[Frederica-l] Beliefnet: The Alamo

[Frederica]

It's been awhile since I sent out a movie review! After some delay, it looks like I'm in place to be the movie critic for Beliefnet.com. I was surprised to learn, on a recent visit to NY, that they didn't have one; a web magazine is perfect for movie reviews, because you can get them posted so quickly. Since film screenings are usually only a few days or a week before the opening, print magazines are at a disadvantage. Also, since people love to talk about and discuss movies, a website that runs a discussion mini-board alongside articles is perfect. So I think this arrangement is promising for both Bnet and for me. I sure did enjoy my two years at Our Sunday Visitor, though, and reviews may still appear there occasionally.   Beliefnet.com has really bloomed since I attended a planning meeting back in the fall of 1999. Through ups and downs and financial rough spots it has persevered to become the premiere provider of information and inspiration for a multitude of religions and spiritualities. It is like the "Mars Hill" described in the book of Acts, and a place that I am gratified to represent a conservative, evangelical, and Orthodox Christian perspective. Although some things appear on the site that make my hair stand on end, the swirl of debate and discussion is invigorating, and I've always been welcomed there, and had less trouble over editing than I've had at some Christian magazines.    A moment of triumph came last fall, when Beliefnet.com received the General Excellence Award from the Online News Association and the Annenberg School of Communication. Beliefnet was in competition with Slate, Salon, and all the other big web magazines that have over 200,000 visitors and are not affiliated with a news organization. (The winner for a site that *is* affil with a news org was ESPN.com). So this was not a competition among religion publications. That a multifaith religion & spirituality site would win shows how increasingly important these topics are becoming to Americans. Richard John Neuhaus once wrote a book titled "The Naked Public Square" about the omission of religion and spirituality from public discourse. It appears now that the public square is at least getting its shoes on.   Anyway, here's the Alamo review, below. I'm glad to be writing movie reviews again.   *** The Alamo   Itâs a noble, inspiring thing when patriots fight for liberty. Itâs noble if they win, that is. Bostonians tossing tea in 1774 is one thing; Charlestonians defying Lincoln in 1861 is another. Turns out that rebellion, by itself, is not enough to gain historyâs nod. You also have to win. History is written by the victors.   And curiously, one of the things winners love most is remembering the time they lost. One example of that, dominating screens coast to coast, is âThe Passion of the Christ.â As the fledgling Christian movement was being crushed, as Judas betrayed and Peter denied and a lone figure staggered Calvary hill, the faith appeared close to annihilation. This weekend, theater seats were crowded again with folks eager to be moved, dismayed, and awed by the catastrophe that hid a cosmic victory.   In the next theater, empty seats provided that wide-open-spaces feeling as the story of one of Americaâs favorite defeats unreeled. You canât really blame the story, which is a corker; you canât really blame the movie, either, since what arrived on the screen is not what anyone intended. âThe Alamoâ is something of a catastrophe in itself, having changed its director, leading man, budget, release date, length, and rating in a long, bumptious journey. Parts of it are excellent; Billy Bob Thornton, as David (âDonât call me Davyâ) Crockett, is completely appealing, and itâs hard to imagine that the original Davy, Russell Crowe, would have done as well. The hammy elements of the film are also pleasingâsatisfyingly hammy, fork-tender, the way we like our story done. When a Texian and a lovely senorita pause to kiss at a dance, we see their tentative approach in the form of sharp black shadows cast on the courtyard wall. You just donât get that kind of obvious, sincere sentiment in moviemaking any more, and it was refreshing.   The film does have its share of thumb-twiddling and bluster. An opening title card explains that the Alamo became a significant battleground because of âLocation, proximity to settlements, and maybe even fate.â You may puzzle over the distinction between âlocationâ and âproximity to settlements,â but you wonât get far. Remember that this was back in the 19th century, when the realtorsâ formula, âLocation, location, location,â was still undergoing tests.   The scene that won gasps was a sequence that followed a cannonball into and then powerfully out of a cannon, sailing over a wall and plopping onto the dirt of the defendersâ courtyard. There the prissy commander, Lt. Col. William Travis, gained newfound admiration from his men by picking it up and yanking out the explosive fuse. (He then dropped the iron sphere yelling âHot! Hot! Hot!â Not really.) Patrick Wilson renders Travis as an uptight dandy, but we are told that he gambles, visits whores, and abandoned his pregnant wife and two children, as if this should raise him in our esteem. Thatâs the problem with movie heroes; a perfect hero is unbelievable, so he must be given bad habits, and the bad habits are supposed to be what make him likeable. No wonder weâre confused; we admire people for being jerks.   Thorntonâs Davy Crockett wins us in a different way. Itâs interesting to compare his rendition with that of John Wayne, who starred in and directed his own âAlamoâ in 1960. Wayne was 53 and lumbered around like a middle-aged man, while the lovely actress Linda Cristal, then 26, pretended to pine for his love. He cheerfully declared that he was an incurable liar, a heavy drinker, and couldnât find time to prayâa loveable rascal of the old school. Thornton gives us a Crockett less rascally and more endearing: heâs clever, modest, thoughtful, and scorches a fiddle string. In one of the less believable, but more charming, moments in the film, Crockett climbs onto the fortâs battlement and weaves a lively melody around the Mexican armyâs foreboding drum tattoo. For once, the enemy bombardment is stilled. âItâs amazing what a little harmony will do,â Crockett muses, a sagebrush Mr. Rogers.   Wayneâs Crockett was an ornery cuss; Thorntonâs is a softy. He asks a young, dying Mexican soldier, âWhatâs your name, son?â and looks cloudy when the boy cannot reply. Later, when a friend exclaims, âTheyâve killed me, David!,â he replies sincerely, âIâm real sorry about all this.â He tells a repentant tale of massacring Indians, something you probably thought Crockett would be proud of, and in general is gentle, amused, and self-deprecating. Heâs everything some Americans loved about Ronald Reagan, and other Americans loved about Bill Clinton. This is what a hero looks like in 2004, and itâs a fur piece, podner, from the John Wayne version.   But, in both cases, what were they fighting for? Mexico owned Texas, and offered citizenship to Anglos who settled there. Those Anglos decided they wanted the land for themselves, and fought to throw off Mexican control. Obviously, you could see that story from two perspectivesâis it noble rebellion, or a ruthless land-grab? In either case, itâs a battle fought over earthly wealth and power. This story differs from that in the next theater, in which the hero said, âMy kingdom is not of this world.â Characters in both stories prove that it takes courage to die for a cause. But the Alamo soldiers fought and killed till their last moments; in the other movie, the hero didnât fight back at all.   ******** Frederica Mathewes-Green www.frederica.com

_______________________________________________
Frederica-l mailing list
*** Please address all replies to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
You can check your subscription information here:
http://lists.ctcnet.net/mailman/listinfo/frederica-l