.m. showing on April 9, and exactly 43 people for the 3:35 p.m. showing on the 10th.

FORTES
1. Greg nailed it-- the costuming was heads and shoulders better than "Waynano," and clearly superior to most pre-Civil War presentations;

2. The set was quite good, although both the Alamo and the distance from San Antonio seemed very... compressed.

3. While I don't care for Billy Bob Thornton, he DID render a believeable, almost charming, presentation of David C.

4. The actor playing Santa Anna was among the best in the move, IMHO ;

5. The Mexican soldados were very good. Drill seemed to be MUCh better than that seen at the average, garden-variety reenactment... certainly the average garden-variety movie. I wanted to see more camp scenes on the Mexican side... more vignettes for the soldado perspective.

FOIBLES
1. The smashed pair of post Civil War glasses seen in the opening shots made me most uneasy about the film.. at first. In the opening scene of San Antonio de Bejar, WHAT was that lady sweeping? The dirt in the dirt street??

2. The horrible pre-fab "fake" log buildings at Gonzales or where-ever it was, were... well... horrible.

3. Apparently, there were only three people at the Alamo... a sweaty, mumbling Bowie, a stuffy and overly bellicouse Travis; and a forever hatless Crockett.

4. Did Mrs. Dickinson EVER put that kid down? Once?

5. Quaid just stank (no surprise there) and the battle at San Jacinto was worse than 9/10s of the "battle reenactments" I have seen. The battle was SO well documented, how could they muck it up? And why did we have to butt-stroke Gen. Castrillon (he was shot by multiple Texian musket balls)?? Peggy Lake was loaded with all of TWELVE soldados? The closing scenes ran on like the production simply ran out of interest, creativity, accuracy, and gas... and literally bumped and sputtered to a frankly boring conclusion.

Greg... when you are having a particularly rough day at work, come on up to "Canada"--- I picked up a CD on the "Alamo" which contains a 2003 "reenactment" of the "Battle of Bejar" by the SALHA. I guarantee it will lift your spirits.

ADIOS... "Bejar" Bob.

[Robert Braun]

As I said, there was 31 people in a "stadium seating" theater during the opening day showing I attended...

Americans to Disney: Forget 'The Alamo'
$100 million tale earns only $9.2 million in opening weekend.

Posted: April 12, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com

The rallying cry of "Remember the Alamo" is suddenly "Forget 'The Alamo'" – at least when it comes to the new Disney film which took in a meager $9.2. million in its opening weekend.

"I'm shocked, quite honestly, at the number," Chuck Viane, Disney's head of distribution, told USA Today. "If I could only figure out what went wrong, you'd never let it happen again. The movie deserved better than it did."
The $100 million epic, which recounts the last stand of American heroes including Davy Crockett and Jim Bowie, finished in third place behind a resurrected "Passion of the Christ" and "Hellboy."

The poor box-office showing of "The Alamo" comes on the heels of a WorldNetDaily report last week focusing on allegations the film is filled with revisionist history and political correctness.

"The movie reads more like a Disney fairy tale and promotes a politically correct revisionist agenda aimed at destroying a traditional American hero," said B. Forrest Clayton, a visiting fellow with Freedom Alliance, a pro-military nonprofit organization.

Clayton says he obtained a screenplay of the film in advance and found it to be "full of inaccuracies." He says Davy Crockett is portrayed as a "frightened wanderer" who wanted to escape "over the wall" in the dark of night during the historic battle, but felt paralyzed and trapped by his own undeserved heroic reputation.

The fact that the film tanked upon debut "is noteworthy and ill-timed because Disney and its chief executive officer, Michael Eisner, are under heavy pressure to meet or exceed the company's financial targets in the wake of a shareholder revolt," according to Dow Jones Newswires. "At Disney's recent annual meeting, 43% of the shares voted opposed Mr. Eisner's re-election to the board. The board stripped Mr. Eisner of his chairman title as a result, and his ability to hang on as chief executive is now tied closely to Disney's performance in coming months."

[Robert Braun]

Davy Crockett, Libertarian
The king of the wild frontier was also a champion of limited government.

Wall Street Journal
Monday, April 12, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT

The new Disney film "The Alamo" has revived interest in Davy Crockett, the frontiersman-turned-celebrity who then entered politics and thus became an early American version of Arnold Schwarzenegger before he died fighting Santa Anna's legions in 1836.

Crockett is the main hero in the new film, but he also comes in for some debunking. Billy Bob Thornton plays Crockett as neither a homespun hero (Fess Parker's TV portrayal) or a laconic he-man (John Wayne's take on the legend in a 1960 film). Instead, he appears as a rejected candidate and relentless self-promoter who seeks a fresh start running for office in a new, independent Texas.

The revisionist historian Jeff Long has gone further and declared that the Crockett who died at the Alamo was an "aging, semiliterate squatter of average talent" who had "accomplished nothing" in his six years in Congress. That's much too harsh. David Crockett (he shunned his nickname) was an American archetype--the self-made man who always championed the commoner. "He knew instinctively the right combination of backwoods person and gentleman politician to adopt," says historian William C. Davis. His success inspired Abraham Lincoln in his rise from backwoods lawyer to the White House, and his celebrity attracted the notice of Alexis de Tocqueville.

In Congress he championed the rights of squatters, poor settlers who claimed and built on undeveloped Western land but were barred from buying it if they didn't already own property. In 1830, he broke with President Andrew Jackson and opposed his Indian Removal Act because it uprooted 60,000 members of peaceful tribes and brutally forced them across the Mississippi River. "Several of my colleagues got around me, and told me how well they loved me, and that I was ruining myself," Crockett recounted in his autobiography. "I told them it was a wicked, unjust measure, and that I should go against it, let the cost to myself be what it might."

Indeed, his growing opposition to what he considered the headstrong policies of "King Andrew the First," cost him dearly. President Jackson, a fellow Tennesseean, urged Crockett's constituents to "not disgrace themselves" by re-electing him. Jackson's allies crafted a blatant gerrymander to drive Crockett from office, but he nonetheless survived. Then in 1834 he stumbled badly when he took time away from a congressional session to promote his book in a three-week tour of the Northeast. He lost his re-election bid, 51% to 49%, to a war hero with a wooden leg. He then famously told his constituents, "You may all go to hell, and I will go to Texas." He did just that and his death the next year at the Alamo ensured his place among America's heroes.

Almost forgotten in the mystique of his legend is Crockett's commitment to the principles of limited government. An 1884 biography of Crockett by Edward Sylvester Ellis published an account of a speech Crockett gave on his views on government called "Not Yours to Give." Rep. Ron Paul, a Republican of libertarian bent, whose district includes some of the historic sites in the battle for Texas independence, recommends it as a guide for how elected officials should interpret the Constitution. Crockett's heroism at the Alamo is matched by the good common sense that he exhibits in this excerpt from the Ellis book:

One day in the House, a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support. The speaker was just about to put the question when Rep. David Crockett arose:
"Mr. Speaker--I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the suffering of the living, if there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living.

"I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has not the power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member on this floor knows it. We have the right as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right to appropriate a dollar of the public money. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week's pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks."

Later, when asked by a friend why he had opposed the appropriation, Crockett said: "Several years ago, I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some members of Congress when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. In spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made houseless. . . . The weather was very cold, and when I saw so many children suffering, I felt that something ought to be done. A bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We rushed it through.

"The next summer, when riding one day in a part of my district. I saw a man in a field plowing. I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but rather coldly.

" 'You are Colonel Crockett. I shall not vote for you again.' "

"I begged him tell me what was the matter."

"'Well Colonel, you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution or that you are wanting in the honesty and firmness to be guided by it. You voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by fire in Georgetown.

" 'Certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give $20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing treasury,' I replied."

"'It is not the amount, Colonel, it is the principle. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be entrusted to man. . . . You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution.'

" 'You have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people.'

"Now, sir," concluded Crockett, "you know why I made that speech yesterday. . . . You remember that I proposed to give a week's pay. There are in that House many very wealthy men--men who think nothing of spending a week's pay, or a dozen of them, for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people."

Following his death at the Alamo, the voters of Tennessee came to regret their rejection of David Crockett. Indeed, they elected his son, John Wesley Crockett, to his old congressional seat in the very next election. His father's life story is not just one of sacrifice on the battlefield of the Alamo but also one of courage and principle in the political arena.

[dogcop]

Thanks to your recomendations, I will be taking my father and son to the movie Friday. It's funny that none of the critics listed this as a good movie let alone the detail to the actual event.
Thank you gents!
Rich Ferguson

[Greg Carter]

Well, reviews aside, it did seem as though the ending was particularly drawn out without any really interesting moments. It was good to see that General Houston was not only younger than my Dad but also that he was clairvoyant under pressure!

As for that cd, I am game for that anytime Bob! A chance to the SALHA in action, the MOST AUTHENTIC 1830's militia group in the United States! HOLY GEEZ I might have to get drunk before I watch just so I don't get jealous! Speaking of the SALHA I did see their bearded Mexican artilleryman in the movie at one point!

One other point I didn't consider until I was skimming through Texian Iliad after the movie was that they totally ignored Goliad. Totally. Another point was that just like the Fess Parker movie, the Alamo siege was again only about 3 days long, not 13. Oh well. I bought the soundtrack and I will be buying the DVD as well.

Semi-illiterate Squatter of Average Talent Moc

[Robert Braun]

Greg said:

Well, reviews aside, it did seem as though the ending was particularly drawn out without any really interesting moments. It was good to see that General Houston was not only younger than my Dad but also that he was clairvoyant under pressure!

As for that cd, I am game for that anytime Bob! A chance to the SALHA in action, the MOST AUTHENTIC 1830's militia group in the United States! HOLY GEEZ I might have to get drunk before I watch just so I don't get jealous! Speaking of the SALHA I did see their bearded Mexican artilleryman in the movie at one point!

One other point I didn't consider until I was skimming through Texian Iliad after the movie was that they totally ignored Goliad. Totally. Another point was that just like the Fess Parker movie, the Alamo siege was again only about 3 days long, not 13. Oh well. I bought the soundtrack and I will be buying the DVD as well.

Semi-illiterate Squatter of Average Talent Moc

In other news... I LOVE it when movies have the primary source documentation on their production tables--- and then manage to get it wrong anyway! "Glory" was a preeminant example of the arrogance of directors who insist on diverging from the historical record while at the same time claiming their movie is the most historically accurate rendition since the dawn of paper clips.

"Alamo" is not far behind...

PROOF: Billy Bob Thorton's discussion of the potato cellar, discovered after numerous Indians were burned up in a structure during an American attack on a Creek settlement during the War of 1812. Remember BBT's line: "We could hear them screaming for their gods."

Remember?

Consulting Crockett's 1834 A Narrative of the Life of David Crockett and in direct conjunction with the potato cellar episode we read:

So sullen is the Indian, when his dander is up, that he had sooner die than make a noise, or ask for quarters [sic].

The same obvious errors of historical fact were made elsewhere. Here are a few:

• The 4:30 a.m. attack at San Jacinto, portayed in the movie (as you pointed out) in the "middle of the afternoon";
  
• BBT's purely fictional shooting of Santa Anna's eppaulette, then in later scenes he's shown blasting away without aiming;
  
• Travis lasting into the SECOND wave of soldado attackers, before being killed;
  
• The rockets... were they signal rockets or Congrieve rockets (which the rocket battery would suggest)? If they were the latter, Congrieve rockets have explosive warheards. In the movie, all the rockets did was I guess set fire to thatched roofs. Gee... that made them worth dragging 300 miles to San Antonio!
  
• How many times did you ever see someone load a musket or rifle?
  
• In the movie, we see Gen. Castrillion implores Santa Anna to wait for the "twelve pounders" to reduce the Alamo walls prior to a full-scale attack. The clear implication is that the Mexican Army has no cannon heavier than twelve pounders, and certainly no twelve pounders yet on the field. So what was the size shot that the movie Travis picked up and told the cannon crew to load in the Alamo's EIGHTEEN POUNDER?
  

It still is a worthwhile movie. I want to see it again...

Bob.

[gorentz]

I doubt I'll go see the movie. I tend to stay away from fiction, especially fiction that's based on actual events. This means I seldom do historical novels, movies, or newspapers.

I'm still finding that I need to clear my mind of mistaken ideas put there by Alan Eckert's book about the BHW (although I must give that book credit for getting me interested in the topic in the first place, and for introducing me to some of the locations).

But I thought I'd toss out a connection between the Black Hawk War and the Alamo. At the time of the BHW, the Michigan part of the stagecoach line between Detroit and Chicago was pretty much run by three operators. Soon after the Black Hawk war, all three left for for Texas, though apparently not together. At least two of them complained about business gone bad due to the war. I've seen court records to indicate that at least one of them was having financial problems. Another of them was a militia officer, and I have an agreement with a descendant of his that he gets to look at whatever I write about this man before publishing anything. He doesn't get to veto what I write, but he does get a chance to comment. (I don't remember the militia rank offhand, but it was higher than company commander.) The third had a son who was killed at the Alamo.

This third man was also a surveyor, and a few decades ago the Texas descendants got in touch with local history people in Michigan, or maybe it was vice versa, with the result that his surveying instruments are now back in Michigan and have been put on display from time to time.

So there you have it -- a connection between the Alamo and the Black Hawk war. Sort of.

John Gorentz

[gorentz]

I meant to say company captain, not company commander, even though I suppose it means the same thing.

John Gorentz

[Robert Braun]

gorentz said:

I doubt I'll go see the movie. I tend to stay away from fiction, especially fiction that's based on actual events. This means I seldom do historical novels, movies, or newspapers.

I'm still finding that I need to clear my mind of mistaken ideas put there by Alan Eckert's book about the BHW (although I must give that book credit for getting me interested in the topic in the first place, and for introducing me to some of the locations).

But I thought I'd toss out a connection between the Black Hawk War and the Alamo. At the time of the BHW, the Michigan part of the stagecoach line between Detroit and Chicago was pretty much run by three operators. Soon after the Black Hawk war, all three left for for Texas, though apparently not together. At least two of them complained about business gone bad due to the war. I've seen court records to indicate that at least one of them was having financial problems. Another of them was a militia officer, and I have an agreement with a descendant of his that he gets to look at whatever I write about this man before publishing anything. He doesn't get to veto what I write, but he does get a chance to comment. (I don't remember the militia rank offhand, but it was higher than company commander.) The third had a son who was killed at the Alamo.

This third man was also a surveyor, and a few decades ago the Texas descendants got in touch with local history people in Michigan, or maybe it was vice versa, with the result that his surveying instruments are now back in Michigan and have been put on display from time to time.

So there you have it -- a connection between the Alamo and the Black Hawk war. Sort of.

John Gorentz

Interesting perspective. I tend to caution those who proclaim "this" work or "that" work fiction before they have actually read or viewed the work.

That being said, I have read Mr. Eckert's work regarding the BHW and regard it as an interesting fiction. Some of it laced with something approaching "fact," but a pleasant fiction none-the-less. One is not necessarily harmed if one accepts this premise at the outset, as one reads his tale.

I went to the movie expecting revisionist history as of the type and style normally spewed by Eisner's "Disney" and his blackguard subsidiaries. When it came, I was not disappointed... their ilk are like all those desiring to defile the heroes of American History-- in the end shallow and disingenuous even to the tale they attempt to weave. This is because they don't know the subject well enough to summon the very demons they need to debase the memory.

That being said, the movie is far and away better than anything Eckert could have conjoured up in his otherwise tortured prose-- at least compared to his BHW volume. Your would do yourself well to at least give the production a fair airing. To proclaim it fiction without yourself seeing it is frankly baseless.

I'll buy the popcorn...

Regards, Bob.

[gorentz]

My problem is that I have to go to lots of work to remove the false images that something like a movie puts in my head. The time spent doing that could be better spent reading.

Even if it's a movie about history that I know pretty well, the images are powerful enough that they are hard to remove. They tend to interfere with what I know.

In the case of the Alamo, I don't know the history anywhere near as well as you guys do, and I am not willing to put myself at the mercy of a moviemaker who might put false notions in my head without my knowing it. Your telling me that it's pretty accurate is worth something to me, but is the time spent at the movie going to be worth more than time I can spend reading?

I'm getting more curmudgeonly about this sort of thing as I get older. I do occasionally go to a movie with my wife -- sometimes it's worth the risk for social purposes. But when I get to be supreme dictator, I think I'll ban movies altogether.

I won't ban books, but I still am annoyed when I find a false idea rattling around in my head because Eckert put it there.

I hate to pass up the popcorn, though!

John Gorentz

[Greg Carter]

Having currently read six books so far to prepare for the Alamo anniversary reenactment (yes Bob- ONLY six!) I found it rather entertaining to go and compare notes to the film.

I don't think I will have to spend two minutes getting Billy Bob out of my popular image of Crockett.

Of course on the other hand I still respond to "does this mean what I think it do?" at every chance!

Mr. Gorentz, since I have started reenacting I have learned what I know of history. I was completely unaware of the precious details of the Alamo until a friend of mine from Wisconsin let me borrow Blood of Noble Men (available from the Alamo giftshop at www.thealamo.org for $29.95- shameless plug!) and got me good and hooked. I can almost say the same for Black Hawk texts. My meager library today consisted of one book two years ago.

Yours,

Greg "One Moc" Carter
A Texian sucker

[mpcavanaugh]

Although its about 3,000 years to early did anybody see 'Troy', I'd like to hear anybody's thoughts on it? Was I the only one not convinced by Brad Pitt's performance as the 'ultimate warrior?' Also the 10 year seige seemed to take more along the lines of say.... 6 weeks?

Mike

[gorentz]

Forget the movie. What about the book? I've been listening to an audio version of "Lone Star Nation" by H.W. Brands. Like I said before, I am not very knowledgeable about Texas history. But I've enjoyed this book a lot. I've been listening while riding and driving, and just got to the part tonight where the Alamo battle was fought. I enjoy the way the reader (Don Leslie) handles it. The book has helped me put together a few tidbits that I did know about Texas-related history, and about characters like Sam Houston and David Crockett.

Or so it seems. How about you Alamo afficionados?

John Gorentz