Information
AI Chat

How Does the Film Thirteen Days Portray the Cuban Missile Crisis?

Extended essay on the cuban missile crisis as presented by the film Th...

Module

Government and Politics of the United States (PR2410)

22 Documents

Students shared 22 documents in this course

University

Royal Holloway, University of London

Academic year: 2019/2020

Uploaded by:

Anonymous Student

This document has been uploaded by a student, just like you, who decided to remain anonymous.

Royal Holloway, University of London

Comments

Please sign in or register to post comments.

Preview text

How Does the Film Thirteen Days Portray History?

Word Count: 4993

The ilm Thirteen Days was released in the United States in the year 2000, almost 40 years ater its subject, the Cuban Missile Crisis, took place in October 1962. Over the course of those four decades, public history narraives surrounding the Missile Crisis have developed. Works surrounding the Kennedy brothers, who played key roles in the American side of the crisis, have been writen extensively. Thirteen Days represents much of the accepted view of the Kennedy administraions role in the crisis as told by the senior igures of that administraion. Since the tone of Thirteen Days is so realisic, it is a ilm asking to be considered a work of true history, and for this reason it must be held to account as a historical work with far more scruiny than ilms which are clearly icionalised. The story told by Thirteen Days is one that has developed largely out of two key writen works, both of which focus on the Kennedys role in this key moment in history. One is a memoir writen by Robert Kennedy himself, also itled “Thirteen Days”, and published only seven years ater the Cuban Missile Crisis, in 1969, which was also a year ater his death. A ilm based on Kennedy’s book, itled The Missiles of October was released in 1974 and was the irst docudrama made about the Missile Crisis_._ The second book used by Thirteen Days as a source are a series of transcripts writen much later than Robert Kennedy’s, itled “The Kennedy Tapes: Inside the White House During the Cuban Missile Crisis”, by Ernest May and Philip Zelikow. The ilm is clearly inluenced by both works, claiming the Kennedy Tapes as its key source material but telling a story closely resembling what is told by Robert Kennedy. Thirteen Days is paricularly narrow in its portrayal of history, focusing almost solely on events within the White House and members of Kennedy’s Ex-Comm. It is necessary to place the ilm within the wider historical context to analyse what is either omited or inaccurate in order to beter understand how the ilm Thirteen Days portrays history.

From the outset, Thirteen Days shows a patrioic and heroic image of the United States. Protagonist Kenny O’Donnell, played by Kevin Costner, is shown living a life of tradiional American values: an American lag waves in his home as his wife and children eat breakfast together whilst listening to the radio. Its tone is a serious one, described by reviewer Roger Ebert as “more about facts and speculaion than about acion.” 1 Roger Donaldson, the ilm’s director, already had a good reputaion for historical movies, and it is clear throughout Thirteen Days that the drama is moivated by historical moments, not extravagant storytelling. A few scenes are deliberately played in black and white near the beginning of the ilm, which tries to reinforce that this drama has a historical seing. Detail has gone into the producion, like the featured U2 spy-planes having an accurate design to the ime, and the tone of the few military confrontaions are played as realisically as possible. The ilm’s opening involving nuclear explosions adds a dramaic impact to the seing, which demonstrates the power of nuclear tests and the risks facing the protagonists. However, warcrat and explosions are used moderately, despite the ease in adding more cinemaic acion by driving this to excess. The focus is instead on poliical drama, and this is focused almost exclusively on the administraive circle of the White House.

As a historical ilm depicing the 1960’s, Thirteen Days naturally faces the reality that some of its key events were in fact recorded live during the missile crisis, including President Kennedy’s Monday night speech. The dramaic impact of this speech is a powerful moment in American cultural memory, with Monday the 22nd October becoming the day in which the general American public would learn about the seriousness of the impending threat of the missiles. The original speech was eighteen minutes long. Thirteen Days passes through its more dramaic moments in around two

1 Ebert, R. 2001. Thirteen Days movie review & ilm summary

minutes, but nonetheless the speech’s magnitude is recognised and presented accordingly. Alice L. George described the crisis as “the irst-ime many Americans truly faced the naion’s suscepibility to devastaing nuclear atack” 2 and this type of mood is felt in the glimpses of the wider public shown in the ilm. Genuine footage of Walter Cronkite, a widely trusted journalist at the ime, are also used efecively to establish reports that are given to the public. Another key moment in the ilm which was recorded live at the ime was the dramaic confrontaion between Stevenson and Zurin at the UN, and Stevenson’s reveal of the photographs of Russian missile sites. This is also recounted in Robert Kennedy’s book with mostly the same wording and details. 3 The ilm efecively dramaizes its depicion of these events and is careful to take most of the same wording used by Stevenson in his address, albeit with some added reacions from Kennedy’s group watching the events and the actual UN members. President Kennedy’s famous “peace in all ime” speech is also used to end the ilm as the credits are about to roll, reinforcing the signiicant place in history the events of the crisis has, as well as reinforcing the moral overtones of the ilm in showing President Kennedy as a peacemaker. The ilm’s understanding that such pivotal historical moments should be treated carefully and accurately creates greater historical legiimacy, which it must receive credit for.

Crucial historical analysis must be had over the role of the Kennedy brothers during the crisis, and the way in which Thirteen Days portrays them. Robert Kennedy’s book “Thirteen Days” heavily inluences the way both Kennedys are shown in the ilm. Despite being published so shortly ater the crisis, Robert Kennedy’s memoir was writen at a ime where he wanted to re-engineer some aspects of memory about the past. His brother JFK had been assassinated in 1963, meaning despite this memoir arriving so soon ater, it is already at the point where the Kennedy legacy is at the forefront of Robert’s mind. He would also be assassinated by the ime of its publicaion. Robert Kennedy was Atorney General during the crisis, in addiion to his already close involvement with the poliics of his brother the President, so a history writen from his perspecive as expected tells a paricular side to the story. The memoir is very favourable towards both brothers. Robert Kennedy places himself as the presenter of the “moral quesion”, arguing that a very large naion should not mount a surprise atack on a very small one 4 , a role which he is also given in the debates of the ilm. He also presented this moral argument as the strongest reason why President Kennedy would not agree to an all-out surprise atack 5. Robert Kennedy then describes his brother with a general “sense of pride in the strength, the purposefulness, and the courage of the President of the United States.” 6 John and Robert Kennedy are in no doubt the heroes of the story of the crisis, if this memoir is to be believed. Thirteen Days follows that same viewpoint consistently in its portrayal of a noble, heroic president and his loyal, moral brother. This emphasis on Kennedy’s altruisic thinking and moral rigidity are very much ways to jusify their decisions that were made at the ime. The inluence of Robert Kennedy’s wriing is clearly felt throughout the enire ilm.

The Kennedy Tapes were considered to be the primary source used for Thirteen Days and these transcripts were irst published in 1997. They contained informaion which had been declassiied since the earlier ilms and memoirs, meaning that more could be expanded on. The source material used for the Kennedy Tapes is best explained in the introducion by May and Zelikow: “unknown to any of those present except President Kennedy and possibly his brother Robert, hidden tape recorders were capturing the deliberaions, word for word. The resultant recording provides a record

2 George, A., 2013. Awaiing Armageddon: how Americans faced the Cuban Missile Crisis p. 3 Kennedy, R., 1971. Thirteen days: a memoir of the Cuban missile crisis p. 4 Kennedy, R., 1971. Thirteen days: a memoir of the Cuban missile crisis p- 5 Kennedy, R., 1971. Thirteen days: a memoir of the Cuban missile crisis p. 6 Kennedy, R., 1971. Thirteen days: a memoir of the Cuban missile crisis p.

which had previously been incomprehensible to the listener 13. Despite the valid concerns presented by other historians, the Kennedy Tapes remain the most insighful sources to Kennedy’s mind and decision making during the crisis.

It is important to note that whilst the ilm’s protagonist Kenny O’Donnell was a presidenial secretary appointed by President Kennedy during the crisis, he did not have the key role in the events as Thirteen Days suggests. Robert McNamara, Secretary of Defence during the crisis, described Costner’s character as “totally icional.” 14 His reasoning was that O’Donnell “didn’t have any role whatsoever in the missile crisis”, although he was working in the White House during that period. O’Donnell again is hardly recorded as speaking in the Kennedy Tapes and is not present in many of the cabinet room meeings or oval oice discussions between John and Robert Kennedy which the movie shows him to appear in. In Robert Kennedy’s book he is noted as appearing “intermitently at various meeings” as a Special Assistant to the President. His only signiicant appearance in the memoir is described ater the Tuesday meeings planning the blockade, that “the President, Ted Sorensen, Kenny O’Donnell, and I sat in [the President’s] oice and talked” 15 , an experience which is paricularly dramaized in the ilm, including some signiicant monologues from Kennedy as he muses on the outbreak of the irst world war and his thoughts from reading the Guns of August. This issue of O’Donnell’s character has been a main concern to historians and oicials who have commented on Thirteen Days. It represents a major issue oten faced by ilmmakers when trying to portray history, that they must also make something which people would be willing to watch. In the same interview where he brands Costner’s character “icional”, McNamara also admits “if I’d made it, it would be historically accurate, and nobody would come to see it.” 16 The desire to cast Costner into the ilm as a respectable actor did result in much of the ilms dialogue between John and Robert Kennedy being transposed to make O’Donnell it into the conversaion. The ilm oten adds O’Donnell to the room in conversaions which would have been private between John and Robert and appoints him to tasks which may have been undertaken by any loyal oicial serving under Kennedy. Costner’s character is mostly used to create relatability, and the ilmmakers choice at the beginning to place him in a suburban home with his family is very much a way of showing the setled, home life experienced by most Americans who were not fully aware of the implicaions of the crisis at the ime. O’Donnell’s lack of involvement in the missile crisis is perhaps best summarised by his interacion with JFK on Tuesday the 16th October according to the Kennedy Tapes, where he tells the president “the voters won’t give a damn about Cuba.” 17 The diference between the historical account and the ilm is that in the source material O’Donnell then takes a minor role in some Ex-Comm meeings whilst in the ilm he takes responsibility for the handling of the enire crisis. This is a substanial diference.

The majority of the drama in Thirteen Days is actually not found in the confrontaions between the Soviets and the United States, but in the deliberaions of the Ex-Comm - or the Execuive Commitee of the Naional Security Council - iniially known as “the group” or “war council” unil oicially consituted by the President. 18 The tension between Kennedy and his generals is the main subject of drama throughout the ilm, with the generals consistently seeking more aggressive measures than Kennedy. Presented in the ilm, almost idenical with Robert Kennedy’s descripion, General Curis LeMay argued “strongly with the President that a military atack was essenial” and when President

13 May, E., Zelikow, P., 2002. The Kennedy tapes, p 14 McNamara, Robert, 2001. Online News Hour Forum: Thirteen Days. 15 Kennedy, R., 1971. Thirteen days: a memoir of the Cuban missile crisis p. 16 McNamara, Robert, 2001. Online News Hour Forum: Thirteen Days. 17 May, E., Zelikow, P., 2002. The Kennedy tapes, p- 18 Kennedy, R., 1971. Thirteen days: a memoir of the Cuban missile crisis p.

Kennedy quesioned what the response of the Russians might be, General LeMay assured “there would be no reacion” 19 of which Kennedy remained scepical. The idea that there was an overriding ideological batle of warmongers versus peacemakers is prevalent throughout the ilm. That there were tensions between the President and members of the Ex-Comm is clearly laid out in relevant literature surrounding the missile crisis. Stern describes that “there were repeated disagreements with the President – someimes bordering on rudeness if not disrespect.” 20 Whilst this acceptance that such altercaions took place in the Ex-Comm does jusify the portrayal of so much contenion between this group in the ilm, a clear understanding of why such heated debates were allowed to take place is beter explained in the literature. About the meeings, Robert Kennedy’s wriing states that “none was consistent in his opinion from the very beginning to the very end,” arguing “that kind of open, unfetered mind was essenial.” 21 Kennedy also describes in his book that he felt there was “equal opportunity” for the men involved to express themselves, with “no rank” and “no chairman”. 22 Stern agrees with this assessment, staing “the meeings were remarkably egalitarian, and the paricipants spoke out freely with litle or no regard for rank.” 23 Robert Kennedy is very clear in his concluding remarks 24 that debate and scruiny of opinion were important to President Kennedy, which is his reasoning for why difering viewpoints were so prevalent in this group and why arguments could so easily break out. An understanding that these heated debates were not just tolerated but also in some ways encouraged by President Kennedy would have changed the way audiences would react to seeing them play out on screen. Instead, Thirteen Days does not depict this in quite the same way, showing the antagonism between Kennedy and the Generals as more of an inherent ideological disagreement than the pursuit of free and fair debate, and each character is held more consistently to their paricular viewpoint.

Thirteen Days also dramaizes and intensiies elements of its plot by limiing its ime period to the itular thirteen days in October, whilst this crisis was actually one which had been building over a longer period of ime. Robert Kennedy’s memoir recognises that reports of missiles had been received as early as September but “were not even considered substanial enough to pass on to the President”, although Kennedy argues that no US acion could have been taken any early regardless as substanial evidence was sill needed to convince other governments around the world of the impending danger. 25 According to the tapes, Robert Kennedy was also aware at the ime of the crisis that people were quesioning “why this was not uncovered sooner.. therefore why a blockade of some kind was not insituted sooner.” 26 The apparent mistake of inacion is something Kennedy and other senior government igures have always been quick to jusify, as in his memoir. Thirteen Days passes of any possibility of mistakes within the administraion, Kennedy instead appears to learn about missiles in Cuba at the beginning of the ilm, much later than he actually did. The blockade was also not the ideal compromise between appeasement and war as it was dramaically introduced in Thirteen Days , neither was it a new idea upon introducion to the Ex-Comm as the ilm suggests. As early as September 4th a blockade had been described to the President by Dean Rusk as a prelude to an invasion, saying “if you’re going to take on a bloodbath in Cuba, you’d precede it by a systemaic blockade to weaken Cuba before you actually go to put anybody ashore.” 27 Despite later

19 Kennedy, R., 1971. Thirteen days: a memoir of the Cuban missile crisis p. 20 Stern, S., 2003. Avering “the inal failure”: JFK and the secret Cuban Missile Crisis meeings, p. 21 Kennedy, R., 1971. Thirteen days: a memoir of the Cuban missile crisis p. 22 Kennedy, R., 1971. Thirteen days: a memoir of the Cuban missile crisis p. 23 Stern, S., 2003. Avering “the inal failure”: JFK and the secret Cuban Missile Crisis meeings, p. 24 Kennedy, R., 1971. Thirteen days: a memoir of the Cuban missile crisis p- 25 Kennedy, R., 1971. Thirteen days: a memoir of the Cuban missile crisis p. 26 May, E., Zelikow, P., 2002. The Kennedy tapes, p. 27 May, E., Zelikow, P., 2002. The Kennedy tapes, p.

behind the iron curtain. The lack of compelling Russian characters in Thirteen Days means that only an American perspecive is in view of the audience. No one can see clearly from a viewing of this ilm what moivated the Soviets acions in placing missiles in Cuba and then antagonising Kennedy’s administraion. However, it is important to note as well that there is a minuscule amount of available Soviet sources compared to American ones about the crisis, mainly as a result of so few Soviet documents being declassiied. Sergey Radchenko explains: “we are largely at a loss when it comes to accouning for the key Soviet decisions prior to and during the crisis.” 35 Conclusions have been made that Khrushchev feared too much nuclear war with the US so “blinked”, and that he “could not stomach a confrontaion with the United States and the poliico-military risks this entailed.” 36 Thirteen Days simply avoids this debate by not including it.

A key feature in the storytelling of Thirteen Days and a pivotal aspect of the crisis itself are the leters received from Khrushchev. The leter received at 6pm on the Friday, oten referred to as the irst leter, is an eloquent and oten described as emoional communicaion clearly ideniied as being from Khrushchev personally, and gives great insights into his own feelings as a key igure in this crisis. Thirteen Days does not depict Khrushchev on screen and whilst the communicaions had with him are crucial to the ilms plot, the voice of Khrushchev is not as developed as it could have been. Khrushchev remains more of a silent adversary in the ilm, more ominous almost because he is unseen. Thirteen Days shows Khrushchev’s pivotal leter as a tentaive irst step towards peace and carefully avoids an exploraion into Khrushchev’s behaviour, preferring to keep his real intenions ambiguous, and the threat of a coup raised, thereby increasing the tension. This is true to Robert Kennedy’s account, although he does include Khrushchev’s leter in more detail, describing it as “very long and emoional” 37 and having “the beginnings perhaps of some accommodaion, some agreement” 38 which let the Kennedy’s feeling opimisic. Thirteen Days prefers again to show the developments as closely to the perspecive of the Kennedy brothers as possible, showing the leters from Khrushchev how they personally efected them, rather than exploring the diferent narraives which would be presented if the full Soviet psyche at the ime was evaluated. Perhaps such a portrayal is in fact very intenional and a beneicial historical insight. If Thirteen Days is to accurately show the tense decision-making and perilous situaion of Kennedy and his Ex-Comm, it would require showing their antagonist as they truly were to them: an enemy with whom they had hardly any means of interacion. It is true that Kennedy and Khrushchev had litle more than occasional phone calls and leters to communicate, and ambassadors had to be relied on as though they spoke on behalf of Khrushchev whilst he remained largely unseen. Thirteen Days thereby shows the situaion as it was experienced at the ime through the eyes of Kennedy and his senior colleagues. The ilm chooses to see only through the eyes of the US government, and in doing so it does give a compelling perspecive, albeit sacriicing the fascinaing idea of exploring the Soviet mindset.

The end of the ilm contains an admission by President Kennedy that “it was as much a victory for them as it was for us.” Robert Kennedy notes in his details of the iniial discussions between the President and the Ex Comm that the “most forceful argument” against a blockade around Cuba was that “if we demanded the removal of missiles from Cuba as the price for liting our blockade, they would demand the removal of missiles surrounding the Soviet Union as the reciprocal act.” 39 Despite

35 Radchenko, S., 2012. The Cuban Missile Crisis: Assessment of New, and Old, Russian Sources., in: Internaional Relaions, p. 36 Radchenko, S., 2012. The Cuban Missile Crisis: Assessment of New, and Old, Russian Sources., in: Internaional Relaions, p. 37 Kennedy, R., 1971. Thirteen days: a memoir of the Cuban missile crisis p. 38 Kennedy, R., 1971. Thirteen days: a memoir of the Cuban missile crisis p. 39 Kennedy, R., 1971. Thirteen days: a memoir of the Cuban missile crisis p.

not waning this, the removal of missiles by both sides is what ulimately happened to ensure the peace, and while it was painted by the Kennedy’s as a victory, it could also be recounted as a major concession. Thirteen Days fails to show, as does most pro-US historical accounts, that in many ways the Cuban missile crisis was a great victory for the Soviets in sending the US administraion into panic and forcing the removal of missiles which had for much longer threatened them. Kennedy’s admission at the end that this was a victory for both sides is the closest the ilm comes to properly acknowledging this reality. Americans have “long celebrated the handling of the missile crisis as Kennedy’s ‘inest hour’” 40 and in large part this was because the details of the Jupiter missiles in Turkey and their removal was kept so efecively conidenial that they were able to claim there had been no quid pro quo. Early in the ilm, Adlai Stevenson suggests to the Ex-Comm the missiles in Turkey should be traded for the sake of a peaceful compromise and even the President is aghast at the idea, and the Generals refuse to consider it. However, President Kennedy is in fact recorded as quite favourably raising the suggesion of removing missiles in Turkey muliple imes, as early in the crisis as Tuesday the 18th October. 41 The real concern for Kennedy was keeping Khrushchev from taking Berlin. 42 The Ex-Comm saw Soviet manoeuvring in Cuba as a means to shit the worlds balance of power to encourage the West to be more accommodaing on Berlin. 43 The Kennedy Tapes actually include far more discussions of Berlin than are seen in the ilm, the issue presented in Thirteen Days is more of the immediate threat of missiles in Cuba, while the issue seemingly understood by Kennedy and his oicials in the transcripts is the wider Cold War and maintaining their power in Europe. Cuba was not a major power to them; they saw a small country dependent on foreign aid which they could easily overthrow. As late as Saturday the 27th October, Robert Kennedy is recorded as staing “I’d like to take back Cuba. That would be nice,” 44 followed by a joking discussion within the Ex-Comm that they should “make Bobby mayor of Havana.” 45 This certainly undermines the moralisic “how could a larger country invade a smaller one” quesions raised by Robert Kennedy in the ilm, and the moral centre he places himself as in his own book. Again, Thirteen Days lines its narraive much closer to the account given by Robert Kennedy in his memoir than it does to the evidence found in the Kennedy Tapes.

In conclusion, the ilm Thirteen Days portrays a paricularly US-centric history closely focused on the President and his inner circle during the Cuban Missile Crisis. The outcome of the missile crisis was very efecively spun as a victory by Kennedy and his administraion. Just as efecively, Robert Kennedy and others close to the administraion have managed to spin the Kennedy’s legacy as paciist-leaning moral authoriies, while the source materials show they were actually quite open to war in Cuba. Thirteen Days very much follows the history as the Kennedy’s would like it more than the history as it was. As acknowledged by McNamara, if the ilm was absolutely historically accurate it would be far less engaging. Indeed, the ilm closer resembles Robert Kennedy’s memoir than any other account. More reliable sources could have been used as a foundaion and the vast details of conversaion available in the Kennedy Tapes seem to be underused by the ilm despite their recent availability at the ime of its producion. Wider global perspecives do feel missing and could have added major historical value to the ilm. However, the omission of this does allow for a closer character study of some of the men leading the response to the crisis. Real scruiny of the Kennedys acions is lacking in the ilm, and it would have beneited from a more balanced perspecive, drawing less on the legacy-centred narraives presented by the JFK, Robert and their allies, and more on the

40 Nathan, J., 1992. The Cuban missile crisis revisited 41 May, E., Zelikow, P., 2002. The Kennedy tapes, p. 42 May, E., Zelikow, P., 2002. The Kennedy tapes, p. 43 Freedman, L., 2000. Kennedy’s wars: Berlin, Cuba, Laos, and Vietnam, p. 44 May, E., Zelikow, P., 2002. The Kennedy tapes, p. 45 May, E., Zelikow, P., 2002. The Kennedy tapes, p.

Stern, S., 2000. Source Material: The 1997 Published Transcripts of the JFK Cuban Missile Crisis Tapes: Too Good to Be True, in: Presidenial Studies Quarterly, pp. 586–593.
Sullivan, T., 2000. Confroning the Kennedy Tapes: The May-Zelikow Transcripts and the Stern Assessments, in: Presidenial Studies Quarterly, pp. 594–597.

Was this document helpful?

How Does the Film Thirteen Days Portray the Cuban Missile Crisis?

Module: Government and Politics of the United States (PR2410)

22 Documents

Students shared 22 documents in this course

University: Royal Holloway, University of London

Was this document helpful?

How Does the Film Thirteen Days Portray History?

Word Count: 4993

The film Thirteen Days was released in the United States in the year 2000, almost 40 years after its

subject, the Cuban Missile Crisis, took place in October 1962. Over the course of those four decades,

public history narratives surrounding the Missile Crisis have developed. Works surrounding the

Kennedy brothers, who played key roles in the American side of the crisis, have been written

extensively. Thirteen Days represents much of the accepted view of the Kennedy administrations role

in the crisis as told by the senior figures of that administration. Since the tone of Thirteen Days is so

realistic, it is a film asking to be considered a work of true history, and for this reason it must be held

to account as a historical work with far more scrutiny than films which are clearly fictionalised. The

story told by Thirteen Days is one that has developed largely out of two key written works, both of

which focus on the Kennedys role in this key moment in history. One is a memoir written by Robert

Kennedy himself, also titled “Thirteen Days”, and published only seven years after the Cuban Missile

Crisis, in 1969, which was also a year after his death. A film based on Kennedy’s book, titled The

Missiles of October was released in 1974 and was the first docudrama made about the Missile Crisis.

The second book used by Thirteen Days as a source are a series of transcripts written much later than

Robert Kennedy’s, titled “The Kennedy Tapes: Inside the White House During the Cuban Missile

Crisis”, by Ernest May and Philip Zelikow. The film is clearly influenced by both works, claiming the

Kennedy Tapes as its key source material but telling a story closely resembling what is told by Robert

Kennedy. Thirteen Days is particularly narrow in its portrayal of history, focusing almost solely on

events within the White House and members of Kennedy’s Ex-Comm. It is necessary to place the film

within the wider historical context to analyse what is either omitted or inaccurate in order to better

understand how the film Thirteen Days portrays history.

From the outset, Thirteen Days shows a patriotic and heroic image of the United States. Protagonist

Kenny O’Donnell, played by Kevin Costner, is shown living a life of traditional American values: an

American flag waves in his home as his wife and children eat breakfast together whilst listening to

the radio. Its tone is a serious one, described by reviewer Roger Ebert as “more about facts and

speculation than about action.”1 Roger Donaldson, the film’s director, already had a good reputation

for historical movies, and it is clear throughout Thirteen Days that the drama is motivated by

historical moments, not extravagant storytelling. A few scenes are deliberately played in black and

white near the beginning of the film, which tries to reinforce that this drama has a historical setting.

Detail has gone into the production, like the featured U2 spy-planes having an accurate design to the

time, and the tone of the few military confrontations are played as realistically as possible. The film’s

opening involving nuclear explosions adds a dramatic impact to the setting, which demonstrates the

power of nuclear tests and the risks facing the protagonists. However, warcraft and explosions are

used moderately, despite the ease in adding more cinematic action by driving this to excess. The

focus is instead on political drama, and this is focused almost exclusively on the administrative circle

of the White House.

As a historical film depicting the 1960’s, Thirteen Days naturally faces the reality that some of its key

events were in fact recorded live during the missile crisis, including President Kennedy’s Monday

night speech. The dramatic impact of this speech is a powerful moment in American cultural

memory, with Monday the 22nd October becoming the day in which the general American public

would learn about the seriousness of the impending threat of the missiles. The original speech was

eighteen minutes long. Thirteen Days passes through its more dramatic moments in around two

1 Ebert, R. 2001. Thirteen Days movie review & film summary

How Does the Film Thirteen Days Portray the Cuban Missile Crisis?

Government and Politics of the United States (PR2410)

Royal Holloway, University of London

Comments

Students also viewed

Related documents

Preview text

How Does the Film Thirteen Days Portray History?

How Does the Film Thirteen Days Portray the Cuban Missile Crisis?

Module: Government and Politics of the United States (PR2410)

University: Royal Holloway, University of London

Students also viewed

Related documents