THE ALAMO (1960, Directed by John Wayne, starring John Wayne, Richard Widmark and Laurence Harvey) Available from most video outlets. PLEASE NOTE: the Restored Director’s Cut is currently out of print. See notes on restoration below.

The first thing I have to say to anyone who has not yet seen this brilliant film is-- throw away the DVD version! Why? Because the unparalleled stupidity of the MGM/UA powers-that-be chose to release the DVD without the 33 minutes of restored footage that all Alamo fans were treated to in an earlier video/laser disk release in the mid-‘90s. In preparing THE ALAMO for DVD release, MGM/UA unbelievably chose to withdraw the restored version from circulation and ‘store’ the restored 70mm footage in a cardboard box in a warehouse, where it currently sits, deteriorating.

Fortunately, the noble team of Robert A. Harris and James C. Katz, the two men who were responsible for the restoration of SPARTACUS and other worthy classic films, have made it their next mission to restore the missing ALAMO footage to its rightful place once and for all, preserving it on DVD for all time. They recognize that THE ALAMO is one of the greatest epic films ever made.

All that’s missing from this noble endeavour is the cash. They require thousands of dollars to successfully realize this critical restoration and they only have approximately 18 months to do it, after which the film stock of the missing scenes will be too damaged to salvage. Send your letters of indignation to MGM/UA, if you please! The battle for THE ALAMO continues!

There are few films that have been so undeservedly maligned than John Wayne’s THE ALAMO. Those of us who were not around when the film was originally released may be ignorant of the political hype that accompanied it. Apparently Wayne intended his film as an anti-communist, Republican-advocating statement about American values and beliefs. He apparently tried to endorse the Richard Nixon political campaign with his film and attacked John F. Kennedy for having succeeded partly because of his father’s political machinations (well, isn’t that true?) Yes, Nixon became corrupted but it could reasonably be argued the Kennedys were corrupt to start with!

Quite frankly, especially speaking as a Canadian, I don’t care about the American politics this film has or doesn’t have. In terms of ‘manipulating’ an audience to think a certain way, you can apply that same accusation to virtually every Hollywood filmmaker active today. An example? Steven Spielberg, who, it could be argued appears to sometimes choose subject matter based on the supposition that people of good conscience DARE not disagree with him. How dare anyone criticize SCHINDLER’S LIST, for example? Personally I don’t care for the film, but that doesn’t imply insensitivity towards the subject matter—it simply means I don’t like his ‘in your face’ treatment. Similarly, SAVING PRIVATE RYAN in my opinion is manipulative and tasteless. It attempts to ‘raise the bar’ for realism in its depiction of screen violence. Well nothing Spielberg showed us in that film has not already been seen in lesser-known films such as STALINGRAD and THE WINTER WAR. By pushing the envelope in regards to wider audience acceptance of more explicit blood and gore, it could be argued that Spielberg has at the same time contributed to the general desensitization of movie goers who, in order to be similarly shocked in the future, must see even greater levels of simulated carnage to experience the same numbing effect his movie caused.

The point is, movie politics are with us and always have been with us, from THE BIRTH OF A NATION to next year’s interpretation of the Alamo story. How a particular film is viewed or critically received has much to do with the contemporary leanings of the media and Hollywood itself.

And since Hollywood and the media are generally known to be Democratic Liberals, a film like John Wayne’s THE ALAMO is bound to be judged as much for the perceived politics of its maker than for any artistic merit it may genuinely contain. In fact, I would go so far as to say that artistic merit may well be ignored by those who would impose a political agenda on any work of art. And vice-versa. Many’s the time that politically correct ‘art’ is deemed acceptable even when its actual ‘artistic’ content is questionable.

Given the political controversy about THE ALAMO it seems unavoidable to open any discussion of this film without a political rant of some kind, which is exactly what I have just done. Having stated my observations, allow me to try to comment on John Wayne’s THE ALAMO with all the integrity and expertise of a fair-minded film actor, writer and unabashed Alamo fan.

The starting point for every critique of THE ALAMO must begin with an acknowledgement that two of the greatest American filmmakers of all time went on record to say that they thought it was a magnificent film. John Ford described THE ALAMO as ‘the greatest picture I’ve ever seen.’ George Stevens said ‘there are images in THE ALAMO that will haunt you and inspire you for a lifetime… it is a modern classic.’ I think it is safe to say that these two giants knew what they were talking about.

Like many artistic endeavours that resonate personally with their creators, John Wayne’s Alamo film had deep roots. He began thinking about it as far back as 1944. For years it was his artistic passion until finally it blossomed into his obsession. He had a vision for this story which he believed personified not only Americans but freedom-loving people everywhere.

There are many who dismiss THE ALAMO for its historical inaccuracies. If that is the barometer which we use to judge this film then we must ultimately dismiss all the film versions of the Alamo. A film is a film, not a history book. As the lyrics of the haunting ALAMO music say at the end of the John Wayne film ‘they fought to give us freedom/That is all we need to know.’ If that is all we need to know then the essence, or spirit of the story is what is necessary in a film, not historical accuracy.

And where does Wayne’s presentation deviate from recorded fact? One could start with trivial observances such as the absence of Jim Bowie’s sideburns. And did Bowie really carry a seven-barreled rifle? Continuing this line of criticism we could rightly ask ‘didn’t these freedom-loving Americans, by and large, believe in slavery?’ Sure we see Jethro, Bowie’s slave, who is later given his freedom in a symbolic gesture in keeping with the spirit of the freedom the Alamo men were fighting for, but surely there were some white supremacists among these American immigrants from the Southern States who directed their racist thinking to people of Mexican heritage, even though many of them also fought on the side of liberty at the Alamo. John Wayne’s film is historically inaccurate on this issue, for he goes out of his way to show the collaboration of Texicans of American and Mexican heritage working together to combat the evil of tyranny. He gives them all dignity and courage, (even extending these virtues to the Mexican soldiers attacking the Alamo). The point is, dramatically, in the context of his film, historical accuracy doesn’t necessarily matter.

Of course the upcoming Alamo film promises to put all these inaccuracies right. We shall see. Whether it will instead prove a reflection of Hollywood’s current political climate combined with current Alamo scholarship remains to be seen. Historical accuracy is still a matter of interpretation. It is very, very difficult to simply present facts. And when you do, you have a documentary, not a drama. One can only hope the new Alamo movie will at least be entertaining.

If we then can accept that John Wayne, in his film THE ALAMO, which was well-researched and to a great degree respectful of the scholarship then current in 1959, simply chose to alter history in the name of making an entertaining movie that catches the spirit of what is undeniably an inspiring story of men sacrificing their lives for a great cause, we will be far less inclined to point fingers and yell ‘Yes, but’ and simply enjoy the movie for what it is.

As with all Art, time is the purest judge of its worth. THE ALAMO is a very popular movie today, despite its detractors. It has been in constant circulation on video (despite the restoration controversy, which is no doubt the result of Economics winning over Art). Alamo Village in Brackettville continues to draw fans from all over the world. John Wayne continues to be one of the biggest stars on the planet, with Duke memorabilia continuing to raise millions of dollars per year (all proceeds going to cancer research). We cannot dismiss THE ALAMO as anything less than an outstanding film of lasting and considerable merit.

Now, what is purely subjective is whether or not you LIKE the film. No one has any right to tell you what to think, as Duke would be the first to say, so despite the political leanings of this or any film, individuals are free to make up their own minds. Just know why you like or dislike something. Back it up with intelligent reflection and some degree of knowledge on the subject on which you are opining. Otherwise you will simply come across as ignorant or worse, prejudiced.

I don’t like John Wayne’s film, THE ALAMO. I love it. It stirs something deep within me and moves me even after repeated viewings. I’m deeply grateful to my fellow Canadian, Bob Bryden, who has the historic distinction of having discovered the missing ALAMO footage, quite by chance, at an Imax presentation back in 1980 (he then brought it to the attention of MGM/UA in 1990 after reading that all known copies of the complete version were thought lost). My appreciation of this great film has been considerably enhanced by being able to see John Wayne’s complete vision, not the heavily edited version that circulated for many years and, if MGM/UA has its way, will continue to circulate. That is why I urge those of you who have not already obtained it, to get online and seek out a used copy of the Restored Director’s Cut of THE ALAMO and eschew the shorter version. It really does make a difference.

We must remember that John Wayne was the biggest movie star in the world, both from a box office point of view and from the perspective of career longevity. It is somehow fitting that it was he who took on the most expensive film ever shot in the U.S. up until that time. No one else could have pulled it off.

Much has been said about John Wayne biting off more than he could chew. So what? For one thing, he originally didn’t want to star in it, but would have rather taken a cameo role, that of Sam Houston. Studio backers wouldn’t let him. He was compelled to direct and produce because his vision would have suffered had he turned the reigns over to anyone else. He only came on board as star when he was forced. This bespeaks artistic integrity, not megalomania or political ambition.

The humility John Wayne showed in creating his masterpiece is demonstrated by the fact that on the first day of principal photography he enlisted Father Peter Rogers of San Antonio’s St. Mary’s Catholic Church to bless the production with an opening prayer. A cynic might say Duke was just trying to enlist all the help he could get. Personally I think it indicates that John Wayne knew this was the biggest project of his life. He stood in awe of the challenge, but met it head on.

And what if he did fail in some aspects? Who else could have pulled off a project of this magnitude in the capacities that he filled? THE ALAMO was nominated for seven Oscars. The fact that it only won one could have as much to do with the tasteless advertising campaign which Wayne did not oversee (he was out of the country). Looking at some of the ads today it is enough to turn anyone off. This was of course compounded by Chill Wills’ disgraceful lobbying for a Best Supporting Actor Oscar. Again, politics.

We must sift through the fog of politics, prejudice and even personal taste when we examine this film. And since we have the advantage of perspective, let’s use it wisely.

If you really look at this film with an objective eye, especially in light of all the other Alamo films, one of the first things you will notice is that virtually every shot in the film has immaculate composition. Lighting, colour, blocking and gestures all combine to create a look of extraordinary beauty. Night scenes are all shot at night and not ‘day for night’ which was common, even in 1959, and which invariably looks phony, especially to today’s more technically enlightened audiences.

There is no expense spared in providing authentic-looking period weaponry (even Bowie’s seven-barreled rifle, though it is doubtful he owned one!), uniforms (twelve different kinds for the Mexican army), costumes and sets. While San Antonio is created without an eye to historical authenticity, the Alamo complex is replicated, even though it faces the opposite direction of the real Alamo. As noted elsewhere, this was purely an aesthetic choice. Filmmakers cannot be faulted for making considered artistic choices. The sun setting behind the mission at the end of the film does make a beautiful shot.

Much criticism of this film has been leveled towards James Edward Grant, the scriptwriter, who many feel created new standards in hokey dialogue. I would agree that the dialogue is distinct. However I am in the minority, I suppose, when I say that I believe the script is beautifully written. It’s not Shakespeare nor is it poetic, and Crockett’s speech to Flaca at the river has always sounded a little bit stilted to me, but despite imperfections, I find the script colourful, humourous (not hokey), intelligent and succinct. The best movies are the ones which lend themselves to extended quoting. (Granted, some turkeys fall into this category). Usually good dialogue will stick in a person’s memory. As a writer I can tell you it is no easy feat to write good dialogue. John Wayne worked with James Edward Grant for several years to hone the script and even while they were shooting, Duke was constantly paring down his lines and reworking scenes. I truly consider the script to be one of the strongest elements in the movie.

The battle scenes, even the lesser conflicts such as street brawls, are handled with assurance. Yakima Canutt, John Wayne’s famous stuntman friend with whom he made many of his earliest films, taught Duke well. Canutt’s sons both worked on THE ALAMO. Chuck Hayward and Chuck Roberson, two more of the best stuntmen in the business also worked on the film to give it some of its more authentic-looking stunts. The highly-regarded Cliff Lyons coordinated all the action, which included a fourteen-horse drop in the climactic battle. This had never been done before and was performed flawlessly on the first take with no injury to animal and minimal injury to man.

The final battle, even though it does not occur at pre-dawn (as it did, historically), and even though it is preceded by an equally historically inaccurate first assault the previous day, is still spectacular and ranks at the top of any great filmed battle sequence. Subsequent Alamo films shot at Alamo Village always seem reluctant to damage the fort with explosions. John Wayne seemed intent on destroying it. In fact, Happy Shahan, owner of the ranch on which the Alamo set was built, hoped minimal damage would be incurred so he could rent the set out to future film companies. In particular, he was dismayed that John Wayne wanted to blow up the chapel. On the day the explosions occurred, Michael Wayne, Duke’s son, who was standing next to Happy Shahan at the time, turned to him and said ‘There goes your Alamo, Shahan.’ Fortunately, he was wrong!

The music, by the much-honoured Dimitri Tiomkin (who, ironically, as a Russian-born musician, scored many Westerns) is one of the film’s greatest achievements. Three LPs of Alamo music and nineteen 45s were released after the film opened. THE GREEN LEAVES OF SUMMER remains one of the most haunting film songs ever written. Marty Robbins’ rendition of THE BALLAD OF THE ALAMO also became a classic, despite not being heard in the film. Both songs made the Top 40.

Tiomkin’s music is astounding. His thrilling battle music, his quiet and tender reflections, his raucous songs and his atmospheric riding jaunts, fanfares and military marches are indicative of the lush, full-blown, no-expense-spared treatment this film received. Tiomkin deservedly received two Oscar nominations for his fine score. He said himself that his music for THE ALAMO was the crowning achievement of thirty years’ work in motion pictures.

THE ALAMO storyline gives equal development time to each of the three principles, Crockett, Travis and Bowie. If you consider most other Alamo movies, the focus tends to be on one character. Even in THE ALAMO: THIRTEEN DAYS TO GLORY, there seemed to be a bias towards Jim Bowie, with Travis being rather one dimensional.

One of the reasons THE ALAMO cost so much to produce was because of the need to pay three star salaries. Although others considered for the role of Jim Bowie were Charlton Heston and James Arness, Richard Widmark was brought in when United Artists became attached. Widmark was under contract with UA. Apparently he and Wayne did not like each other though after some tension they did come to a suitable working arrangement. The casting of Laurence Harvey as Travis caused some controversy, as Harvey was a Lithuanian-born Jew raised in South Africa and later partly educated in London. He was made an honourary citizen of Texas during the filming, which helped ease him into the acceptance of concerned parties. The fact remains that Harvey was a superb actor and his interpretation of Travis, in keeping with known scholarship at that time, was a perfect balance to Bowie and Crockett. These three key characters are distinct and given ample opportunity to portray fullness of character. One of my favourite moments of Travis’ is when Bowie and his men, after being primed, mounted and ready to leave, choose to stay and fight. Bowie walks over to Travis and stands beside him as if to say ‘I’m with you now’. The look on Travis’ face is one of deep gratitude, humility and emotion. Harvey’s performance is captivating. Wouldn’t it be interesting to see an Alamo film told from the perspective of Travis—we’ve seen films told from Crockett’s and Bowie’s point of view?

Widmark, despite being considerably shorter than Wayne and even Harvey, is such a strong actor that he manages to convey the bigness of Bowie with a performance that is both tough and sensitive. In fact each of the three protagonists, and several of the supporting roles as well, all have opportunities to display feeling and tenderness. Bowie’s response at the news of the death of his wife is very moving. Travis’ apology when he learns that he has intruded on Bowie’s grief is noble and touching.

The romantic sub-plot between Davy Crockett and Linda Cristal is clearly there as a nod to cinematic convention. How do you draw the female audience into a movie about fighting? In some ways the love interest is certainly formulaic, but I still think it works. It affords Crockett the opportunity to show a tender side and the way he employs Flaca to write a letter in Spanish to himself, supposedly from Santa Anna, to illustrate to his men how the Mexican Dictator feels about their presence, is an effective plot device.

Continuing with cinematic convention, the choice to cast 19-year-old singer Frankie Avalon was obviously made to attract younger audiences. The ploy worked with Ricky Nelson in RIO BRAVO and Fabian in NORTH TO ALASKA (made after THE ALAMO), so why not? This is still a convention at work today. (Who would’ve thought Eminem could act?) Avalon is a bit of a strain on credulity, especially when he repeatedly says ‘Gee,’ but his casting is a flaw I can accept. At least he tries to fit in with the rest of the ensemble.

A strong contingent of character actors gives tremendous depth to the cast, not only the ‘good guys’ like Chill Wills and Denver Pyle, but also Carlos Arruza, the great Mexican matador, who plays one of Santa Anna’s mounted soldiers. He reads the orders from Santa Anna to the Alamo garrison regarding surrender and again later regarding the evacuation of the women and children. Arruza also appears in many other scenes, and is one of the soldiers who discovers Mrs. Dickinson at the end of the battle. Though he died tragically in 1966, Arruza was the subject of a documentary by the great Western director, Budd Boetticher, made in 1972.

Jester Hairston as Jethro, Jim Bowie’s slave, is excellent. Hairston was a fine singer/musician who dubbed Sidney Poitier in LILIES OF THE FIELD with his terrific rendition of the song AMEN. Hairston died in 2000 in his 99^th year. Joan O’Brien as Mrs. Dickinson may not bear a physical resemblance to the historic Mrs. Dickinson, but she is certainly striking. Her audition for the role consisted of a meeting with John Wayne where he opened with ‘Loretta Young has offered to play this part for free.’ Ms. O’Brien refused to be intimidated. Duke asked her ‘Do you understand what I mean when I say I want you to "walk tall"?’ O’Brien said that she did and she got the part. We see her walking very tall indeed when she exits the Alamo at the film’s end. Her dignity and courage are a memorable addition to the film’s final image as she disappears over the side of a hill with Frankie Avalon and two young children in tow.

Richard Boone as Sam Houston was perfect casting. Only Charlton Heston could have brought as much presence to the role with so few scenes. Boone was a magnificent actor who is usually remembered today either for Paladin, a dubious hero on TV’s HAVE GUN, WILL TRAVEL, or his later villain roles, most particularly in films like HOMBRE and NIGHT OF THE FOLLOWING DAY. He was brilliant as Houston and truly seems to carry the weight of command and responsibility on his shoulders as he sternly gives orders and cuts to the quick in his conversations. He does, however, find time for a brief banter with Jethro, nicely establishing a more down-to-earth side.

John Wayne had wanted to direct from the time he first set foot in a film studio. THE ALAMO was his directorial debut. He continued to be among the top stars in the world and as a result never shifted into a directing career, like he anticipated, following the lead of such older actors as Dick Powell. Apart from his co-direction of THE GREEN BERETS, he never directed again.

THE ALAMO will always be reviled by some, adored by others. I think it’s a great film, one of the greatest epics ever made and the definitive Alamo movie. Now that I’ve given you my reasons why I want to encourage you to examine THE ALAMO and attempt to articulate what you like and what you don’t like—and be able to say why. Maybe not all movies bear such detailed scrutiny, but I would suggest that all great ones do. THE ALAMO’s controversy will continue and no doubt when the new film is released it will be compared to Duke’s version. That alone is testimony to the greatness of John Wayne’s motion picture. It has lasted and it is remembered, just like the real Alamo.

Jon Ted Wynne