|
Post by tman56 on Dec 10, 2011 23:36:35 GMT -5
I think there are two major problems with the JLH ALAMO (one of which has somewhat already been touched on). The first is the editing. This may be partly Hancock's fault (he was the director, after all), but I don't think it's entirely his. In a review that I wrote at the time for a local pop culture magazine, I said it felt like the movie had been edited with a chainsaw. I still stand by that assessment. But I have come to understand a little more of the "why" of the problem.
The original script by Les Boehm was, in some significant ways, everything the the final movie wasn't. It was tightly focused, centered very much on the siege and battle itself, and gave very little background on the characters. It basically sat on the shelf for years, and from what Rich has said, I think Ron Howard did a lot to bring it closer to production. However, Ron wanted a darker, more epic, and more complex movie that brought in a lot of background and multiple viewpoints. That's when John Sayles was hired to do a rewrite. And although his name doesn't even appear in the credits, his version drastically altered the project, and I think set the stage for what finally happened. Sayles didn't write a movie, he wrote a miniseries. It's episodic, full of characters who we Alamaniacs would love to see in a movie but would have confused the daylights out of an average audience, has (if I remember correctly) seven or eight battle sequences (from Horseshoe Bend to San Jacinto), an opening reminiscent of THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE UGLY and an ending similar to ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT. Sayles wrote it in about a month, spent two weeks or so working on an unproduced French and Indian War epic, and then headed for Mexico to shoot CASA DE LOS BABYS, leaving behind an Alamo project with an unfilmable script. Steve Gaghan was hired to do a rewrite. I haven't read his draft, so I'm not exactly sure what he changed. From what I've been able to tell, it was about this time things got rocky between Howard and Disney. Eventually, within a day or two of when Ron was expected to announce that he was directing THE ALAMO (according to his brother Clint, who was on "The Bob and Tom Show" on radio), he dropped out. Disney had a partly finished but enormous set, almost no cast signed, a script that was a work in progress, and no director. This was what Hancock inherited. He had to enlist a cast, get a workable script, do a multitude of other chores, and he had a matter of a few weeks to do it. When they actually started shooting, the script had been heavily cut back but still was about a three hour or so film.
After the test screenings, it was decided to cut the film back to a more conventional running time, and this is where the editing problems come into play. When about an hour of film gets edited out, there's almost certainly going to be problems with continuity, characterization, etc., and this is a big problem with THE ALAMO. Like Rich says, hopefully someday we'll be able to see a version that is closer to what Hancock intended.
The other problem, if you want to call it that, is the mood of the film, and this I think is very much due to Hancock (although it also has roots in the Howard/Sayles project). I consider most of the other Alamo movies, especially Wayne's and PRICE OF FREEDOM, to be the "BRAVEHEART" version of the Alamo story. They are rousing, inspiring, overtly heroic films with lively action and sweeping music, and tremendously entertaining. Hancock's ALAMO is low-key (I like Rich's description - "minimalist"), the action is solid but not exciting, and the music is more haunting, and almost meditative at times. If the IMAX film is ALAMO: THE PRICE OF FREEDOM, Hancock's film might almost be called ALAMO: THE COST OF FREEDOM. The final shot of the narrative portion of the film, with Juan Seguin mourning among the dead soldados, is, to me, incredibly poignant. It emphasizes the cost of the victory, especially to the Mexicans and Tejanos. The coda, with Crockett's fiddling, and his wry smile, suggests that the cost was worth it. This is not what most people expect from an Alamo film, and I think it contributed to its poor box office showing, and the mixed reaction from Alamo buffs.
Despite the films problems, it's still my favorite Alamo movie.
Terry Todish
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Dec 10, 2011 23:58:37 GMT -5
Many thanks for posting this Terry. It is really informative and I did not know at least 80% of it. I feel for JLH if this is what he was handed. I think even John Ford would have had to work miracles to make this thing into a successful film. I've always thought the editing was the worst thing about the film. If they had to cut a full hour out, the first thing to go (for me) would be all the post-Alamo footage, including San Jacinto. That would have given enough time to focus on the Alamo with some narration for intro and outro, such as "6 weeks later, the Texians under Sam Houston defeated Santa Anna and San Jacinto and won Texas independenct. A decade later (OK; 9 years later) Texas joined the union." That's all the general audience needs to know if the Alamo is the focus.
It's very interesting that the original full-lenght script resembled a mini series. After seeing this film my first thought was that it would have worked much better as an HBO mini series, ala "Deadwood" or "Rome." I still think that's true. But, if you are going to do a feature film about the Alamo because you believe that story deserves a full-length feature, then you need to take the Wayne approach as your cue. You don't have to do a movie like his, but you need to make the audience feel why this event is so meaningful or important to you. I also feel that, flaws and all, the 2004 "Alamo" is the best Alamo movie, but it could have been much better. I hope they do restore the lost hour and let us see it in that form.
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Dec 11, 2011 3:32:34 GMT -5
Every film has a perfect length for its content. John has said that, in a directors cut, his perfect length would be not much more than fifteen minutes longer than it is.
I have some thoughts on your excellent dissertations, but I'm too pooped at the moment. Back at you.
|
|
|
Post by tman56 on Dec 11, 2011 22:25:33 GMT -5
Allen,
The San Jac stuff was not in Boehm's version. The original ending was a very poignant one, with Susanna Dickinson leaving the Alamo (although it was quite different from both the WAYNEAMO and LAST COMMAND). The San Jac stuff came in with Sayles's script. In a nutshell, his script is a reworking of HOUSTON: THE LEGEND OF TEXAS (the Sam Elliott TV movie) with an Alamo movie in the middle. It was as much a Houston movie as an Alamo movie. I think that's why the biggest star ever attached to the project, Russel Crowe, was slated to play Houston and not one of the triumverate. I agree that the film would have worked better without it, but I wonder if Disney was responsible for that. Just like BRAVEHEART ended with Bannockburn and PEARL HARBOR with the Doolittle Raid on Tokyo, I think Eisner wanted a rousing victory at the end of the movie. But that's just a guess.
|
|
|
Post by tman56 on Dec 11, 2011 22:26:26 GMT -5
Rich,
I look forward to it.
Terry Todish
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Dec 12, 2011 1:14:52 GMT -5
And here I sit, tired and waiting for tomorrow again. LOL. Well, I'll get to 'er sometime or sooner.
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Dec 12, 2011 2:53:50 GMT -5
I think there are two major problems with the JLH ALAMO (one of which has somewhat already been touched on). The first is the editing. This may be partly Hancock's fault (he was the director, after all), but I don't think it's entirely his. In a review that I wrote at the time for a local pop culture magazine, I said it felt like the movie had been edited with a chainsaw. I still stand by that assessment. But I have come to understand a little more of the "why" of the problem. Only Ron Howard would have had "final cut" of his movie. JLH did not have that luxury. He was on his second major directorial project and had the DGA standard agreement of "first cut." If I remember, that is 13 weeks, and then the studio exexs. can do anything they want to it. However, I don't know if he was held to that. He was allowed to recut the film himself after the two test screenings (in October and November of 2003, if I remember) and Disney accept his proposal to do a completely new cut in three additional months. My opinion (and only that) is that, in the editing room, he tried valiantly to realize Ron's design for an ensemble cast -- all stars having equal balance in the movie -- which Ron Howard is expert at -- and then found it was better to make the film he had in hand. The big problem was time. And this is fact. The planned dates for the premiere and release of this very difficult movie to edit were never changed in spite of 1-1/2 months lost during the hiatus when Ron left and John came on. Plus weeks were lost due to bad weather on set. Still, the premiere was set for early December with a Christmas Day release. The test screenings always reveal the strengths and weaknesses of a film and bring about revised editing -- always. With The Alamo, JLH found his strength was with Crockett, hands down, and revised it accordingly. Then and only then was the release schedule bumped from Christmas to April 9. I don't find the subliminal cutting to be a problem (your chainsaw effect perhaps). I find it envigorating and certainly in tune with young people today. I am however quite frustrated with the selection of angles. I know they shot both tight and wide on most things. I saw mostly tight in the final cut. No sense of spacial relationship -- no including that wonderful set as "one of the characters" and giving it some play. My guess is this was not JLH and Eric Beason (his editor), but the two fellows listed in the credits under "Additional Film Editing." Just guessing again, but they might have been brought in for Disney's post-JLH cut, if that was done. The original script by Les Boehm was, in some significant ways, everything the the final movie wasn't. It was tightly focused, centered very much on the siege and battle itself, and gave very little background on the characters. It basically sat on the shelf for years, and from what Rich has said, I think Ron Howard did a lot to bring it closer to production. I have never seen the Les Bohem script. It's the missing link for me. I'd love to read it. However, Ron wanted a darker, more epic, and more complex movie that brought in a lot of background and multiple viewpoints. That's when John Sayles was hired to do a rewrite. And although his name doesn't even appear in the credits, his version drastically altered the project, and I think set the stage for what finally happened. Sayles didn't write a movie, he wrote a miniseries. It's episodic, full of characters who we Alamaniacs would love to see in a movie but would have confused the daylights out of an average audience, has (if I remember correctly) seven or eight battle sequences (from Horseshoe Bend to San Jacinto), an opening reminiscent of THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE UGLY and an ending similar to ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT. John Sayles did the rewrite to achieve much of what you say for Ron Howard. Plus the "ensemble cast" approach I mentioned. I have indeed read this version. It is very cumbersome and has faaaar too many characters and subplots. John Sales did two complete drafts. I spoke with him at SXSW Film Festival in March 2002. He had finished the first draft and was beginning the second draft when he went home. His second draft -- revised -- is dated June 12, 2002. So, far more than one month. It was indeed a clutter of locations, flashbacks, superflous characters (I don't even think we Alamaniacs would have accepted Jefferson Davis showing up in one scene!)... to my mind, unfilmable. Would have made a bad film or miniseries. It did have some wonderful lines in it though. In the flashback to Houston's leaving the governorship of Tennessee, a reporter asks him about Eliza Allen and was she responsible. He pulls the reporter into a confidential position and says, "Can you keep a secret?" The reporter smiles and nods willingly. Houston smiles back and says, "So can I." It had the Battle of Bexar, a flashback to the first Bowie brawl with Norris Wright, Travis sneaking out on Rosanna in the middle of the night, the two strong subplots of the anglo teen and the Tejano teen, and much much more. Steve Gaghan was hired to do a rewrite. I haven't read his draft, so I'm not exactly sure what he changed. It is my understanging that he was only hired to rewrite Travis' part, not to do a complete rewrite. This is just like when John Wayne brought in Burt Kennedy to rewrite Bowie's part. From what I've been able to tell, it was about this time things got rocky between Howard and Disney. Eventually, within a day or two of when Ron was expected to announce that he was directing THE ALAMO (according to his brother Clint, who was on "The Bob and Tom Show" on radio), he dropped out. Disney had a partly finished but enormous set, almost no cast signed, a script that was a work in progress, and no director. At this time, Disney had STILL not "greenlighted" the production. Imagine Entertainment had already spent several million script dollars for development (normal) and much of the $10-million to build the set (above and beyond any normal development budget). Ron wanted to do this movie, and with his Oscar win as director of A Beautiful Mind, I believe he felt Disney would come around to his budget and R-Rated treatment. They didn't. This was what Hancock inherited. He had to enlist a cast, get a workable script, do a multitude of other chores, and he had a matter of a few weeks to do it. When they actually started shooting, the script had been heavily cut back but still was about a three hour or so film. John Lee Hancock was hired as writer-director and totally rewrote the screenplay using the best of all previous drafts and giving it his spin. He continued to refine it, including many changes suggested by Hardin and Huffines. Unfortunately, Ron's exit allowed the Mouse House to trim the budget -- by $50,000,000. Michael Corenblith was forced to not complete interiors in the Veramendi House and the Alamo Hospital and had to scrap plans for the east side of the fort. That's why you only look out from the east wall with the exception of the top ten feet of the back of the apse. The Battle of Bexar and all planned references (including visual) to Goliad were cut. Flashbacks were eliminated except for the Washington sequence, thus cutting down on traveling to other locations. I got an unusually panicky e-mail from Michael saying "The new director's here and wants to know what happened in the town just prior to the siege, so he can use it for more than a backdrop." This, of course, was right after JLH was hired and probably just starting on the rewrite. After the test screenings, it was decided to cut the film back to a more conventional running time, and this is where the editing problems come into play. When about an hour of film gets edited out, there's almost certainly going to be problems with continuity, characterization, etc., and this is a big problem with THE ALAMO. Like Rich says, hopefully someday we'll be able to see a version that is closer to what Hancock intended. I think the biggest hurt to the original JLH concept was in the elimination of all scenes of Houston with the Cherokees, visiting Chief Bowles. Wes Studi played the part, a wonderful Indian village was designed and constructed, etc. All gone. This effectively left only part of Houston's "character arc" intact -- all his harshness. This was meant to be balanced by his gentleness with Talihina and the Cherokee children. Poor Dennis Quaid. Wasn't his fault. The other problem, if you want to call it that, is the mood of the film, and this I think is very much due to Hancock (although it also has roots in the Howard/Sayles project). I consider most of the other Alamo movies, especially Wayne's and PRICE OF FREEDOM, to be the "BRAVEHEART" version of the Alamo story. They are rousing, inspiring, overtly heroic films with lively action and sweeping music, and tremendously entertaining. Hancock's ALAMO is low-key (I like Rich's description - "minimalist"), the action is solid but not exciting, and the music is more haunting, and almost meditative at times. I hear all this, love the Wayne approach but thoroughly like the JLH "lament" approach. And Carter Burwell's score was carefully designed to be invisible -- quite the opposite of Tiomkin's. In the theater, by the time it got to the battle and ultimately Crockett backing into the church, I was pushed so far into my seat that I was right there with the men, deciding that I would die. That never happened to me with the Waynamo. My reaction was more like hissing or cheering rather than feeling and emoting. If the IMAX film is ALAMO: THE PRICE OF FREEDOM, Hancock's film might almost be called ALAMO: THE COST OF FREEDOM. The final shot of the narrative portion of the film, with Juan Seguin mourning among the dead soldados, is, to me, incredibly poignant. It emphasizes the cost of the victory, especially to the Mexicans and Tejanos. The coda, with Crockett's fiddling, and his wry smile, suggests that the cost was worth it. This is not what most people expect from an Alamo film, and I think it contributed to its poor box office showing, and the mixed reaction from Alamo buffs. Thus, in giving us a truly unique film about the Alamo, JLH gave up Box Office appeal. Awwww, too bad. He made it just for us. d**n. Despite the films problems, it's still my favorite Alamo movie. Terry Todish Me too. Rich Curilla
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Dec 12, 2011 3:13:38 GMT -5
The Crockett fiddle reprise at the end is the crowning touch, in my mind. Yes, the "cost of freedom" is an excellent way of putting it, Terry. But in that last moment (not scripted -- it was planned to end with Seguin), JLH carried the theme into the myth it became and even showed us the legendary Davy, ready for the Davy Crockett craze. If you look carefully in the distant angle of the Alamo and the town with Crockett playing on the roof, he actually levitates a bit.
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Dec 12, 2011 3:16:03 GMT -5
(NOW can I go to bed? )
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Dec 12, 2011 10:31:22 GMT -5
Very interesting! Thanks for all these insights. Yes, Rich -- to bed with you!
|
|
|
Post by gtj222 on Dec 12, 2011 15:20:51 GMT -5
Rich, I never tire of hearing backstories about my favorite Alamo film. Great stuff!
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Dec 12, 2011 18:03:32 GMT -5
Just remember, there is no story I can't make better when I retell it. Following in the footsteps of J. Frank Dobie.
|
|
|
Post by tman56 on Dec 13, 2011 22:33:53 GMT -5
Rich, thanks for the insights. Lots of good stuff.
Terry Todish
|
|
|
Post by Riley Gardner on May 16, 2012 21:32:51 GMT -5
Very interesting background information on the film. I've always wondered why there were other credits on the film weren't mentioned very much.
As for JLH, the original script (as seen in the "making of" book) is far better than what we saw. One thing that has always disappointed me was the cutting of the subplot between the two boys, the Mexican soldado Jesus, whom is still in the film as the boy who shot Travis. And Matthew, who also appears in the film as the young boy in the shop who stares at Houston as he drinks. Originally it featured Jesus being taken away from his grandfather to join the army, and Matthew as attempting to join the Texians in the rebellion, but Houston refusing to let him do so. Actually, you can still see Matthew in a few shots during Houston's speech before San Jacinto. I've always been against this decision to cut that storyline. In the end the two boys kill each other at San Jacinto and die together, both declaring themselves Texans and passing on. I thought this was a rather clever storyline that both showed Houston's kindness and comparing the influences the war had on two teenage boys. It wasn't much, maybe a few more minutes of screentime. I've always wanted to see the final result of those filmed scenes.
One thing I think we all can praise - Crockett's fiddling scene on the last evening. I believe it's probably the best Alamo scene out of all the films.
As we've mentioned the unfilmed scripts by Boehm and Sayles, is there any way I'd be able to read them? Now I'm so aching to do so. I can't find anything on Google that features the script.
|
|
|
Post by Wade Dillon on Jul 31, 2012 1:04:31 GMT -5
I ran Alamo Sentry.com for 7 years and some of the best parts were interviewing members of the cast and learning of their experiences on set.
What kills me are all of the deleted scenes from the film. Poignant scenes, too.
I agree with others. Too many tight shots. Not enough wide angles as demonstrated in Alamo: The Price of Freedom.
Despite its flaws, this film remains my favorite of all the Alamo films.
Though, I still try and imagine Viggo Mortensen as Bowie, Ethan Hawke as Travis...with Billy Bob Thornton as Crockett.
|
|