Directed by Roger Donaldson and starring Steven Costner, Thirteen Days was about the Cuban Missile Crisis, a time when the intelligence and diplomatic ingenuity of the President Kennedy was shown as its best, a time when the American public was driven to fear, and a time when the Cold War came closest into turning into a nuclear war. Not only was Thirteen Days full of drama, but it was historically accurate as well.

Thirteen Days begins in October 1962 with U-2 plane flights over Cuba revealing Soviets in the process of installing nuclear missiles in Cuba. These pictures taken by the plane are immediately shown to President Kennedy by Kenneth O'Donnell, as they are an immediate threat. They are in good range of both Eastern and Southern America and one launch can kill thousands. The President and his ExComm advisors immediately begin discussing tactics to get rid of the threat. One of the earliest tactics proposed is an air strike, but is rejected as it could result in tens of thousands of casualties.

Another tactic that is proposed is a full-scale invasion of Cuba, which is preferred by many of Kennedy's generals. However, Kennedy's Secretary of Defense proposes a less dangerous tactic, a naval quarantine of Cuba. This tactic is accepted by the President and, on October 22, he announces the discovery of the missiles and his plan to the citizens of America. On October 26th and 27th, two deals are proposed by Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev so that the missiles would be removed. Kennedy accepts the first deal in public and secretly had his brother, the Attorney General, accept the second deal in secret. In the end, the missiles are removed and American confidence is restored.

The movie Thirteen Days was accurate in many ways. One such way was how it depicted the fear of the American public. On one such instance, a television showed a supermarket out of food, as they were all bought by Americans to be brought home to bomb shelters. Soon after, people were shown crowding into bomb shelters. That, actually, was how Americans reacted when they were informed of the Cuban missiles; that was how scared Americans were. For example, President Kennedy's Secretary of Defense said, “wondered if I'd ever see another Saturday sunset like that."

According to statistics found, over one-third of the American population was crowded into shelters or basements, anticipating for the missile launch. In addition to that, schools were ordered that the children to practice a drill in case a real bomb was to explode. Not only were the fear of the public shown, but that of the President as well. In one scene, President Kennedy said, “For a second, I wish I wasn't president.” That is how he felt in real life as well, as he once stated that the chance of avoiding nuclear war was no better than 50 percent.3 This fear by the Americans was accurately shown in movie because it depicted how it was in real life. This was one of the reasons why Thirteen Days was a historically accurate movie.

Like how Thirteen Days accurately portrayed fear of the Americans, it accurately portrayed significant historical events as well. For example, in the movie, when Kennedy made his decisions for a naval quarantine, he announced it in a televised broadcast in addition to the facts that there were missiles in Cuba. Though the speech was a little cut in the movie, it gave the main facts; first, that there were SS-5 and SS-4 missiles in Cuba; second, that any missile attack form Cuba was considered as an attack from the Soviet Union and was to be responded accordingly; third, that he decided to place a naval quarantine on Cuba that prevented Soviet shipments of military weapons from arriving there.4 In addition to Kennedy's speech, the compromise between US and the Soviet Union was accurately portrayed as well.

In the movie, Khrushchev made two offers that were the same as the offers he made in actuality, the first that the missiles would be removed if it were promised that Cuba would not be invaded. Second, that the US removed the missiles in Turkey. Like how it was in real life, the content of these offers were very accurate as well. In actuality, two offers were proposed and the first was immediately accepted by President Kennedy. When President Kennedy heard the second, he was a little hesitant, but as tensions rose because a US pilot was shot down, he had his brother accept the second in secret to the Soviet ambassador. This was very accurately portrayed in the movie.

One important historical event that was accurately portrayed in the movie as well were the conferences held by Kennedy and his members of the Executive Committee of the National Security Council, the so-called ExComm. These conferences were very important as it showed the art of decision-making and the intense debates by the President and his advisors. One such example of its accuracy was how the first strategy, to launch an air strike, was depicted and proposed in the movie. This was accurately portrayed because the decisions made in the movie were the same as those made in real life.

The air strike was mainly supported by Robert Lovett, former Secretary of Defense.7 General Maxwell Taylor, however, showed concern regarding the strike because of its political impact and even admitted that probably, not all the sites would be destroyed. President Kennedy even states that neutralize the missiles and likely to force USSR to capture Berlin, even saying, "Which leaves me only one alternative which is to fire nuclear weapons - which is a hell of an alternative - to begin a nuclear exchange."8 Soon after, the plan was rejected. The movie portrayed the discussion quite accurately, even including the little quote by John F. Kennedy. The historical events portrayed in the movie was just one way of how accurate it was.

A last way that the movie was accurate was the military actions in the movie. For example, in one scene, pilot Anderson was ordered to fly over Cuba to take pictures footage of the missile sites. Like how it was depicted in the movie, Pilot Rudolph Anderson was shot down on October 27th, igniting the peak of the crisis.Another military action that was accurately portrayed was the quarantine on Cuba. In the film, Kennedy stated that he would impose quarantine on Cuba to stop Soviet military supplies to reach Cuba.

On one such occasion which was accurately shown in the movie was when McNamara discovers a submarine approaching with the ships to the quarantine line and JFK wonders what would happen if the US destroyers border one of the Soviet ships and then is torpedoed by the submarine. He even orders that Russian speakers be placed on all the ships, and later, he is told that it is already being done. Later, General Taylor spots that the ships are turning around and the President becomes greatly relieved. In addition to the accurate portrayal of the event, Kennedy's anxiousness and fear is portrayed, as well as his relief that the ships have pulled back. This is shown in this quote of his where he says, “We don `t want the word to go out from Moscow to turn around and then suddenly we sink their ship.”11 As shown in this paragraph, the military actions in Thirteen Days were accurately portrayed and one of the many ways that this was an accurate movie on the whole.

Thirteen Days, directed by Roger Donaldson and starring Kevin Costner is very dramatic and accurate as well. The fear in the movie was very accurately depicted in how Americans crammed into bomb shelters, which a third of its population did. The historical events in Thirteen Days were accurately shown as well, specifically the ExComm conferences, the speech made by Kennedy, and the ending compromise between the Soviets and America. In addition, the military actions were accurately portrayed; when Pilot Anderson was shot down and when the quarantine was issued. Most people came out of this theater probably thinking, “This was a great movie.” But without realizing it, they had a piece of history freshly and accurately embedded in their mind.

I have not yet watched this whole movie. Whenever it is on, I manage to watch excerpts from the movie, but not the whole movie. No doubt this is a fault. I haven't watched the whole of Driving Miss Daisy either, another award winning movie. Even though I must admit, from the various scenes, that the Dancing With Wolves is a great movie. It has all the elements of greatness, of the epic historical movie. And it's great to have work for so many excellent Native American actors. Nevertheless, this is the same story.

It's the same story as the story in which Tom Cruise is in the Asian world, getting to play hero. It's the same story. You know the movie. The Last Samarai. Tom Cruise?

It's the same story as Tarzan. These are glorified Tarzan movies. It's the same mythology.

Basically there's nothing wrong with this mythology, as long as you know it's mythology. And mythology--racial and national--always has its role. Like the myth of American innocence has its role.

Of course this is a great story, a great mythology, where Europeans find themselves among the "natives," and they become hero in the native's story, they control the native's story, and the natives celebrate them and praise them. They even "get the girl," whether it's a white girl or the native girl. They always get the girl. It's the same story, told and retold and told and retold.

Sometimes this story is real, sometimes its myth, sometimes it virtual.

There's nothing wrong with this story, with this mythology. And there are many examples of Europeans coming among the natives, in the real world and easily gaining authority, control and prestige among the natives. And many of them continue to be the producers, directors, funders of the films, so rightfully they can tell their stories. They can select the types of stories, the stars, the milieu. Every now and then they are like Clint Eastwood, an "American Master" (ref. the PBS series, here) and allow the natives to have "their point of view" as the Japanese "natives" in the award-winning Letters from Iwo Jimo. Outside the movie, however, Clint still gets to play hero, as in his "Bird" movie, and the natives are just as fond as Clint as others. Certainly the natives admire Dirty Harry Callahan. For many of them he's a culture hero also, and likewise with cowboy Clint, "The Stranger," etc. I happen to be a fan of Clint Eastwood's. Movies are very addictive. American movies are American #1 industry, and for a good reason. However, we find that many of these other movie makers, the more we learn of them, are quite extraordinary also, those of us who like the foreign film festivals.

There are many such heroic stories, while the natives are generally "every which way but loose."

We witness the natives don't have any problem accepting these culture heroes either. But this is the same story.

Most of us don't mind this story because the movies are quite entertaining, and the pundits, including the native pundits, that do interfere with the American myth cannot compete with that myth. It's being told and retold and retold and retold.

Europeans are going to continue to tell this story and natives are going to help them tell this story. Sometimes the natives get to play Othello, sometimes they get to play Caliban.

Sometimes the natives refuse to help them tell this same old story.

But how dare them?

Then other natives come along to help them tell and retell this story, this same old story.

There's nothing wrong with these stories. Every people have their cultural heroes and their cultural mythologies and their standard stories. The Europeans have Beowolf, the Africans have Mwindo. There's nothing necessarily wrong with these stories. It's acceptable to have a story in which Kevin Costner gets to play hero, saving Whitney Houston.

Nevertheless, it's the same story. It's the same cultural mythology, told and retold in different stories, but the same story, the same mythology. It's even in all the science fiction stories, except the aliens sometimes get to play hero. Sometimes the robots get to play hero. But it's the same story. A Space Soap Opera. A Space Western. The same story of Western Civilization, and Western hegemony.

There's nothing wrong with this story, it's just recognizing the myth.

But I must admit there is truly a great and poignant scene when Rodney A. Grant, Native American Actor, Pine Ridge Reservation, South Dakota, USA, named Wind In His Hair in the movie (also had a role in Geronimo: An American Legend, 1993, with Wes Studi as Geronimo) calls out to Kevin Costner, holding up his spear,

Do you see that I am your friend? Can you see that you will always be my friend?

An all-time great scene.

But why is it that Kevin Costner--Dancing With Wolves--doesn't reply?

Of course natives every which way but loose natives don't have anything against Kevin Costner, Tom Cruise or any of their heroics. They are in our cinematic imagination.

Every now and then the native pundits complain. The People go to the movies, like The People go to Disneyland. In Paris. In Hong Kong. In Japan.

What A Dancing With Wolves in which you have a native man and woman the center and hero. They tried this with Geronimo--An American Legend movie. Every now and then they tried it with other "American Legends" that are not European.

I don't mean as a "native" that we can't continue to have the Kevin Costners--Tom Cruises--even the Madonna heroes in the native movies and real native world. Certainly not. And when these people have the funds they should have the right of control.

So of course the Will Smiths and the Oprahs and the ordinary the people are going to have to fund their own movies. Like when the women complain about not having any roles.

They are going to have to fund their own movies. However, the women, Europeans, have always had pretty great roles, even if not always the leading roles.

A Russell Wong instead of a Tom Cruise as the hero?

As for the box office appeal--maybe that's a problem. They keep telling us these people don't have box office appeal.

But for some of these movies, we might have to forget the box office appeal. Just make an independent movie.

Maybe all of these natives are going to have to have their Telemundo, their BET, even though we have many complaints about these efforts. But they are making their own movies.

Many of these great Native American actors in Dancing With Wolves, including handsome leading men and leading women should be the heroes in their own movies. Certainly maybe Native Americans themselves are going to have to be the producers and directors and actors and screenplay writers, and they are going to have to educate the general public to be able to perceive them as leading men and leading women and heroics.

And all of us every which way but loose natives can't wait to be discovered, like George Lopez.

Even when African Americans have heroic roles, if we're honest, it's usually in movies where they're saving white people, like Denzel Washington saving little Dakota Fanning. I'm not going to call Denzel Washington a glorified Uncle Remus when he saves little Dakota or little Julia, because he certainly is modern, postmodern, intelligent, manlier man. And Kevin Costner can save little Whitney a few more times, if this is the American mythology that we want.

By the way, it's good that somebody discovered "America" to play Ugly Betty, and it's good that Ugly Betty starring "America" won a Golden Globe.

When blacks were saving each other in their cinematic renaissance we called it Blaxploitation or Black Exploitation, and we, even blacks, did our best to convince blacks not to make any more of these movies. We convinced them that postmodern versions of the old stereotypes are acceptable. These are the old stereotypes in a modern and postmodern version, in which they get to be intelligent and heroic, but for whose benefit?

Or we can allow them (these American "natives"; think Richard Wright) to save Asians, as in The Art of War. They can save a few of us Latinos, if they want. They can even save some Native Americans, if they want. They can even go to Africa and save a few Africans, if they want.

We natives are every which way but loose.

Latinos of course find ourselves playing every stereotype in the book, every which way but loose, until we make our own "LatinoFlavored" productions and production companies. Then "Jose Speaks." Let Jose speak for himself.

Natives must pen works that return us to the center of their own heroic universes We have these great works, our Dancing With Wolves. Many people don't know of them, don't read them, some go unpublished.

We're all "Mischief Makers," (Amazon.com), to use the title of a Nettie Jones' work. This native work should be made into a movie, with all of these natives returned to the center of their heroic stories. Read of Mishe Masaube, Chippewa Indian, the natives at the center of their own universe, the center of their own stories, their own magical mythologies. Called "lyrical, mystical" prose.

There is N. Scott Momaday.

There is James Welch.

There is Leslie Silko.

There is Paula Gunn Allen.

There are the self-pubished Native Americans at Lulu Press.

There is The New Native American Novel: Works in Progress (Amazon.com).

There is When Brer Rabbit Meets Coyote (African-Native American Literature).

There are the books by the natives and the non-natives.

We find the natives in Dancing With Wolves welcoming Kevin Costner and accepting him as a member of their "tribe." However, they also know that he is an "exception." He's certainly not the "rule." From the point of view of the whites of that era, certainly he has "turned Indian," and certainly he is a traitor. He gets to play hero nevertheless.

Many of the Indians just get to play Indians.

Many of the natives just get to play natives.

Sometimes the natives are--every which way but loose.

Sometimes the natives are--any which way you can.

Here are just a few comments on Dancing With Wolves. Thoughts and opinions. A great movie. However, I would like to see more Native American movies with Native American men and women as the heroes and heroines, and at the center of their own noble and heroic universes, and where they control the stories, we learn their myths, they legends, their magical mythologies, and yes hear more of their languages, their many native languages.

There are many books written by great Native American writers that would make great movies. Many of them can be found online, some published by the great commercial publishers, some by small press, some by the Native Americans themselves.

We natives have our folklores, folktales, adventure stories, wisdom stories, and sacred stories in which we ourselves get to play the the heroes and heroines and the many personalities and types--many of these can be made into plays, TV and theatrical movies.

This is a great movie. You will get your money’s worth.

What about the “PG-13” Rating?

It was great to see a film of this type that went for a PG-13. I wish more would. Some films have something vulgar that needs expressing and any attempts to soft peddle it can offend me as much as when it’s wedged in where it doesn’t belong. There really wasn’t anything vulgar in the story line that needed expressing. We might expect military men to have course language but it wouldn’t have added to this film so they wisely left it out. There is 1 “F-bomb” which fits the scene and belongs there.

The female characters, played by Sela Ward and Shelby Fenner, add to the film but are ancillary to the message of this film. Excessive “love scenes” wouldn’t have added to the film. The romance, if you can call it that, between Kutcher’s character and Fenner’s is about what you’d expect from Hollywood and not an ideal, but it may well resonate with many in the 18 to 26 age bracket. It had a stolen from top gun feel to it, but in the end I’m ok with it.

What if I hate Kevin Costner and Ashton Kutcher?

Costner seems kinda hit and miss with his films. This is definitely a good film for him. The character of Ben Randall needed to be human and super human at the same time and Costner pulls that off.

Ashton Kutcher is rarely phenomenal in his films, in my opinion. I believe his best work was in “The Butterfly Effect,” but this is definitely his second best work. His acting doesn’t detract from the film.

I think the best acting in the film was by, Justin Roberts, Scott Mueller, and Omari Hardwick.

Larger Story

As a story it’s all about mentorship and forgiveness, making amends and risking your life to save others. There are allusions to being a fisher of men etc. that stand out, and some less overt aspects, like that Kutcher’s character’s name was Jake Fischer. I love the Coast Guard motto, “that others may live.” That makes a great motto for any Christian if you simply capitalize the L in Live.

If you’re like me and you like your movie to resonate with God’s story there are some scenes in this movie that you will love.