Texas: Poder e Corrupção

The Texas revolution must be taken in the context of being just one of several local revolutions against Santa Ana's overthrow of the 1826 Mexican constitution. For this reason, many Texas hispanics fought on the Texan side. Similarly, Edina de Zavala was one of the two main movers for the preservation of the Alamo and in the Daughters of the Texas Revolution.

While military disasters, the Alamo and Goliad did convince Santa Ana that the Texans were no real military threat. This caused him to send part of his force back to Mexico. For one thing, it was difficult to supply such a large army in early spring in Texas so far away from its supply base. BTW, this was one of Houston's calculations.

Santa Ana also divided his remaining forces in an effort to resolve the revolt as quickly as possible and to make foraging easier. He also attempted to terrorize the Texans and anybody else in Mexico contemplating further revolt by executing all prisoners at Goliad and the Alamo. This miscalculation insured that no Texas soldier would ever surrender again.

Using a force of 8-900 men, Santa Ana then chased the Texican army across Texas. He eventually "trapped" them against water at San Jacinto, while waiting for the rest of his army to show up for the final blow. While Santa Ana was a pretty good soldier, given their past history, it apparently never occurred to him that the Texicans would actually take the initiative. The rest is history.

I have to admit that I have not read Mr. Michener's book, so I think that I can comment objectively on this movie. Insofar as the movie of "Texas" is concerned, I thought it was excellent.

The story covers a 25 year period between 1821 and 1846 when Texas went from being a Mexican province to an independent republic to a state within the U.S.A. Historical characters are blended with fictional characters to great effect. The direction by Richard Lang is crisp and keeps this sweeping saga both moving and interesting. The cinematography by Neil Roach is simply breathtaking. The battle scenes (including the Alamo) are expertly staged and utilize slow motion to great effect.

The excellent cast includes Stacy Keach as Sam Houston, Patrick Duffy as Steven Austin, Rick Schroder as Otto, Chelsea Field as Mattie, Benjamin Bratt as Garza, Anthony Michael Hall as Quimper and Randy Travis as the first Captain of the Texas Rangers.

As made for TV movies go, "Texas" is definitely a cut above the average.

For historical fiction with accurate underpinnings this strikes me as a pretty good effort. Not perfect but considering the loaded nature of the subject it is the most even-handed treatment I have ever seen.

So far as being an entertaining film, it is a bit slow to get going. For historical accuracy and attention to detail it rates higher than others. For one, Jim Bowie actually has a genuine Bowie knife. The Alamo has the correct front. Rarely has anyone else portrayed these two simple details properly.

Performances are tour-de-force and in general this is a well made and acted film.

I should live to see the day when Hollywood can make a film about Texas and/or The Alamo and not ignore what many historians point to as the central issue, that being slavery. In 1836 one out of eight persons in Texas were slaves. We don't see even one in this movie. The subject is not mentioned or alluded to once.

Overall this film has many more strengths than weaknesses and clearly took great steps towards accuracy and fairness.

It's interesting that none of those who panned this movie were Texans. Whether or not it followed Michener's book closely is not the point; it followed history very well.

The whole reason Americans came to settle in Texas in the first place - as the movie made abundantly clear through Patrick Duffy's Stephen F. Austin - was that Mexico had not and could not properly settle such a vast land. Austin's colony was established at the invitation of Santa Anna.

It was only as Santa Anna systematically denied the Texicans - or Texians, if you prefer - basic rights that any citizen of any nation should reasonably expect from his government that they revolted. As the movie made clear, Austin did everything he could - with Sam Houston's concurrence - to keep his agreement with Santa Anna. The Mexican dictator literally drove him and the Texicans to revolt in order to give him an excuse to invade and slaughter them. His cruelty was best shown by what happened at Goliad - where the Texicans surrendered, only to be lined up and murdered after giving up all their weapons.

This last could have been emphasized a little more to show the bleak reality of trying to deal with this despot, but that's my only quarrel with the entire movie. I gave it an 8 - and wondered how IMDB managed to come up with a weighted average of 4.1 when 55% of the voters gave it a 7 or better.

This movie was NEVER intended as a live, acted version of the novel. The reason, in fact, James Michener gave the movie his blessing was because of this. Michener writes novels, fictionalized stories very loosely based on actual history. The movie was intended simply to portray the actual history that inspired his novel, in a way that would relate to the novel itself.

It is for that reason that one cannot simply dismiss this movie as worthless. The cinematography used has been a liability to some viewers, according to previous reviews, but was used for effect. In the end, anyone who knows Texas, American, and/or Mexican history will immediately understand the movie is slanted a bit to favor the (historical) Texan's point of view. This should in now way deter you from viewing the film objectively, either as a great representation of historical events, or simply for your own amusement. This movie's all star cast is akin to such a cast as was viewed in A Few Good Men, and few movies since.