Historical Fiction

This movie "The Alamo" is quite dismaying as far as being historically inaccurate. John Wayne is a great director/ actor, but the movie seemed to be outside the truth. The superiority of the Anglos in comparison to the Tejanos is offensively awe striking. I don't know how much knowledge John Wayne really had about the Alamo, but I do believe he was misinformed.

In the movie, there wasn't any appearance of a Tejano with a high and honorable status. They are either volunteer soldiers with Bowie or narrow minded natives of the adobe pueblo known as The Alamo. Hardly veiled with valor, Tejanos never acted on courage if the Anglos didn't act themselves. On one account, Jim Bowie kicked one of the Tejanos from behind downsizing him and telling him to saddle up only when told. When Juan Seguin came with valuable information regarding the whereabouts of General Santa Anna, it was quickly shunned by the high-minded authority of Kernel William Travis. The idea of two men quickly fighting off five Tejanos, and in such a nonchalant way, says very little about the Tejanos' fighting abilities. Also, the movie shows all Tejanos in complete and utter opposition to Santa Anna when in reality, there were a handful of them who were for him.

The women were sadly misrepresented as well. Being wooed by white men doesn't suffice for the way they are presented. Neither does teasing table dances performed by the Tejano women only waiting to be danced with. The children were also poorly portrayed... literally! A little Tejano boy carrying a woman's luggage for a bit of gratuity might not have been far-fetched, but it was definitely not necessary. I do want to know why there was no mention of Jose Antonio Navarro. As one of the signers of the Texas Declaration of Independence, it seems incomplete to leave him out. Not only Navarro, but what about Stephen F. Austin? Known for bringing Anglos to Texas in the first place, and known everywhere as the "Father of Texas", why did the film fail to at least mention this man who practically epitomizes a republic of Anglo/ Tejano equality? It does the Alamo no justice and adds on to the inaccuracy of this movie in its entirety.

There were some things that old "Duke" managed to get right however; Crockett did come from Tennessee, he did bring twenty-three men with him, Smitty did deliver the letter, and Santa Anna did greatly outnumber them which did lead to their defeat at the battle of the Alamo. The attitudes of each individual were surprisingly on point as well. William B. Travis was indeed a good "starter of wars" as Bowie would point out in the movie. Davy Crockett was portrayed as an optimistic and adventurous man. He was also political but liked to refer to himself as a "common" man also as the film would point out. James Bowie was a slave trader, which was loosely shown when he freed Jethro of his indentured servitude. The character of General Sam Houston was also rightly portrayed, although not much of him was shown throughout the film.

Overall, I believe John Wayne could have done his research a little more. If anything, this old western flick was just an example of "Hollywood" at its finest. I strongly recommend you not view this movie if you are a history buff, rather, only if your looking for entertainment and some cheap laughs. I hate to be such a critic, but truth hurts. -587 words