| [BACK]
THE ALAMO by Tom McCurrie
There was a line in THE MAN WHO SHOT LIBERTY VALENCE (1962) that I will now paraphrase: when you have a choice between truth and legend, pick the legend. THE ALAMO should have heeded that advice.
(Warning: Spoilers Ahead!)
Written by Leslie Bohem, Stephen Gaghan and John Lee Hancock, and directed by Hancock, THE ALAMO purports to be the most factually accurate dramatization of the famous siege ever committed to film. Of course, it wouldn't take much to be more accurate than its immediate big-screen predecessor, 1960's THE ALAMO, which served as star John Wayne's directorial debut. Wayne loaded his version of the siege with what could charitably be called legend (and what could uncharitably be called fiction): a "first" assault by Santa Anna that was repelled, night-time commando raids on the Mexican forces, a romance between Davy Crockett and a local widow, and most importantly, a shift in time from pre-dawn to broad daylight for Santa Anna's main assault. Both incredibly overlong and annoyingly cornball, THE ALAMO '60 was a financial flop, and ended up being more noteworthy for its bizarre Oscar campaign than anything else (trade ads accused Academy voters of being nothing short of un-American if they didn't support the film).
But for all its flaws, Wayne's version of THE ALAMO is still superior to Hancock's. Why? Because the new version is so worried about being historically accurate it forgets to be entertaining. Wayne's romantic subplot and additional action may be fictional, but at least they keep our interest till the final battle. In Hancock's version, once the Mexican Army surrounds the Alamo at the half-hour mark, the Texians basically wait around until Santa Anna wipes ?em out at the Second Act Break. This gets to be fairly static -- and boring -- after awhile, something you never want for your Second Act. (There is a bit of conflict between the Texians over who's running the Alamo, but that resolves itself too abruptly to quicken the pulse.)
Following the facts gets the new ALAMO in trouble in other ways. Hancock stages Santa Anna's assault at night, as it actually happened. But this ends up being problematic because it's often difficult to SEE anything. Wayne on the other hand shot his assault during the day, captivating us with the sheer, jaw-dropping spectacle of the action (made pre-CGI with thousands of extras). Unlike Hancock's version, you can actually comprehend the ebb and flow of battle, because you can more clearly observe how it develops. And that keeps us hooked emotionally. Hurting Hancock's film further is the tyranny of the PG-13, which forces the filmmakers to trim the battle scenes into an often confusing, choppy melange.
And what purpose does it serve to have Davy Crockett survive the Alamo, even if it is more factually accurate? There are no new shocking revelations here, like Davy begging for his life. Santa Anna is willing to let Crockett live if he does so, but Crockett tells the General to take a long walk off a short hacienda instead, and the Tennessean soon becomes a target for bayonet practice. Though Crockett is portrayed as an opportunist early on, it's a foregone conclusion he's not going to beg for his life -- he as much as said so to Bowie before the battle, confessing that although he would like to run away, he's not willing to trash his reputation as the Toughest Man in the West to save his skin. Thus Crockett surviving serves no dramatic point. If Crockett showed cowardice during battle, and then refused to beg for his life as the lone survivor, then this strong "chicken-to-hero" arc would justify the scene. As it is now, it's just fact for fact's sake, not drama's, so it comes across as completely unnecessary. So what if Crockett is killed a little later than the others? He's still killed at the Alamo, isn't he? Scenes that don't push the story forward should be cut and this is one of them. That's why Wayne was smart to fudge history and have Davy meet his maker during the heat of battle with the rest of the defenders.
Exacerbating the new ALAMO's problems are the low-key performances of the leads. Billy Bob Thornton (Davy Crockett) and Jason Patric (Jim Bowie) are estimable actors, but they specialize in underplaying their parts. This might create a more "realistic" performance, but it also keeps the energy level at a low-boil, especially problematic in the Long Wait of the Second Act. Worse still, the actor who plays Lt. Col. Travis, Patrick Wilson, lacks screen charisma, and is ultimately too bland to sustain interest. (Dennis Quaid on the other hand is a fiery Sam Houston, but he's sidelined raising an army till the Third Act, so he's unable to boost the sluggish Second.)
For a larger-than-life theme (the fight for freedom against oppression) you need larger-than-life actors, and the cast of Wayne (Crockett), Richard Widmark (Bowie) and Laurence Harvey (Travis) fit the bill in the 60s version. These guys chewed the scenery so much you couldn't tear your eyes from the screen, even when very little was happening. Again, the point wasn't to make the performances "real" (after all, Harvey's Travis spoke with a British accent), but to make them electrifying enough to grab an audience -- and in that respect Wayne's movie outshines Hancock's.
Finally, for a movie that prides itself on the facts, the new ALAMO sets-up the events leading to the siege in a very clumsy fashion. Except for a few lines of dialogue, we get no explanation as to why the Texians and Mexicans are fighting, and how the Texians came to be in Mexican territory in the first place. The fact that the Texians seem to have their own form of government, but are also beholden to Mexico is also confusing, while a major event that propels the action, the Mexicans being driven from the Alamo once before, is barely mentioned. The relationships between the main characters are not established very well, either, making us struggle to figure out how well they all know each other. This keeps us at an emotional distance the very moment -- the First Act -- we need to be drawn into the narrative.
To give Hancock's film some credit, it does show us what happens after the Alamo. Sam Houston tricks Santa Anna into splitting his forces, enabling the Texians to defeat the General. This provides an uplifting sense of closure Wayne's movie didn't. But Santa Anna's defeat is presented in a truncated, visually uninspired fashion that fails to rouse the viewer, already disappointed with the rather confusing way the Alamo assault was dramatized.
So if you have to choose between legend (Wayne's ALAMO) and fact (Hancock's), my advice is to go with the Duke.
Responses, comments and general two-cents worth can be E-mailed to [email protected].
(Note: For all those who missed my past reviews, they're now archived on Hollywoodlitsales.com. Just click the link on the main page and it'll take you to the Inner Sanctum. Love them or Hate them at your leisure!)
A graduate of USC's School of Cinema-Television, Tom McCurrie has worked as a development executive and a story analyst. He is currently a screenwriter living in Los Angeles.
|
