This historian loved it

Rating: 9/10 (11 May 2005)

I was definitely part of the Baby Boomer Davy Crockett phenomena. Heck, I actually won a contest of Davy Crockett look alike when I was four years old in Newark NJ, and as I look back, I believe that wonderful and completely fictional television series by Disney, helped to trigger my interest in history, which has been my career now for over thirty years, starting as a middle school teacher and now a college professor, along with a number of books published.
I eagerly looked forward to this film's release and I regret now, that for one of the few times in my life I listened to critics who absolutely trashed a film so that I never went to see it on the wide screen. Made the same mistake with Blade Runner when it first came out!
So it was wait until Starz picked it up and frankly, I was blown away. I actually went out the next day and rented the wide screen DVD version to check it out more closely and will definitely buy it, I love it that much.
This is the best of all the attempts to tell the story of the Alamo. Sure, I grew up on the Crockett and Alamo legend, but I also got a healthy dose of cynicism about the whole thing when examining it from the Mexican perspective, particularly in relationship to the slavery issue and the promises made and broken by Houston and Austin to the Mexican government. This film, though it dances more than a little around those issues still at least touches on them.
But what really caught me was the attention to historical accuracy in relationship to the battle itself. I'll claim that for the first time every, a film captured the "feel" and truthful presentation of late 18th and early to mid 19th century linear warfare. Other films always make it look absurd, but here you see how it did work, manuevering masses of troops up to then deliver terrifying volley fire at close range then charge with the bayonet.
The weapons and how they were used was dead on perfect, right down to the use of canister by the artillery and regardless of what one critic said about shells, they were indeed used and the incident with Travis and the spurting fuse was perfect. Formations, volley fire, skirmishers, the awesome and terrifying Mexican pioneer troops, whoever was responsible for the setting and staging of this battle did a brilliant job. The set was perfect as well, down to the finest detail. The cinematography as well, especially the stunning scene from a high angle shot, the charges coming in from all sides at once, the defenders getting overwhelmed.
I'd rate this movie up with Zulu as a film about a small determined garrison standing against impossible odds, which is a great archetypal story.
In contrast, "Patriot" which drew so much critical acclaim was absolutely gut tearing, in a nauseating sense, when it came to any semblance of historical accuracy regarding battle and every year now I have to deprogram my students regarding its retched attempt at showing what Revolutionary period warfare looked like. For that matter I'll put Gettysburg and of course Gods and Generals in the same miserable league.
I do not understand why so many critics are trashing the acting and casting. Bill Bob Thorton and Jason Patric are superb. I was awed by Thorton's approach to the legendary Crockett character. Much of what was and still is believed about Crockett is all myth (and yeah even admitting that breaks this Baby Boomer's heart). Crockett was a character created by American theater and the first of the nickel and dime novels of the 1820-30s. He was something like a Schwartznegger cult character for his time, even while still alive, but his exploits were all legend. Thus the stunningly truthful scene of him confessing what really happened in a fight against Indians, the incredible acting when he kills, almost by accident, a Mexican soldier and you immediately sense that this is the FIRST man he has ever actually killed and he is horrified by it. . .and how in the end (SPOILERS AHEAD) he is trapped by his own legend into becoming a hero regardless of his fears. A historian that I studied under in graduate school wrote about the Alamo and was the first to tell me that Crockett, according to Mexican sources, survived the fall of the garrison and was executed after wards. I remember not wanting to believe it (Baby Boomer here, remember, Davy Crockett went down swinging). The debate varies, did he willingly surrender and beg for his life, was he wounded, overwhelmed and then executed. . .we will never know, but the screenplay does address it, and does it well.
A fictional scene undoubtedly, but still profoundly moving, Crockett playing the violin during sunset of the final night of siege. A beautiful scene that is haunting.
In closing, my thumbs up as a historian for this work. It is not a film that many would care for, no love interest, no ridiculous heroics, no Mel Gibson trying to do a Daniel Day Lewis, then sweeping off the girl in the low cut bodice after slaughtering a plentitude of foes, just a gritty, straight forward war story that is profoundly moving.
Only negative. The perpetual scowl of Quaid as Houston. Though his big final scene, the Battle of San Jacinto, is darn good as well, especially when done through the POV of Sequin, and the terrible dilemma faced by Mexican-Texans fighting on the Anglo side.