Let’s go back to 2004. The wretched turmoil generated by the September 11th attacks still gripped the populace, the US’ illegal war in Iraq had been raging for a year, and the Great White Shame of Texas, George W. Bush, sat in the White House.
If anything, the confused, jingoistic times may have lent themselves to a tale of bloodthirsty American revenge against a foreign enemy who absolutely didn’t deserve it. The trouble with “The Alamo” started long before audiences even saw it, but it didn’t help that Hancock’s take on the great American myth actually treated it as just that — a myth, one which gave soul and dimension to its Mexican characters, and ruminated upon the power of patriotic hubris. But these were not times for nuance.
The truth is “The Alamo” was doomed from the start. Ron Howard dropped out as director early on after realizing he’d be unable to fulfill his preposterous ambition of making “a new ‘Wild Bunch.'” Despised Disney CEO Michael Eisner then handed the film over to Hancock, a relative unknown, and under his stewardship, the film suffered many highly publicized delays, walk-offs, and budget overruns. Set for a Christmas 2003 release, the film was pushed back and dropped without much ceremony in April 2004. On the left, history buffs groused about its inaccuracies and racism, and on the right, there were complaints the film was too sympathetic to the Mexican army.
“The Alamo” brought in a mere $25 million worldwide on a $100 million+ budget, which is a shame, because honestly, it’s kind of a fascinating film. Hancock attempts to take American history by the horns, and though he’s gored quite a bit, he emerges on the other side of the ring with one of the more sensitive war films of the period. One worth watching today.