cje
Full Member
Posts: 60
|
Post by cje on Oct 13, 2013 19:00:12 GMT -5
I understand that the Main Gate or other names it may be called was around until 1871 before it was leveled. Where there not any pictures taken of this structure since the first known photo of the Alamo Church in or around 1849 where just a few feet of it were shown on the left side of that picture? If not we just have assorted drawings which help but are somewhat different from one to another in appearance. Thanks for help. CJE
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Oct 14, 2013 2:29:32 GMT -5
Here is the best we have, by William Bollaert in 1842. And below, by Fulton in 1837. No photographs have so far come to light. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Oct 14, 2013 2:39:13 GMT -5
This 1845 plat by Lt. Edward Everett (and several others he did while stationed at the Alamo) is the most reliabled footprint of the building that became known in Alamo history as the "low barrack" or the "south barrack." The south wall itself and the gate portion (a large square gate house) pre-existed the rest of the building and were of mission period origin. Then the other rooms flanking the gate house along the inside of the south wall were added as barracks by the Compania Volante del Alamo de Parras, which was stationed there from 1801 to 1824.
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Oct 14, 2013 2:53:35 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by loucapitano on Oct 17, 2013 18:35:33 GMT -5
Bless you for finding the Bollaert and Fulton pictures. After reading so many books on the Alamo, I'm surprised these pictures never showed up. I think they really settle the "south wall construction" questions to rest. By the way, some reconstructions of the fort place a series of cooking stations on the west side of the low wall separating the plaza and churchyard. Has your research shown whether these cooking stations were their. If not, where might they have been located? and who constructed them, Cos or the Texans? Thanks again for all the work you do. Lou from Long Island
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Oct 17, 2013 21:46:45 GMT -5
The main sources for this structure are primary sources. The plats of Col. Labastida and Col. Sanchez-Navarro, and the latter's 1836 elevation drawing from the Veramendi roof. Again on my model (photo below), this is how I represented the north wing of the low barrack. We are looking at it from the entrance gate. My location of the doors is hypothetical as are the relative sizes of the rooms (and the box out front), but both Sanchez-Navarro plats do show this wing to have been partitioned into two rooms beyond the low barrack north wall. Looking from the sandbagged roof of the Long Barrack, you see my conjecture of the basic architecture of the wing. Two adobe rooms with azatea roofs (flat with low parapets) built against a preexisting stone wall (preexisting from what, I have no idea. lol). Perhaps all of this wing was adobe. All we know is its alleged footprint presented by S-N and Labastida both -- and that it was totally gone, including the low barrack room south of it -- by the mid-1840's, thus suggesting adobe or jacal construction rather than stone. Sanchez-Navarro shows it as a solid wall on his plats (and MAY be showing it as brick rather than stone in his elevation drawing, depending on the interpretation of very obscure details) whereas Labastida's wing could be interpreted as jacal or stone construction. I tend to agree with the adobe and the azatea roof rather than jacal with a peaked tule (river grass) roof because of the S-N elevation drawing. Plus Gary Zaboly has made a very good case for all straw roofs in the Alamo having been removed (or not built that way in the first place) in order to keep an enemy from torching them with hot-shot from their batteries. Labastida's key identifies it simply as "Quarters of the Officers," but Sanchez-Navarro labels the north room as "Kitchens" on his battle plat and his later one (hence my chimney), and the south room and all of the low barrack to the gate as "Hospital..." Don't let my attention to details convince you that we really know any of this for sure. Only that it was indeed there and contained a kitchen and hospital room.
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on Oct 17, 2013 22:12:05 GMT -5
Here is the Sanchez-Navarro battle map (this is a detail) of 1836. "M" is labeled as Kitchens. In the 1840 plat (also Sanchez-Navarro's or "after" his), labels are (6) Hospital, (7) Kitchen, and (21) Trenches made by defenders. Notice his drawing of the wing and low barrack above the plat. Higher resolutions of this seem to be showing brick face on the wing. Col. Ignacio de LaBastida's map (this is a detail) drawn for Santa anna in March, 1836, shows less detail for the wing and labels it as (B) Quarters of the Officers.
|
|
|
Post by pff on May 11, 2014 14:17:46 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by loucapitano on May 11, 2014 15:22:02 GMT -5
I haven't written in a while, so forgive me if I'm not up to date with the current scholarship. There are two minor observations I want to make. First: I wonder if the Sanchez-Navarro battle map and plat became the basis for the set of the 2004 Alamo. The map shows the front of the chapel even with the Long Barracks which was certainly not the case. I don't know why Hancock chose to change the dimensions of the fort so dramatically and still try for accuracy in so many other areas. Personally, I found it more annoying than a reason to pan the movie. It was still a great picture. Second: The 1940 plat seems to indicate the west wall around the 18 pounder was not much lower than the portions of the wall further north. A lower wall, e.g. 7-8 feet, would help explain why the Morales column was only assigned two ladders. At the same time the ladder explanation could simply be that the 120 men of the south wall column may have been a diversionary assault to pin down south wall defenders from joining their comrades at the north wall who were facing more than 1000 troops. Of course, these are minor points of interest. Thank you Rich for all the intense work you've done here to give us the best idea of the Alamo on March 6, 1836.
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on May 11, 2014 16:00:28 GMT -5
I haven't written in a while, so forgive me if I'm not up to date with the current scholarship. There are two minor observations I want to make. First: I wonder if the Sanchez-Navarro battle map and plat became the basis for the set of the 2004 Alamo. The map shows the front of the chapel even with the Long Barracks which was certainly not the case. I don't know why Hancock chose to change the dimensions of the fort so dramatically and still try for accuracy in so many other areas. Personally, I found it more annoying than a reason to pan the movie. It was still a great picture. Lou, reportedly Hancock and his designer opted to move the chapel forward primarily so it would be visible in more shots. To many of us, this was a very annoying choice. Jim
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on May 11, 2014 18:11:48 GMT -5
I haven't written in a while, so forgive me if I'm not up to date with the current scholarship. There are two minor observations I want to make. First: I wonder if the Sanchez-Navarro battle map and plat became the basis for the set of the 2004 Alamo. The map shows the front of the chapel even with the Long Barracks which was certainly not the case. I don't know why Hancock chose to change the dimensions of the fort so dramatically and still try for accuracy in so many other areas. Personally, I found it more annoying than a reason to pan the movie. It was still a great picture. Lou, reportedly Hancock and his designer opted to move the chapel forward primarily so it would be visible in more shots. To many of us, this was a very annoying choice. Jim And it is easy to understand why it is annoying to an Alamo-knowledgeable person. However, few folks are. Just to clear up a few points, since sometimes off-handed details become "History" (lol), John Lee Hancock had absolutely nothing to do with this decision. Production designer Michael Corenblith has openly assumed all responsibility for the choice which was made while Ron Howard was still at the helm. The set was half built already when Ron left the production and John Lee was hired. John had not yet even been considered as director until the decision was in place and on the ground. I have never agreed with the decision, but I do understand why it was made, having been in complete touch with Michael Corenblith throughout the design and construction process as his unofficial historical consultant (that's "his" and not Disney's -- they wouldn't hire any until the actual shoot when Hardin and Huffines were brought on). The first I heard of the plan was when Michael e-mailed me and said, "Richard, you are not going to like this..." (Honest!) "But it is not negotiable," he quickly added, knowing me well by then. Michael's dilemma was this. The battle scenes were going to be very accurate -- fast, furious, all around, and basically IN THE DARK! While movies like John Waynes (back in the day) had the luxury of screen time to visually "establish" locations and sets -- and Duke's battle was incorrectly shot in broad daylight when you could see where you were -- this was absolutely no longer the case in 2002. He pointed out that almost all the viewing public would not already know the Alamo fort's architecture, and modern screen time (planning, shooting and editing for it) would not allow dwelling on buildings (something that made Duke's movie become our playground -- and Alamo Village famous). With a fast-paced battle at night, he had to create "visual anchors" that would subliminally and literally allow the viewers to know specifically where things were happening, or they would become confused and thus lose interest. My own filmmaking education supports this. If a film "loses the audience" even for a moment, it is dead-meat. Thus Michael needed the strongest iconic image to become, as he dubbed it, a "visual anchor" for the audience. Seeing that famous facade from all angles in the fort would provide that orientation for the viewers. Another far more subtle touch he added was that all the doors on one side of the Alamo courtyard were dirty red and all on the opposite side were dirty green. More significantly, the true difference in the look of the Alamo's four plaza walls was utilized (and exaggerated a bit) to further differentiate. Ironically, in the final cut, there is only one moment in the whole film when you see the church facade from the north end -- and only for a split second. This is when the camera booms up to Ward on the north wall and he says, "Notice anything different about them cannons out there?" Alas, "the best laid plans...." I'm sure Dean Semler photographed the movie with this important alteration in mind -- and that John Lee supported Michael's reason for making it -- but, in the editing room, it seems to have gotten totally ignored. Perhaps, once they saw the power of that awesome 10-second aerial view of the over-run, they felt it was not an issue. Don't know. However, that was the reason as of the day after the decision was made. Not griping; just explaining. Alas, even though Michael Corenblith knew he would "draw fire from Alamo buffs" because of this decision, even he didn't realize how much -- or how long. I was very pleased to here Lou say, "Personally, I found it more annoying than a reason to pan the movie," because it seems that panning the movie because of this one decision has taken hold of a lot of Alamo buffs, and I know for an absolute fact that these filmmakers bent over backwards (sometimes against Disney wishes) to provide us with the most accurate Alamo movie ever made -- and it is indeed.
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on May 11, 2014 18:20:03 GMT -5
Regarding the similarity of the set footprint to the Sanchez-Navarro plat, Michael swears that it never occurred to him until buffs pointed it out in recent years. Frankly, the thought occurred to me too, but I know too much about how he planned and adapted to the needs of the camera lens and Ron Howard's creative concept to believe such a simplistic move would have been made. His foreshortening of the courtyard is exactly what is needed for the wide angle lens, and making the audience FEEL how "penned up" these folks were is difficult to do if your set sprawls all over creation. And I know he researched the real Alamo thouroughly, because I sent him a lot of the material myself in November of 2002. But to make the very point you are making, Lou, here is a comparison that one of the buffs did several years ago (sorry, I don't have the name). I sent this to Michael at that time, and he was very amused by the similarity. As the reporter in John Ford's The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence says, "When legend becomes legend, print the legend." (Wait! Did I quote that correctly? lol)
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on May 12, 2014 12:27:16 GMT -5
Thanks for the back-story, Rich. Interesting stuff.
I think most of us agree that, for all its shortcomings, this is still the most accurate film about the battle. I only wish we could see a different edit.
Jim
|
|
|
Post by Rich Curilla on May 12, 2014 18:38:13 GMT -5
Thanks for the back-story, Rich. Interesting stuff. I think most of us agree that, for all its shortcomings, this is still the most accurate film about the battle. I only wish we could see a different edit. Jim So do I. So does John Lee Hancock.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Sylvain on May 12, 2014 20:12:56 GMT -5
I also agree. Wayne's rebdition was good story-telling but inaccurate in so many ways. The mis-location of the church aside, I think the 2004 'Mo was pretty darn accurate in more ways than not. I also found the portrayals of the various main characters believable as well -- especially BBT's portrayal of Crockett. The battle scene in darkness was incredible and added to the tension of the final assault. Overall, very well done IMO.
|
|