Odd Question About "The Alamo"
william
I visited my brother who has cable and flipping around the channels I
caught part of John Wayne's "The Alamo." While we all have opinions
about Wayne and the movie, what struck me was what appeared to be
French flags (alongside the Mexican flags) carried by Santa Ana's
troops. I know the French were a presence in Texas -- and especially
San Antonio -- during the later part of the 17th Century. Be that as
it may, I find it odd for Santa Ana's troops to be carrying a French
flag. On a minor bit of production gossip, I do know the two
historians originally contracted to work on the script for historical
accuracy asked (or insisted, depending on you get information from)
that their names be removed from the credits. I rarely expect accuracy
in these types of films (or bio-pics), yet those French flags threw me
especially since there were -- apparently -- no French troops.
Anybody got a clue?
Thanks,
William
www.williamahearn.com
Paul B. Thompson
news:53069d2d-cfb6-4513...@f10g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
Yes, you can see them at the beginning of this clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwKn6_DSMmU
They do look like French flags. There were no French troops at the Alamo, so
either the flag is meant to represent a Mexican state flag (?) (or army
standard?), or else Wayne used the tricoleurs to increase the panoply of a
great battle scene. I can't see any historical reason for it unless it
represents something Mexican.
PBT
william
> Yes, you can see them at the beginning of this clip:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwKn6_DSMmU
>
> They do look like French flags. There were no French troops at the Alamo, so
> either the flag is meant to represent a Mexican state flag (?) (or army
> standard?), or else Wayne used the tricoleurs to increase the panoply of a
> great battle scene. I can't see any historical reason for it unless it
> represents something Mexican.
>
Before I posted this I googled "Mexican flags" and went through a
couple of pages of images and nothing remotely French popped up. The
Mexican flags used in the film are true Mexican flags although I don't
know if they were in use at the time. (I don't know either way and
that isn't really all that important.)
Thanks for the clip.
William
www.williamahearn.com
Kingo Gondo
his wheelhouse.
David Oberman
>I bet Jim Beaver could tell you more about this issue. The Alamo is right in
>his wheelhouse.
Jim would know.
I checked "1846: The Year of Decision" & found nothing on this
question.
Paul B. Thompson
news:5s72c5p2n9foggool...@4ax.com...
The Alamo battle was ten years earlier, in 1836. Thirty years later the
French under Napoleon III had troops in Mexico to extort debt payments and
support their puppet Emperor Maximilian. I can think of no valid reason for
French flags to be flying during the Alamo battle.
Maybe Wayne did it to add color to the scene; I don't know.
PBT
Francis A. Miniter
DeVoto's book is, of course, about movement westward about
the time of the US-Mexican War, which occurred ten years
after the 1836 assault on the Alamo. The only involvement
of France in Mexico was during the Second French Empire,
when France invaded Mexico in 1861 and Napoleon III
installed the Hapsburgian Maximilian as Emperor of Mexico, a
short termed event ending in the execution of Maximilian in
1867.
--
Francis A. Miniter
Oscuramente
libros, laminas, llaves
siguen mi suerte.
Jorge Luis Borges, La Cifra Haiku, 6
David Oberman
>> I checked "1846: The Year of Decision" & found nothing on this
>> question.
>
>The Alamo battle was ten years earlier, in 1836.
Yes, I know. But De Voto's book ranges forward & backward in
narrative. At any rate, he doesn't discuss the Alamo battle.
>Thirty years later the French under Napoleon III had troops in Mexico
>to extort debt payments and support their puppet Emperor Maximilian.
Dramatized in the Bette Davis film "Juarez":
"If Juarez deserts San Luis Potosi, more than an empire is in danger.
. . my husband's life . . . And knowing this you could abandon him?!
Answer me, sire!" -- Bette Davis as the Empress Carlotta
Jim Beaver
"Kingo Gondo" <kingo_nos...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:cKCdnTdxE-eol1zX...@earthlink.com...
>I bet Jim Beaver could tell you more about this issue. The Alamo is right
>in his wheelhouse.
>
It's not something I noticed before, but considering that Wayne's Alamo was
supposedly built using casts from the actual surviving building and
blueprints archived with the Catholic church in Spain, I'd be surprised if
something as blatant as French flags would be used carelessly. I have a
source that will be able to answer this for certain, I think, but in the
meantime, I'd consider it more likely that these were regimental guidons or
other unit-designating flags, or flags for one of the Mexican states. As
I've never looked into it before, it will take me a little digging. But,
yeah, this is my meat.
Jim Beaver
william
I'd consider it more likely that these were regimental guidons or
> other unit-designating flags, or flags for one of the Mexican states.
I just ran "State flags of Mexico" and "Mexican military flags"
through google/images and almost all Mexican flags seem (and at this
point I stress "seem") to have insignia on them. There was a flag that
was close to the French flag but -- reading right to left -- the
colors where white, red, blue and it was the naval flag of the
"insurgents" (not sure which insurgents). Obviously, that ain't it.
William
www.williamahearn.com
Jim Beaver
RESPONSE:
I've asked Frank Thompson, who knows more about the real Alamo AND Alamo
movies, particularly this one, than anyone on earth, and he says he has
never heard this brought up before, nor have his colleagues in the "Alamo
geek" world. Can you describe more specifically in the movie where the
flags were seen (as in what part of the movie)?
I also re-read "John Wayne's The Alamo" last night, an exhaustive book on
the making of the film. Seems I was wrong about the set being built from
blueprints found in Spanish archives--that was a PR person's puffery. But
the amount of historical research which went into the film's uniforms,
weaponry, buildings, and *other* flags during the decade or so of
pre-production is extraordinary. I'd be surprised if a French flag slipped
through. But I'll keep checking. A location within the film would be
helpful, though.
Jim Beaver
Francis A. Miniter
This Wikipedia artice
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_the_Alamo
shows a flag raised in defiance to the Mexican troops that
is not unlike the French flag, but with green not blue. Of
course, the accuracy of colors of an old films is always
open to question.
william
>
> I've asked Frank Thompson, who knows more about the real Alamo AND Alamo
> movies, particularly this one, than anyone on earth, and he says he has
> never heard this brought up before, nor have his colleagues in the "Alamo
> geek" world. Can you describe more specifically in the movie where the
> flags were seen (as in what part of the movie)?
>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwKn6_DSMmU
If you watch the arrival of Santa Ana's troops you'll see them below
the Mexican flag carried by horsemen. They are all over the place. As
you know, I'm not a fan of this film and wouldn't have been watching
if my brother hadn't insisted. So when I'm not interested in a film, I
always check out the "stuff," eg, art direction, etc. The French flags
just jumped right out at me. There isn't an isolated case. In the
scene with the Mexican troops they are clearly visible in several
scenes.
William
www.williamahearn.com
william
wrote:
>
> This Wikipedia articehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_the_Alamo
> shows a flag raised in defiance to the Mexican troops that
> is not unlike the French flag, but with green not blue. Of
> course, the accuracy of colors of an old films is always
> open to question.
>
did the flag in the film.
William
www.williamahearn.com
Dave in Toronto
I see the shots you're talking about. I stop framed the clip at .14
- the red and white bars are plainly visible with no isignia but the
third bar is barely visible and on my set it's difficult to make out
the color - I stop framed it again at 6.26 but again couldn't be sure
of the color.
Dave in Toronto
william
>
> I see the shots you're talking about. I stop framed the clip at .14
> - the red and white bars are plainly visible with no isignia but the
> third bar is barely visible and on my set it's difficult to make out
> the color - I stop framed it again at 6.26 but again couldn't be sure
> of the color.
>
visible numerous times. I didn't think this would become an issue. I
expected a quick and concise answer. Now I'm glad I watched it.
William
www.williamahearn.com
Paul B. Thompson
news:h9t9rj$ihk$1...@aioe.org...
> RESPONSE:
>
> I've asked Frank Thompson, who knows more about the real Alamo AND Alamo
> movies, particularly this one, than anyone on earth, and he says he has
> never heard this brought up before, nor have his colleagues in the "Alamo
> geek" world. Can you describe more specifically in the movie where the
> flags were seen (as in what part of the movie)?
>
> I also re-read "John Wayne's The Alamo" last night, an exhaustive book on
> the making of the film. Seems I was wrong about the set being built from
> blueprints found in Spanish archives--that was a PR person's puffery. But
> the amount of historical research which went into the film's uniforms,
> weaponry, buildings, and *other* flags during the decade or so of
> pre-production is extraordinary. I'd be surprised if a French flag
> slipped through. But I'll keep checking. A location within the film
> would be helpful, though.
>
> Jim Beaver
On the youtube clip you can see the tricoleurs several times:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwKn6_DSMmU
When the Mexican soldiers cry "Advance!" there is an array of banners behind
them. The flag on the left of the Mexican national flag is the one I think
William is referring to. It looks like a French flag trimmed with gold. It
repeats in more than one shot.
Paul Thompson
william
> When the Mexican soldiers cry "Advance!" there is an array of banners behind
> them. The flag on the left of the Mexican national flag is the one I think
> William is referring to. It looks like a French flag trimmed with gold. It
> repeats in more than one shot.
>
That is the flag of the French infantry. See this link and scroll down
to France.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colours,_standards_and_guidons#France
William
www.williamahearn.com
David Oberman
>I see the shots you're talking about. I stop framed the clip at .14
>- the red and white bars are plainly visible with no isignia but the
>third bar is barely visible and on my set it's difficult to make out
>the color - I stop framed it again at 6.26 but again couldn't be sure
>of the color.
Did the French flag look like today's French flag in the 1830s?
william
> Did the French flag look like today's French flag in the 1830s?
From what I understand -- this not being my forte -- is that the
tricolore was adopted for use during the French revolution and has
been used ever since. So I think the short answer to your question is
"oui."
William
www.williamahearn.com
moviePig
David Oberman
>> From what I understand -- this not being my forte -- is that the
>> tricolore was adopted for use during the French revolution and has
>> been used ever since. So I think the short answer to your question is
>> "oui."
>
>(The Alamo's not your forte, eh?)
Remember that "forte" is pronounced as a single syllable (like the
English word "fort").
moviePig
It could be pronounced with spit and a trill, and I'd still pursue the
pun...
tomcervo
wrote:
> This Wikipedia articehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_the_Alamo
> shows a flag raised in defiance to the Mexican troops that
> is not unlike the French flag, but with green not blue. Of
> course, the accuracy of colors of an old films is always
> open to question.
It WAS a Mexican tricolor, with "1824" on the white portion,
signifying the Texican's adherence to the 1824 constitution that was
superseded by Santa Anna. Supposedly. The revolt had more to do with
slavery than the 1824 constitution, something brought out well in the
more recent, far better "The Alamo"--I don't know why anyone bothers
with the Wayne version while that's around.
Paul B. Thompson
William
www.williamahearn.com
There was the period of the Bourbon restoration--1815 to 1830--when the
tricoleur was not the French national flag. After the revolution of 1830,
the new constitutional monarch Louis-Philippe sanctioned use of the
tricoleur again.
PBT
Paul B. Thompson
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colours,_standards_and_guidons#France
William
www.williamahearn.com
It's particularly clear at the 0:15 mark, with the Mexican soldier in the
white shako urging his men forward. Left side of the screen.
I've seen this movie many times over the years and never noticed the French
(?) flags before.
PBT
Jim Beaver
"tomcervo" <tomc...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:c0d75b58-eb2d-4019...@g31g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
RESPONSE:
Well, for some of us, the Wayne version is much better movie making. I've
seen it probably 4 dozen times, while despite being an Alamo history
fanatic, the recent version pretty much bored me to tears. I don't say
Wayne's is better history, but it felt less like history lesson, and for a
first-time director, some of it is damned bravura filmmaking. (And don't
buy into those stories of John Ford "actually" directing it; they're not
true.)
As to the tricolor: I'm wondering if it could be a color problem, either
with the film or the art department, for one reason: the Mexican national
flag was (and is) a green-white-red tricolor with the national seal in the
middle panel. Another tricolor, also green, white and red, but with a
darker green and either WITHOUT the seal or with the seal in a pale gold,
was the flag of the president of Mexico. In some of the shots on Youtube (I
haven't had a chance to check out the DVD yet), it's not clear to me whether
that's a blue panel or a darker green, and it flashes by so quickly I'm not
sure whether the center panel is blank or contains the pale gold seal.
There's a photo of the presidential tricolor at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Banderas_Mexicanas.JPG It's in the second
column from the left at the bottom. As you can see, the left panel is much
darker--almost appearing blue--than the national flags. This one has the
pale gold seal, though as I said, some of the presidential flags did not
carry the seal, but merely the tricolor panels. Since General Santa Anna
was also president of Mexico, it makes sense that the presidential flag
would be present on the battlefield, and I'm willing to believe that this
is the case, rather than just random French flags stuck in the mix--by a
Mexican-American art director, at that! Now whether it makes sense for the
president's flag to be carried into the actual forefront of the battle is
another question.
Jim Beaver
foggytown
blind.
tomcervo
> Well, for some of us, the Wayne version is much better movie making. I've
> seen it probably 4 dozen times, while despite being an Alamo history
> fanatic, the recent version pretty much bored me to tears. I don't say
> Wayne's is better history, but it felt less like history lesson, and for a
> first-time director, some of it is damned bravura filmmaking. (And don't
> buy into those stories of John Ford "actually" directing it; they're not
> true.)
True, however, that Cliff Lyons WAS there and some of that bravura
film making may have been due to the second unit he led.
Unfortunately, so was Frankie Avalon.
Billy Bob Thornton really bored you to tears?
foggytown
> "tomcervo" <tomce...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:c0d75b58-eb2d-4019...@g31g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 29, 12:02 pm, "Francis A. Miniter" <famini...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
> > This Wikipedia articehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_the_Alamo
> > shows a flag raised in defiance to the Mexican troops that
> > is not unlike the French flag, but with green not blue. Of
> > course, the accuracy of colors of an old films is always
> > open to question.
>
> It WAS a Mexican tricolor, with "1824" on the white portion,
> signifying the Texican's adherence to the 1824 constitution that was
> superseded by Santa Anna. Supposedly. The revolt had more to do with
> slavery than the 1824 constitution, something brought out well in the
> more recent, far better "The Alamo"--I don't know why anyone bothers
> with the Wayne version while that's around.
>
> RESPONSE:
>
> Well, for some of us, the Wayne version is much better movie making. �I've
> seen it probably 4 dozen times, while despite being an Alamo history
> fanatic, the recent version pretty much bored me to tears. �I don't say
> Wayne's is better history, but it felt less like history lesson, and for a
> first-time director, some of it is damned bravura filmmaking. �(And don't
> buy into those stories of John Ford "actually" directing it; they're not
> true.)
>
<snip>
> Jim Beaver
Jim,
From a historical point of view, do you subscribe to Crockett's
demise as per Wayne or as per Hancock? I don't think there is any
evidence that Crockett became possibly history's first "suicide
bomber" (as depicted by Wayne and Lloyd) but the evidence that he and
several others were saved for last and killed in front of Santa Anna
also seems thin.
Of the Alamo-based films I've seen I would have to rank
1. Hancock's
2. Wayne's
3. Lloyd's (The Last Command) and Hunnicutt's Crockett was just a
bumptious characature
4. Kennedy's (The Alamo: 13 Days of Glory) Ewwwww!
william
> As to the tricolor: I'm wondering if it could be a color problem, either
> with the film or the art department, for one reason: the Mexican national
> flag was (and is) a green-white-red tricolor with the national seal in the
> middle panel. Another tricolor, also green, white and red, but with a
> darker green and either WITHOUT the seal or with the seal in a pale gold,
> was the flag of the president of Mexico.
I can't find a single reference to a presidential flag of Mexico
without the seal. The flag would almost require it by definition to be
the presidential flag. I'm not trying to be difficult here as I have
no investment one way or the other in the Alamo as an historical event
or Wayne's film of it. The presidential sash also has the seal of
Mexico. If the flag didn't have the seal, how would you know what it's
supposed to mean?
William
www.williamahearn.com
Jim Beaver
RESPONSE:
I now can't find where I read the fact that at one time, the presidential
flag did not have the seal of Mexico. (I will say that with or without the
seal, it's different from the national flag, so I guess that's how you know
what it's supposed to mean. Or at least that it means something different
from the national flag. Even the presidential flag WITH the seal doesn't
indicate what it MEANS. And the seal-less presidential flag, as I recall,
preceded the gold-seal presidential flag, so it could have been a brief
early versions. I don't know.) But I did read that, immediately before my
previous post.
In any event, a few more looks at the film reveal a couple of minor points.
At one place in the film, General Santa Anna is passing. All of the flags
and banners are dipped in his honor--EXCEPT this tricolor under discussion.
That at least hints at it being the symbol of the presidency.
Another point is that the flag we're discussing has gold fringe. In the
study of flags, Mexican and otherwise, I've made in the past few days, it
seems that fringe often connotates a "different" flag from the same design
w/o fringe, i.e., it's possible that without fringe it's the French flag,
and with it, it's something Mexican. (Don't get me started on French
fringe. This is confusing enough.)
I believe now that the flag in the film is indeed blue, white, and red, and
not a deeper, darker green. There's a very clear shot of the flag at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0TAuRDF-tNM&NR=1 at 5:46. Here as in almost
every other instance in the film, the flag is to the carrier's right
(viewer's left) of the national flag. In only one instance in the film have
I found the b-w-r tricolor anywhere other than to the carrier's right of the
national flag. That one instance is at the beginning of the film, when Sam
Houston arrives at the Texian headquarters. In that shot, the b-w-r
tricolor hangs above the door of the headquarters--alone, without the
Mexican national flag. Now that is interesting. Why would the Texians be
headquartered under the same flag that Mexican soldiers carried into battle?
The Texians professed themselves loyal to Mexico originally, their
"revolution" initially being against Santa Anna's overturning of the 1821
constitution. (The flag inside the Alamo reportedly was emblazoned "1821"
in recognition of the constitution the Texians wished to continue living
under.) There's something about that b-w-r tricolor that works for both
factions, unless the Mexican-American art director of the film, Al Ybarra,
whose design elements are almost exquisitely well-researched otherwise,
failed big-time with this one extremely obvious element.
I've sent screen caps of the flag to the author of a detailed history of
Mexican civilian and military flags, and with a little luck, he'll tell us
whether this is an example of Hollywood screwing up or of an art director
who knew more about history than most of us can easily dig up now.
Jim Beaver
william
>
> I've sent screen caps of the flag to the author of a detailed history of
> Mexican civilian and military flags, and with a little luck, he'll tell us
> whether this is an example of Hollywood screwing up or of an art director
> who knew more about history than most of us can easily dig up now.
>
fringe indicated infantry. It was never my contention to insist that
the flags actually were French. No doubt the art director knows more
about the era than I do. One question does come up and that is why the
two historians asked that their names be taken off the film. (If, in
fact, that story is true.) I'm looking forward to the answer from the
expert. Just as long as I don't have to see the film again. (I mean
that humorosly but I do mean it.)
William
www.williamahearn.com
Jim Beaver
RESPONSE:
The story about historians Lon Tinkle and J. Frank Dobie leaving the set "in
disgust" and demanding their names be removed is found in "Alamo Sourcebook
1836: A Comprehensive Guide to the Battle of the Alamo and the Texas
Revolution," by Timothy & Terry Todish and Ted Spring. (These authors go a
bit overboard, in my opinion, in claiming that "there is not a single scene
in The Alamo which corresponds to an historically verifiable incident," when
the very subject of the film belies that remark.) Although Frank Thompson
(my friend and previously-mentioned-in-this-thread Alamo expert) refers to
the Tinkle-Dobie story in at least one article, the Todish-Todish-Spring
book is the source for almost every Google reference I can find to the story
(probably because it's cited in the Wikipedia article on the film). So
while I have enormous respect and confidence in Frank Thompson's word on
such matters, I don't know if his source is the Todish book or vice versa,
or the two references are independent. In any event, the book "John Wayne's
The Alamo" (which does not hesitate to criticize elements of the film or its
promotion) does not mention Tinkle and Dobie removing their names. It does,
however, mention that Tinkle and Dobie appeared in a promotional film short,
"The Spirit of the Alamo," which was aired ten months after production
wrapped as a national television special in the U.S. to publicize the film's
opening.
God knows I don't look on the Wayne film as a history book. But its
popularity fifty years later (and it IS enormously popular in certain
circles, not all of them yokel circles) suggests that many others besides
myself found something inspiring in it. For me, for all its failings it
does a wonderful job of presenting the bravery and anguish of characters
willing to give their lives for a belief. It may not be history, but I'm
always touched by stories of people willing to lay down their lives for
their fellow men--even if those stories are pure fiction disguised as
history. They still represent men of such willingness and therefore touch
something in me. And finally, the Wayne movie made me spend a great deal of
the rest of my life studying the battle and the whole of Texas history,
something I'd likely not have done without it, and something that has
delighted and fulfilled and intrigued me for years.
Jim Beaver
tomcervo
"We don't have any more Mexican flags, just these French ones left
over from "Desiree".
"Use 'em. No one will notice."
I mean, movies then were made for a first and second run, and maybe a
re-issue years later, to an undiscriminating mass audience who
wouldn't have noticed if you gave Crockett a Winchester. No one
expected people would be watching "The Alamo" 10, much less 50 years
later.
william
>
> God knows I don't look on the Wayne film as a history book. But its
> popularity fifty years later (and it IS enormously popular in certain
> circles, not all of them yokel circles) suggests that many others besides
> myself found something inspiring in it.
I never said that anyone who appreciates the film is a "yokel" and I
don't think that was directed at me personally. As I stated in my
original post, I wasn't interested in the sideroads of John Wayne or
the film itself. The flags did jump out at me. You and I tend to be
polar opposites in what we value in films so I don't question whether
the film is "inspiring" to some people and whether those people are
"yokels" as a result. John Wayne and "The Alamo" just aren't on my
radar and my seeing the film (again) was a pure fluke. So my interest
in the flags isn't a basis of criticism. It's pure curiosity. As with
Raymond Chandler's novels, the Battle of the Bulge or the discovery of
penicillin, movies aren't the sources to cite in serious studies of
these subects. They are almost always "wrong" in terms of specifics.
What I do find interesting about the film's history is that John Wayne
didn't want to star in it. He only wanted to direct it and it was the
financing that demanded he play Crockett. (If that story is true.) My
gut feeling is that his original idea was the better one as it would
have been a film about the Alamo rather than a John Wayne movie about
the Alamo. That might seem a minor point although I don't think it
is.
William
www.williamahearn.com
moviePig
Ironic how the "negative" advocate (you) must surely realize that he's
tempting a bunch of folks (me) to rewatch the movie. (I
forget ...it's a happy ending, right?)
william
>
> Ironic how the "negative" advocate (you) must surely realize that he's
> tempting a bunch of folks (me) to rewatch the movie. (I
> forget ...it's a happy ending, right?)
>
well, there wasn't a sequel.
William
www.williamahearn.com
Dave in Toronto
> What I do find interesting about the film's history is that John Wayne
> didn't want to star in it. He only wanted to direct it and it was the
> financing that demanded he play Crockett. (If that story is true.) My
> gut feeling is that his original idea was the better one as it would
> have been a film about the Alamo rather than a John Wayne movie about
> the Alamo. That might seem a minor point although I don't think it
> is.
>
> Williamwww.williamahearn.com
I agree that it would have been a better movie if Wayne had been
allowed to follow his original concept of playing a small role as Sam
Houston. I actually didn't care too much for Wayne's performance - he
somehow didn't come across as Crockett to me.
I suppose most following this thread have already read the trivia
about the movie on imdb -http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0053580/trivia-
some interesting comments about John Ford's involvment and the major
stars who were offered parts but turned them for various reasons.
Dave in Toronto
Dave in Toronto
Sorry, last part should have been "....but turned them down for
Jim Beaver
RESPONSE:
The yokels remark wasn't, indeed, aimed at you. You said nothing along
those lines. But this film comes up in conversation here every so often,
and sometimes there's a sense I get that some folks think only Texas
rednecks like the film. Maybe that's a false impression. At any rate,
please be assured that I'm running off on tangents and not responding to
anything you've said, other than the specific things you questioned
regarding the flags and the historians. Your point about not citing movies
as history is extremely well taken. And yes, Wayne had no intention of
playing Crockett. But he didn't get what he wanted, there or in some of the
other lead casting. (Though surprisingly, Laurence Harvey seems to have
been an enthusiastic choice of Wayne's.)
Jim Beaver
Dave in Toronto
> "william" <wlahe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Apparently Wayne and Harvey became very good friends during the making
of the movie.
Dave in Toronto
Jim Beaver
"Dave in Toronto" <dmatt...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:bb5b7d41-2c00-4a40...@p23g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
Some of those trivia items are flat-out wrong, and many of the others have
been twisted out of their original shape. Once Wayne decided he wanted to
produce and direct the film (in the early 1950s), he wanted only the cameo
role of Sam Houston. In 1956, UA financed the project, but only on
condition Wayne star, which propelled him into the role of Crockett against
his will. Charlton Heston was never offered the role of Jim Bowie, but
rather that Sam Houston cameo Wayne had wanted for himself (ultimately
played by Richard Boone). Heston's diary mentions only the offer and his
rejection, without giving a reason. (Heston annotated his published diary
with detailed commentary, and gave none of the reasons attributed to him
later.) Wayne's original choice for Jim Bowie was William Holden, not
Heston. Holden wanted to do the film but other commitments prevented him.
Wayne then turned to his friend, the then high-riding Gunsmoke star James
Arness. But Gunsmoke's schedule wouldn't allow Arness to take the role, and
Wayne then went to Widmark (with whom, after an initial iciness, Wayne got
along fine, contrary to IMDb's trivia items). I can find no reliable
evidence that Sonny Tufts or Clark Gable were ever considered for the film.
Gossip columnists had tossed around the idea that Rock Hudson would play
Travis, but Laurence Harvey seems to have been Wayne's first and only
choice. (It's interesting that the brusque Yank Wayne and the comparatively
effete Brit Harvey became close friends during the filming.)
Jim Beaver
william
>
> Some of those trivia items are flat-out wrong, and many of the others have
> been twisted out of their original shape.
Which is why I always try to qualify any statement about Hollywood,
movies, stars and the like with "if the story is true" or something
similar. Every time I try and research information about that kind of
material, I almost always throw up my hands and realize that Hollywood
hasn't history as much as it has a collection of faulty, self-serving,
misleading or fabricated memories. My hat is off to anyone who
seriously undertakes trying to sort that maze of mirrors into
something coherent.
William
www.williamahearn.com
Dave in Toronto
> effete Brit Harvey became close friends during the filming.)
>
> Jim Beaver
Quoting from imdb trivia :-
"During the battle sequence, one of the cannons rolled over the foot
of Laurence Harvey, breaking it at the instep. He continued with the
scene, eventually treating the injury himself."
If this item is true it's in the best tradition of "the show must go
on" and the sort of thing Wayne would admire, especially in a movie he
was directing.
Dave in Toronto
Jim Beaver
"Jim Beaver" <jumb...@prodigy.spam> wrote in message
news:ha6lif$t3a$1...@aioe.org...
>
>
> I believe now that the flag in the film is indeed blue, white, and red,
> and not a deeper, darker green. There's a very clear shot of the flag at
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0TAuRDF-tNM&NR=1 at 5:46. Here as in
> almost every other instance in the film, the flag is to the carrier's
> right (viewer's left) of the national flag.
Now I've had a chance to see the film up close in an excellent DVD transfer.
The flag in question is in fact dark green-white-red, not blue-white-red.
There's a clear close-up in the film itself at 2:27:07. It's definitely not
the twin of the French flag. Unfortunately, now, (except for the fringe)
it's the twin of the Italian flag.
Jim Beaver
william
Unfortunately, now, (except for the fringe)
> it's the twin of the Italian flag.
>
An obvious homage to the neo-realists. How I missed that is beyond me.
Crockett's death/suicide destroying the very thing he was trying to
save. At first, I thought the French flag might indicate film noir
elements in the story and the post-German Expressionist shadows in the
magazine where Crockett meets his doom. Now, however, I see clearly
the struggle with the land and Santa Ana representing the inevitable
forces of nature. Remember, Crockett wears an animal on his head. This
is clearly representational of his internal conflict with life itself.
The racoon is the symbol of falsity and distraction with its masked
eyes. The conflicted hero is one basis for film noir and yes, I'm
kidding but I bet I could expand it and get it published in Film Noir
6.
William
www.williamahearn.com
tomcervo
> What I do find interesting about the film's history is that John Wayne
> didn't want to star in it. He only wanted to direct it and it was the
> financing that demanded he play Crockett. (If that story is true.) My
> gut feeling is that his original idea was the better one as it would
> have been a film about the Alamo rather than a John Wayne movie about
> the Alamo. That might seem a minor point although I don't think it
> is.
Hard to believe he was that naive, to think that without him there was
even a chance of it being made. Who did he have in mind for Crockett?
Randolph Scott would have been perfect.
Dave in Toronto
According to imdb he wanted Richard Widmark to play Crockett. That
wouldn't have worked IMO.
Dave in Toronto
foggytown
Unless Fess Parker was available.
tomcervo
Scott tended to get roles that Wayne didn't have time for, like "The
Tall T", for which we may be thankful--and Crockett was 50, and had
enough native eloquence to serve in Congress. Scott would have been
perfect.
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>Scott tended to get roles that Wayne didn't have time for, like "The
>Tall T", for which we may be thankful--and Crockett was 50, and had
>enough native eloquence to serve in Congress. Scott would have been
>perfect.
If they want to be accurate - what did the real Crockett look like?
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
Francis A. Miniter
> On Sun, 4 Oct 2009 16:32:02 -0700 (PDT), tomcervo <tomc...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Scott tended to get roles that Wayne didn't have time for, like "The
>> Tall T", for which we may be thankful--and Crockett was 50, and had
>> enough native eloquence to serve in Congress. Scott would have been
>> perfect.
>
> If they want to be accurate - what did the real Crockett look like?
>
There is a picture of him on Wikipedia.
--
Francis A. Miniter
Oscuramente
libros, laminas, llaves
siguen mi suerte.
Jorge Luis Borges, La Cifra Haiku, 6
Dave in Toronto
wrote:
> Howard Brazee wrote:
> > On Sun, 4 Oct 2009 16:32:02 -0700 (PDT), tomcervo <tomce...@aol.com>
> > wrote:
>
> >> Scott tended to get roles that Wayne didn't have time for, like "The
> >> Tall T", for which we may be thankful--and Crockett was 50, and had
> >> enough native eloquence to serve in Congress. Scott would have been
> >> perfect.
>
> > If they want to be accurate - what did the real Crockett look like?
>
> There is a picture of him on Wikipedia.
>
> --
> Francis A. Miniter
tomcervo
A lot like Billy Bob Thornton looked in "The Alamo"--sorry, Jim, but
it was an immaculate performance.
Jim Beaver
"tomcervo" <tomc...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:c21a6a4b-f047-43b9...@h30g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
It was a terrific performance--in a dull movie. I didn't hate the film, and
I thought Thornton was great. But I saw Wayne's Alamo 13 times the first
two weeks after its general release, and probably three dozen times since.
It grabs me--not like it did in 1960, when I was 10, but it grabs me, still,
flaws and all. The recent version did not grab me, and I can barely
remember most of it--and I had friends in it! (Actually, now that I think
about it, I had friends in the 1960 one, too, but they weren't friends till
much later.)
Jim Beaver
moviePig
> "tomcervo" <tomce...@aol.com> wrote in message
How did you get into a Todd-AO release 13 times? That would've
totaled what... 10 bucks?
David Oberman
>If they want to be accurate - what did the real Crockett look like?
He looked a little like Eugene Pallette.
Jim Beaver
"moviePig" <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote in message
news:a907a874-52ea-4a17...@o13g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
Multiple showings in one day...I just sat through it 2-3 times a day. And
at kid's prices, I doubt I spent $5. Had to rob the piggy bank for that,
though.
Jim Beaver
Howard Brazee
<dobe...@socal.rr.com> wrote:
>>If they want to be accurate - what did the real Crockett look like?
>
>He looked a little like Eugene Pallette.
You mean he had two eyes, two ears, a mouth, and a nose?
Although always think of the older Eugene Pallette, let me Google.
Hmm, he did look different when he was young, if not nearly as
distinctive.
beard...@gmail.com
I saw the French looking flags and the exact question that the original poster asked popped onto my head.
Google lead me here and I'm glad it did. Thanks everyone for your decade old input. :)
Frank
