I think you got them all, "wtl." I've read here that there was a scene that's only been recently unearthed showing some Mexican soldiers, having stormed inside the compound, capturing one of the defenders' cannon and turning it on the defenders (as happened in the real battle); but I don't think that was part of the original-release version. (What we now call "the directors' cut.)
I saw the movie when it was first released on a road-show, reserved-seat basis in one of Manhattan's biggest theaters (the kind that specialized in road-show screenings of the big historical blockbusters that were more common back then). Then I saw it again a few months later, after it had been released to the "nabes" (neighborhood theaters) in Brooklyn and Queens. I remember thinking, "Hey, what happened to Emil Sand?" I had seen the complete scene with the knifing. I also noted the omission of the Parson's death and the birthday party.
I agree with you that the Parson's death should never have been omitted. It doesn't take up that much time, harkens back to the earlier Flaca scene when Crockett says he's never had time to pray, and is, most importantly, very moving.
But I was glad to see the birthday party scene go. I found it mawkish and a drag on the pacing. Of course, once cut, the paper crown on the slave kid's head (a token of the party) just seems odd.
The re-enforcements-from-Gonzales scene is good because it's amusing how Travis consternates everyone by being gracious to Seguin. On the other hand, it's odd that in the final battle, you never see Sequin die. (Yes, I know the real Juan Sequin survived, but I'm talking about movie-Seguin.) Unless there was another lost scene in which Travis sends Seguin out with dispatches, as happened to the real Juan Seguin. I also wonder if Seguin's death wasn't in that lost scene of the Texans' cannon being turned against them (see above). In the movie, it looks like Seguin and his Tejanos are positioned on the roof of the Long Barracks (Travis' two-story HQ in the movie), and maybe they're victims of the cannon blast.
reply
share
wtl471629
13 years ago
Good points Bilwick1 and thanks for your response. The original no doubt probably included scenes that were cut also. You are probably right about the death of Seguin on the roof but it is strange that they didn't show any of the bodies like the rest of the fight but that might have been a cut too. I am hoping to see the movie on TCM where I have been told it is the uncut version. But I wish we could have one made with the uncut uncut version as you referred too.
The thing is in my opinion by making those cuts they turned a great movie into a good movie.
reply
share
Bilwick1
13 years ago
There's also no death scene for Jocko, which seems even odder than no death scene for Sequin, considering the big dramatic "Get back on that wall, Jocko!" scene with Blind Nell. The basic rule of dramatic writing is "every set-up must have a pay-off," and yet Jocko ends up MIA. Maybe there are death scenes for Seguin and Jocko that were cut out of even the first-release version. I don't remember seeing them in the road-show screening, although that was fifty years ago and it's possible I just forgot them.
But I don't think so. This was a movie that made a deep impression on my ten year-old mind, and while I undoubtedly forgot some stuff over the passing years (although only about nine years would pass before the movie was reissued and I saw it again in another big Manhattan theater), but I think the big dramatic scenes, like death scenes, I would have remembered. I certainly remembered all those scenes of guys (Bonham, Beekeeper and Lt. Finn) with swords sticking out of them. Even as a ten year-old I found that repetitious and thought there should have been more variety in the death scenes.
Maybe Seguin and Jocko also died with swords sticking out of them, and someone pointed out to Wayne, "Okay, it's getting out of hand. There just weren't that many swords in the assault force!" So they were cut from the theatrical-release version.
reply
share
wtl471629
13 years ago
Thank you for your good thoughts too Bilwickl. I overlooked Jocko's death scene too as well as Seguin's which were probably as you said not included in the director's cut.
reply
share
wtl471629
13 years ago
Hey Bilwickle I just watched the cut version on the Encore Western Channel and I think we have another cut scene that was on the director's version. If my memory is correct early in the movie when Travis insults Seguin and goes to his office with Captain Dickinerson they have a discussion about how they must keep bad news from the man. Then the scene shifts but in the director's cut Travis talked longer putting down the men much to Dickinson's objection. I am sure that this is another omitted Scene maybel calling it Travis put down of some of the men. Maybe you can help and let me know if I am right or not.
reply
share
Bilwick1
13 years ago
Yes, it's true, I forgot about that, mainly because it is more of a trimmed scene than a cut-out-altogether scene. The discussion between Travis and Dickinson originally went on much longer. The original version is interesting, especially on VHS where you can fast forward through it once you're familiar with it, but Travis' anti-Jeffersonian rant really brings the movie to a halt.
reply
share
wtl471629
13 years ago
Hey Bilwick1 I rewatched it again (the cut version on Encore Westerns Channel) and at the end when Mrs. Dickinson is leaving with her daughter and slave boy that just after the little girl asks where here daddy as they are leaving they pass by a body. For some reason this one is left because it is later in the morning after most bodies were moved. The body they pass by is Jocko I think. He is wearing a red shirt with a black vest which is what he was wearing the night before. But the face is not completely clear as it is kind of turned away but I think the body had a beard like Jocko had. It isn't clear why it wasn't moved perhaps he was fatally wounded and they just let him die or they hadn't got to him. When you get to see it please let me know what you think so I can get your thoughts. Still if he was killed in battle they should have shown it and Juan Seguin as you have mentioned.
reply
share
Bilwick1
13 years ago
I've read that Wayne was originally going to go with the "Crockett Surrenders/Is Captured The Executed" scenario, but decided against it because he thought it would make the Mexicans look too brutal. (And people call 2004's THE ALAMO "politicall correct"!) Wayne may have also decided against it because he thought, being John Wayne, Crockett should die fighting. It may be that they did a scene in which some Texians were captured, Jocko included, and were then executed. Maybe Seguin was one of the executed prisoners, too.
reply
share
wtl471629
13 years ago
Another cut scene might have been the conversation between Bowie and Jethro after Houston has left. It looks like in the cut version it might have been cut short. I have ordedered the uncut video and am going to watch it and compare with all the cut scenes.
reply
share
Bilwick1
13 years ago
Right again, wtl. Again more of a trimmed scene than a cut scene, but I recall when I saw it in the neighborhood theater, having seen the longer theatrical-release, reserved-seating road-show version a month or two before, being aware of the scene being shortened; but it wasn't until I got the director's cut VHS that I saw how much. Not only does Jethro wax philosophical to a hungover Bowie, but when Bowie finally goes outside to get a breath of fresh air, he encounters Travis and his staff, including Bonham. Travis tells Bowie that Houston has left him (Travis) in command--news Bowie is not overjoyed to hear. Then Travis dispatches Bonham to ride out for reinforcements.
Although Jethro's philosophizing is sort of a bring-the-movie-to-a-halt moment, the scene is nice because it shows the close relationship between the master and the slave. Plus, the Travis scene sets up the Bowie-Travis conflict, and also explains why Bonham (who was present in the Houston scene) is returning to the Alamo later on in the movie.
reply
share
wtl471629
13 years ago
Hey Bilwickl I finally decided to buy the uncut video while it was still available and watched it last night and compared it to the shorter version shown on the Encore Western Channel. It is great and has all the cut scenes and it is the wide screen version. Even though Juan Seguin is not shown on a death scene I think on the longer version I saw him just before the final attack and I think he is on the top of Travis' headquarters as you said. In the short version there is shown the flag and then two of Sequin's men about 20 seconds before the music starts as the drums are playing. In the longer version there is a third one to their right and even though his back is two us I think it is Seguin or at least he is wearing the same clothes as Seguin had been wearing.
reply
share
Bilwick1
13 years ago
There's that odd moment when a Mexican cannon shot blasts the roof of the two-story HQ building, and you see a bunch of guys in big Mexican sombreros jumping off as the walls and ceiling collapse. Since earlier there was an establishing shot that, as you point out, seem to place Seguin and the other Tejanos on the roof of that building, are we to presume Seguin was killed in the blast--or that hs was one of the guys who jumped off and survived only to be killed later? I say it's an odd moment because the only guy we are shown dying from the blast is the Gambler from Crockett's Tennesseans, who seems to have been on the roof with them, although there's no explanation why he would have left the Tennessee contingent to be with the Tejanos.
reply
share
wtl471629
13 years ago
Good point Bilwick1 on the gambler (Thimblerig). Before the fighting starts he is shown with Crocket and the other men and there was no explanation why he was on the other building later. I think we must assume that Seguin was also killed in the blast even though it is never shown.
I may have stumbled across what happened to Jocko. He was probably killed very early in the battle. If you watch he is helping with firing a cannon and right by them is some tall man that I don't think was ever shown before. There is a group of men down from Crocket (one seems to be a dummy to me) and Irish is near them. A canon blast hits the wall and kills them except for Irish who is killed later. Right afterward it shows Jocko and the men working the canon and a blast hits near them and probably it killed them even though no bodies are shown. Maybe you can give your opinion when you watch it and maybe recognize who the tall man was.
reply
share
Bilwick1
13 years ago
I love this movie in a sentimental way even though I know that, historically, it's hooey; but it seems to me that unless some other cut material shows up somewhere, there is a certain sloppiness in setting up some characters only to have them meet ambiguous or off-camera deaths. Especially Jocko, who gets that big scene where his wife convinces him to "get back up on that wall!" Seguin risks his life to ride through Centralista lines with his vaqueros, and it seems to me he deserves at least a visible death scene.
I think the tall guy you refer to may be the leader of the re-enforcements from Gonzales who enter the compound along with Seguin and his vaqueros. In the cut scene he even gets a line or two and is introduced as a friend of Bowie, and again, if you're going to introduce a character, you need to show what happens to him and not just presume him dead--even though he certainly was.
The only thing I can think of for "Thimblerig" (as the Gambler's is traditionally called) being on the roof with the Tejanos is that in one of the night-time sorties we see him wearing a bandanna on his head like the Tejanos. Was he Mexican all along and concealing his racial identity? Maybe just before the assault he said to Crockett, "I'm sorry--I'm through living a lie. I am not Tennessean--YO SOY TEJANO! I will die with my people!"
reply
share
wtl471629
13 years ago
Good point on the tall guy Bilwick1. I remember him now when he comes to the Alamo with Seguin and I am sure you are correct.
reply
share
wtl471629
13 years ago
Hey Bil do you think maybe some scenes with the tall man were cut? I mean not even included in the Director's Cut. I don't think he was a well known actor or if he made any more movies but John Wayne was one who always liked to help new young stars get a start. He knew Bowie very well and I would think that maybe they would have had more scenes with him but they were cut and probably lost today. Too bad.
reply
share
Bilwick1
13 years ago
I suspect the tall man was probably some local talent recruited in Texas to do a tiny supporting role, but I have no supporting evidence for this. I think that it probably wasn't considered necessary to have a specific death scene for a very minor character, although I think it would have been more effective to show him and other minor characters actually dying rather than having the viewer assume death. Although I was greatly disappointed in the 1980s TV movie "The Alamo: Thirteen Days to Glory," one thing that was effective was seeing each of the minor characters, as well as the major characters, die one by one, giving a sense of the thinning number of defenders. This would have been even more effective in the Wayne movie, where the minor characters stood out--often just visually--whereas in the TV movie they were basically spear-carriers.
reply
share
Bilwick1
13 years ago
Wtl: I have since watch THE ALAMO again (my annual March 6th viewing), and you're right: As Mrs. Dickinson and the children leave the Alamo at the end, they pass Jethro's body lying on the ground. His hat with the feather is lying near-by. All the times I've seen this movie, I've never noticed that little detail! Thanks for pointing it out.
Also, I saw what I guess is "the tall man's" death scene. (He's the guy who shakes hands with Bowie when Seguin leads the re-enforcements into the Alamo during the siege. I think Bowie calls him "George," so I assume he's supposed to be George Kimbell or Campbell, one of the leaders of the re-enforcements from Gonzales.) You see him standing next to a cannon (apparently on the west wall, from what I can tell) and then there's an explosion near him--presumably from a cannonball landing--and he vanishes in the smoke. I assume we're supposed to assume that the cannon-shot got him.
Juan Seguin still remains a mystery. When Travis holds an officer's call after the first attack, while the doctor works on Bowie's leg one of the men standing by looks to me like the Tejano who earlier had come in with Seguin when Seguin brought the re-enforcements. He seems to be Seguin's right hand man. Yet there he is, present during officer's call. I was assuming he took over command of the Tejano contingent and that Seguin had died, presumably in some deleted scene. Yet just before the final assault I'm sure Seguin is one of the Tejanos on the roof of the two-story HQ building. You can't see his face but he's wearing the same copper colored vaquero outfit that Seguin was wearing.
reply
share
vmiller16
13 years ago
In reference to the Parson's death, I believe they call out his name in a quickie scene after a cannon blast hits one of the walls, some men are passing by, and one says, "it's the Parson", and they start to dig him out of the rubble. The camera only shows the back and top of his head. But you have to be on your guard, because the scene passes very quickly.
I'm trying to find out about the "Flaca" character. Was her character fictional? I've been reading up on Davy Crocket's history, and have not been able to find any reference to her.
reply
share
Bilwick1
13 years ago
"In reference to the Parson's death, I believe they call out his name in a quickie scene after a cannon blast hits one of the walls, some men are passing by, and one says, 'it's the Parson', and they start to dig him out of the rubble. The camera only shows the back and top of his head. But you have to be on your guard, because the scene passes very quickly."
You're talking about the trimmed, theatrical-release version, right? Because in the director's cut, we see the Parson's actual death scene, wherein he bids good-bye to Crockett, and Crockett says a prayer over the body.
In answer to your question, Flaca was fictional. Like Disney's Davy Crockett, the movie gives the impression that Crockett remained a widower after his wife's death, when in reality he remarried. As I recall, his widow and kids eventually moved from Tennessee to Texas, to claim the land Crockett had earned
serving in the Texas militia and dying at the Alamo. It's not impossible Crockett could have cheated on his second wife in Texas, if a beautiful and willing Tejana like Flaca had been available in San Antonio, but there's no evidence for it. They just felt the need to give the movie some love interest. Audiences were too unsophisticated and narrow-minded in those days to accept the interracial Bowie-Jethro relationship.
reply
share
Bilwick1
10 years ago
Flaca is fictional. If Crockett had had a dalliance with a lovely Tejana, and Mrs. Crockett back home had found out about it, she might have been glad the Mexicans killed Davy.
reply
share
wtl471629
10 years ago
I agree Bil. The movie as you wrote just had Flaca as the love interest.
reply
share
Bilwick1
10 years ago
What's interesting to me is that in the Director's Cut it seems more clearly implied that Crockett and Flaca actually consummated their relationship. Of course this was 1960 and they wouldn't have been as explicit as the movies would become even in just a few years hence, but in the Director's Cut it seems pretty clear that Crockett has spent the night with Flaca in her hotel room.
reply
share