In 1960, United Artists released a movie portraying the battle of the Alamo starring John Wayne. This was the first of two major Alamo movie releases, the second being the 2004 film starring Billy Bob Thornton. In both films, the movie star (John Wayne, Billy Bob) play Davy Crockett, with the only difference being that the newer version sort of humanizes the character, rather than him being some uber hero of some sort.
The older film seems to greatly follow myth and popular belief rather than dig into the facts. It shows Travis as a very articulate man, and this kind of makes the other characters seem really dumbed down and simple, which I think is kind of odd. Also, like I said earlier, the 1960 film shows Crockett as very heroic. There's no denying that he was probably a brave soldier, but the film just glorifies him so much that it's hard to take seriously. Also, it shows Jim Bowie receiving a wound to the leg from a cannonball and taken into the church for shelter and care. In reality, Bowie was actually ill and was bedridden, but the cannonball wound is way more interesting and heroic, so they went with that. Crockett's death is also glorified, showing him blowing up an ammunition room. But how could this be when real life survivor Susanna Dickinson saw him dead on the ground in the plaza? Also, it portrays Bowie and Travis as having very clashing personalities as they argue very often throughout the film.
The 2004 film really tried to steer away from the myths and fables that people were so used to being shown. The film was directed by John Lee Hancock, a native Texan who took great care to ensure that the legend that he holds close to his heart is portrayed as accurately as possible. He did this with much success, as the film had little historical inaccuracies and certainly a considerable amount less than it's 1960 predecessor. For instance, the facade of the church (which people coincidentally mistake for the front of the Alamo) is missing the top arch or hump that make it so recognizable today. They did this because that hump was not actually added until years after the famous battle when the church and the rest of the mission was restored by United States Army soldiers during their occupation of the mission. It isn't completely without flaws though, because it still showed Travis and Bowie arguing many times throughout the film, as in the other.
To me, this made the newer movie much more believable and realistic than the older movie. It's understandable, though, because they did the best with what they could during that time period (1960). They didn't have a huge budget and they cared little for historic accuracy and instead went for the glorified version of the event rather than digging deeper for the truth. I suppose overall that was a good move for them because people probably didn't really want all this history and education in a movie. Nowadays, however, people want to be entertained and walk away with a new understanding or viewpoint on something they probably knew little to nothing about anyways. The newer film really enriches the entertainment with education. Coincidentally, the film oddly did not do well at all in the box offices. It never broke even with the ticket sales after shelling out $140 million for the shooting, production, and marketing of the movie.
Over all, I think the newer movie with Billy Bob holds more historic value than the older and is in turn more entertaining (at least in my opinion). The John Wayne movie is okay, but just for kicks. I don't really think it was that awesome or anything. Maybe just for the action and the "what if" factor, but it doesn't really spark my interest in terms of history. But for some odd reason, it won so many Academy Awards it would make your head spin. If anything, I would recommend that somebody should watch both movies and compare them and also see how accurate they are. In either case, it's just a safer bet to research the battle in the textbooks or online to get the real information.
No comments:
Post a Comment