Customer Reviews

The History Channel Presents The Alamo

5 star:		(0)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

While containing numerous positive elements the video, unfortunatly shows a subtle bias twoard some major characters especially on the side of the rebels. The program accuratly depicts all of the characters as flawed individuals. In some cases, such as Bowie and Travis seriously flawed. However, instances of extremely honorable behavior on the part of some major characters are, unfortunatly, omitted. For example, that Crockett lost his seat in congress for opposing the dispossession of the Native American population in the Southeastern United States is, unfortunatly, omitted. This display of integrity and honorable behavior by Crockett gives an invaluable insight into his character and should have been included.

That films about the battle of the Alamo tend to show the Mexicans as vicious at best and sadistic at worst is generally true. There are examples to the contrary. An example is John Wayne's movie, The Alamo. While not a great or historically accurate film, John Wayne's epic is very sympathetic to the Mexicans. In Wayne's film Santa Anna is shown behaving chivalrously in letting the women and children evacuate the Alamo and saluting Susanna Dickenson as she and the other survivors leave the fort after the battle. In this movie Crockett defends a Mexican woman against an American who is persecuting her. Juan Seguin has a significant, and positive part in the film. In the depiction of the probing attack defenders of the Alamo praise the courage of the attacking Mexicans. And Richard Widmark, as Bowie, waxes eloquent in his love for Mexico and the Mexican people.

The program misses an opprtunity to use more of the de la Pena diary, now conceeded by most to be substantially authentic, allthough otherwise its sourcing was good.

On the subject of casualties, it is interesting that Santa Anna claimed the number of casualties among the defenders to be 600. It is possible that he picked this number because it exceeded his own casualties. All things considered, it seems likely that several hundred Mexican Soldiers died in the battle.

In short, a very good documentary missed a chance to be a great one.

I am actually going to revise my earlier review a bit, as I recently screened this documentary again, after doing more research on the topic. My earlier comments remain mostly valid, but I need to add a few more concerns. As another reviewer noted, the narrative of the documentary sometimes presents speculative conclusions as verified fact. Granted, the conclusions are based on some evidence, but that evidence is not always so reliable as the documentary would suggest. The annoying phrases "most historians agree" or "most historians now accept" are misleading. Historians always argue and almost never agree...especially on a topic so controversial. I guess the idea was to make the documentary seem authoritative. Watch the documentary, but don't accept everything presented without finding out more about the Alamo. I've been reading about the Alamo for over 40 years now, and the more I learn the more I am convinced that there is still much solid research that needs to be done.

Two of the other reviews so far pretty fairly rate this documentary. The inherent flaw in the documentary is probably unavoidable: it tries to cover a very complex topic from all angles and viewpoints, and this is not quite possible within the time and format restrictions. Still, it is a very good overview, especially if it inspires people to read more on the Alamo. The only other quibble I have is with some of the casting: The Travis is too old, too lean, and wears a Laurence Harvey costume. Likewise the Bowie is too old. Crockett looks good. Santa Anna is good, but doesn't look like the (mostly) Creole that he was. As for "speculation," much of our information about the Alamo is just that, unfortunately. I recommend The Alamo Reader, edited by Todd Hansen, for anyone who wants to see just how "reliable" a lot of our source material for the Alamo is.

Great job with the details of the Alamo and the scenery. However, these folks sort down-play the heroes of the Alamo. They are critical of the US Government and at one point make the claim that the US Government was no better than Santa Ana. It is all about trying to be "politically correct." I would have mixed feelings about showing this one to just anyone. I would not want others to think I agreed with everything stated against our heroes of the Alamo.

Overall, an average documentary (disc 1) that tries to view both sides of the battle for the Alamo and San Antonio.
However, I found it rather apalling that some historians are now labeling the heroic leaders inside the Alamo, as "drunkards", "criminals", "land swindlers" and "wife abandoners", claiming that their main reason for leaving the United States and heading to Texas was to escape their problems and crimes.
They then label General Santa Anna as a great military leader, much like Napoleon. They forget to mention that Santa Anna was a brutal dictator and later captured without a shred of military insignia, and had to be identified by his own men.
Just another example of Revisionist's history.
If you want to know what more likely happened at the Alamo, I suggest you read, Walter Lords book, "A Time to Stand". By far the best literature on the subject.

The reason that one would not be able to find information, i.e., if they are a 'mainstreamer', is that they have not bothered to read more than the textual references given in hostory class. Being a Native Texan and in that, from San Antonio I have a vested interest in this event. For one, a very detailed description of the events has been given by survivors - Mexican survivors, that is. One of General Santa Anna's generals kept a detailed diary of the events leading up to the attack in which it does indicate that there were several people who surrendered. Another Texan, who was eventually driven out of Texas because he dared to indicate what the Daughters of the Republic of Texas refused to contemplate, (we get into racism here), also notes that Crockett was one of the surrenders. Furthermore, an in-depth study of Crockett as well as some of the others, would recveal that they had no intention of being 'heroes'. They were opportunists. Also, one sidebar that is overlooked by many historians, is that they men who fought in the Alamo were NOT Americans. They had volunutarily become Mexican citizens to acquire the land that Mexico was initially offering. This battle took place because they rebelled against teh constitution of 1824 of Mexico. In addition, if one is 'really' interested books such as 'Dual of Eagles' by Jeff Long and 'With Santa Anna' by Jose Enrique De La Pena - and BTW Susanna Dickenson was a survivor along with Travis' African-American slave - Joe.

excerpted from:http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/view/CC/fcr24.html
Crockett died in battle of the Alamoqv on March 6, 1836. The manner of his death was uncertain, however, until the publication in 1975 of the diary of Lt. José Enrique de la Peña. Susanna Dickinson,qv wife of Almaron Dickinson,qv an officer at the Alamo, said Crockett died on the outside, one of the earliest to fall. Joe,qv Travis's slave and the only male Texan to survive the battle, reported seeing Crockett lying dead with slain Mexicans around him and stated that only one man, named Warner, surrendered to the Mexicans (Warner was taken to Santa Anna and promptly shot). When Peña's eyewitness account was placed together with other corroborating documents, Crockett's central part in the defense became clear. Travis had previously written that during the first bombardment Crockett was everywhere in the Alamo "animating the men to do their duty." Other reports told of the deadly fire of his rifle that killed five Mexican gunners in succession, as they each attempted to fire a cannon bearing on the fort, and that he may have just missed Santa Anna, who thought himself out of range of all the defenders' rifles. Crockett and five or six others were captured when the Mexican troops took the Alamo at about six o'clock that morning, even though Santa Anna had ordered that no prisoners be taken. The general, infuriated when some of his officers brought the Americans before him to try to intercede for their lives, ordered them executed immediately. They were bayoneted and then shot. Crockett's reputation and that of the other survivors was not, as some have suggested, sullied by their capture. Their dignity and bravery was, in fact, further underscored by Peña's recounting that "these unfortunates died without complaining and without humiliating themselves before their torturers."

Coincidentally, a work mostly of fiction masquerading as fact had put the truth of Crockett's death before the American public in the summer of 1836. Despite its many falsifications and plagiarisms, Richard Penn Smith's Col. Crockett's Exploits and Adventures in Texas...Written by Himself had a reasonably accurate account of Crockett's capture and execution. Many thought the legendary Davy deserved better, and they provided it, from thrilling tales of his clubbing Mexicans with his empty rifle and holding his section of the wall of the Alamo until cut down by bullets and bayonets, to his survival as a slave in a Mexican salt mine.

So please make educated comments based on viable and accessible information. Thank you.

This is a unique look at the Alamo, but not a particularly good one. I have found that some History Channel documentaries are grossly inaccurate, and I suspect this one of just that flaw. Everyone knows something of what happened at the Alamo--the movies, books, and legends of the battle that took place there are many--but this film seems to concentrate on removing the myth from the Alamo, and of dismissing as fable most of the stories about that fateful battle.

The problem, however, is that the film is not very convincing in its dismissal of legend. It denies that Col. Travis ever made his famous line in the sand, and that the defenders of the Alamo were there only because they thought reenforcements were coming soon. It alleges that Davy Crockett surrendered, and that he was executed while pleading for his life. I have no problem with dispelling myths in an attempt to retain history, but there is a problem with all of this: there were no American survivors. How are we to know that Davy Crockett and Jim Bowie did not die fighting? The very problem of this film is that it is every bit as speculative (and sometimes more) as the 'legends' it is trying to disprove.

I agree with the makers of the film that the Alamo legend has gotten way out of proportion. The Disney movie and John Wayne films about Davy Crockett and the Alamo have made the man into more of a myth than a reality. But the fact remains--we cannot know exactly what happened that day. So, with that said, is it so bad that we want to make heroes out of Bowie, Crockett, Travis, and the others?

***...."And Texas, Phoenix-like shall rise, with Freedom's pinions proudly spread; hailed by those Spirits of the Skies, that on "her" altars nobly bled"..
(ode to Crockett - pg 364 of "Alamo Traces")***

This is not a movie, it's a documentary, hosted by Dennis Quaid, who did plug his movie during the forwards. This "History Channel" DVD version of the story of The Alamo is a very good accompaniment to any reading done by history enthusiasts regarding Texas or the Alamo. While it makes every effort to give a fair and balanced accounting of the high running feelings, the political climates and the way Texas was first colonized illegally, (even featuring a very emotional insert by a female Mexican historian)it should be noted that there was quite a lot more to it than that. In the haste to present a "balanced view" of both sides, it somehow missed quite "enough" focus on "enough" of the underlying causes of the Alamo crisis, for a proper in-depth "history channel" accounting; at least in my estimation, since I have sought out and read some fine Mexican history too. True enough that the settlers were usurpers and started infringing on Mexican-held land "anywhere they pleased" with the aid of corrupt land speculators (Jim Bowie being one of them) and the Mexican government decided to put it down before it could rise up. But the real issue was with the Mexican government itself - and it's "principles of governance" after they "were settled there under Mexican rule" that began to cause the unrest. And that could be construed as a "fair and balanced" approach to history too, because it affected Tejanos as well as Texicans, and they stood together to take the split from Mexico. (some of the older films made of this conflict were indeed, preposterous)

Because: The Mexican government at the time was a brutal and corrupt dictatorship, and even more so against their own people further South where the power was concentrated. That was what the Mexican Revolution was all about much later, in 1910, when Zapata attempted to do the same thing himself for the Mexican people, who had had the very life blood squeezed out of them by the corrupt government; ruling them with injustice, "taxation without representation) and a bloody, iron hand under the "Honor Amongst The Bureaucratic Thieves" format. (To read more on THAT subject from an excellent source, I recommend: "Zapata and The Mexican Revolution" by John Womack, Jr.). In my own view, the siege at the Alamo is given much more weight of meaning when taken in context with what was happening to the people of Mexico under rulers and military men like Santa Anna.

The final example is how the bodies were treated after the Alamo defeat - burned instead of buried. Perhaps it was due to nothing more than prudence; perhaps it was a problem that need to be dealt with hastily. But perhaps too, it was the final insult; the culmination of the "red flag" that was still flying. Take no prisoners, bury no bodies.

The final battle immediately later at San Jacinto was quite a blow to the ego of Santa Anna, who liked to compare himself with Napoleon. Perhaps the Napoleon slogan should then have been modified to read: "God is on the side of the strongest batallion - except at San Jacinto".

Nonetheless, if one is interested in History of the Southwest, this "history channel" DVD is another good place to compare notes with what one has already read. This film also includes some special features afrter the film about the life of Davy Crockett, and another regarding the early years of the Texas Rangers, which I found intensely interesting. That's another era of Frontier Justice that won't win any "political correctness" awards today, but strip away the "now" and replace it with "the then" and it is readily apparent why it started off the way it did and subsequently evolved into what it became later and is today.