ANNIVERSARY: The Alamo (2004)

                        It is the anniversary of the fall of the Alamo in 1836.  The best movie on the subject is 2004’s “The Alamo”.  It was originally supposed to be a Ron Howard project starring Russell Crowe, but Howard insisted on a budget that was deemed too high.  He and Crowe dropped out and John Lee Hancock was chosen to direct.  Dennis Quaid replaced Crowe.  Hancock brought the film in at $107 million ($88,000 under his budget).  The movie was filmed mostly on a ranch near Austin.  It was the largest set ever build in North America up until that time.  It took a month to film the last battle.  The movie marked the debut of Patrick Wilson.  Billy Bob Thornton considers the experience to have been one of his favorites.  He learned to play the fiddle for his role.

                  The movie opens with the claim that, although a mission, the Alamo had been used as a fort over time to defend against “marauding Indians, rebels, and a succession of conquering armies.”  A bit of a stretch and unnecessary for one of the most famous buildings in American History.  Unlike the more famous 1964 version, this movie uses Sam Houston (Quaid) as the connecting arc.  He recruits Davy Crockett (Thornton) for Texas independence.  William Travis (Wilson) abandons his family to join.  When he arrives at the Alamo, he butts heads with Jim Bowie (Jason Patric).  They hate each other, but agree to share command.  Meanwhile, the pompous Santa Anna is marching north with an army to put down the rebellion.  When he arrives, the Mexican dictator raises a flag signaling no prisoners and has his band play “De Guello” to aurally back up his no quarter policy.  The siege begins with artillery bombardment and culminates with the grand assault you paid admission for.  One month of shooting for several minutes of combat porn, time well spent.  Unlike the original, this one gives us a happy ending with the Battle of San Jacinto.  You don’t need a spoiler alert for the outcome of the Alamo, but I won’t tell you what happens when Sam Houston faces Santa Anna.

                  “The Alamo” was a big box office bomb, but probably deserved better.  It will definitely be remembered less fondly than the John Wayne version.  The 1964 movie was more a reenactment of the legend, which is what most people (especially the target audience of Texans wanted).   This version, being the version for the 21^st Century, has more fidelity to the truth.  The acting is more true to the characters, but this means the trio of Travis, Bowie, and Crockett have less charisma than the Harvey, Whitmark, and Wayne characters.  In this movie, Travis is realistically a jerk.  Bowie is dying from consumption and tortured by the loss of his wife.  Crockett is the celebrity who has to live up to his legend.  He’s more morose than macho.  Wilson, Patric, and Thornton give constrained, effective performances.  They leave the scene-chewing to Quaid. 

      The big budget may have been a financial mistake, but it shows on screen. The set is outstanding, including the local town. It is a more accurate recreation than in the original movie. The pageantry is impressive with a large number of extras (although the Mexicans are a bit too well-fed). No CGIs soldiers for the big battle. The movie is much more balanced than the original when it comes to giving the Mexican side. It depicts the command decisions, which highlight the overconfidence of Santa Anna.  His soldiers are shown in a sympathetic light.  Travis’ and Bowie’s slaves are prominent with one of them taking the opportunity to evacuate and the other staying with his master.  In a nod to sexism, the one major female character (Susanna Dickinson) was left mostly on the cutting room floor.  The movie underwent substantial cuts to pare it down to around two hours.  Clearly, the siege needed more time.

     The 2004 version’s big advantage is in accuracy. It is not perfect, but it definitely is closer to the truth. It is obvious the screenwriters consciously tried to avoid the myth. The climactic battle is outstanding. It is one of the best I have seen. It’s a shame few people have seen it.  Any teacher covering the siege would do well to show just that part in class. The fact that the assault takes place pre-dawn shows that often the best entertainment comes from sticking to the historical facts. I believe it also shows that modern movies have an advantage in technology. Wayne probably could not have shot the battle effectively in darkness.  (However, there is not a chance in Hell that he would have eschewed daylight anyway.) The deaths of the big three are laudably accurate with Crockett being executed as the sole survivor.  Crockett’s death may come as a surprise, but there is evidence that he was taken captive and executed (although not by himself.)

    2004 is not as entertaining as 1964. The attempts to balance the dry historical facts with Hollywood moments come across as hokum. For instance, Crockett accompanies the Mexican band playing “De Guello” on his fiddle which awes the Mexicans into not bombarding them that night. Wait, what? Also, let’s face it. Billy Bob Thornton is not John Wayne and Jason Patric is no Richard Widmark. As a history lesson it is worth the watch and it does not try to replicate the vibe of the original.  It carves its own path and would not be a bad watch on a day like this.

GRADE  =  B-