|
Post by Rich Curilla on Aug 29, 2007 12:51:52 GMT -5
How about NW of the town center? ;D NOW you're talkin'!!! Or, if you're talking Hancockamo, southeast of the town center, on a giant hill! Sorry, I tried to influence them in time.
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Aug 29, 2007 14:28:41 GMT -5
Rich,
For the movie I know they moved some things around to get better camera angles. but out of curiosity, were the streets roughly laid out to parallel historic Bexar, eg. was the Veramendi Home opposite the Alamo?
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Aug 29, 2007 20:31:21 GMT -5
Rich, For the movie I know they moved some things around to get better camera angles. but out of curiosity, were the streets roughly laid out to parallel historic Bexar, eg. was the Veramendi Home opposite the Alamo? Very much so. Michael built the two churches foot for foot accurate to the original structures. Plaza de las Islas was a bit underscaled for the camera lens, but I couldn't tell and I'm the one who provided him with the dimensions. Early in the design plan, Michael didn't expect to be able to build Plaza de Armas behind San Fernando, but he finally figured a way to sneak a trunkated version in for his market plaza scenes and play the Crockett speech scene against the back of San Fernando in an angle reminiscent of Thomas Allen's painting Market Plaza. The Veramendi Palace is correctly placed a short distance down Calle de Soledad from the "northeast" corner of Plaza de las Islas, but I'm afraid it doesn't come off that way in the film, due to cinematographer and editing decisions. Again, the lens required that it not be a true 150 yards or so from the plaza, but a short distance -- perhaps 50 yards. The big difference from the real Bexar is that he placed the bridge at the end of Market Street instead of Commerce (or Calle de Potrero). That's why Travis rides out of the "southeast" corner of the plaza rather than the "northeast" to take a first look at the Alamo. The reason for this was that the 51 acre portion of the Reimers Ranch they had leased was long and narrow, lying north to south. The Alamo was to be on the north end; Bexar on the south. He didn't have enough width to offset the Alamo compound correctly to the left, when looking from San Fernando tower. His north wall would have been right at the edge of the woods and the drop-off canyon of the Pedernales River -- no room for historically accurate battle tactics which, as you know, were mostly on the north. So his fudge had to be moving the Alamo compound one complete length to the "south" (actually the east). The only way he could maintain the correct relationship between the Alamo and the bridge was to move the bridge over a block. This Alamo/bridge relationship was far more important than the town/bridge relationship. So the plan then became to have the Alamo church and San Fernando Church as opposing hubs on the same north/south axis. This is why San Fernando appears framed in the Alamo choir loft window when looking from the apse battery -- a rather unexpected surprise for Michael, which he proudly showed off to me the first time I visited the set after the Alamo church was constructed. Another major difference is the distance from San Fernando to the Alamo church. In reality it is about 800 yards. On the set, it is 400 yards. This is the same underscaling that Alfred Ybarra did for John Wayne's. Alamo Village's sets are 400 yards apart (albeit in totally the wrong direction). Again for the wide angle camera lens. Alas, Dean Semler (beautifully) shot most of the scenes in 2003 with normal to telephoto lenses, thus negating and revearsing the cheat -- making San Fernando look even closer than it was built. It looks right in the Deguello de Crockett scene and a few others, but in your face at other times. This, of course, created the sense of claustraphobia for the audience, and in that regard was very effective. This is always the job of the filmmaker -- to effect people. The Veramendi Palace was my special treat. Finally pushing in through those doors and stepping into the garden. And yes, the Alamo was to be seen directly from the back wall. When you see the boy watching the battle at night, he is standing on the back wall of the Veramendi garden. By far, the coolest thrill for me was finally climbing up the stairs into the bell tower of San Fernando and looking across at the Alamo. I finally got to step into Lon Tinkle's first chapter!
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Aug 29, 2007 20:53:23 GMT -5
Oh, and another difference is that the Bexar Plaza was very carefully designed so that each side would look different from the others. 1836 Bexar's Plaza de las Islas looked basically the same on three sides -- long, low, flat, drab stone buildings, all the same height. Only San Fernando on the west side broke this visually boring horizontality.
Under Ron Howard's concept, the Battle of Bexar was to be filmed in the streets and plaza. This, like the other battle, would of necessity be very fast paced editing-wise. The visual need was to create a different look for each side of the plaza in order to help orient the viewing audience, who would know nothing of the geography of the town. Michael took the same approach at the Alamo, making doors on one side dirty barn red and on the other side dingy green. It's subtle, but it helps subliminally.
In the case of Plaza de las Islas, he had the "east" side faced with rows of arches. This was architecturally and stylistically appropriate, but did not actually exist at 1836 Bexar. The "south" side has more individual (and narrower) buildings with different heights. The "north" side looks most like the real thing with the Yturri House (Santa Anna's H.Q.) and another being long and low. Travis' townhouse is more flamboyant, with a second story with a cantilevered balcony a-la Mexico City architecture of the period from Theodore Gentilz paintings. But there actually was a two-story home at this spot in 1836 Bexar. It was the home of the richest man in town -- Padre Refugio de la Garza.
The plaza and its relationship to San Fernando Parish were planned primarily around the Mexican Army arrival scene, hence no buildings between the church and the south side to enable that grand entrance angle. I'm proud to say that John Lee was very clear visually about things like the location of Santa Anna's H.Q. and the placement of Santa Anna's officers when Travis' cannon shot hits the town -- all from primary accounts.
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Aug 30, 2007 8:21:57 GMT -5
Thanks, Rich, for the thorough answer! You've pretty well answered a lot of questions that I've had for awhile. I like the film, and was/am impressed at how true to historical truth it is (and I understand good movie truth, is to illustrate - not actually portray history) Hancock, imo, did both.
The question for me was how close the town was to reality. The town is one of the forgotten characters in the real Alamo Story, and I've often wondered other than San Fernando, how close the rest of the set was to truth.
I'll have to print out your comments, get a map of 1836 Bexar, and watch the DVD again!
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Aug 31, 2007 22:37:59 GMT -5
And to summarize, Michael's San Antonio de Bexar set clearly gives the *impression* of 1836 Bexar whereas Alamo Village -- God, Duke and Happy Shahan forgive me -- does not. Alfred Ybarra built "a typical Mexican village" for John Wayne. Michael Corenblith built San Antonio de Bexar for Ron Howard.
Differences are only those of scale (smaller, other than San Fernando Church which is exact) and of color palette (warmer and with more variety). This IMO was to provide contrast to the Alamo set, which was clearly more realistic and dismal. The first time I walked the finished set (in December before filming), I started in Bexar where my mood was up, due to the actually cheerful pastels used to differentiate the buildings. Then, when I crossed the Potrero St. Bridge and entered the Alamo, my mood drooped. The sets were suddenly making me feel depressed and claustraphobic -- all without the music score!
But now I feel like I have visited San Antonio de Bexar of 1836.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Sept 1, 2007 7:30:33 GMT -5
Rich,
Watching the film, I also found the set claustrophobic. Some criticized that aspect of the film, as if it were not reaslistic. Wayne's Alamo set seemed sprawling and large in his film, although most of the action was around the south wall and church. Was Hancock's Alamo downsized deliberately to create that "penned up," claustrophobic impression?
Thanks,
AW
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Sept 1, 2007 10:15:57 GMT -5
I agree with Rich about the Bexar set. It was the definite high point of my visit to Dripping Springs. It felt very much as if one was stepping back in time, especially when looking from the top of the cathedral toward the Alamo. I wasn't as impressed with the interior of the Alamo compound though, because of the smaller size. It didn't seem real, and felt far more like a set than Bexar. At Bracketville one easily can visualize the battle, and I didn't find that to be the case on the new set. I think it served its purpose well for the film, but was disappointing "in person". Jim
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Sept 1, 2007 10:44:32 GMT -5
I wasn't as impressed with the interior of the Alamo compound though, because of the smaller size. It didn't seem real, and felt far more like a set than Bexar. At Bracketville one easily can visualize the battle, and I didn't find that to be the case on the new set. I think it served its purpose well for the film, but was disappointing "in person". Jim Jim and I have often discussed the compound and the number of defenders necessary to defend it as we've walked around the real Alamo Plaza or on our visit to Brackettville, and while I've never visited the Dripping Springs set - it's small size is obvious in the film. Mark Lemon's work, however (I refer specifically to the birdeyes view of the whole compound found in the Images Section) clearly shows where our discussions have been faulty. Numbers are almost irrelevant, except for the cannon there are virtually no firing positions, ie there are very few places for riflemen to position themselves at the walls. From looking at Mark's work, more defenders, would have accomplished little, as they had no way to bring their rifles to bear especially on the critical North Wall until the enemy was inside the walls. Am I missing something?
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Sept 1, 2007 17:42:24 GMT -5
Here I'm totally in the woods, but I'm thinking of that canon placed at ground level inside one of the houses near the northwest corner. Didn't the Texans (or Cos, for that matter) cut any loopholes for rifleman to shoot through inside those buildings? I agree that, even with that improvised arrangement, there still would have been room for only a limited number of riflemen to make use of them. This is an area where I think Hollywood has generally misled us; I'm thinking particularly of Wayne's movie and the original Disney Crockett series, which used high walls extending from the outside walls of the buildings behind which the defenders could hide and also fire (think of the south wall in Wayne's movie). I don't think any of the Alamo's walls actually provided such shelter. Unless they could lay flat on the roofs they would be easy targets, especially when they were silhouetted.
In that regard, as an aside to this question, much has been made of the Mexican Army's Brown Bess muskets, which were notoriously inaccurate beyond close range. But there were a number of Mexican snipers armed with more accurate long-range Bakers that could pick those men off the walls (I guess the Brown Besses had smooth bore barrels and the Bakers rifled barrels). Does anyone have an idea of how many snipers and Bakers they had at the Alamo, and where those snipers might have been positioned? I'm on the road this week again, but I seem to recall Davis being one of the few who discussed this (in "Three Roads").
AW
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Sept 1, 2007 17:49:23 GMT -5
Bob Durham wrote an excellent article about this, "Manning the Walls", that was republished in "The Alamo Anthology". I'd highly recommend it. In the meantime, maybe Bob will weigh in here... Jim
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Sept 1, 2007 23:39:41 GMT -5
Rich, Watching the film, I also found the set claustrophobic. Some criticized that aspect of the film, as if it were not reaslistic. Wayne's Alamo set seemed sprawling and large in his film, although most of the action was around the south wall and church. Was Hancock's Alamo downsized deliberately to create that "penned up," claustrophobic impression? Thanks, AW Interestingly, Michael Corenblith's Alamo compound is only twenty feet shorter south to north than Alfred Ybarra's. The "penned in" aspect comes more from the height of the north wall when seen from the south gate. This, and using the correct cannon ramp length (from a 6 to 1 pitch), make it appear much more in your face and looming. Plus having the church almost level with the Long Barrack added greatly to the claustraphobia. These decisions were individual details and I don't believe any was made deliberately to increase the "hemmed in" sense, but it was a feeling they were striving for in general. When Michael's work load lightens up, I'll float the question off of him. He's designing Frost/Nixon for Ron Howard now, and I don't want to bug him. Remind me.
|
|
|
Post by glforeman on Sept 2, 2007 8:21:47 GMT -5
A couple of things that caught my attention was the West Wall issue and Baker Rifles. If you recall, the elevation and topographical difference between the Alamo's west wall and the floodplain (now the River Walk) of the San Antonio River is quite substantial, giving the defenders a decided advantage.
On the Baker Rifle topic, historian Rene Chartrand told me that he found that only 1500 or 1600 rifles were sent to Mexico in 1826. Ten years later, one would have to wonder how many of these were still in service---and of that---how many were part of the issue for the Northern provinces? Personally, I think the Baker Rifle presence at the Alamo was not as strong as others would believe. Typically, squads of riflemen supported light infantry. The current trend, as you know, is to show ALL light infantry with Bakers. Of course, I'd like to hear from you who have updated research on that topic.
And to drift back to the topic of Crockett in Bastrop: I'm checking out some updated research on how many men actually accompanied DC into Bexar. It looks like the original 15 may have split up into two groups near or beyond Bastrop...again, hoping for others to catch up. So, it looks like Crockett's arrival was probably no surprise since he may have arrived a day (or hours later) after Harrison and his group came in.
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Sept 2, 2007 15:50:56 GMT -5
I have never understood this need for filmakers to create a sense of "claustrophobia" when it comes to recreating the Alamo compound. Anyone walking the real thing and strolling to the area of the northwest corner can simply turn around and look back towards the church. If anything, the opposite situation existed. It was as if you had about 200 men and had to have them defend a compound the size of a stock car track. The area was vast. While making my 1/48 scale model of the compound, accurate to one or two feet, the very first thing that struck me was how immense the area was when compared to the size of a man. My only thought at seeing this was "Those guys were doomed.."
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Sept 3, 2007 0:46:45 GMT -5
I have to agree with that one. While I know the Gentilez painting is inaccurate in a lot of other ways one thing I do think is spot on is the way in which the defenders and attackers are just figures in a landscape rather than the densely packed masses of other compositions both on canvas and in film
|
|