Post by neferetus on Nov 8, 2007 11:56:30 GMT -5
Here is the late Thomas Ricks Lindley's review of THE ALAMO (2004) that was posted on The Alamo Film Site 08/10/2004
-Part I-
This is T.R. Lindley. At least one person wanted to see my review of the Hancock movie. As for my qualifications to review the movie, I have completed two screen writing courses, and attended three professional screen writing workshops. I have written five screen plays and a couple of treatments. My second script, CIRCLES, a mystery/love story set in West Germany in 1969, was show cased at the Writers Workshop of the American Film Institute Alumni Association in 1986. Later that year, the group also used the script for a Writers, Directors and Actors workshop. Afterward, the group sent it to all the major Hollywood studios, but it was a little too strong for the times, and they all passed on it. The story's love triangle involved an Army CID investigator, a young Austrian woman and a les**** terrorist. The main villain was the Provost Marshal General of the Army. Paula Edelsterin, story editor, at the RKO Film Group, however, observed: "Circles' is a tight, well written script that involves one with the various angles explored. The intelligence presented by the characters through the dialogue is quite believable. Our creative group agreed that you are definitely a writer worth watching and considering for future writing assignments."
I, however, got involved with the Alamo and haven't written a screen play in a long time. I should have blown the Alamo off and moved to Los Angeles. I have written a film treatment for my version of the Alamo, but by the time there is a market for it, I will probably have been dead about fifty years. I tell the story from Travis's point of view. The basic story is that the Alamo defenders are caught between Santa Anna and his army of extermination and the political ambition and war plan of Sam Houston, which is to draw Santa Anna to east Texas and let the U.S. Army fight him to start a war between Mexico and the U.S.
Yeah, I know all of that and a couple of bucks can purchase a cup of coffee at most places. Nevertheless, and you just have to take my word for it, I understand the screen play three act structure. I understand plot points, character development, plot development and how all of that works together to create an entertaining story. I understand that once a writer sells his script, it is the property of the producer and the director; that the writer is out of the picture for the most part. I understand what a director's job is on a film. I understand that some time a skilled director and film editor can turn a weak script into a good or great movie. On the other hand, if at the least, the seeds of a good story are not on the paper, a great director may have trouble creating a good film.
Here are some of the reasons that I think John Lee Hancock and Ron Howard's Alamo film is a failure. First, the first draft of the script was pretty much based on Jeff Long's awful book on the Alamo. Second, they decided to make a PC version of the story. Third, they were not interested in making a historically accurate film, but only wanted the appearance of a historically accurate movie. Thus, they hoped that by calling it the most historically accurate movie to date that viewers would believe it was accurate. The truth is, the most historically accurate Alamo movie, made to date, is the IMAX movie, the Price of Freedom.
From the entertaining movie aspect, the film's pacing was too slow; no one point of view---using four main characters, Houston, Travis, Bowie and Crockett too hard to pull off; story was too chopped up due to scenes being cut, which affected plot and character development; minor defender characters were not sufficiently developed for audience to identify with them--nobody to care about when they died--needed more than a sad dog. The most interesting character was the Mexican Army artillery sergeant. Santa Anna was too old and way over the top. The actor who played Almonte looked like an Irishman. Almonte was half Indian and looked it. There was way too much talking to advance character and plot. Both are better developed through action. Remember films are called movies for a reason. There are exceptions to the rule, but telling a story as one big flashback is lazy writing. At least, that is what I was taught.
Alan Huffines, a historical advisor on the film, said that the movie had "no made-up" scenes, which certainly seems to mean that the film was "historically accurate." If that was not what he meant then he should explain himself. I saw only a couple of scenes that had any solid historical basis. Here are a few of the incorrect elements.
Crockett and Houston did not meet in Washington in early 1835. Crockett attended the play in December, 1833, and Houston was not there. Houston could not have offered Crockett land for serving in the Texas militia at that time. Land bounties did not exist until November, 1835. Tejanos did not drink mescal, they would have had to have imported it. The booze in San Antonio was aguardiente, a drink made from local sugar cane. Seguin did not speak English. Seguin did not have a close relationship to Houston until many years later. Green B. Jameson and Colonel Juan Almonte talked on the bridge on February 23, not Bowie and Castrillon. Travis most likely did not make a speach to the Alamo defenders in the last days of the siege. Travis did not desert his wife. He left her with her wealthy family and they later agreed on a divorce. Travis was not against drinking. He was against drinking to excess. Travis often purchased drinks for his friends. Crockett most likely never played the fiddle. Houston did not arrive at Gonzales before the fall of the Alamo. Mexican cavalrymen did not wear breast armor at that time. According to a Bowie probate claim, he rode a mule at the Alamo, not a horse. Houston did not send Bowie to the Alamo to destroy it. Bowie did not go to the Alamo from San Felipe. Houston and Dr. James Grant never fronted off on each other with Bowie knives in San Felipe. Thus Bowie could not have stopped the fight. The scene was a macho cartoon. There was no Santa Anna coin. Isaac Milsaps did not write his wife a letter , as he could not write. The famed Milsaps letter has been proved to be a forgery. Houston betrayed the Alamo by failing to get a timely reinforcement to them. Houston was forced by his army to fight at San Jacinto. Then, during the battle, when he ordered his men to stop killing Mexicans, that order was twice over ruled by Thomas J. Rusk, the secretary of war.
Travis's speech is an example of moral relativism, a PC philosophical fad on university campuses today --- that nothing is wrong---that all values are equal. We know for a fact that the Alamo defenders were fighting against Santa Anna's military despotism and for the independence of Texas from Mexico. When Travis says that each defender should let Texas be whatever he wants it to be, Travis is saying that all of their reasons--good or bad, are equal--even if one of the defenders had been a child molester and that was what he wanted to do in Texas.
The inclusion of the speech is strange for another reason. Such a speech is the foundation of the suicidal myth of the Alamo created by William P.Zuber in his Moses Rose story. In that tale, Travis talks to his men and gives them the option of a death for Texas or escape over the wall because James Bonham had just returned with the news that no help was coming for the Alamo. Today, we know that Bonham did not bring that news. He reported help was on the way. Yet Hancock has decided to go without Travis drawing a line in the sand or Bonham's return.
The scene in which Bowie and Travis trade insults and almost fight over the Alamo command is unrealistic. Yes, an election took place, but there is no evidence that Travis and Bowie squared off on each other that way in public -- it could get you killed. The scene is out of character for the real Travis and Bowie. Travis, in reality, had decided to take his men and establish an early warning camp on the Medina River, but that was stopped by the February 14th return of Lt. Colonel J.C.Neill, who forced them to agree to a joint command. As for the election, only two small volulnteer units voted for Bowie. The units appear to have been
the detachment of United States Invincibles under Captain Baker and William H. Patton's Columbia infantry company. Captain William B. Harrison's company was from Tennessee, but they appear to have been part of Travis's cavalry legion as James L. Vaughn, one of Travis's recruiting officers, escorted the unit to San Antonio. Also, of note, the Autry, Cloud, Baily group were not with Crockett. They walked to the Alamo and were placed in Patton's company on or about February 18. Crockett's small mounted scout unit was part of the auxiliary corps, which was part of the regular army, so he took orders from Travis.
In regard to John Wayne's film, I have seen bits and pieces of it. It is good entertainment, but bad history. While Wayne had fictional characters engaged in fictional relationships with historical figures, the Hancock movie has fictional relationships between historical figures. What's the difference? Both are fiction. The characterizations of Travis and Crockett by Hancock are pure fiction in order to have character arcs for the two roles.
The landscape or terrain for the Hancock film was wrong. The city of San Antonio is too close to the Alamo -- almost on top of the Alamo. This appears to be intentional to create a closed-in, tight feeling.
There is no San Antonio River, only a bar ditch to pass for the river. The entire set is clustered in a former hay pasture between two ridges of hills. In reality, the prairie started on the Alamo side of the river. About a half mile from the real Alamo there was a ridge of rolling hills. Also the road to Gonzales ran in that direction by an old Spanish watch tower. The east bank of the river was the higher bank. Thus the actual Alamo looked down on the city. San Fernando church was not due west of the Alamo. Where were the famed cottonwoods? The battle of San Jacinto did not take place in a meadow surrounded by pine trees. It took place on the coastal prairie with tall grass, live oaks and Spanish moss. Houston did not wear a tri-cornered hat at San Jacinto or any other time that can be proved. It appears that movie makers took that from the Stephen Seymour Thomas painting and did not realize that the American Revolution type hat in the painting was probably a visual allusion to Houston being the Washington of Texas.
In sum, the set was not a realistic set like the John Wayne set. It was a piece of set design art. Set design works to support a film's narrative and mood in visual manner that most viewers never realize.
In a historical film costume colors also serve the same function. A film's use of lightness, darkness and scene composition does the same. And in this film the narrative line or story is simple: it is the anti-war tale of a group of dumb white men who got themselves caught in a death trap for no good reason (defense of slavery and to steal Mexican land) and all got killed. In other words, life is a bitch for 13 days, then you die. Then the Mexicans get to experience the same bad effect of war at San Jacinto and we see that the Texians were just as bad or worse than the murderous Mexicans.
-End of Part I-
-Part I-
This is T.R. Lindley. At least one person wanted to see my review of the Hancock movie. As for my qualifications to review the movie, I have completed two screen writing courses, and attended three professional screen writing workshops. I have written five screen plays and a couple of treatments. My second script, CIRCLES, a mystery/love story set in West Germany in 1969, was show cased at the Writers Workshop of the American Film Institute Alumni Association in 1986. Later that year, the group also used the script for a Writers, Directors and Actors workshop. Afterward, the group sent it to all the major Hollywood studios, but it was a little too strong for the times, and they all passed on it. The story's love triangle involved an Army CID investigator, a young Austrian woman and a les**** terrorist. The main villain was the Provost Marshal General of the Army. Paula Edelsterin, story editor, at the RKO Film Group, however, observed: "Circles' is a tight, well written script that involves one with the various angles explored. The intelligence presented by the characters through the dialogue is quite believable. Our creative group agreed that you are definitely a writer worth watching and considering for future writing assignments."
I, however, got involved with the Alamo and haven't written a screen play in a long time. I should have blown the Alamo off and moved to Los Angeles. I have written a film treatment for my version of the Alamo, but by the time there is a market for it, I will probably have been dead about fifty years. I tell the story from Travis's point of view. The basic story is that the Alamo defenders are caught between Santa Anna and his army of extermination and the political ambition and war plan of Sam Houston, which is to draw Santa Anna to east Texas and let the U.S. Army fight him to start a war between Mexico and the U.S.
Yeah, I know all of that and a couple of bucks can purchase a cup of coffee at most places. Nevertheless, and you just have to take my word for it, I understand the screen play three act structure. I understand plot points, character development, plot development and how all of that works together to create an entertaining story. I understand that once a writer sells his script, it is the property of the producer and the director; that the writer is out of the picture for the most part. I understand what a director's job is on a film. I understand that some time a skilled director and film editor can turn a weak script into a good or great movie. On the other hand, if at the least, the seeds of a good story are not on the paper, a great director may have trouble creating a good film.
Here are some of the reasons that I think John Lee Hancock and Ron Howard's Alamo film is a failure. First, the first draft of the script was pretty much based on Jeff Long's awful book on the Alamo. Second, they decided to make a PC version of the story. Third, they were not interested in making a historically accurate film, but only wanted the appearance of a historically accurate movie. Thus, they hoped that by calling it the most historically accurate movie to date that viewers would believe it was accurate. The truth is, the most historically accurate Alamo movie, made to date, is the IMAX movie, the Price of Freedom.
From the entertaining movie aspect, the film's pacing was too slow; no one point of view---using four main characters, Houston, Travis, Bowie and Crockett too hard to pull off; story was too chopped up due to scenes being cut, which affected plot and character development; minor defender characters were not sufficiently developed for audience to identify with them--nobody to care about when they died--needed more than a sad dog. The most interesting character was the Mexican Army artillery sergeant. Santa Anna was too old and way over the top. The actor who played Almonte looked like an Irishman. Almonte was half Indian and looked it. There was way too much talking to advance character and plot. Both are better developed through action. Remember films are called movies for a reason. There are exceptions to the rule, but telling a story as one big flashback is lazy writing. At least, that is what I was taught.
Alan Huffines, a historical advisor on the film, said that the movie had "no made-up" scenes, which certainly seems to mean that the film was "historically accurate." If that was not what he meant then he should explain himself. I saw only a couple of scenes that had any solid historical basis. Here are a few of the incorrect elements.
Crockett and Houston did not meet in Washington in early 1835. Crockett attended the play in December, 1833, and Houston was not there. Houston could not have offered Crockett land for serving in the Texas militia at that time. Land bounties did not exist until November, 1835. Tejanos did not drink mescal, they would have had to have imported it. The booze in San Antonio was aguardiente, a drink made from local sugar cane. Seguin did not speak English. Seguin did not have a close relationship to Houston until many years later. Green B. Jameson and Colonel Juan Almonte talked on the bridge on February 23, not Bowie and Castrillon. Travis most likely did not make a speach to the Alamo defenders in the last days of the siege. Travis did not desert his wife. He left her with her wealthy family and they later agreed on a divorce. Travis was not against drinking. He was against drinking to excess. Travis often purchased drinks for his friends. Crockett most likely never played the fiddle. Houston did not arrive at Gonzales before the fall of the Alamo. Mexican cavalrymen did not wear breast armor at that time. According to a Bowie probate claim, he rode a mule at the Alamo, not a horse. Houston did not send Bowie to the Alamo to destroy it. Bowie did not go to the Alamo from San Felipe. Houston and Dr. James Grant never fronted off on each other with Bowie knives in San Felipe. Thus Bowie could not have stopped the fight. The scene was a macho cartoon. There was no Santa Anna coin. Isaac Milsaps did not write his wife a letter , as he could not write. The famed Milsaps letter has been proved to be a forgery. Houston betrayed the Alamo by failing to get a timely reinforcement to them. Houston was forced by his army to fight at San Jacinto. Then, during the battle, when he ordered his men to stop killing Mexicans, that order was twice over ruled by Thomas J. Rusk, the secretary of war.
Travis's speech is an example of moral relativism, a PC philosophical fad on university campuses today --- that nothing is wrong---that all values are equal. We know for a fact that the Alamo defenders were fighting against Santa Anna's military despotism and for the independence of Texas from Mexico. When Travis says that each defender should let Texas be whatever he wants it to be, Travis is saying that all of their reasons--good or bad, are equal--even if one of the defenders had been a child molester and that was what he wanted to do in Texas.
The inclusion of the speech is strange for another reason. Such a speech is the foundation of the suicidal myth of the Alamo created by William P.Zuber in his Moses Rose story. In that tale, Travis talks to his men and gives them the option of a death for Texas or escape over the wall because James Bonham had just returned with the news that no help was coming for the Alamo. Today, we know that Bonham did not bring that news. He reported help was on the way. Yet Hancock has decided to go without Travis drawing a line in the sand or Bonham's return.
The scene in which Bowie and Travis trade insults and almost fight over the Alamo command is unrealistic. Yes, an election took place, but there is no evidence that Travis and Bowie squared off on each other that way in public -- it could get you killed. The scene is out of character for the real Travis and Bowie. Travis, in reality, had decided to take his men and establish an early warning camp on the Medina River, but that was stopped by the February 14th return of Lt. Colonel J.C.Neill, who forced them to agree to a joint command. As for the election, only two small volulnteer units voted for Bowie. The units appear to have been
the detachment of United States Invincibles under Captain Baker and William H. Patton's Columbia infantry company. Captain William B. Harrison's company was from Tennessee, but they appear to have been part of Travis's cavalry legion as James L. Vaughn, one of Travis's recruiting officers, escorted the unit to San Antonio. Also, of note, the Autry, Cloud, Baily group were not with Crockett. They walked to the Alamo and were placed in Patton's company on or about February 18. Crockett's small mounted scout unit was part of the auxiliary corps, which was part of the regular army, so he took orders from Travis.
In regard to John Wayne's film, I have seen bits and pieces of it. It is good entertainment, but bad history. While Wayne had fictional characters engaged in fictional relationships with historical figures, the Hancock movie has fictional relationships between historical figures. What's the difference? Both are fiction. The characterizations of Travis and Crockett by Hancock are pure fiction in order to have character arcs for the two roles.
The landscape or terrain for the Hancock film was wrong. The city of San Antonio is too close to the Alamo -- almost on top of the Alamo. This appears to be intentional to create a closed-in, tight feeling.
There is no San Antonio River, only a bar ditch to pass for the river. The entire set is clustered in a former hay pasture between two ridges of hills. In reality, the prairie started on the Alamo side of the river. About a half mile from the real Alamo there was a ridge of rolling hills. Also the road to Gonzales ran in that direction by an old Spanish watch tower. The east bank of the river was the higher bank. Thus the actual Alamo looked down on the city. San Fernando church was not due west of the Alamo. Where were the famed cottonwoods? The battle of San Jacinto did not take place in a meadow surrounded by pine trees. It took place on the coastal prairie with tall grass, live oaks and Spanish moss. Houston did not wear a tri-cornered hat at San Jacinto or any other time that can be proved. It appears that movie makers took that from the Stephen Seymour Thomas painting and did not realize that the American Revolution type hat in the painting was probably a visual allusion to Houston being the Washington of Texas.
In sum, the set was not a realistic set like the John Wayne set. It was a piece of set design art. Set design works to support a film's narrative and mood in visual manner that most viewers never realize.
In a historical film costume colors also serve the same function. A film's use of lightness, darkness and scene composition does the same. And in this film the narrative line or story is simple: it is the anti-war tale of a group of dumb white men who got themselves caught in a death trap for no good reason (defense of slavery and to steal Mexican land) and all got killed. In other words, life is a bitch for 13 days, then you die. Then the Mexicans get to experience the same bad effect of war at San Jacinto and we see that the Texians were just as bad or worse than the murderous Mexicans.
-End of Part I-
