MovieChat Forums > The Alamo: Thirteen Days to Glory (1987) Discussion > Santa Anna

Santa Anna

posted 15 years ago by marmac2768
12 replies | jump to latest

I just saw this movie today on Encore Western for the first time since it originally aired in 1987. While entertaining, it played "fast and loose" with the historical facts.

The biggest let down to me was the stereotypical depiction of General Santa Anna by Raul Julia. He was, in the early movies and depictions of him, always played as a maniacal dictator, but new light has come out, much of it before the 1987 movie came out, to rehabilitate his character. However, this movie chose to show him in the stereotypical way and that is a shame. Santa Anna was actually a military genius, and was actually very sane. He was a General, yes; a dictator, yes; but he was a man who had Mexico at the zenith of it's power that has never been equaled since that day. Sure, he made grave errors that led to the independance of Texas, but to try to explain them with the over simplified "mad general" version, cheapens the real story of the Alamo.

[–] Alfriend 15 years ago

I agree with you. The depiction of Santa Ana was quite stereotypical of the super patriotic type that depicts all the Americans as perfect and the Mexican Leader as a maniac. But I think this depiction as far as Raul Julia occurs more in the writing than in Mr. Julia's acting. IMHO, Raul Julia portrays the man with all the charisma and intelligence that an actor could do. You see a man who knows he has a destiny to lead and that comes with all the arrogance and ego that one who believes this so intensely would have. Sadly, the writing in this film is where the real stereotypes occur. It is stiff and certainly not "fair and balanced". There is only one scene in this long film where you see Santa Ana with his sister and get a glimpse at another side of the man.

I think were Raul Julia handed a better script you'd have appreciated his work alot more. IMHO, I would say that his is the strongest performance in the film followed by Brian Keith. But that is just my two-cents.

Sad that Raul Julia died so young. He was a great actor.

[–] joe_538 8 years ago

Depicts all Americans perfect? With Davy Crockett as a loudmouthed, caricature of himself and Sam Houston as a bitter old man? Who was "perfect" in this?

I never saw Santa Anna as a maniac in this; he was overconfident, cold, an opportunist, had too much ego... I guess he was an egomaniac. Pretty true to life. Despite what popularity Santa Anna may currently hold in Mexico, he lost twice as many men taking the Alamo as the men that defended it just to teach them a lesson, ordered hundreds of prisoners executed, lost the war at San Jacinto in a matter of minutes, lost to the French in the Pastry War, had his leg amputated, continued aimless skirmishes into Texas, was imprisoned by his own people and exiled, broke agreements that allowed him back into Mexico, made himself president, lined his pockets, had dissidents imprisoned, lost the Mexican-American War, had his leg taken by the American army, and was exiled again.

Both the girls he married were under fifteen and strictly for their money and advancing his status (but that's more personal than professional).

A biopic could fill in a lot of what you don't see in movies about Texas's independence.

[–] inoldhollywood 14 years ago

Unfortunately, there seems to be a curse on showing this epic battle in a film. The latest incarnation just a few years ago cost millions and was supposed to show costumes, action and situations as accurately as possible, but it bombed big time because the critics say "it blew all our love of legend away"... go figure.

"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown!"

[–] Jared-Fogle-Sucks 14 years ago

Nonsense by all means.

Liberals love to make films that make American heroes look like idiots, and then turn around and say that they are "stereotypical" or biased against non-Americans.

[–] stagebandman 14 years ago

Big-mouthed idiots love to blame liberals for everything.

If we all liked the same movie, there'd only be one movie!

[–] Bry-2 14 years ago

Well said.

I saw this for the first time since it was first on, 23 years ago, and was favorably impressed. It's not a great movie, but better than average, especially given the B-grade screenplay and mediocre effects. The acting was mostly good and Raul Julia was terrific as the slightly nutzo Santa Anna -- I'm not discussing whether Santa Anna REALLY was insane, just saying Julia did a great job with what he had to work with.

Alec Baldwin was good too -- better than Laurence Harvey, I thought -- and Brian Keith much more sympathetic as Crockett than Wayne was.

--If they move, kill 'em!

[–] Jared-Fogle-Sucks 13 years ago

Santa Anna was an idiot and insane, I don't know how anyone could dispute it. The fact that his casualties were so much greater than the 180 defenders at the Alamo speaks volumes.

[–] Alfriend 13 years ago

LOL, yes. They either blame liberals or just go for it now and blame Obama.

[–] Alfriend 13 years ago

And Neo-cons love to pretend that American Heroes have no flaws and only *beep* marble.

They are far more non-American for always trying to hide the full story. If you research the real people involved in this bit of history and other aspects of American history, you will find it is not so black and white. Unfortunately, Neo-clones.. I mean cons, think that to reveal a character flaw means you are al bad. They repress and they pretend.

What is heroic about these men and women is that for the most part they accomplished what they did despite having serious flaws in character; that when the chips were down they stood up and gave all they had. A film like that lets people realize that everyone has that potential in life; to overcome their foibles at one time or another and rise to the occasion.

[–] magic8ball2112 13 years ago

Santa Anna was actually a military genius

While taking an army across a desert in record time is no small thing, much of his actions on the campaign were anything BUT the marks of a military genius.

-Just sensible military planning would've requisitioned ships to depart from a Mexican Gulf port and ferried the army, by sea, to land on the Texan coast. Governmental penny-pinching prohibited that. As he was absolute ruler of Mexico, its not as if he couldn't have ramrodded funds through Congress. Rather than a quick ship ride, S.A. opted for a march through the desert w/ unrealistically limited rations for the men.
-Waiting a day or 2 for heavy artillery to bombard the mission's walls would've prevented the unnecessary loss of men as what rebels were left in the ruins would've likely surrendered. He opted, instead, for an unwarranted infantry assault on a fortified position, something that violates the military advice of everyone from Sun Tzu, to Frederick the Great, to Napoleon. And all to just rack up a bodycount to list in his reports.
-Most damning: failng to post sentries on the perimeter at his camp in San Jacinto. The results of that incompentence speak for themselves.

If the man had any genius, it was POLITICAL. How else does one engineer 11 separate presidential terms, some of which occurred after he led the country into a war w/ their northern neighbor, which led to the loss of half the nation's territory?

As for the movie, 'stereotype' or not, its one of the few that portrayed him as a youngish man, something S.A. was at the time of the Alamo (i.e. early 40s).
The true stereotype is when the movies continually portray him as an older guy i.e. late 50s-early 60s. After all, what's more fitting an opposition to a youthful rebellion than an older villain?

[–] Jared-Fogle-Sucks 9 years ago

Why were there 2000 Mexicans at the Alamo?

They only brought 2 pickup trucks.

[–] joe_538 8 years ago

Santa Anna was actually a military genius

The kind of genius who sacrifices hundreds of his own men just to teach some guys in a mission a lesson. Mexico lost a lot of men and a lot of territory under him.

"If only Santa Anna had not repealed the Constitution of 1824. If only Santa Anna had not dissolved the legislatures. If only Santa Anna had not killed every Texan prisoner. If only Santa Anna had not gone to sleep without posting a guard at San Jacinto. If only Santa Anna had done any of these things Texas would probably still be a Mexican state; however, Santa Anna did none of these things. In fact it was his failure to do any of these things that caused Texas to become an independent republic." ---Santa Anna and the Texas Revolution