The Alamo (1960)

 

In 1835, Texas - then a part of Mexico - declared independence.  The Mexican central authorities rejected this attempt to secede, plunging the area into a war for which neither side was especially well-prepared.

In February 1836, a large Mexican force under the command of General Santa Anna approached the Alamo, a former Spanish mission that had been converted into a fort and was being held by a combined force of Texan militia and volunteer fighters from the United States.

Outnumbered by perhaps as much as ten to one, the small group of defenders held off Santa Anna's army for two weeks before the Alamo finally fell.  The siege cost the lives of all but two of the defenders, and perhaps twice as many of the attackers.  The tactical victory for the Mexican army would prove a strategic defeat, however, as news of the spirited resistance brought fresh recruits flocking to the Texan forces.  A month later, in the Battle of San Jacinto, the Mexican army was surprised and shattered, and Santa Anna himself was captured.

The Battle of the Alamo went on to become a foundational legend of the state of Texas, acclaimed as a new Thermopylae where freedom-loving Texans defeated the cruel tyranny of Santa Anna's Mexico.  A narrative that conveniently ignores that the main 'tyranny' to which they objected was the Mexican Government's abolition of slavery.

Produced and directed in 1960 by John Wayne (who also stars in the film as Davy Crockett), this movie invests wholeheartedly in the legend, rather than the reality.  For some people, this Anglo-centric, anti-Hispanic, whitewashed version of events is something they will simply have no desire to see, and I think that's entirely fair.  I personally only chose to watch the movie in order to better understand "the Alamo legend" as context before I read a more modern, balanced account of the events.

So; assuming that this one-eyed, somewhat jingoistic view of events is not an automatic non-starter for you, how is the movie?

It's a bit of a mixed bag.

On the plus side, the larger scale battle sequences are one of the film's strengths.  They are quite impressively done, with large numbers of extras moving with purpose and some good practical effects.  On the other hand, when the camera comes in closer to the action, the staging on the more personal fighting is not very convincing.  To be fair, it was probably solid enough by contemporary standards in 1960, but that was more than six decades ago now, and fight stunt-work and choreography has come a long way.

The film is also hampered; possibly as a side-effect of its simplistic good-vs-evil view of events; by somewhat shallow characterisation.  Texan commander William Travis is brave but officious and rigid.  His colleague Jim Bowie is brave but drunk.  Davy Crockett meanwhile, is brave and charming.  Each of them is sketched in only the most broad of strokes. While I know from other films that John Wayne can act, he is certainly not asked to do so here, basically just portraying the same heroic character he'd done so many times before.  Though perhaps, as producer and director of the film, he needed to keep the role as something a bit less challenging.

Ultimately, the film depicts a very simplistic, idealised view of the siege of the Alamo, working as hard as it can to make the defence a triumph even as almost the entire force of defenders is wiped out.  It's a product of its time, and of a highly prejudiced and manufactured 'legend' that whitewashes some very unpleasant realities.  I found it interesting to view as a historical artefact, but as a work of entertainment, I cannot recommend it any more than I would D. W. Griffith's The Birth of a Nation.