Anyone out there seen The Alamo yet? I saw it yesterday, and it was surprisingly pretty good! They didn’t butcher the history. In fact, it was more accurate than any other Alamo movie I’ve seen.
I like the fact that they had Davy Crockett executed after the battle than dying during the fighting, like the current historical theory.
But they left out the “line in the sand” legend, dammit. Oh well, if you want historical accuracy you can’t go bandying about the good myths, I suppose.
The movie made me wanna go back to San Antonio. I visited there a few years ago and got semi-obsessed with Alamo history, and this kinda brought back the fervor.
I saw it. It seemed fairly faithful to current historical views while still maintaining the spirit of the Alamo legends. While overall I though it was pretty good, the first 2/3 of the movie is AWFULLY slow. I had a difficult time staying interested.
Did the movie address the issue of slavery? And how was Billy Bob Thornton? (The trailer suggests that they try to correct the “coonskin cap wearing mountain-man” depiction that developed over the last 170 years.)
Yes it did confront the issue of slavery. Jim Bowie had a slave that was a supporting character, and so did William Travis. Bowie, apparently, was a die-hard slave owner. Travis’s slave fought beside Travis until Travis got killed, then he ran and hid (and why shouldn’t he? I mean, he had no stake in Texan independence. He was gonna be a slave no matter who won.)
The coonskin cap did make an appearance. An actor playing David Crockett wore a coonskin cap on stage during a play that Billy Bob’s Davy was at. Later we see Billy Bob wearing a coonskin cap when he first arrives at the Alamo, and he admits (paraphrased), “I got the idea from the actor in the play”. That’s the only scene in which he wears it.
The Crockett character was the most developed & human. I expected him to be a total cardboard cut-out and it was the opposite. He wasn’t looking for glory at the Alamo, he was embarrassed by the “Davy Crockett, Lion of the West” stuff and was almost at the Alamo/in the war by circumstance. Billy Bob did a good job.
Santa Anna is depicted as a totally evil screw-up w/o being too over the top. The Mexican commanders, I think , are shown well - not as bloodthirsty or whipped dogs. Just guys doing their best with an A-1 madman in charge.
Travis and Bowie were shown with their warts --* especially * re slavery. When Bowie says to his slave “Are you giving me my [freedom] Master Jim” asks this man who has cared for him. Bowie says “No you will be my property until the day I die, once I’m out I’ll come fetch you.” JC let the man go Bowie. I thought it was 180 degrees from how slavery in “good” americans is typically depicted on film
Yes it is a bit “draggie” in parts if you aren’t particularly interested in seeing/hearing speeches about Mexican-U.S. geo-political situation in the 1830’s, I’d go so far as saying “very draggie” in parts. But even then, it is well worth seeing, even to just watch Billy Bob be the anti-fess parker & good battle scenes.
Slavery was made illegal in the Mexican constitution of 1824, with the last slaves freed by 1829. If the Mexicans had been able to maintain control over the Texan territories the slaves there would have been freed.
The critics really panned this one (It’s getting something like 30% at rottentomatoes) but I have a good feeling about it. Especially because I really like films that at least try to be historically accurate. I will probably see it tomorrow.
It’s probably likely that most slaves didn’t know about that, though. It’s not as if they could look up the Mexican constitution on the internet.
