The Alamo: Thirteen Days to Glory

The best film on the battle of San Antonio, Texas in March 1836, was John Wayne's 1960 epic THE ALAMO. In a one shot job as director producer, that temporarily financially strapped him, Wayne demonstrated that he was talented in movie making outside of his icon-like acting ability personifying the West.

I have commented on that film in a review the other night, and I pointed out that Wayne and James Edward Grant (the screenwriter) tackled some points that were barely mentioned in earlier films about the battle. They did bring in the issue of slavery. They also finally discussed the contribution of local Mexican land owner Juan Seguin as an important leader in the War for Independence on par with Crockett, Bowie, Travis, Austin, and Houston.

But there was one weakness (though well hidden) in the film. Wayne worked hard to cast it properly, thinking of many people for lead roles in it. But, he did not properly handle the leader of the enemy forces, General Antonio De Santa Anna. The role was played by an obscure actor, Ruben Padilla (on this board, his thread shows only three credits listed). Padilla did not have any spoken dialog (even in Spanish). And while he does have one of the last shots in the film, he just is shown as a silent tyrant, observing the burning of the bodies of the Americans and their allies.

Despite several poor choices in the casting of this television movie (THE ALAMO: THIRTEEN DAYS TO CLORY), it is the best film in showing the man who was (from 1836 to 1854) a leading bogeyman to American policy makers. Raul Julia was a wonderful stage actor. I was fortunate to see him in a production (in the late 1980s) of ARMS AND THE MAN in Manhattan, as Sergius. He was never boring, and usually first rate in his acting.

Here we see the egotistical monster at his worst. Nothing is acceptable that does not fit Santa Anna's wishes or activities. It can be the failure of an orderly in the army to bring some item he requested fast enough, or it can be the temerity of these "foreign brigands" (as he saw the Americans) in not knuckling down to himself, "the Napoleon of the West".

Santa Anna was President of Mexico five or six times between 1830 and 1855. He claimed that he first got involved in overthrowing a President because that President did not live up to the country's constitution, but it was the power that kept him going year after year. It is a sad commentary that he was the leading Mexican historical figure in those two decades. No political figure or military figure would rise to override him until Benito Juarez did in the late 1850s. Initially he claimed great liberal ideals, but he once admitted that the people of Mexico were children who needed guidance for one hundred years before they could rule themselves (and thus he sounds like Gilbert Roland in CRISIS talking about the people he has helped lead against Jose Ferrer). The amazing thing about him was he managed to keep coming back. His policies were disasters. While we know about his attack on Texas (to put down a revolt there), he also tried to expand into Guatamala (and probably saw himself controlling much of Central America). He did win at the Alamo, but at great cost of lives. His massacre of Col. Fannin's men at Goliad was inexcusable (one might make a case for the destruction of the defenders of the Alamo who were fighting to the last, but Fannin had surrendered). Then came the disaster of San Jacinto, where his army was wiped out (he failed to take adequate precautions to watch for the American troops). He was captured, and humiliated, and forced to sign a surrender of Texas. Houston was kind to him: the troops wanted to string him up.

Except for losing a leg in a battle against the French in 1838, he managed not to get wounded in most of his wars. He repudiated the forced surrender of Texas, but could not militarily undue it. Instead, he would lead Mexico into defeat in the war of 1846 - 48 against the Americans, leading to the Mexican Session. The U.S. was "decent" enough to pay Mexico $15,000,000 for the Southwest, but Mexico lost half of it's territory. He would be President for the last time in 1853, in time to give Franklin Pierce's horrendously bad administration it's one moment of glory - Santa Anna sold the border of Arizona and New Mexico (the "Gadsden Purchase") to the U.S. No other Mexican President (not even Porfirio Diaz) ever cost his country so much (Diaz did sell out to foreign business interests, but he built up Mexico's economic muscles doing so). He was exiled in 1855, and settled in Staten Island. There he managed to do his most creative work: he introduced chicle to the U.S., and it became chewing gum. Some achievement!

Julia's Santa Anna is younger than the practiced cynic and schemer who became America's best land purchase agent. He is not going to stand for opposition and he jumps into furious tantrums at a moment's notice. Most of the time his chief aide, Col. Black (David Ogden Stiers, here a British born officer) holds his tongue - he does not wish to be in front of a firing squad as he could be. But Stiers is secretly less than enchanted by his boss. At the end, when alone with the newly widowed wives of the dead Alamo defenders, Stiers suggests that they tell the world what Santa Anna is really like. And they did!

First off, I must confess that I am an Alamo junky. So my review might be a bit skewed. I've seen most films dealing with the Alamo or the Texas revolution (The Alamo (1960), The Alamo (2004), The Last Command, Gone to Texas, Heroes of the Alamo (930 B.C.), Davy Crockett at the Alamo, Texas, etc.) I just watched this one all the way through today for the first time since I was about ten.

I think this adaptation, despite it's flaws, probably ranks in the top three Alamo films. Strictly from a film perspective, it certainly has problems. The lack of budget makes for a handful of extras playing both armies. The Mexican army, which is suppose to number in the thousands, looks to consist of little more than ten soldiers the majority of the time. The battle scenes are laughable for the most part. Most of the footage, as has been noted many times, is lifted from the Last Command. The rest of the scenes feature rubber bayonets and men appearing to wrestle, rather than fight for their lives, in the background.

That said, I think with some money behind it, this could have been a great film. While every review I have read seems to praise the actor who played Santa Anna, Raul Julia I believe was his name, I find his constant yelling to be a bit over the top. I actually thought Brian Keith was a wonderful Davy Crockett. His down home yarns and backwoods twang comes across as entirely genuine. Also, note his expression as he swings his hunting knife just before his death. It is such a convincing portrayal of a last stand by a man. It is a pity that he is about thirty years to old to play Crockett. My hat goes off to him nonetheless. The same can be said for James Arness. His massive build and piercing eyes gives him that sort of John Wayne screen presence, to a far lesser degree of course. Again, a bit too old for the role. Alec Baldwin actually makes for a very convincing Travis. He is much closer in age and does a brilliant job. Highlights would be his last speech to the men as well as his conversation with James Bonham before hand.

I also thought the screenplay was very good. Minus some of the exchange between Daniel Cloud and his Mexican love interest. Although, it is more the acting and less the writing that hurts those scenes. The script moves the story along at a steady pace and is concerned more with telling the story and less with giving a history lesson, a flaw that haunts many Alamo films and period pieces in general.

Overall, I think this is a good "Alamo" film. It is probably not a good "film" film. That is to say unless you like the Alamo, you may not enjoy this movie. As made for t.v. movies go, especially in the eighties, it is not that bad. You have two great icons in Keith and Arness playing lead roles, as well as the upstart Alec Baldwin. Not a bad cast at all for a low budget film. Burt Kennedy does a good job of directing considered what he is given. As an "Alamo" film, I would probably rate this as a 7 or 8 out of 10. But as a "film" film goes it gets about a 5 out of 10. With a bigger budget and a younger Brian Keith and James Arness, this could have been a great film. It might have won Oscars in the Golden Age of Hollywood!

The problem with all movies about the Alamo is when you have a battle where one side is essentially wiped out, you will never know what happened to the detail shown in all the movies and this one is no exception. But there are somethings we do know. For example, the final assault on the morning of March 6 occurred before dawn and the battle was over as the sun was rising. This movie shows the final assault in broad daylight. Also, there were three assaults that morning (not two as shown in this version), the first two repulsed, the third made it over the walls.

But there is one mystery regarding the actors. Kathleen York played Mrs. Susanna Dickinson. IMDB shows her as being born in 1975, which means she would have been 12 in 1987 when she played Mrs. Dickinson! Something is not right on IMDB!

THE ALAMO: THIRTEEN DAYS TO GLORY, James Arness' variation of his mentor John Wayne's 1960 classic, attempts to present the famous 1836 Texas siege in human terms, utilizing the more 'intimate' medium of television to make the story of the defenders more understandable. Eschewing the 'living legend' portrayals of the earlier film, a sincere effort is made to make the famous personalities of the battle more realistic, with both good and bad qualities, thus making their heroism more personal, and ultimately profound.

While this is certainly an admirable intention (it would also be the motivation behind the 2004 ALAMO), the TV-film fails, and isn't held in high regard by either Alamo historians or fans of the small collection of films concerning that pivotal moment in Texas history.

A major problem is that THIRTEEN DAYS TO GLORY is seriously miscast. Other than the inspired choices of Alec Baldwin as William Barret Travis, and Raul Julia, who nearly steals the film as Gen. Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna (offering what is probably the most accurate portrayal of the 'Napoleon of the West', ever), virtually every actor is wrong for their role. Arness, at 64, lacks the dynamic, corrupt vitality of the historical Bowie, 40, prior to his physical collapse at the start of the siege (caused, historians now believe, by advanced tuberculosis, or another fatal lung disease). The filmmakers choose, rather, the LAST COMMAND approach to Bowie, injuring him during the battle, instead, and giving him enough energy to cling to a lamp and wall, and to die 'on his feet', his famous knife in his hand. Arness' portrayal is closer in spirit to his outdoorsman 'Zeb Macahan' in the TV "How the West Was Won", than the charismatic swindler/slaver. Even worse is Brian Keith, 66, as 49-year old David ('Davy') Crockett. The frail-looking, silver-haired Keith, while correctly emphasizing Crockett's heritage as a politician, appears acutely uncomfortable in the physically demanding role, and totally lacks the magnetism that made Crockett legendary. As for 68-year old Lorne Greene as 43-year old Sam Houston, the less that is said, the better. In trying to be more 'honest', the film chose acting 'legends', forgetting that performers of legendary status tend to make their characters 'larger-than-life'.

Shot at the '60 ALAMO movie set in Brackettville, Texas, in the 110-degree heat of late summer, the cold dampness of March, 1836 was never achieved. Compounding the problem was a budget that was too small to hire the 'army' of extras required to give lopsided battle some scope. Instead, the production liberally 'lifted' shots from 1955's THE LAST COMMAND, filmed at yet another location (with budget restrictions of it's own), and the differences of the sets, and the film stock, are occasionally jarring.

THE ALAMO: THIRTEEN DAYS TO GLORY, for all of it's ambitions, is, ultimately, no more than a 'B' movie with higher aspirations!

When John Wayne filmed his Alamo story he had built a complete Alamo set in the town of Brackettsville, Texas which is still there and quite the tourist attraction. As long as that stands, we will have a set for future Alamo interpretations for the screen. One such with Dennis Quaid and Billy Bob Thornton was done in this century.

But I would say The Alamo: Thirteen Days To Glory is the best Alamo story filmed I've seen. John Wayne's film is a good one if over-hyped, but it's a John Wayne film with the story redone to fill parameters of screen character of John Wayne. Brian Keith plays Davy Crockett here and gives a fine interpretation of the rollicking frontier character he was.

It's a lot closer to Professor Lon Tinkle's book on The Alamo than the Wayne film was and having read the book years ago I can attest to that. Tinkle's book is listed as the source in both films, but Tinkle who was alive back then when the Wayne film was done and he was not pleased with the result.

Alec Baldwin was around the right age for young William Barrett Travis, the idealistic freedom fighter who incidentally was a slave owner. Back in the day no one saw the ironic contradiction in that. One thing that was not explored and hasn't been was Travis's hyperactive sex drive. He was the Casanova of the Southwest, he even kept a salacious diary of his libidinal conquests.

But the man who always gets the whitewash is Jim Bowie, played here by James Arness. He was a hero at the Alamo to be sure, but his career before the Alamo was that of a scoundrel. He was a smuggler, a slave trader, an all around con man selling land he had questionable title to. But his heroic death certainly redeemed him. No hint of that is in Arness's portrayal nor any others I've seen of Bowie on the screen. And of course he did design the Bowie knife, done to his specifications. That man needed such a weapon.

However the main asset that The Alamo: Thirteen Days To Glory has is a full blown portrayal of Antonio De Lopez De Santa Anna, the president of Mexico who comes up personally to put down the rebellion stirred up by the North Americans who've come to settle in Texas at Mexican invitation. Unfortunately those Americans came with some pre-conceived notions about liberty that just hadn't made it that far south, at least liberty for white people. Raul Julia plays Santa Anna who remains an even more controversial figure in Mexican history. He was also quite the scoundrel, but he was the best Mexico produced until a genuine reformer named Benito Juarez came along.

This film was the farewell performance of Lorne Greene who appears briefly as General Sam Houston. Greene's not quite my conception of Houston, he really was way too old for the part, Houston was in his early forties in 1836, he was not yet the patriarch of Texas. But within the limits imposed on him, Greene does a fine job.

For a romantic telling of The Alamo tale by all means see John Wayne's version, but for historical content I recommend this film highly.