Historical Validity in 2004's "The Alamo"
Historical Validity in 2004's "The Alamo"
In the 2004 release, by Touchstone Pictures, "The Alamo" takes a famous story told throughout time and recreates it on the screen once again. This time was it really any better than the other releases? Maybe the flashy effects and better film quality could interest you in this movie but the real question is how valid is it. To the average person this story looks as if they have recreated it perfectly, but to a historian it might not look so genuine. Although this movie does depict many things with absolute efficiency some things are left out. Almost completely ignored in this movie are important instances in history such as the cowardly James Fannin and the battle at Goliad. This is an important part of the story that has been left out. It could have been nice to know what happened to the one person who could have helped but refused to due to his own growing situation. Also in the movie James Bowie is portrayed as a mildly sick person whereas in real life he deathly ill. He was known to have typhoid fever and a bad case at that. Beyond the fallacies in this movie there were many great things that were put to the screen. One of the best in my opinion is the removal of the "line" that was drawn in the dirt by Travis. According to much research the line was actually a story drawn up years later to help signify the sacrifices these men had made. They correctly portrayed how the men were outnumbered in this fight and the effort and courage that was put forth in this battle to defend the Alamo. The last and most controversial issue in the movie is how did David Crockett really die? In this movie they give him the courageous death that he was thought to have. Again researching this subject I found that many believe that Crockett surrendered and was later tortured and assassinated with a few other men. Whether this is what happened or not this was a movie that for the most part had everything right. It was a pretty good
In the 2004 release, by Touchstone Pictures, "The Alamo" takes a famous story told throughout time and recreates it on the screen once again. This time was it really any better than the other releases? Maybe the flashy effects and better film quality could interest you in this movie but the real question is how valid is it. To the average person this story looks as if they have recreated it perfectly, but to a historian it might not look so genuine. Although this movie does depict many things with absolute efficiency some things are left out. Almost completely ignored in this movie are important instances in history such as the cowardly James Fannin and the battle at Goliad. This is an important part of the story that has been left out. It could have been nice to know what happened to the one person who could have helped but refused to due to his own growing situation. Also in the movie James Bowie is portrayed as a mildly sick person whereas in real life he deathly ill. He was known to have typhoid fever and a bad case at that. Beyond the fallacies in this movie there were many great things that were put to the screen. One of the best in my opinion is the removal of the "line" that was drawn in the dirt by Travis. According to much research the line was actually a story drawn up years later to help signify the sacrifices these men had made. They correctly portrayed how the men were outnumbered in this fight and the effort and courage that was put forth in this battle to defend the Alamo. The last and most controversial issue in the movie is how did David Crockett really die? In this movie they give him the courageous death that he was thought to have. Again researching this subject I found that many believe that Crockett surrendered and was later tortured and assassinated with a few other men. Whether this is what happened or not this was a movie that for the most part had everything right. It was a pretty good