Monday, April 12, 2004
Forget The Alamo
My initial thoughts at the conclusion of The Alamo focused on how bad I thought the movie was.
The story trudged through more than two months of Texas history, without ever clearly articulating what was going on in Texas' struggle for Independence, or why the fledgling territory desired Independence in the first place. It glossed over key parts of the Texas Revolution (which did not begin with The Alamo), and it never developed any of the key characters or catalysts that led to the battle, for which the movie drew its name.
As a born-and-raised Texan, and the son of a Texas history buff (I've been told that our family has an ancestor that fought in the battle, though I haven't ever researched the claim's validity), those facts didn't necessarily bother me.
But those facts combined with weak dialogue, misplaced schmaltz, and a score that won't soon make anyone forget John Williams, the film more resembled a made-for-HBO drama than a blockbuster epic. THAT bothered me. And the fact that I sat through two hours and 17 minutes about the soul of Texas, and I never once gasped in awe, or got a single chill -- THAT more than bothered me. It disappointed me like no movie in recent memory has.
History defines The Alamo as the "Cradle of Texas Liberty." 186 brave men sacrificed their lives to stand up against a harsh dictator, in the name of freedom. That is a part of my heritage that I cherish, and as such, I would hope that director John Lee Hancock, a fellow Texan, felt the same way. If he didn't then I question why he agreed to do this picture. And if he did, then I question why he didn't show it.
Hancock's film is devoid of emotion. A few brief speeches try to inject feeling into the movie, but they fall short. Hancock seems more interested in challenging the mythology of the Alamo's defenders, than he is in accurately portraying them. And that's fine, to a degree. But the film goes out of its way to portray the garrison as a collection of bumbling fools; a backwards group of rednecks, whose sacrifice came more out of ineptitude than honor.
There's an old insult that Texas-bashers like to use. It says, "If The Alamo had a back door, then everyone in Texas would still be speaking Spanish." The truth is that back door or not, the Texan defenders could have turned tail and ran at any time. Their fate wasn;t sealed until the early hours of March 6, when Santa Anna's forces began their final assault.
Hancock doesn't tap into that bravery. Instead he shows us a teary-eyed Will Travis addressing his troops in movie history's most uninspiring solliloquy, and an absurd scene that has David Crockett -- by this time resigned to his fate, and in the midst of a moral crisis -- attempting to raise spirits by fiddling in perfect harmony with the Deguello (Mexico's symbolic drum-and-bugle conveyence that the enemy shall receive no mercy).
By the time the final assault does come, it's unclear as to why we should care? In Hancock's defense, the battle scene itself was well done. The actors -- who, in fairness, did a great job throughout the film, despite getting stuck with a mediocre script -- re-created the battle much better than in previous Alamo depictions, based on what we know of its details.
Unfortunately what follows serves as possibly the film's lowest point -- a comical (unintentionally so, I hope) scene in which Crockett, the garrison's sole survivor, calls for Santa Anna's surrender. The dictator refuses and the scene fades away with Crockett screaming as four bayonette-equipped Mexicans charge to finish his execution. Then the film moves directly into the cat-and-mouse game that Sam Houston played to trap Santa Anna in the Texans' decisive San Jacinto victory. But once again, Hancock glosses over details, opting for a quick battle scene that concluded with a text overlay.
I won't pretend that my bias didn't preclude me from enjoying this film as much as some others may. And I'll admit that it wasn't as bad as my initial reaction suggested. It did have good qualities, namely the actros' performances, and a quality comination of set design and cinematography.
But I entered the theater hoping for Saving Private Ryan, or Braveheart, or even We Were Soldiers. Instead, I got Windtalkers, and that might be more than Hancock deserves.
I'll give it a generous 5/10.
|
The story trudged through more than two months of Texas history, without ever clearly articulating what was going on in Texas' struggle for Independence, or why the fledgling territory desired Independence in the first place. It glossed over key parts of the Texas Revolution (which did not begin with The Alamo), and it never developed any of the key characters or catalysts that led to the battle, for which the movie drew its name.
As a born-and-raised Texan, and the son of a Texas history buff (I've been told that our family has an ancestor that fought in the battle, though I haven't ever researched the claim's validity), those facts didn't necessarily bother me.
But those facts combined with weak dialogue, misplaced schmaltz, and a score that won't soon make anyone forget John Williams, the film more resembled a made-for-HBO drama than a blockbuster epic. THAT bothered me. And the fact that I sat through two hours and 17 minutes about the soul of Texas, and I never once gasped in awe, or got a single chill -- THAT more than bothered me. It disappointed me like no movie in recent memory has.
History defines The Alamo as the "Cradle of Texas Liberty." 186 brave men sacrificed their lives to stand up against a harsh dictator, in the name of freedom. That is a part of my heritage that I cherish, and as such, I would hope that director John Lee Hancock, a fellow Texan, felt the same way. If he didn't then I question why he agreed to do this picture. And if he did, then I question why he didn't show it.
Hancock's film is devoid of emotion. A few brief speeches try to inject feeling into the movie, but they fall short. Hancock seems more interested in challenging the mythology of the Alamo's defenders, than he is in accurately portraying them. And that's fine, to a degree. But the film goes out of its way to portray the garrison as a collection of bumbling fools; a backwards group of rednecks, whose sacrifice came more out of ineptitude than honor.
There's an old insult that Texas-bashers like to use. It says, "If The Alamo had a back door, then everyone in Texas would still be speaking Spanish." The truth is that back door or not, the Texan defenders could have turned tail and ran at any time. Their fate wasn;t sealed until the early hours of March 6, when Santa Anna's forces began their final assault.
Hancock doesn't tap into that bravery. Instead he shows us a teary-eyed Will Travis addressing his troops in movie history's most uninspiring solliloquy, and an absurd scene that has David Crockett -- by this time resigned to his fate, and in the midst of a moral crisis -- attempting to raise spirits by fiddling in perfect harmony with the Deguello (Mexico's symbolic drum-and-bugle conveyence that the enemy shall receive no mercy).
By the time the final assault does come, it's unclear as to why we should care? In Hancock's defense, the battle scene itself was well done. The actors -- who, in fairness, did a great job throughout the film, despite getting stuck with a mediocre script -- re-created the battle much better than in previous Alamo depictions, based on what we know of its details.
Unfortunately what follows serves as possibly the film's lowest point -- a comical (unintentionally so, I hope) scene in which Crockett, the garrison's sole survivor, calls for Santa Anna's surrender. The dictator refuses and the scene fades away with Crockett screaming as four bayonette-equipped Mexicans charge to finish his execution. Then the film moves directly into the cat-and-mouse game that Sam Houston played to trap Santa Anna in the Texans' decisive San Jacinto victory. But once again, Hancock glosses over details, opting for a quick battle scene that concluded with a text overlay.
I won't pretend that my bias didn't preclude me from enjoying this film as much as some others may. And I'll admit that it wasn't as bad as my initial reaction suggested. It did have good qualities, namely the actros' performances, and a quality comination of set design and cinematography.
But I entered the theater hoping for Saving Private Ryan, or Braveheart, or even We Were Soldiers. Instead, I got Windtalkers, and that might be more than Hancock deserves.
I'll give it a generous 5/10.
Longhorn Sites
Astros Sites